"I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18." 100%. Hilarious that he tried to play the victim card because people have implied he's a pedophile in the past. The "kids" in scare quotes is enough to make me thing somebody n…
"I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18."
100%. Hilarious that he tried to play the victim card because people have implied he's a pedophile in the past. The "kids" in scare quotes is enough to make me thing somebody needs to check his hard drive.
Ultimately his issue is simply with the existence of boundaries. There's a certain type of person who can't accept that they don't get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, whatever the consequences to andbody else. And lately this disrespect for boundaries is labelled "progressive."
As for the intro, I think you're conflating promiscuity and cheating. Yes, cheating is morally wrong. But that's because, as you say, it breaks an agreement and a bond of trust. Promiscuity is just having a lot of sex, and non-monogamy implies that the people in the non-monogamous relationship have different agreements and boundaries around their sexual behaviour.
It's possible to cheat, even in non-monogamous relationships. Many open relationships still have dos and don'ts, and if you violate them, it's still morally wrong. I'm just saying that choosing to set up your dos and don'ts in non-traditional/monogamnous ways isn't a moral issue one way or the other.
I could have been more precise in my choice of words, and called it cheating. I've been promiscuous; I had my adolescence at age 42 instead of my late teens and I bedded as many men as I could manage. I got it out of my system and quit but while I was in it I was perfectly aware I was being idiotic.
But yes I meant cheating. I've known enough people intimately to have figured out that the wantonly promiscuous aren't just excessively horny but have self-esteem issues, most recognizably in aging men who date much younger to convince themselves they "still got it."
One of the many reasons I got away from the gay community was its deeply-held notion that promiscuity was our birthright, our gift to the straight world (straight world: "no thanks"). Even aside from the risk of HIV there is clearly something unhealthy about it.
And one of the few advantages of being older is being so much less horny. I used to leave work for sex twice a day.
"But yes I meant cheating. I've known enough people intimately to have figured out that the wantonly promiscuous aren't just excessively horny but have self-esteem issues"
Yeah, this is doubtless true. At least in some cases. Then again, lots of behaviour can be traced back to self-esteem issues. I just don't think it's a moral issue.
I remember one from years ago, a fat man in his late 50s and a little rich, dating a 24yo attractive woman with whom he planned to murder his wife and marry the girl.
It was a belly laugh that this overweight and aging man actually believed this girl wanted him for his dick.
I dunno about moral issue but it sure was pathetic.
"Boiling the concept of pedophilia down to an age is dysfunctional"
"I'm the one who is so frustrated with the current cultural definition of a child is 18 or under"
And last but not least:
"If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?"
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I'm not saying that Rogue is interested in having sex with children. As I said, I'd prefer not to think too deeply about that one way or the other. But I am saying that his rhetoric around the age of consent and sexual boundaries for children is poorly thought out at best and predatory at worst.
"I use to lead a group call the Samson Society in my church. It was a group that let men speak honestly about their sexual desires and activities without fear of being 'cancelled'"
Also, note that the group he mentions here is different to the group he mentions in the first reply that tried to help gay men not to act on their sexuality. He talks repeatedly about the importance of pedophiles being able to come forward and seek help. This is the one point where we're in complete agreement. I agree that stigmatising pedophilia to the point where pedophiles can't come forward and ask for help is a disaster for all concerned.
But as I said, if you take Rogue's view that the age of consent is "a placebo created by politicians and a mindwashed American citizenry" (seemingly ignoring that age of consent laws exist all over the world) why exactly would you seek help? Help for what? If the age of consent is meaningless, what exactly is wrong with having sex with a child? Especially if the child "wants to consent".
I think the age of consent is just one pillar in protecting children from abuse. But it's arguably the most important one, because it defines what a child *is*. So I have very little patience for people trying to muddy the waters with abstract philosophising about something that doesn't affect them at all (unless they're a pedophile), but could affect a child for the rest of their life. If you consider that virtue signalling or moral grandstanding, that's fine.
The only other possibility for all this intricate rationalization is that he was deeply attracted to one underage child and has built an edifice of BS around the denial of his lust. Otherwise, yeah, scan his phone and hard drive for pics of naked kids.
I had a friend in Norfolk, the guy I was with the night I had a certain breakthrough I don't talk about online, whose older brother just disappeared one day, sent away because, as I learned later, he had taken a child into the basement and had him? her? in a state of undress. He was of a recognizable type: unkempt, shirttail out, don't-care haircut, taped unfashionable glasses. I mention this because years later I saw a guy sitting on a curb near a playground looking fixedly at kids playing and occasionally "touching himself" and he had the exact same look.
My impression of Rogue and I hope I'm right is that he's too busy seeking justification to act out of desires just yet, what he wants is too dangerous to talk about publicly. Just on what you posted someone could send the cops to his house.
But don't forget: this isn't a temptation, it's an illness, and it's incurable. Some pedophiles beg to be castrated because they know they'll otherwise molest again, others are angrily defiant.
I ran into one guy on AOL ("DarknessXX") who wanted to rape and murder young boys and the murder scenarios were freaking gruesome. Recurving razor blades.
"scare" does not make sense, the intent is clearly a sneer. Somebody heard it wrong.
"Slim chance" once meant what it sounds like; "fat chance" was sarcasm, now they are interchangeable.
"Unique" once meant singular, now it more commonly means "distinctive." When I hear "very unique" I want to get up and go for a walk away from humanity.
Americans say "have gotten," in the Commonwealth it's still "have got." The American started as a confusion with "forgotten."
All this is a big part of why I have turned down management jobs.
“ "scare" does not make sense, the intent is clearly a sneer. Somebody heard it wrong.”
Uh, “scare” came first! In fact, if you search for “sneer quotes” you’ll get results for “scare quotes.” (Including a reference to the woman who coined the term in 1956.)
You’re going to have to accept that you’re not the arbiter of the English language my friend. The fact that you don’t like a turn of phrase doesn’t make it wrong or rewrite the history of the phrase.
I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you why I believe what I do. It would never cross my mind to actually research something like that, given that (1) the mockery intention and (2) my experience.
The rest of my examples I am dead certain about, because of my teaching. I discussed "gotten" with a representative of the publisher of the books I taught from.
This isn’t a matter of belief! It’s not my opinion that “scare quotes” is the original phrase. Your suggestion that “scare quotes” is wrong, or that somebody misheard it, is just factually incorrect.
I’m not talking about the other ways people mangle the English language. We could talk all day about various mistakes people make with English and it wouldn’t change the facts of this example.
So maybe it *should* occur to you to research information you present as fact. Especially if you’re “correcting” somebody. Any single person’s experience, yes, even yours, is a terribly poor guide for the correct use of language. That goes without saying, no?
"I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18."
100%. Hilarious that he tried to play the victim card because people have implied he's a pedophile in the past. The "kids" in scare quotes is enough to make me thing somebody needs to check his hard drive.
Ultimately his issue is simply with the existence of boundaries. There's a certain type of person who can't accept that they don't get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, whatever the consequences to andbody else. And lately this disrespect for boundaries is labelled "progressive."
As for the intro, I think you're conflating promiscuity and cheating. Yes, cheating is morally wrong. But that's because, as you say, it breaks an agreement and a bond of trust. Promiscuity is just having a lot of sex, and non-monogamy implies that the people in the non-monogamous relationship have different agreements and boundaries around their sexual behaviour.
It's possible to cheat, even in non-monogamous relationships. Many open relationships still have dos and don'ts, and if you violate them, it's still morally wrong. I'm just saying that choosing to set up your dos and don'ts in non-traditional/monogamnous ways isn't a moral issue one way or the other.
I could have been more precise in my choice of words, and called it cheating. I've been promiscuous; I had my adolescence at age 42 instead of my late teens and I bedded as many men as I could manage. I got it out of my system and quit but while I was in it I was perfectly aware I was being idiotic.
But yes I meant cheating. I've known enough people intimately to have figured out that the wantonly promiscuous aren't just excessively horny but have self-esteem issues, most recognizably in aging men who date much younger to convince themselves they "still got it."
One of the many reasons I got away from the gay community was its deeply-held notion that promiscuity was our birthright, our gift to the straight world (straight world: "no thanks"). Even aside from the risk of HIV there is clearly something unhealthy about it.
And one of the few advantages of being older is being so much less horny. I used to leave work for sex twice a day.
"But yes I meant cheating. I've known enough people intimately to have figured out that the wantonly promiscuous aren't just excessively horny but have self-esteem issues"
Yeah, this is doubtless true. At least in some cases. Then again, lots of behaviour can be traced back to self-esteem issues. I just don't think it's a moral issue.
I remember one from years ago, a fat man in his late 50s and a little rich, dating a 24yo attractive woman with whom he planned to murder his wife and marry the girl.
It was a belly laugh that this overweight and aging man actually believed this girl wanted him for his dick.
I dunno about moral issue but it sure was pathetic.
"Boiling the concept of pedophilia down to an age is dysfunctional"
"I'm the one who is so frustrated with the current cultural definition of a child is 18 or under"
And last but not least:
"If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?"
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I'm not saying that Rogue is interested in having sex with children. As I said, I'd prefer not to think too deeply about that one way or the other. But I am saying that his rhetoric around the age of consent and sexual boundaries for children is poorly thought out at best and predatory at worst.
"I use to lead a group call the Samson Society in my church. It was a group that let men speak honestly about their sexual desires and activities without fear of being 'cancelled'"
Also, note that the group he mentions here is different to the group he mentions in the first reply that tried to help gay men not to act on their sexuality. He talks repeatedly about the importance of pedophiles being able to come forward and seek help. This is the one point where we're in complete agreement. I agree that stigmatising pedophilia to the point where pedophiles can't come forward and ask for help is a disaster for all concerned.
But as I said, if you take Rogue's view that the age of consent is "a placebo created by politicians and a mindwashed American citizenry" (seemingly ignoring that age of consent laws exist all over the world) why exactly would you seek help? Help for what? If the age of consent is meaningless, what exactly is wrong with having sex with a child? Especially if the child "wants to consent".
I think the age of consent is just one pillar in protecting children from abuse. But it's arguably the most important one, because it defines what a child *is*. So I have very little patience for people trying to muddy the waters with abstract philosophising about something that doesn't affect them at all (unless they're a pedophile), but could affect a child for the rest of their life. If you consider that virtue signalling or moral grandstanding, that's fine.
The only other possibility for all this intricate rationalization is that he was deeply attracted to one underage child and has built an edifice of BS around the denial of his lust. Otherwise, yeah, scan his phone and hard drive for pics of naked kids.
I had a friend in Norfolk, the guy I was with the night I had a certain breakthrough I don't talk about online, whose older brother just disappeared one day, sent away because, as I learned later, he had taken a child into the basement and had him? her? in a state of undress. He was of a recognizable type: unkempt, shirttail out, don't-care haircut, taped unfashionable glasses. I mention this because years later I saw a guy sitting on a curb near a playground looking fixedly at kids playing and occasionally "touching himself" and he had the exact same look.
My impression of Rogue and I hope I'm right is that he's too busy seeking justification to act out of desires just yet, what he wants is too dangerous to talk about publicly. Just on what you posted someone could send the cops to his house.
But don't forget: this isn't a temptation, it's an illness, and it's incurable. Some pedophiles beg to be castrated because they know they'll otherwise molest again, others are angrily defiant.
I ran into one guy on AOL ("DarknessXX") who wanted to rape and murder young boys and the murder scenarios were freaking gruesome. Recurving razor blades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Both correct.
"scare" does not make sense, the intent is clearly a sneer. Somebody heard it wrong.
"Slim chance" once meant what it sounds like; "fat chance" was sarcasm, now they are interchangeable.
"Unique" once meant singular, now it more commonly means "distinctive." When I hear "very unique" I want to get up and go for a walk away from humanity.
Americans say "have gotten," in the Commonwealth it's still "have got." The American started as a confusion with "forgotten."
All this is a big part of why I have turned down management jobs.
“ "scare" does not make sense, the intent is clearly a sneer. Somebody heard it wrong.”
Uh, “scare” came first! In fact, if you search for “sneer quotes” you’ll get results for “scare quotes.” (Including a reference to the woman who coined the term in 1956.)
You’re going to have to accept that you’re not the arbiter of the English language my friend. The fact that you don’t like a turn of phrase doesn’t make it wrong or rewrite the history of the phrase.
I don't claim to be the arbiter of anything.
I first read "scare quote" about a year ago. I've heard of "sneer quotes" for over twenty years.
And "scare" still doesn't match the clear intent. When people do that two fingers/both hands air-quote thing they are expressing mockery, not fear.
“I first read "scare quote" about a year ago. I've heard of "sneer quotes" for over twenty years.”
Right. The thing is, “scare quotes” was coined almost *seventy* years ago. Long before *either* of us heard of it.
Anyway, it’s silly to argue. As I said, they’re both correct.
I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you why I believe what I do. It would never cross my mind to actually research something like that, given that (1) the mockery intention and (2) my experience.
The rest of my examples I am dead certain about, because of my teaching. I discussed "gotten" with a representative of the publisher of the books I taught from.
Is "fat chance" correct?
“I'm just telling you why I believe what I do.”
This isn’t a matter of belief! It’s not my opinion that “scare quotes” is the original phrase. Your suggestion that “scare quotes” is wrong, or that somebody misheard it, is just factually incorrect.
I’m not talking about the other ways people mangle the English language. We could talk all day about various mistakes people make with English and it wouldn’t change the facts of this example.
So maybe it *should* occur to you to research information you present as fact. Especially if you’re “correcting” somebody. Any single person’s experience, yes, even yours, is a terribly poor guide for the correct use of language. That goes without saying, no?
OK then let me make it formal: I stand corrected. Thank you for educating me on the history of this colloquialism for a typographic convention.
"Scare" still does not make sense.