I realise that you're talking about one thread, but I don't think you're right.paulbrown said:
Widening the context further, it would be generally accurate to say "Joe never said anything that most people in secret don't ignore."
Report on the BBC and gay issues
- Thread starter ninebob
- Start date
Widening the context further, it would be generally accurate to say "Joe never said anything that most people in secret don't ignore."
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,981
- Reaction score
- 2,893
- Country
toffee said:
Do I have to keep it to myself? I've really enjoyed it in the past, and if you must lock me up for it, then put me in a cell with a real hunk.....sigh!!
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,981
- Reaction score
- 2,893
- Country
joe-90 said:
Whose definition are you using?
The dictionary I use makes no mention of this. Kindly expand.
If you don't know a gay man that is glad to be gay, you haven't met many.
What you say makes little sense, I'm afraid.
Joe, if you are heterosexual, you would have had to do just that, no? Accept that you are who you are, but it wasn't your choice?
What if you're hetero, but are not happy about it - you wanted to be gay - but you have no choice about the matter, and just have to accept it.
Does that make sense?
It does to you, because what you're saying is that you didn't have to accept who you are because hey, you're hetero and God loves you, and all is well with the world?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,981
- Reaction score
- 2,893
- Country
joe-90 said:
So do you.
Sexuality is far more complex than you describe. FFS, Joe, what about bi-sexuality?
Sponsored Links
What about one of your girls? What if one of them turned out tp be a paedophile?markie said:
Why should he care what they do in public? Or rather I should say, I guess, if he's genetically programmed to care, why doesn't he choose to control his urges to comment on what they do in public, or say what they should or should not do in public?paulbrown said:
Isn't there a lot of evidence that many paedophiles are not born into it, but conditioned into it by being abused themselves?
Why not? Why should they be treated less favourably in this respect than heterosexuals?
What about outside their homes?
Couldn't agree more - conflating the two is the same idiot mistake that Brightness' neighbour made - assuming that homosexuals are automatically paedophiles. AFAIK, in fact, there are far more heterosexual paedophiles than homosexual ones.
I wonder if he knows that what he likes to do was actually illegal until much later than the same act between homosexuals?toffee said:
Oh I shall treasure that one.joe-90 said:
You'd better believe that will come back to haunt you...
Softus said:
Couldn't agree more, Softus paulbrown said:btw, my comments are nothing to do with you being Welsh or female.
LMFAO, why throw it in then? Maybe you would also like to add that it has nothing to do with me being a practising witch either then.
ban-all-sheds said:
Funny this is, MOD 2 actually agreed with me and put a comment (later removed) below my post to say so
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
ban-all-sheds said:
OK BAS. Let's run with that one shall we?
You say that a paedophile is usually a victim as a child - well at what point does that victim become the loathed character that you want to see put to death?
Surely if they are damaged by an early life experience then these people deserve all the help we can give them. What you are saying is that if a son were abused by his father that he would then be 'damaged goods' that is destined to become the loathsome creature known as a paedophile.
But would it have been his fault? At what point does the victim become the perpetrator? Obviously at the time he starts to abuse others but what you are suggesting is that paedophilia is the new vampirism - once bitten the victim themselves becomes the vampire. But is it their fault? Or are they STILL the victim? Why do you have so little humanity in you that you fail to see that?
joe
From my knowledge and understanding on the matter - a person is genetically pre-disposed to becoming a paedophile, but will only do so if there is the correct environmental trigger (i.e. he/she was abused, grief, etc). This 'type' of paedophile is the one with very low success rate in terms of people attempting to change his/her behaviour.
There are others who are influenced by only behavioural elelments (and no obvious genetic pre-disposition), and these people have a much greater response rate to therapy.
Some of the research suggests that paedophilia is 'instilled' around the time when people first begin to have sexual thoughts - this is different for different people, but usually pre-teen. If a person later becomes a paedophile, their interest in terms of 'age' is usually around the same age as when they themself had began to have sexual thoughts.
This is very controversial, but in Holland I believe they are questioning whether paedophilia will ever become 'accepted' by society. Their beliefs are that the majority of people who have been given this label do NOT want any sexual contact with children - they just like the company of children, and they also suggest that children may benefit from such a relationship - as it is a genuine 'love'. We only hear of the horrendous stories involving sexual abuse - but the actual number of men and women who have this 'love' for children is VERY high (the attraction of 'youthful beauty'). This will of course depend on how society sees the 'age of consent'. Some other countries see this as low as 12 - to 'us' this is horrifying, but to them, perfectly natural.
I am in no way advocating that I agree or disagree with anything that I write, I just want to bring some research-based fact back into a forum that has gone astray with assumptions
There are others who are influenced by only behavioural elelments (and no obvious genetic pre-disposition), and these people have a much greater response rate to therapy.
Some of the research suggests that paedophilia is 'instilled' around the time when people first begin to have sexual thoughts - this is different for different people, but usually pre-teen. If a person later becomes a paedophile, their interest in terms of 'age' is usually around the same age as when they themself had began to have sexual thoughts.
This is very controversial, but in Holland I believe they are questioning whether paedophilia will ever become 'accepted' by society. Their beliefs are that the majority of people who have been given this label do NOT want any sexual contact with children - they just like the company of children, and they also suggest that children may benefit from such a relationship - as it is a genuine 'love'. We only hear of the horrendous stories involving sexual abuse - but the actual number of men and women who have this 'love' for children is VERY high (the attraction of 'youthful beauty'). This will of course depend on how society sees the 'age of consent'. Some other countries see this as low as 12 - to 'us' this is horrifying, but to them, perfectly natural.
I am in no way advocating that I agree or disagree with anything that I write, I just want to bring some research-based fact back into a forum that has gone astray with assumptions
joe-90 said:
I don't blame her.
Sponsored Links