@Francis,
Quote:What people say and what people do...
I am not into the whole turning the other cheek thing, I will give as good as I get till the other stands down.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:I am not a legal professional, I neither know nor need to know the law intimately, or changes in the law.
Thanks for ultimately answering, and I don't know why you are being defensive about it either. I'm not following these laws very closely either, and was just asking if you had any legal specifics in mind when you say what direction we are headed in.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:I will give as good as I get....
You won't, actually, because your first, last, and only resort is to profanity.
@hawkeye10,
I was not able to find the scenario you outlined in that paper.
@hawkeye10,
Bullshit . . . your normal MO is to slink away. Having posted bullshit for which you provide no substantiation, and for which you get called out, you just disappear. Don't try to make yourself out to be some kind of internet hero now.
No one here has an "irrational personal problem" with what you post. What people have a problem with is the bullshit you post and don't substantiate. You made a claim to the effect that men are arrested as a result of domestic disturbance complaints, are subsequently charged with rape, and end up on a sex offender list for the rest of their lives. You just threw that out there as an ipse dixit. When you finally do respond to the criticism, you tell about a linebacker choking a woman (and in public, i might add). Not only does one case not meet the burden of demonstrating a trend, in the case you used, there was no sexual component, no allegation of rape. Had there been, it would not be a case of marital rape, since the woman is not his wife.
You completely fail to provide solid proof for your allegations, and when you get called on it, you respond by painting yourself as a martyr to a noble cause, and those who have justifiably criticized you as obsessive persecutors. Let us know how things are in Paranoid Fantasy Land, 'K, Bubba?
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Yes, Earl. I agree. But I think that assumption is based more on our own sexuality than the sexuality of someone likely to offend.
Women can certainly invade a man's body if they are so motivated.
And, trying for sensitive phrasing too, why does "invasion" seem to equal "penetration" in the common mind-set?
When I asked this question I wasn't at all sure where it would go, sometimes these types of questions can really go sideways. The number of men who responded to this subject is amazing (and I don't at all mean to discount the responses of the women here) and wonderful.
I talk to Mr. B about this stuff, this boy stuff, but he's just one person with one person's experience.
I have recieved a real education here on this thread by exploring an idea that started off like jelly in my head.
Do u agree with my statement
that
women simply have
NO interest
in anally sodomizing anyone ?
David
@OmSigDAVID,
No, I don't agree. And I don't agree because some women do anally sodomize people.
I personally don't have any interest in it but I don't have any interest in tap dancing or hang gliding or country and western music either. My lack of interest doesn't mean it isn't popular.
Is this some kind of effort to claim that the sexual abuse of boys can only occur if they are anally sodomized? If so, it is a hopelessly stupid position to take, and one which suggests that anyone taking that position is profoundly ignorant about sexual abuse.
@Setanta,
And they are likely to remain that way when spoken to in that manner.
So what? Your attitude of moral superiority gets rather tedious, because in this case it happens to ignore that the person in question has already demonstrated an obsessive devotion to a defective view of the situation. Your phony stance of the honest broker and the objective commentator, apart from being false, does nothing to educate the member in question, either. It's similar to your sneer at me about how i address the Rapist Boy. It ignores the obsession. When i criticize David or Hawkeye, it is in the nature of observations for the benefit of those others who read here, not Rapist Boy, who isn't about to change his attitude because of what i write, or David, who has me on ignore. Spare me your self-promoting pots, 'K?
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:Your attitude of moral superiority gets rather tedious...
It came with no judgment. It is just something I wish you'd consider. I've had some success in getting him to consider points of view that a lot of vitriol was just reinforcing opposition to. Same with agrote, dispassionate discussion got him to change his mind about something that the insults did not.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Is this some kind of effort to claim that the sexual abuse of boys can only occur if they are anally sodomized? If so, it is a hopelessly stupid position to take, and one which suggests that anyone taking that position is profoundly ignorant about sexual abuse.
It's probably reasonable to assume that those who don't take the sexual abuse of boys seriously are profoundly ignorant about sexual abuse.
@Eorl,
That was my point. And, of course, it was a rhetorical question, to the extent that i suspect most people who have given this sort of thing careful thought understand the point. That member doesn't read my posts, so that was addressed to those who are ignorant of the subject or simply had never thought it through.
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Is this some kind of effort to claim that the sexual abuse of boys can only occur if they are anally sodomized? If so, it is a hopelessly stupid position to take, and one which suggests that anyone taking that position is profoundly ignorant about sexual abuse.
It's probably reasonable to assume that those who don't take the sexual abuse of
boys seriously
are profoundly ignorant about sexual abuse.
That seems to imply a duty
to learn about sexual abuse. I might be in default.
David
@boomerang,
Well, I guess as long as there she didn't penetrate him, it was all good clean fun?
She said bitterly.
@Robert Gentel,
Agrote may have moved a little, if briefly, but then disappeared. Shorteyes just puts a mask over his ugly for short spells when he feels someone's actually considering his demented outlook. You really don't reach him... you legitimize his continued existence.
Set and I don't agree on all that much... but it would appear we do agree on the color of ****.
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:Agrote may have moved a little, if briefly, but then disappeared.
He
flat out said that he was wrong about his view that consumption of child porn does no harm when faced with dispassionate arguments for it instead of insults. That meant a lot to me and made it worth the effort.
If the views are so objectionable that they are worth insulting someone over, they are then so objectionable that they are worth trying to disabuse them of. I happen to think that one method works a lot better than the other.
Hell, even if you find them to be a lost cause, there might be others on the fence reading along that can be convinced by reason but that might be goaded along by insults.
Anyway, that's just my two cents on it. I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the merits of each approach, or be pushed towards trying to defend the particular individuals being insulted (which isn't my point either). I've got enough high horses to ride and want to keep this one on topic. I just think that a certain approach does better at keeping the discussion worthwhile than another and advocate for it.
