I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Atrios, quit tempting us with your talk of faggotry! Sodomite!
... Admit it, now: doesn't How-Weird Dean seem a bit insane?
Yes, this asshole reaped what he sowed. So did the abortionist who turned out to be sexually abusing his patients. I guess it all evens out.
If our great leader is tempted by the pretty face of men, well we know the temptation exists since he is as close to Christ as any human can get.
Ah, David Brooks steps up and outperforms his "neo = Jew" move.
"If [Dean is] elected, political discourse would sink to new lows." He gave Dean an "F" for "integrity".
Is the New York Times simply trying to mock right-wingers by using this guy as an example? If so, he's doing a fabulous job of making Democrats out of Undecideds and Independents.
And just what causes these "internal conflicts' within people that turns them into monsters?
10 times out of 10, it's religion.
i didn't know they let you post from prison, anonymous gay pastor
Oh, and shockingly enough, he gave Lieberman (R in D clothing) straight A's in every category.
That's a perfect example of wingnut thought. An abortion provider abusing his patients is an asshole and a criminal and hopefully will stay in prison for a long time, but in no way is comparable to an anti-gay zealot being, in fact, gay.
howard dean creeps me the fuck out. save the Dem party and vote for anyone else (but Kucinich) !
yeah, gene: one is a self-loathing hypocrite; the other is a fucking sick bastard.
What Atrios neglects to mention is that his web page displays an advertisement showing a woman fellating a lizard camouflaging itself as a largish penis.
Atrios...How about we define "post-pubescent", and come to some mutual understanding about power-over dynamics, and sexual abuse is not really about sex. It is about power, and being able to do what you need to do in order to dispel anxiety or anger or whatever. Human beings don't understand about coersion really. They don't really "get" that molestation is notabout sexual gratification except in a round-about sort of way. Harlan Ellison calls Earth, "The Pleasure Planet". I call it sarcastically "The Happy Planet." It is neither and both. Overly simplistic explanations of complex human behaviors are the meat of the "news" (otherwise known as "olds") media. Most are too consumed with daily existence to even consider the enormity of what is human existence. As usual I wax too long, but it really is important for people to understand that molestation is not really about sexual gratification. It is way more complex than that.
gosh, gene: shouldn't you be sub-teaching a P.E. class?
God, these trolls suck ass.
"DUH, HEY GENE YOUR NAME IS GENE OMG ROOFLES! GO TEACH KIDS, YOU STUPID TEACHER GUY!"
Fucking try harder, you lazy retards. You make 12 year old AOL haXX0rs look like the Algonquin Round Table.
bill hicks was overrated.
Donna,
It is complex and we can talk about it for pages but I don't think adults who try to have sex with 14 year olds are generally the same people who try to have sex with 8 year olds. I wasn't saying the former shouldn't be criminalized, or that adults who try to sleep with 14 year olds are the same as adults who try and sleep with people closer to their own age. True pedophiles have their own pathology, which isn't the same - that's all.
Yeah, I agree. It's like when liberals defend their patriotism at the drop of a hat when no one even mentioned it. Hypersensitivity is a big red flag that something is fishy.
Conservative: "I disagree with your position on the Healthy Forest Initiative."
Liberal: "How DARE you question my patriotism?!?!?!"
... and he told me he hates your pathetic ass for using his name.
gene: i read the article and allow me to correct myself: both of these creeps are fucking sick bastards.
Overrated? Christ, are you fucking kidding me? That's the best you can do, call Hicks overrated?
I swear to God, the trolls that come here are the laziest, stupidest, most pathetic trolls on the entire internet. No creativity, not a scintilla of wit, and the more anemic insults than you'd find in pre-school for retarded kids.
Honestly, if calling Atrios "Gene" is your big bon mot, just do us all a favor and kill yourself, you pathetic failure.
ooooooooooo-ver-raaaaaaaaaaaaa-ted
i've seen plenty of hicks's acts: he wasn't that funny; just dead.
I think Gary Bauer is one of these characters...he gets positively hot-and-bothered looking whenever he discusses the evils of gay sex.
I can resist anything except temptation.
- Oscar Wilde
Things forbidden have a secret charm.
- Tacitus
i know atrios isn't gene lyons: gene lyons is a just a shitty, humorless "journalist"; atrios is a substiture gym teacher.
Homer: The same knee-jerk reactions conservatives give when the rest of ask that they please not put the decalogue on the school wall? "You're trying to rid the country of God?!!
gene: if you want to talk about hypocritacal assholes, why not john fund?
hypocritical, that is
substitute, that is
i've seen plenty of hicks's acts: he wasn't that funny; just dead.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.17.04 - 2:16 pm | #
That is the worst fucking comeback I've ever seen. Christ, why didn't you just type "I know you are but what am I?" 1,000 times? It would have been a better use of your time.
Of course, so would swallowing a shotgun, you pathetic primate.
Oh, please Don Rickles, ease up on those stinging barbs! I can't take much more of them!
P.S. If you don't see the difference between a guy preaching that homosexuality is a sin while at the same time sexually abusing kids and an abortion doctor, who preaches no such thing, sexually abusing his patients, then you don't deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us. Please check your bus schedule and flop down in front of the nearest one ASAP.
hey: here's the new campaign song for howard "hip pocket" dean --
Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip sliding away
ghost of bill hicks: you're as interesting as the real, dead bill hicks.
There was a case a few years back in Indiana where a foster parent was making a huge stink about a gay couple trying to adopt a girl he had in his care. All the usual rightwing suspects magically appeared to wave their arms and hoot and then it turned out that he (the foster parent) was molesting her. He got some serious jailtime.
a things a phallic symbol
if its longer than its wide
- melanie
Let's not forget that Jerry Falwell saw gay symbolism on a TV show designed for toddlers. What does that tell us??
they are both sick, pathetic creeps, who deserve time in the state pen. they are both heroes to their respective coterie of assholes. K ?
ghost of bill hicks: you're as interesting as the real, dead bill hicks.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.17.04 - 2:22 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Getting better sparky! Now just keep plugging away, and you might be able to join in the conversation with the rest of us adults!
Why is it that everytime I read one of these trolls inane bullshit, I hear Mrs. Krabappel in my head saying "Ha! It thinks it's people!"
GoBH: you're killing me with your wit.
Paedophiles usually go for smaller kids, those who are emotionally unable to resist(and often asexual(okay, little children may enjoy stroking some parts or rubbing against pillows in ways that make some people cringe, but they aren't really aware of sex) or otherwise innocent. A 14-year old can difficult to abuse - but this reeks of abuse though. Trying to solicit sex from a 14-year old is disgusting, considering that the adult party is a figure of authority(such authorities have much power over young people). I have nothing against a mature 14-year old having sex with a 18-year old(though it raises my eyebrows - is that really wise)... 16-year olds should be allowed to bonk who they want... but abuse is a different thing.
Often those who are violently against some thing, are hiding that some thing.
i just channeled the real bill hicks, and he told me to tell you to quit appropriating his name, fucktard.
Atrios, this is complete crap. Just ask General JC Patriot!
they are both sick, pathetic creeps, who deserve time in the state pen. they are both heroes to their respective coterie of assholes. K ?
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.17.04 - 2:25 pm | #
Yeah, I'm sure abortion doctors everywhere are following the example of one shithead. Why, I bet they even have posters of him up on their walls, and they look up from whatever uterus they're scraping out and give him the big thumbs up before pausing to bite the patient's clit.
Someday I just want to follow you around and see how you make it through the day. I find it amazing that someone as fucking stupid as you are can even dress himself, let alone use a computer and post on the internet. Thank god for AOL, eh?
"Often those who are violently against some thing, are hiding that some thing."
ergo, all the lemmings who slum with their brilliant pal atrios just LOVE GEORGE BUSH.
Atrios,
For a start 14 isn't post-pubescent. Additionally, puberty is occurring earlier as health standards improve (but 14 is still not postpubescent), and intellectual maturity arguably is occurring later, so sex with 14-year-olds by mature adults is more problematic than it was say half a century ago.
bill hicks wannabe: he wasn't a hero to abortion doctors; he was a hero to poseurs like you.
Age of consent in Pennsylvania is 14 -- lowest in the nation.
Just saying...
"For a start 14 isn't post-pubescent. Additionally, puberty is occurring earlier as health standards improve (but 14 is still not postpubescent), and intellectual maturity arguably is occurring later, so sex with 14-year-olds by mature adults is more problematic than it was say half a century ago."
NAMBLA weighs in.
"Often those who are violently against some thing, are hiding that some thing."
ergo, all the lemmings who slum with their brilliant pal atrios just LOVE GEORGE BUSH.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.17.04 - 2:29 pm | #
Ergo? So are you a George Will reader, or Will Buckley? I can't think of any other conservative writer who would use that word, and it's not as if you could have possibly learned it on your own.
bill hicks wannabe: he wasn't a hero to abortion doctors; he was a hero to poseurs like you.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.17.04 - 2:30 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Dear retard:
Next time you try to insult your betters, try MAKING AN OUNCE OF SENSE, YOU FUCKING TWIT.
I don't idolize rapists, unless they're the future cellmates of hopefully prison bound Bush Administration heavies.
look, fake bill hicks: i have no use for gay bashers, just as i have no use for adults who solicit sex from minors, just as i have no use for doctors who sexually abuse their patients, just as i have no use for you. also, i can't help it if your lexicon is so limited.
fake bill hicks: you're my better at self-delusion.
WHAT? 40+ comments and nothing on Santorum yet?!!! Let's see ... I guess he'd be a reliable opponent of tax deductions for pet adoptions.
zzzz zzzz
The funniest thing about this thread is the way I managed to so easily trick the trolls into abandoning whatever asinine point they were trying to make and start futiley trying to out-insult me.
Nothing's more fun for me than trolling the trolls. Like fish in a god damn barrel, my friends.
Well, I must say I'm glad everyone's all worked up over this discussion, and no-one has yet felt the need to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
bogus bill hicks: now you're really starting to bore me, you clever boots.
intellectual maturity arguably is occurring later
Change arguably to demonstrably, judging by the content of some of the posts to the comments section of this site.
No matter what age is legally indicated, 14 is much too young for informed consent -- unless it's with another 14 year-old.
Adults having sex with underage and borderline-underage kids is wrong for a host of reasons. And one of the things that's most objectionable out about it is lack of power equivalency. A Priest or Minister is in an enormous position of power over those he has sex with -- even if they're of age.
But what's at issue here is a simple udnerscoring of the fact that after all these years The Scarlet Letter is STILL The Great American Novel.
Lack of conscience doth make Dimsdales of us all.
And just what causes these "internal conflicts' within people that turns them into monsters?
10 times out of 10, it's religion.
That's right, Jung, but be fair: The rest of the time it's liberals who are to blame. Or Howard Dean. I forget which.
I don't see any problems with Atrios' statement that sex with post-pubescent adolescents is not necessarily criminal. Historically, adolescents don't wait until the age of consent before the start having sex (usually with their peers, naturally). I do, however, have a problem with the sort of adults who troll about looking to have sex with minors. Most of these characters are looking to use, abuse, or otherwise take advantage of the minor, which is wrong at any age. Even if maturity doesn't necessarily come with age, for the sake of these minors a line must be drawn - and this is the reason for age of consent laws.
No nuancing this one. The priest is a gay perv, but the topic here is that of hipocrisy. No wonder the trolls were attracted to it.
OT, but:
45,000 People Quit AARP Over Medicare
"Let fury have the hour
Anger can be power
Didja know that you can use it?"
-The Clash
hypocrisy? like being a hamptons-prep school-millionaire-yale-blueblood and posing as a "common man"?
"No matter what age is legally indicated, 14 is much too young for informed consent -- unless it's with another 14 year-old."
Um, that's the point of a law -- to determine what's right and wrong in a society. Apparently the good people of Pennsylvania think 14 is old enough for informed consent.
Well, legally this type of thing it isn't necessarily criminal depending on the age and state. But, I wasn't trying to make an argument that this was either okay or that it shouldn't be criminal - just that it wasn't pedophilia.
I think age of consent has gotten a bit too high in some places, and i think there's an increasing tendency to portray all teen sexual activity as "criminal" (legally or not), but I'm definitely for age of consent laws of some sort..
the age of consent in PA is 16.
Oh, and Atrios thinks his home is the best place to live.
Just saying...
http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c...85-
3753,00.html
the age of consent in PA is 16.
How old is that in dog years?
It is complex and we can talk about it for pages but I don't think adults who try to have sex with 14 year olds are generally the same people who try to have sex with 8 year olds. I wasn't saying the former shouldn't be criminalized, or that adults who try to sleep with 14 year olds are the same as adults who try and sleep with people closer to their own age. True pedophiles have their own pathology, which isn't the same - that's all.
Yep. I understand, Atrios. And sleeping with 15 or 16 year olds is no different than with 8 year olds where I am concerned. I raised a child who didn't leave the house until she was 19, and was not sexually active until just before that. What you just said is closer to my point than I most likely said. It's all pathology, that other stuff, and turtles and turtles deep psychologically. I think criminalization and proper thinking for the planet and for human beings are two different things.
NAMBLA weighs in
Anonymous,
WTF did you mean by that?
I've heard the name NAMBLA before but didn't remember what it meant, so I had to look it up.
But can you please for fuck's sake tell me to engage my anonymiser before looking up such a sick organisation for fuck's fucking sake? In case the authorit-eyes take an interest in my online activities?
Anony, the last time you pulled this schtick was in a DOMA post, and the time before that was in a Mass. Supreme Court post. How come you only troll the topics related to homesexuality?
The "moran" anonymous can't even get age of consent right.
What an utter idiot.
Look it up in Pennsylvania's statutes, idiot, not on BET.COM.
God must love idiots ...
a hamptons-prep school-millionaire-yale-blueblood... posing as a "common man"
Change "Hamptons" to "Kennebunkport" in the above and you've got George W. Bush.
Something the trolls can better understand.
Final kick in your teeth:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
penn...ennsylvania.htm
Next!
NAMBLA is the "North-American Man-Boy Love Association" -- a loose assemblage of pedophiles (not very large in number as investigations by civil authorities have revealed)trying to pass themselves off as a civil rights group. There was an excellent documentary about them made a few years ago called Chicken Hawk.
Don't hear of them much anymore, but then their spotlight has been stolen by the Roman Catholic Church and Michael Jackson.
David Ehrenstein said:No matter what age is legally indicated, 14 is much too young for informed consent -- unless it's with another 14 year-old.
Adults having sex with underage and borderline-underage kids is wrong for a host of reasons. And one of the things that's most objectionable out about it is lack of power equivalency.
Yes. And thank you. So many people just don't get the power dynamics involved. It is also wrong in adult situations where there is a power differential ... hence the prohibitions against pastor-priest/parishoner sex ... teacher-student, doctor-patient sex and more.
"People who are genuinely straight..." are practically perfectly in every way!
WTF? Is there some sort of certification of authenticity that comes with being a heterosexual now?
A 14 yr-old is likely not post-pubescent, but rather mid-puberty. As such, (s)he is by definition developing those characteristics which adults associate with sexual availability and desirability, but most likely has not fully developed them and certainly lacks the judgment necessary to deal with those who are significantly older. Adults should have the judgment which comes with age and stay the fuck away. Any adult who doesn't may not be a pedophile in the "I like to fuck kindergarteners" sense, but is definitely criminal and would be getting introduced to an axe handle if my child was involved. Obviously, a 20 year-old hitting on a 16 year-old is different from a 40 year-old seducing (and that isn't the right word, IMO) a 14 year-old. Donna is right about the power dynamic, although the manipulation involved is hidden beneath a layer of obvious sexuality (assuming the adolescent is indeed well into puberty).
Personally, I think people who deliberately and extremely manipulate the weak, especially weak children, are pieces of shit. Atrios's disclaimer, which amounts to "they suck, but at least they aren't child rapists" is unwarranted, and undeserved.
Atrios... Pennsylvania...14...
Just saying...
Check out my latest column. Here's the lede:
"What is it with the Religious Right that they can't keep their preachers away from eight-year-old kids?"
"Um, that's the point of a law -- to determine what's right and wrong in a society. Apparently the good people of Pennsylvania think 14 is old enough for informed consent."
---------------
Actually, the law is designed to keep society functioning, not dictate morality. This is a very important distinction, and one that absolutists never seem to grasp.
By the way Ghost, keep those trolls shooting at their feet, it brightens my day.
Tom Smith, is that you? And why are you so fascinated with homosexual topics?
Honestly! If you trolls had any awareness at all, you'd see that Atrios is doing you a big favor by posting this. We have always known this about men who squawk too much about gays. If you'd shut up long enough, maybe one of us would feel sorry enough for you that she'd toss one your way and then that troll could describe it to all the rest of you trolls and then trolldom would have something other than Bill Clinton's blow job to obsess over.
"Actually, the law is designed to keep society functioning, not dictate morality."
Ah, yes, your theoretical construct battles my theoretical construct -- and then there's reality, which wins.
I also find it amusing that you seem to think that morality is separable from the healthy functioning of a society. Pray tell, what do "right" and "wrong" mean, if they do not relate to real-world effects?
"Anony, the last time you pulled this schtick was in a DOMA post, and the time before that was in a Mass. Supreme Court post. How come you only troll the topics related to homesexuality?"
That was not me. For the record, while i disagreee with much of what atrios's posters have to say about politics, etc., I have no use for gay bashers, anti-gay bigots, etc. i think it's downright unamerican, in fact, to stick one's nose into any adult's bedroom
You all should know that this Anonymous troll is a guy named Tom Smith, an obsessive who calls people who post here, trolls them, stalks them and steals their identity to post ridiculous things and, now that you mention it, seems to be fixated on sex, whether it's masturbation or homosexuality.
Tom, get help, really. This is just unstable behavior.
Everyone -- there's a guy here named Bobby Nimnickle. He's a troll and he leaves toenail clippings in salad bars.
Get help, Bobby.
An adult's sexual attraction to adolescents is called ephebophilia, rather than pedophilia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eph...ki/
Ephebophilia
cosmic: i suppose you think you're "insulting" me (or whatever) by suggesting i'm obsessed by gay issues, etc. seems a bit homophobic of YOU. doesn;t bother me, but you;ve got the wrong guy.
I'm done feeding the loons.
Only in a place like this can something tongue-in-cheek (linking Atrios' preference for a place where the age of consent is the lowest in the nation) become a source for nitpicky nonsense and theories about trolls etc.
Kill humor!
leave the kids alone they will have enough problems paying off the national debt.
No, Tom, I don't think I'm insulting you by suggesting you're obsessed by gay behavior. I'm suggesting you're not entirely comfortable with your sexuality and perhaps could benefit from some honest introspection.
And that's not meant to be funny. That's meant to be compassionate.
I think by "genuinely straight", Atrios meant "straight, genuinely". That is, the speaker's sexuality isn't the thing which is legitimate/authentic/genuine or whatever, but their claim about it. It's like me saying I am an Eskimo. People might say "Are you a real Eskimo?" and not be calling into question the legitimacy of the idea of Eskimohood, but the veracity of my claim.
I think the use of the term "temptation" is much more interesting. People aren't tempted to do the right thing, they are tempted to do something they shouldn't, something that is wrong but appeals to baser, less noble motivations. Indeed, the very expression "I was tempted" makes the actor the object, since "to tempt" is a transitive verb. Well then, if I was tempted, then SOMEBODY was doing the tempting. The whole construction is one which by its very nature lets the "evildoer" off the hook by accusing the real object (of manipulation) of being the manipulator.
No, Tom, I don't think I'm insulting you by suggesting you're obsessed by gay behavior. I'm suggesting you're not entirely comfortable with your sexuality and perhaps could benefit from some honest introspection.
And that's not meant to be funny. That's meant to be compassionate.
cosmic grappler
AGAIN, cosmic: you're sadly misguided. i'm comfortable with my sexuality. i think others' sexuality is no one's business. apparently, though, you disagree.
Speaking of sex crimes...
Remember Dyncorp, anyone?
You know...
the Halliburton of sex slavery?
Now owned by CSC, Dyncorp is in Iraq training police and whatnot.
Sexy.
"if I was tempted, then SOMEBODY was doing the tempting"
If I'm tempted by raspberries, who's doing the "tempting"? And is it "wrong" to eat raspberries?
sumwon
Do you know about Wackenhut as well?
If I'm tempted by raspberries, who's doing the "tempting"? And is it "wrong" to eat raspberries?
Anonymous
It is wrong to fuck them damn raspberries, if that is what you are getting at.
Why is it that those who preach about morals most loudly always turn out to be the least qualified?
Cosmic, do tell... how did you find out our phone stalker friend was Tom Smith? And do you think it's someone different from the "Gene/gash" Tourette's Troll and the "America's Memory" version?
Earl -
Lay it on us for the sake of others.
Just wanted to note that a person can't really be "well into puberty," "midway through puberty," etc. Puberty is the point at which a person becomes capable of reproduction. Perhaps some earlier postings were confusing "puberty" with "adolescence."
Wackenhut -
Who Says Crime Doesn't Pay?
I should have known this board was a bunch of raspberry fuckers. Sickos.
Number 6,
He sent me an e-mail whose timing and content made it clear he was our identity thief and stalker. Then, the other day, I joked about him calling and asking for my picture (not true, by the way), and within minutes he called and asked for my picture.
It's sad, really, that this Tom Smith has this need for attention from strangers. I do hope he finds a more healthy outlet for his frustrations. It must be an awful, empty life.
cosmic: you're fucked up. also, you bore me. additionally, you seem a bit crazy. bark up another tree, moron.
Oh, and the tone of his posts makes me believe he's America's Memory and a few of the other Anonymous posters, but I can't be sure.
I'd hate to think there was more than one out there this pathetic.
cosmic: you are quite wrong. but if that;s what you choose to believe, go ahead. i do know, however, you are one shitty writer and drawer.
Wackenhut: Free Market in Human Misery
by Greg Palast
I'd hate to think there was more than one out there this pathetic.
Well, cosmic, baby, it seems that's the case. it bothers me, when reading atrios's moronic fans, that there's more than 100 so pathetic.
Yeah, it's the same guy. He said the same thing in his e-mail.
Guess I should cross you off the guest list for when the book's published, huh, Tom?
Every space has at least one person who is a Bad Detective/Conspiracy Theorist. Thanks for confirming that theory, Cosmic Grappler Man.
Yeah cosmic, you're a shitty drawer. And a lousy dresser. And a horrible shelf. Hah! Guess I told you!
Now Cosmic Grappler thinks he's publishing a "major book".
Gotta go -- my volunteer time at the asylum is over.
cosmic: you;re officially a fuckwit, now.
What Ehrenstein said.
. . . I don't think adults who try to have sex with 14 year olds are generally the same people who try to have sex with 8 year olds.
Depends. In this story, Reverend Nitwit tried to contract with the 14-year-old-- a flat-out business transaction, $20 for sex--and got caught.
IMO, while not exactly good, it's ethically 'way better than what usually happens when an adult has sex with a kid (age 8, 14, male, female, whatever), which is that one party has vastly more control over the situation than the other party does, and whatever BS the adult concocts for himself about the kid's having consented to it, to the kid, it likely feels like he was intimidated into it. (You do see the difference between, e.g., two 8-year-olds playing doctor, two 14-year-olds having sex and a 40-year-old hanging out with a 14-year-old for the specific purpose of nailing him/her?) It's harder to pretend a younger kid freely consented, but it's baloney either way.
* * *
(Was it this 'blog wherein I read of the T-shirt that read "So help me, Judge, I didn't know she was three"?)
cosmic, baby: where can i buy your books?
so, has anonymous figured out yet that spurious flak, as impassioned as it is groundless, is what is driving everyone to Dean? Earth to Karl: your "whispering campaign" blew the fuck up in your face!
anon response: you're stupid!
And speaking of facial messes: we'd seen a stat that the #2 leading common theme in molestor biographies was-bet you thought it'd be #1-harsh, extreme, fundamentalist Christianity, emphasizing SEX BAD. #1 was alcohol. It gets worse, though-the #1 result of fundyism was drink, so it goes around in a circle.
Anon,
I ghosted a thriller for John Douglas, the FBI profiler, last year. It was published by Simon & Schuster. My next book, my first under my own name, will be published this year by St. Martins. I'm also ghosting a medical thriller for a doc in LA. I don't get rich doing this, but I don't have to wear a paper hat and work the deep fryer, either.
Thanks for asking.
Congratulations cosmic! You've garnered the OFA (Official Fuckwit Award) as presented by CSTD (Closeted Stupid Troll of the Day.) Quite prestigious!
Well, Cosmic, since you seem to have trouble with reality, I'll measure your claims accordingly.
kei & yuri,
Repression causes a lot of grief. So many sexual predators and serial murderers come from fundie backgrounds and yes, you're right, they were usually taught that women were dirty and sex was a bad thing. Imagine growing up with this overwhelming natural urge to do something BAD with something DIRTY and the shame you'd feel afterwards. Throw in alcohol and you've got some very bad business.
What was this about again?
Anonymous,
Unlike you, anyone here can see who I am, what I do, and can Google my name to see if what I claim is fact.
I don't hide.
Figures you'd contribute to something like this:
"Mystery in Mind: A Collection of Stories of the Paranormal"
Get a grip, Grappler.
AlanH,
I apologize if this got off track. It's my fault for feeding the troll.
The thread is about sexually repressed people who act out in inappropriate ways.
Maybe I wasn't far off topic after all.
"Unlike you, anyone here can see who I am, what I do, and can Google my name to see if what I claim is fact."
Really? Where on the Web is there an announcement about your forthcoming book through St. Martins, and that you "ghost wrote" another?
we'd also heard a speculation-by Howard Stern actually, though it sounded like he was trying to recite somebody else's theory-that child molestation, since there can be no "natural" sexual gravitation towards what is inherently asexual, comes from this hatred of shameful, dirty women, and a kind of sexophobic desire to "have sex without sex"-the avoid the nastiness of adults for the "purity" of children.
Grappler now plays like he isn't an instigator and a troll. Classic loon.
People who want sex with young people didn't have sex when they were young people. Duh.
kei & yuri,
I've heard that, too, but I'm way out of my depth here. John Douglas does have a lot of experience with this stuff, from a law enforcement perspective, but in our time together I didn't ask too many questions about child molestation because, frankly, it's way too scary and I honestly didn't want to know the details. That way be dragons.
Sorry to keep the topic going... but this wasn't a "tomsmith2003@yahoo.com" account was it? Because our AM troll made a few of those up to keep returning here, as I recall. His name may not actually be Tom Smith irl... I was hoping you'd got some details from his telephone number, which would aid real life prosecution. Otherwise, he'll just keep coming back again and again and again... Still, it's fun watching the outburst of tourettes he's suffering from when we even get this close.
Silence = Answer.
Say - you were mentioning something about Dowd being all about Dowd?
Seems you love making everything about you, Grap.
And remember that Republican icon, Roy Cohn.
age of consent in pennsylvania is 16, not 14 anonymous. not sure what you're attempting to insinuate, but do get the facts correct next time. 16. Not. 14.
Number 6,
This will be the last time I post about this guy, I hope. I've already watsed enough of everyone's tim and patience.
No, the email address is different but the fact that the name is the same can't be a coincidence.
If he calls again I'll get his number and give it to the police, but as it is, he seems harmless, and actually entertaining in a way, like watching drunks try to act sober.
I do honestly believe he needs some counseling though, not for our sakes, but for his.
"age of consent in pennsylvania is 16, not 14 anonymous."
Despite, of course, Pennsylvania statutes, which I linked to, which say otherwise.
Yes, except for that.
Why do you fight over facts which are clear?
"...there can be no "natural" sexual gravitation towards what is inherently asexual..."
Hmm. Where does that leave the fetish fans?
According to the statutes, morons, it says no one can have sex with thirteen year olds, and 14 year olds can have sex with people 18 or less.
I'm sorry I have to point out how to read basic English to you.
Bob H was THE classic. I mean, up to his dying breath. Even those who knew of his career found his exit stunning in its theatricality.
And Al Pacino was great as Roy in Angels. He almost made the monster sympathetic.
"If he calls again I'll get his number and give it to the police"
Tell us more, Drama Queen. Let's hear about hobgoblins and fairies.
Oops, I meant to say:
BobH,
Roy Cohn was THE classic...
sorry.
Oh, and Cosmic, where are all those Web references to support your assertions about yourself? Or are you comfortable being known as a liar?
Atrios - regarding post pubescence, and age of consent - I agree. It used to be the law in Texas that there was a defense to statutory rape (sex with a minor,) if the other party was within a year or two in age of the statutory minor. The law recognized that 14 year olds do have consensual sex. I'm here to tell you that they do. Thirteen year olds have consensual sex. I'm not sure that the law hasn't been changed, given the atmosphere now.
It gets ugly when the other party is an adult. Then the coercion factor is almost impossible to discount.
But I think you're absolutely right.
Back to the hypocrite who had homosexual sex while telling the rest of the world that it is evil - well, isn't that about the way it goes? Perhaps General J.C. Christian should give us his expert opinion in the matter.
last feeding for the troll:
http://tinyurl.com/2pvc2
http://tinyurl.com/3god
it used to be in PA that age 16-18 was a gray area but i believe they simplified it to just 16 in PA.
I apologize to everyone else.
After 147 comments, this is a bit later, but...I am old enough to have read time and again of someone who was rabidly against something to be someone who is attracted to it. They want the community to remove the temptation because they are so tempted. Now whenever I hear someone ranting on against some sexual act, or condition, or whatever, I just note that the whatever must be their obcession.
For the record, NAMBLA stands for North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes.
Atrios - you know there's a delete button right. If you delete some of these trolls, they won't be encouraged. Have delete the troll week r month or something.
This al is a complete waste of space.
Also - you're distinction between molestors of 8 yo and 14 yo is completely lost on me - and I'm on your side 99 percent of the time.
Both are sick and you need to make that clearer, I believe.
"I am old enough to have read time and again of someone who was rabidly against something to be someone who is attracted to it."
So my near-visceral loathing of George Bush and his administration means that I secretly want to be a Republican?
mcinma, I think it's just the phrase "tinky winky" that turns Brother Jerry on.
Andrew - so, would you think differently is the person was 16? 17? 22? When is it not molestation?
Do you believe that no 14 year olds have consensual sex, even if the other party is just 15? 17? You have an age difference that makes a cut off point for consent, in your mind? I'm not talking about the law. just you personally. Just wondering.
I know when I was 14, I thought the cutoff age was 14.
Now I think the cutoff age is mid-30's, at the youngest.
cosmic grappler - you must have daughters.
republican family planning: if they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed!
Eschaton never lets you down!
Anonymus- I read all your stuff in Bartletts, you're the greatest!
And the grappler thinks he has writing credits- Ha!
Tena,
Yes, I do. She's 23, beautiful, smart and funny. She lives in NYC and is a bright spot in her old dad's life.
I hadn't made the connection before, but you're right on. It's also why I pass when the guys want to do a night at the strip club.
No thanks. All I see are girls with parents out there who are probably worried.
(And thanks for giving me the opprtunity to brag on my daughter.)
What sticks with me, even though I'd like to forget it, is the mental image of Robert Crumb humping his mother's shoe while singing "Jesus Loves Me"
Yes, sexual repression can be a very bad thing.
Anonymous- I read all your stuff in Bartletts, you're the greatest!
And the grappler thinks he has writing credits- Ha!
Mooser, very nice. I wish I'd said that.
of for fuck's sake - try to actually have a comment thread and all the most juvenile trolls on the net show up. It must be Saturday. No school for the 8th graders.
Cosmic grappler is a published author, you nitwits. I know that for a fact.
*sigh*
What's the use ---
Tena, back away from the keyboard, nice and slow, I think Mooser was making a joke.
Honest.
It's OK.
Sure, the whole issue of "molestation" represents a difficult line-drawing problem (sort of like abortion). But I find comments like "sleeping with a 15/16- year-old is just like sleeping with an 8-year-old" really odd. I mean, at the risk of stating the obvious, a 16-year-old is physically almost an adult (having reached puberty on average about 3.5 years before); plus the fact that people of that age have
in some settings assumed adult responsibilities/functions ...
cosmic - having kids changes the whole picture. I've had so many conversations with my women friends who have daughters. They remember what it was like to be 14, 15: sneaking out, staying out past the time we were supposed to be home - all of it. It's tough. I probably shaved a good 5 years off my dad's life when I was a teenager.
Congrats on your beautiful daughter.
Santorum et al,
There is an odd split, and sometimes a confluence, of art and sexual extravagance that really hasn't been explored, that I'm aware of.
What makes one guy a serial murderer and another guy a cartoonist of brilliant deviance?
Is this Anonymous the same troll who claimed when posting under another name to have a "round, very feminine ass"? If it is, hate to tell you bud, but there's no bigger turn-off than a guy with a plump, womanly ass.
kylemeister - exactly. Girls reach their adult size by 14 or so. Mentally,everyone matures at different rates and certainly no 14 year old is an adult mentally by my standards. But that doesn't make them children, either. And people who are attracted to 14 year olds or older are entirely different from those who are attracted to 8 year olds. Eight year olds are children, without sexual characteristics like breasts, if they are girls. There is a huge difference.
When my daughter was 16 she brought home a new boyfriend and, by coincidence, I'd been to the range that day and was in the living room, cleaning my .45.
I never had to worry about that boy.
Mooser - in light of cosmic's comment, I looked at yours again and I realize where I went wrong. So for me - D'oh. Sorry. I got waylaid by the nonsense that came before. My bad.
Oh, Jennifer, that is really something I didn't want to know.
Mr. Grappler, Don't you see it? Why function as literary ectoplasm when everything you need is right here?
First: "The Best of Eschaton"
Then: "The Portable Eschaton"
On to " The Eschaton Guide To.."
This is gilt-edged stuff. Why stop there? Movies beckon: "Eschaton Unleashed- Anonyomous versus the World" "Eschaton II- It Came from the Comments" "The Return of Anonymous"
But if you think I'm going to leave pelf like this laying around where some schnook from the Writers Guild
could get his hands on it..
I'm so excited I can't type- get in touch we'll be rolling in lucre!
cosmic - yeah, the guys were scared of my dad too. I hate to tell you, it doesn't deter many teenage boys. They are just walking hormones.
But your daughter is in her 20's now, so you can relax. LOL
Jennifer - Oh, you are so right about big-assed men. Eewwwwwwww.
It seems obvious that there's a significant difference between molesting a pre-pubescent and a post-pubuscent. It also seems obvious that any adult who tries to buy sex from a 14-year-old is a three decker saurkraut and toadstool
sandwich with arsenic sauce who deserves whatever punishment the law sees fit to hand down (and then some).
Mooser,
Let me put you in touch with my agent. You've got gold there.
And if you need a ghostwriter, well, I know a man with some experience.
Beth, thank you for putting us back on track.
This reminds me, somewhat, of a conservative judge in Norfolk, VA who was arrested for soliciting a prostitute by asking if she knew where he could find a B.J.
At his trail he claimed he was searching for his wife, Betty Jean.
True story.
Beth - agreed. I have problems with any adult attempting sex with a 14 year old, even consensual, which as has been noted, is a hard claim to make when one party is significantly younger than the other. Trying to buy sex from a 14 year old, especially one of the same sex - well, that's criminal and disgusting.
I just don't necessarily consider it molestation.
But I do think it is very sick for someone who is so hung up on homosexuality that he makes a career out of telling people it is a sin that will send them to hell trying to buy sex with a 14 year old of the same sex.
And cosmic - you raised an interesting point about R. Crumb. Indeed, what does create the difference between a serial sexual abuser and a gifted cartoonist? I saw the R. Crumb documentary. I love the man's work, but he is one troubled soul. He and his whole family. There must be an incredibly fine line there.
These days the most important things about sex are avoiding pregnancy and avoiding diseases. While I'd rather they weren't active until they were mature enough to be responsible in both areas young teenagers and younger are having sex and they will continue to have sex. The intellegent, moral thing to do would be to teach them how to protect themselves but due to Republicans, Fundamentalists and other conservatives most children and adults in this country don't have much of a clue, nevermind sound information about sex. I'd imagine our Reverand of the hour would be a promoter of ignorance, all the easier to manipulate the kiddies. I'm sure lots of our conservatives take full advantage of the ignorance of young teenagers.
The age of 14 should be a lot different from the age of 8 and sometimes it is. Sometimes 44 isn't much different from 8. Adults shouldn't be having sex with children since they can often force them to do things they shouldn't or don't want to. Children probably can be as manipulative as adults in some cases and so children should be given the information and help they need to avoid being used by creeps or all ages.
Wish children didn't have sex before they are mature enough to do it responsibly but we can't expect them to be more mature than their parents.
The Democratic Nominee will be getting 117 dollars they wouldn't have had if there were no trolls on Echaton. These trolls are going to break me.
Tena,
I think my work would be better if I was a bit more twisted.
That was a joke.
I'm plenty twisted.
But yeah, the guy who was the real star of Crumb, IMHO, was Robert's brother, who killed himself shortly after the movie was shot. He was one brilliant, if troubled, guy.
Why do some sexually whacked people become dangerous to others, and others become dangerous to themselves, and still others (like our troll here), only a danger to discourse?
EPT - loved your comment. I have to hand it to my best friend - when her oldest daughter got to be about 14 or 15, she got her on birth control. She became aware that the girl was probably sexually active, and while it upset her, she did the wise thing. I was proud of her. She also told her about safe sex and how important it is, while explaining she wasn't condoning it. The girl understood her mother and father didn't approve. But thank god they were smart enough to give her honest, realistic help.
The problem with fundies is they live in a fantasy land of some sort. They refuse to deal with life as it is. In real life, 14 year old girls have sex. It is much much better that they be informed and protected. You can try to teach your kids not to do it. You can set boundaries and make rules that are aimed at keeping them from doing it. But you ignore the signs that they are at your and their peril.
But then, the fundies and the Bush Repugs are marching us back to the middle ages in quick step.
cosmic - I don't know - that's a really big question. Agreed about Robert, but all 3 of those brothers were downright scary, and brilliant. And their mother is scary, too.
Atrios, I couldn't agree with you more. What's the big deal here? Don't like it, don't participate. I too wonder about the sexuality of those that're constantly gay-bashing.
It's really pretty clear cut. Leave people alone, and let them do as they please. Why get all up in everybody's business?
This is a major reason I left the Republican Party and joined the Democrats. This whole idea that somehow the homosexuals are going to destroy America. How? I'd say that on the cusp of 40, my sexuality is pretty much set. How're "they" gonna corrupt me? I just don't get it.
meant to say - agreed about Robert's brother.
Why do some sexually whacked people become dangerous to others, and others become dangerous to themselves, and still others (like our troll here), only a danger to discourse?
cosmic grappler
It is the impulse to turn other people into objects. That's the real difference between decent people and conservatives. Conservatives are users, ego-centric, selfish bastards. It's no surprise that so many of them use children sexually, they've got no trouble using them other ways. It was Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who killed the ban on child soldiers in the 80s. They're useful for their purposes.
CG,
Did that judge explain what he thought his wife was so well known among local prostitutes that they'd know her from her initials?
Re: monsters vs. artists, you and Tena might both want to check out the work of German psychologist, Alice Miller, who examined just that question in her book, "The Untouched Key: Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness". Miller's conclusion, in a nutshell is that while both often had terrible, abusive childhoods, the artists also had a 'sympathetic witness', an adult in their lives who treated them with love and respect, making it possible for them to retain a shred of humanity. Miller's a fascinating and original thinker, well worth a look.
Tena,
We tried to prepare our daughter for all this, but I was most concerned, and still am, about the emotional ramifications of sex and you can't get there without talking about the basics - i.e. plumbing, protection, etc. I think this is really the problem with the fundamentalist approach to teen sex. And I think it's why the fundies have such a high rate of divorce.
Tony - to be honest, I believe your sexuality was set the moment you were born, never mind when you're almost 40.
It constantly amazes me that the fundies and the Repugs think that homosexuals can somehow turn heterosexuals into homosexuals. It seems clear that the only ones likely to "turn" are people who are in fact homosexuals and trying to pretend otherwise.
And I still don't understand why that is such a big deal - what makes homosexuality so damned scary to these people? That's the part I've never been able to grasp. They're scared they are going to have to reveal themselves as gay - well, so what? So, you're gay - what's the big problem? Why did the people who wrote the Old Testament have such a fit about homosexuality in the first place?
"And I think it's why the fundies have such a high rate of divorce."
Fundamentalists have a high rate of divorce? Reference, please.
"Did that judge explain what he thought his wife was so well known among local prostitutes that they'd know her from her initials?"
If he did, I didn't see it in the press reports. My question was why he was looking for his wife among prostitutes in the first place. Had a mighty low opinion of his wife's extracurriculars.
And thanks, Beth, for that steer. A sympathetic witness, I like the sound of that.
"Indeed, what does create the difference between a serial sexual abuser and a gifted cartoonist?"
One starting point is societal standards. Socrates enjoyed the sexual favors of what we would designate "pre-pubescent boys." Indeed, one line of argument among many New Testament scholars is that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is not broad but specific (especially since the word itself wasn't coined into English until the 19th century). He was condemning the practice of "taking" small boys for sexual (we might legitimately now describe it as "power") gratification.
Sexual abuse, in other words, is like so many things: a matter of ethics (where you understand "ethics" as Aristotle, who started that line of inquiry, meant it: the custom ("ethos" in A's Greek) of the community.
Not, by the way, to argue for sex by "adults" (a legal designation, let us remember) with "minors" (also an l.d.). Just to start the discussion on this point into productive areas.
"Gifted cartoonist" raises the other issue, of aesthetics. Not the aesthetics of Crumb's art, but the idea of what is good art ("gifted"), and what is not. Which comes back, inevitably, to a question of "ethos."
Tena, I'm scared for my nieces 6 and 8. They're exposed to everything in their little town and it's hard to know how to counter it. If someone had told me thirty years ago that it would be necessary to tell my 8 year old niece that there isn't anything positive about being a "pregnant teenager" I'd never have believed it. I did have to tell her that the other day, she heard about how great it is from some of her little friends. After Henry Hyde and company oral sex is known about by every second grader.
Pass the condoms, praise the Lord or not. We've got to make condoms glamorous.
last feeding for the troll:
http://tinyurl.com/2pvc2
----
Thanks for reposting the link I posted far upthread. I'm not sure when you'll get around to reading the document at that link, and understanding the details of consent laws in PA, though.
Far better to have a spaz attack about "trolls", I guess, than to get one's facts straight.
Rule #1 in threads -- don't ever be correct, because then you will be attacked without end.
Anonymous,
I don't have the reference at hand, but I'm sure you can find it. The study's recent. What they found was that fundamentalists have the highest rate of divorce (if not, then it was second highest - my memory may be a bit off) and that atheists and agnostics actually had one of the lowest rates of divorce.
I was surprised, too.
cosmic - oh, absolutely. There is a price that someone very young pays for being sexually active that early. Noone at 14 understands much about their own emotions, let alone anyone else's, and they really are too young emotionally and mentally. I have no argument with that at all.
Beth - thanks for the tip on the book. I'll check out the woman's work. Interesesting idea, because it seemed as though the Crumb brothers' mother was their "witness." Though she wasn't exactly sane, by all appearances.
I guess we still don't know what happened to Spalding Gray, do we?
"And I still don't understand why that is such a big deal - what makes homosexuality so damned scary to these people?"
Been wondering about that for some time. I'd propose two things: (1) boundary issues. I define who I am in relation to who you are, and the more you are not like me, the more uncertain I am about who I really am (here the definition is positive/negative, not negative/positive. That is, I need you to be like me in order to comfortable with who I am.)
(2) The matter of identifying ourselves as sexual beings, a concept that actually comes from 19th century Vienna (no, not Freud; another intellectual of the time, whose name escapes me). Not a concept that has been permanent in human society. Indeed, the neologism "homosexual" probably stems from the idea that we are sexual beings, so we need to set boundaries between different such identities/grounds for identity.
Or is this just so much tedious dribble?
Ah, Robert M. Jeffers - great to have you here, since the discussion has gotten so philosophical.
How interesting it is to realize that what has been completely acceptable behavior at different times in different places is considered aberrant and criminal behavior in other times and places.
Robert M. Jeffers,
Both points well taken. Although I think in any truly civilized culture Robert Kinkade's work would be seen as a low point.
Tena: Any notice from you makes my day! I always look for your posts.
The grapplers veracity shows in his every post. Just like yours.
Anyway, I thought of an easier way to get rich. We'll just sue Bartletts to get Anonymous his Royalties! Stealing his schtick like that! The gonifs! Anon, please post an e-mail address, there's a fortune awaiting you, and an injustice to be rectified!
"It is the impulse to turn other people into objects. That's the real difference between decent people and conservatives."
Think about that one.
"Or is this just so much tedious dribble?"
Dribble???
"I don't have the reference at hand, but I'm sure you can find it."
Translation: "I'm lying."
Tena - I think you're right. I was born straight, and every other person was either born heterosexual, homosexual or in-between. What these people are trying to do is have people sweep their feelings under the carpet, and that ain't gonna happen.
The good news is that I think in 20 years these fundies will be looked upon as total idiots. Go back and look at some of the articles that were published about African-Americans in the late 50's and early 60's. I had nothing to do one weekend, and found myself at the university library doing this. I was amazed at the statements of some of the writers.
You ever watch the Family Research Council people on TV debate this issue? My second thought (first thought being wow, just how wrong can you get?) was that I wouldn't want to be them 20 years from now looking back at that tape.
Society moves on. These views will sooner or later be thrown on the ash heap of history.
I see references to a POLL not a STUDY....
Tony,
I think it's no coincidence, in light of your post, that those who argue against homosexuals in the military use precisely the same arguments others made opposing integration of the services.
Rule #1 in threads -- don't ever be correct, because --
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
"Dribble???"
Lewis Carroll and John Milton made up words. Why not me?
And, as Humpty Dumpty asked: "Who's to be the master, then? You, or the word?"
BTW, glad to see Unka Karl's springing for some overtime down in the boilerroom... anything to keep those pricks off the streets!
"Although I think in any truly civilized culture Robert Kinkade's work would be seen as a low point."
Let's just politely call it "illustrations" and walk away.....
And I still don't understand why that is such a big deal - what makes homosexuality so damned scary to these people?
I think it has something to do with sexual politics in general. It seems like the cultures and subcultures most hostile to homosexuality tend to also be most oppressive to women. In order to maintain the hierarchy, the also have to maintain the 'otherness' of women, and homosexuals tend to blur that line. That's probably just one element of it though. I imagine there are others too.
Tena, I've been worrying about Spalding Gray too. I haven't heard anything definite, but it's not looking hopeful.
Robert M. Jeffers - I largely agree with you. I think it's the fact that all people have a male and female side (amina and aminus), and some people refuse to accept that.
People that go against what society accepts as the "norm" shake people's views of THEMSELVES, and it's difficult for some to deal with. They would prefer not to have to think about these issues, and visible object lessons that others have wrestled with the same issues -- yet have "crossed over the fence" tend to shake them up.
Tony - I couldn't agree more. The fundies have so lost this issue, and thank the gods. Homosexuals brought themselves into the mainstream when they started coming out and refusing to be ignored. It took amazing amounts of guts and I really admire them for it.
I think we are hearing so much about all this from the fundies because they must realize deep down that they can't win this. People who experience the freedom to be themselves don't go backward. It's the same with women - there would be a war if for some reason a movement got started to take back the vote from women, for example, or to go back to disallowing them to own their own property or work.
The "boundary issue as identity" comment, BTW, goes a long way toward explaining the energy Fundamentalists (Xian, Muslim, Jewish; the religions of the Book seem to have a lock on this idea of "fundamentals") put into propunding/defending their point of view.
They need an "other" as enemy, of course. The Southern Baptists I grew up among in East Texas, while they ruled the culture, were only comfortable thinking of themselves as an oppressed minority. It gave them the energy to oppose the "dark Satanic" world they imagined they were living in.
But they also need to convert the heathen, to win the stamp of approval for their POV by making sure everyone agrees with them.
Same kind of "purity," of course, that drives Freepers and posters on threads like this to insist on purity of standards for all who share the discussion space, while needing an "enemy" to rail against.
Ooops. Gone too far, now. Annoyed almost everyone, and said nothing of real substance, to boot.
Where's "Anonymous" when you need him/her?
Let's just politely call it "illustrations" and walk away.....
Robert M. Jeffers
THIS is why I keep coming back to this site. Very nice, RMJ.
And Mooser - "The grapplers veracity shows in his every post" was very generous and I am honored you think so. Thank you.
I find it difficult that be that polite about Kincade's work, frankly. You are so nice, Robert. I tend to call it shit, and attempt to keep from throwing up on it, but I'm not so nice.
Mooser - yes, I must say that your comment about mine was very kind and made me blush and made my day. Thank you very much.
Homosexuals brought themselves into the mainstream when they started coming out and refusing to be ignored.
I suspect that's a part of it too. 'Out' homosexuals are part of the major social changes of the twentieth century that also brought about uppity negroes, feminazis and other threats to white male supremacy. It may be too late to bring back slavery, but at least we can put those queers back in their place.
"I think we are hearing so much about all this from the fundies because they must realize deep down that they can't win this."
A friend of mine (whose gay son later died of AIDS) asked me once: "Why do we care so much about how two people love each other?"
I never again thought of homosexuals as anything but human beings. And I like to ask that question of people when the subject comes up, and they obviously don't want to admit someone to the human family.
I had an "other side of the coin" experience recently that may shed some light on this sense of needing that "other" as one defines it:
I was at a party where there were a lot of gay men and after a few hours someone made a comment about my being straight and one gay man refused to believe it, I guess because I was so comfortable in that company.
I took it as a compliment, by the way, although a weird one. I guess to this guy "straight" had a very clear and distinct definition, and I didn't fit that definition. I'm actually pretty damn proud of that.
Robert - your point about purity is great. I've noticed that too - it gets to be a major issue here at times. It's totally spurious.
And that's so true about fundies - they seem to honestly define themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for.
"I had an "other side of the coin" experience recently that may shed some light on this sense of needing that "other" as one defines it:"
I used to get that as a practicing lawyer.
Now I get it as an ordained minister.
And that's so true about fundies - they seem to honestly define themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for.
There's a very complicated issue there, which I don't have time to begin to unravel (drat the luck!). It occurred to me, however, that "fundamentalism" (maybe Martin Marty's great study covers this) is related almost entirely to the "religions of the Book," i.e., Judaism, Xianity, and Islam.
Wonder if there's something about being based on a book, rather than oral/cultural traditions, that makes the difference?
Like I say, a poor subject to bring up just as I have to leave again....
'Dribble''s a word! I see it on the back of comic books all the time! As in "Dribble glass". A dribble glass, for those not in the habit of reading comic books, is a glass that when filled with liquid will allow some to "dribble" out. It's a joke, you see, presumably hilarious to those of us reading comics.
--The always literate
"Homosexual" as word or concept did not exist in the fagfilled Ancient World-a point Gore Vidal makes well and often, they just kind of thought of love as love and you feel attraction towards what attracts you. Pretty sure "homosexual" was an invention of the Victorians or even the early twentieth century-it is extremely recent, anyway.
(Similary, but not something we want to go deep into, Neil Postman had this sick idea that the anti-molestation idea is not a fixed constant in history, that it's related to the role of literacy in spreading mores. His evidence was medieval accounts of "tickling." One more reason too support your local library.)
Jeffers-there is "the personal is political" idea. Sexual intolerance and family values are hallmarks of regimes repressive in other ways, and kind of get a foot in the door to get people thinking there can be a right for the state to worry about their business. Not sure you could find "sexual liberty" as often among the opposite, other than the "free love" crowd in early feminists/progessives.
cosmic - that's pretty cool.
My sister in law, who is older than my husband and myself, and her husband have two sons. The oldest finally realized he was gay when he was in grad school. He met his partner and fell in love. He came out to his parents, who are fabulous parents, and I was amazed at how they have handled it, because they are not exactly progressive people. My nephew and his partner were lucky enough to find a minister who would marry them and they had a wedding. My sister in law and her husband are close to his partner's parents just like the standard in law situation in a hetero marriage. I developed a whole new closeness with my sister in law over this - it has made me appreciate her so much more for the total support and love she has shown my nephew and his partner. My nephew deserves it, he is one of the finest humans I've ever known. As is his straight younger brother, who, when his brother came out to him, immediately joined a group in his college of siblings of gays and has been active in gay rights ever since. Man, I just love those people. And they've quit voting Repug, too.
RE: being "born gay" (or straight, or bi) - I don't accept a genetic explanation for complex human behavoirs (and what is more complex than sexuality?) for the simple reason that it's on a slippery slope that is akin to other theories such as being born with a propensity to criminality.
I think it's much more likely that sexual orientation is determined by "imprinting" in very earliest childhood. Condors born in captivity are fed by "condor puppets" so they will imprint on their own kind rather than humans. And it's interesting that Crumb has been discussed on this thread, because the type of "imprinting" I'm theorizing here is blatantly obvious in his work. We know that individuals are attracted to certain physical traits in other people and tend to go for the same type in all their relationships; it's been established by many studies. I think it's likely that this is what is at work on the whole homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual continuum.
Bottom line is, it really doesn't matter whether it's genetic, "imprinting" as I've suggested, or a choice (which all thinking people reject) - we live in a country where we're supposed to be free to pursue happiness. If a person's notion of happiness is a sexual relationship with another consenting adult person of the same sex, the reasons for why they have that notion for happiness are immaterial. We'd all be better off if everyone would just mind their own business.
Long story. I apologize.
My daughter grew up in the wings of theaters, with friends babysitting when her mother and I were in shows at the same time. When she was about 7 she asked, "Are John and Sonny gay?" I said they were and asked if she knew what that meant. She admitted she didn't and I explained how they loved each other like her mother and I loved each other. She thought about that and then asked if that was wrong. God knows where she got that, probably in school. I explained that it was hard to find someone to love in this world and when you did, you should be thankful, no matter who it is, and we should want love for our friends, didn't she think so? She said she thought that was fine, and that was the conversation my daughter and I had about homosexuals. She's a pretty damn healthy young woman today, (working in the theater) and I'd like to think that conversation had a little tiny bit to do with it.
End of story, thank you for your patience.
I just wish I could get Elayne Riggs to like me. But you can't please everyone, and I seem to please no one.
I apologise for not taking this thread seriously- I just couldn't.
ANONYMOUS-- LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS. THERE'S A FORTUNE FOR YOU!!!! Do you have any idea how deep Little, Browns,
pockets are?
k&y--
You're tempting me to drag Foucault into this.
Now I know it's time to go!
Yes, 'purity' seems to come up a lot in fascist philosophies as well. What they seem to forget is that life itself is messy and impure.
Not to get all biblical on you guys, but when Jesus went on about everyone being sinners, I don't think he was trying to make us feel guilty and bad about ourselves, but reminding us that 'moral impurity' is part of the human condition, and that when we condemn other people as 'sinners' we're just making fools of ourselves, because from god's point of view they're no worse than we are.
Tena - My father's a fundie minister, and he looks at me like I'm from Mars. Change takes time, but does happen. Over the long haul, the fundies will lose on all their issues.
That's why they want to change the constitution. I told my brother-in-law just how long he thought that would work. He didn't seem to get my point. I told him that even if you could change the constitution, in 10, 20 years, we'll just -- repeal that amendment.
For some reason he thought if Americans changed the constitution with a marriage amendment, then the amendment would stay forever.
I was struck my the fact that he couldn't see that it'd simply be a matter of time before said amendment would be repealed, like prohibition.
Tena,
Good on your sister in law. It's amazing how things change when someone you love is gay/in combat/black/different.
Just ask Dick and Lynne Cheney.
we hasten to add: we do not consider the rape of children to be remotely comparable to sex, so our disgust at state presumption to oversee sexual things was not a criticism of laudable police efforts to snare molestors.
And: "fundaentalism"-The Fundamentals was a four-volume set of pocket guides, financed and distributed by petrol heir brothers, as part of the Billy Sunday-era revival. It is the direct and literal foundation of "Christian Fundamentalism," an attempt to revitalize and unify xians on "bible basics," or anacronistic going backwards. Islam and Judaism are inherently "fundamentalist" because of their primitivist emphasis on life controlled by the divine and seeing so much of God in so much of the mundane (eg, meals). The more accurate terms are probable "Political Islam"-the Islamists who see government as necessarily subordinated to the clerics, and "Zionism."
Hear hear, Beth. This is a point I always make when I tangle with a fundie - in the Bible God makes it quite clear that all sin is equally bad in His eyes. And since the Bible makes it clear that we're all sinners, it's both ridiculous and scripturally inaccurate for these fools to run around insisting that God hates homosexuals - the assumption being that He's turning a blind eye to their patent lack of love for their neighbor.
And cosmic, your conversation with your daughter is very like one I had with my niece when she was 5. Slid right off the kid's back. She's 12 now and seems free of the homophobia rampant in the small town where she's being raised.
Mooser - carry on, you are definitely more entertaining than I am in my attempts to delve into a deep subject.
Jennifer - I agree with you about people minding their own business. However, we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether peoples' sexualities are nature or nurture. I don't necessarily think it follows that if people are born with their sexuality intact, people are born with their propensity for criminal behavior intact. I think that's an entirely different issue. Entirely.
I was blessed with a wise mother. She never had any patience with fundies, nor did she have any bias about homosexuality. And she was born in 1911! I had older parents and I was lucky - they were very cool, especially Mom.
Fundamentalists have a high rate of divorce? Reference, please.
You ask?
I I answer.
Beth - good on you, because I think you have captured the message Jesus tried so desperately to convey, and which got whomped by Paul when he invented the institution of christianity.
This has been pleasant, even with the Anonymous troll, but now I must work.
Fight the power.
Tena - I have no problem with you disagreeing, but the point I was trying to make is that both theories suppose a pre-ordination to certain types of behavoirs or preferences, which is what makes both of them suspect in my mind. I know that you know I would never try to equate the two, it's just that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence from history and sociology that the origin of sexual preference is a very slippery thing to pin down, and the genetic basis theory for orientation has a gaping hole when it comes to individuals who are bisexual. A genetic trigger, such as hormone fluctuations during pregnancy (one theory I've seen posited) would suggest that a person would be born either hetero or homosexual, but fails to explain why some would be born bisexual. Orientation as I said before is a continuum, with very few if any of us being "purely" hetero or homo in orientation. It's for this and the other reasons I mentioned that the genetic basis doesn't make sense to me. But we're in agreement that it's beside the point when it comes to love and no-strings-attached acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters.
later, cosmic grappler. Have a productive evening.
Wonder if there's something about being based on a book, rather than oral/cultural traditions, that makes the difference?
Codification. Once it is written, it is law - See, it is in the Bible!!
When I confront "fundies" with the insanity of some of their beliefs, they invariably point to the Book. And the Book is God's word and God is holy and therefore the Book is holy and cannot be touched. The fact that the Xian Book is 2000 odd years old is another authoritative argument they use. You can always attack a preacher ad hominem, but it is difficult to argue with a "holy" ancient text.
Jennifer - you're right, and your explanation is much more detailed and deeply thought out than my short statement. I agree with you that sexuality is a continuum. Personally, I think most people are bisexual when it comes right down to it.
However, I get uncomfortable with the whole "choice" and "lifestyle" thing, as I know you do. It makes it seem as though there is an evil agenda at work in the world and people can somehow "choose" to be heterosexual when they are not. And vice versa.
Biblical scholars agree:
Cain & Abel were either motherfuckers or sisterfuckers...
take your pick!
(Think they waited until 14?)
Monkeybutt - Yeah, it just kills me that people really believe the Bible was written by god's own fingers.
On Saturdays the Dallas paper has a Religion section. The ran a story in it today on the whole Grand Canyon situation, about the stupid creationist book and some plaques that have apparently been up, down and now are back up. They have Bible verses on them about the flood, since that's what the lunatics say caused the Grand Canyon. Ye gods!
How can any christian look at the grand canyon and think it's the result of a flash flood (xian radio hatemonger Bob Dukkko insists on calling it something else, but it's just a less obvious rephrase of "flash flood")?
kei & yuri - Don't ask me - I think it is a kind of willful insanity.
Tena, on the Grand Canyon lunacy. Actually, can you blame them? It is far more exciting and mysterious to believe it was made by the great Biblical flood. Picture the movie! Erosion over thousands of years just does not make for exciting pictures. The plaques are sickening for another reason too, they help to make those biblical stories very US-centric.
If anybody's still here, two quickies (OH! What a giveaway!):
Monkeybutt: Codification is what I was thinking of, though perhaps with a bit more spin on the ol' cue ball....
k&y--can't agree that Islam and Judaism are inherently "fundamentalist," especially for the reasons you state. Martin Buber, a practicing Jew, springs to mind as one refutation. What I'm starting to read by and from Muslims refutes it on the other side.
And who said I didn't believe life is controlled by the Divine and God is present in the mundane? Why, tomorrow morning, I'll be kneeling at an altar taking a wafer and a sip of wine....
Right. I'll leave it there. Gotta watch those definitions. Something about boundaries.....
Robert, I agree there is more to it than just "codification", but I am too tired/lazy right now to expand.
I know I come into what this conversasion has become late, but come on, we are all, everyone, bigots, racists, homophobic. It is the ability to recogonize that what you learned growing up from the people around you can be total bullshit that makes the difference. I know I am racist, bigoted and homophobic, I just try to fight those tendacies, it's all I have, and I don't always remember. Just repeating the mob chant is what makes you an idiot. Feeling bad about it is what makes you human.
sac666--
Wow. And I thought growing up a strict Calvinist was depressing!
"Lewis Carroll and John Milton made up words. Why not me?"
Because the word you meant to say is "drivel", which sounds like "dribble".
But, hey, if you want to make excuses, go for it.
You ask?
I I answer.
-------
Proving what?
Try growing up in S.E. Iowa. When I moved to Germany my grandmother told me not to marry a German girl. She really wanted to believe that my uncle marrying a German girl was the reason her son turned gay. Don't even get me started on all the ethnic jokes I listened to and participated in.
And Mooser - "The grapplers veracity shows in his every post" was very generous and I am honored you think so. Thank you.
-------
Teehee
Grap, ever going to show us proof of your fantastic literary career?
Jeez, is the stalker still hanging around trying to convince everybody how little this place means to him? You know, after 7 hours it becomes a little obvious doesn't it?
"Jeez, is the stalker still hanging around trying to convince everybody how little this place means to him? "
Stalker? Drama Queen II speaks.
I point out that Pennsylvania has an age of consent of 14, and now I'm a stalker and a troll.
Loonies.
"You know, after 7 hours it becomes a little obvious doesn't it?"
Troll shifts run 8 hours. Duh.
Well, in that case, coffee break is over, back on your knees.
LOL Now you're being played. For all the time you loons spend here, you sure fail to grasp that more than one person can use the same "name". That wasn't me, loon. A lot of these comments weren't mine.
Later, Loon.
Shift over? Time to hit the bars and get drunk and mad at all the women who won't have anything to do with you? Them bitches. One day you'll have a cool black uniform with shiny boots and they will pay. Oh, how they will pay.
Why are you still here, Loon? To project?
Dear Unknown (a/k/a "Anonymous")
"Because the word you meant to say is 'drivel', which sounds like 'dribble'."
If I had meant "drivel," I would have typed "drivel." I meant exactly what I wrote (not "said," by the way; rather hard to speak in a forum where there are no voices, only words).
Please refrain from explaining my words for me unless you know what you are talking about.
And it may "sound" like "drivel" to you (much like your posts, I'm tempted to add). But then Carroll himself contended that people mis-pronounced "outgrabe" and "wabe." You would probably say you know that those words sound like, too.
According to Mr. Carroll (or Mr. Dodgson, if you are so particular), you would likely be wrong.
Refer again to the quote from Humpty-Dumpty.
"If I had meant "drivel," I would have typed "drivel." I meant exactly what I wrote"
Really? Here's what you said:
"Or is this just so much tedious dribble?"
So, what does "dribble" mean in that sentence?
Quit embarassing yourself. Admit your mistake and move on.
I'm not embarassing myself. An anonymous poster can't embarass me.
You make yourself an object of ridicule by picking on such an obviously tongue-in-cheek sentence and insisting it be taken seriously. Over and over and over again.
Me, I'm having a good time. And, to answer your question, the word means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.
As Mr. Dumpty said.....
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/...rs/
dribble.html
Care to continue?
Why is admitting fault the most difficult thing in the world for people, especially online?
Right-wing retards make the same mistake all the time by saying "dribble" instead of "drivel". You'd rather be like them, more concerned with your pride than correcting your own errors?
Okay.
"I'm not embarassing myself. An anonymous poster can't embarass me."
Well, the first sentence means you embarass yourself. The second means I embarass you. So, I'm not sure what you think you're saying there.
Really, you should just lay down your cards and leave the table. Believe me, you're only going to act more absurdly with each post.
"And, to answer your question, the word means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."
That's a non-answer. Explain, with reference to the actual meaning of the word "dribble", what "tedious dribble" means.
Or, continue making a fool of yourself because of pride. I'm sure you will. You're already in too deep to relent.
Wow.
You really do think you're that important, don't you?
Didn't address the issue about this starting as a joke, I see. One you obviously didn't "get." And something you obviously won't now admit to.
So who's embarassed, and who's being embarassed?
Really, this is beneath simplicity....
"Really, this is beneath simplicity...."
Yes, understanding the difference between "dribble" and "drivel" is simple -- I wonder why it escapes you.
As I said, I was very sure you were too prideful to admit that you made such a stupid mistake, because obviously you fancy yourself an erudite individual.
Please explain, with the dictionary definition of "dribble", what "tedious dribble" means.
You won't. You'll babble about something tangential and try to insult me. I have no reputation here, so I'm more than happy to see you make more of an ass of yourself with each post.
See -- I don't understand why you didn't just drop it. Now, you come back and bring it up again, making it more probable that people will notice that you don't know the difference between "dribble" and "drivel" (putting you in a Freeper League intelligence category), and worse, when you are confronted with the obvious truth, you are so prideful as to continue on with it.
Go on.
Why does this lurking jerk continue to dribble nonsense from his nether orifice?
Hi. I know all about Carroll, I just don't know the difference between "dribble" and "drivel".
Get out of your head, Owl.
obsessing, thinking about it, railing about homosexuals, it it it just must make you want to ....try it.
"lurking"
Do you know what "lurk" means?
[giggle]
http://www.google.com/search?q=%...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8
http://www.google.com/search?q=%...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8
So, are you now debasing yourself by taking on new names?
I've long basically agreed with the point Atrios made, that there was a difference between desiring children and desiring adolescents. Like most of us, I presume, I started out desiring other fellow adolescents, and I'm not sure at what point this became abnormal.
After all, there is a distinct difference between children and post-pubescent teenagers, so I thought. As I grow older, this distinction is not as clearly visible to me as it used to be, and in reading this thread it occurred to me that I was only looking at half the picture, that is, girls (funny how being a guy will do that to you).
One point is that secondary sexual characteristics aren't quite as visible on boys (particularly when they shave), so perhaps there is more of a continuum. For that matter, not all girls sport distinctive curves either.
As for whether sexuality is genetic, congenital or developmental, I'd suggest we borrow a line from arguments over race and assert that sexuality is largely a social construct.
I doubt that it's entirely right when applied to either race or sexuality, but if anything it seems even more appropriate for the latter debate.
Since nobody's listening, it may be a good place to suggest a really bad idea.
I remember being embarrassed by the first pornography I ever saw - girlie mags really. Anybody remember "Sir"? I remember the cartoons better than the photos.
I might have been less embarrassed if the protagonists had been closer to my own age. So here's the suggestion: teen pornography for teens only. Restricted to viewers seventeen and under. In this day and age it might well be feasible for teenagers to produce and distribute this stuff.
For all I know this is state policy in Sweden (or, duh, it's the Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue).
RMJ - I grew up Southern Baptist in Central Texas, and you've hit the nail on the head how we are taught that we're somehow a persecuted minority, when, in fact, most of the more powerful people in my community are Southern Baptist, and all sorts of positions of power state- and nation-wide are filled by conservative Protestants.
Looks like you've perhaps gone Episcopalian, as well =)
I'm tired of everyone's tedious dribble.
Whatever Mr. Jeffers, Tena, the grappler write they at least have the simple decency to post an e-mail address, and post under a consistent handle. Whatever they say, they are not afraid to have it attributed to them.
Even the prospect of millions in royalties can't convince Anonymous to do so.
Or is it something else?
"Whatever Mr. Jeffers, Tena, the grappler write they at least have the simple decency to post an e-mail address, and post under a consistent handle."
Yes, far better to be a dolt than anonymous, right?
"Whatever they say, they are not afraid to have it attributed to them."
I post thoughts, not my life. Sorry if that bothers you, and you feel is a means of excusing lying, idiocy, paranoia, gossipy nonsense, and assorted bullshit.
Be kind, all. X is exploring. We can only wish him well.
I can unreservedly recommend Barcelona.
"Be kind, all. X is exploring. We can only wish him well."
[giggle]
Yeah, I'm "exploring" how to deal with "intellectuals" who say "tedious dribble" and then are inane enough to try and defend such an obvious error, and I'm also "exploring" how to deal with people who, when given another obvious fact, ie PA's age of consent is 14, with reference to the appropriate statute, can only say, "No, it's 16" repeatedly, like an autistic.
Tell you what, why don't you all try "exploring" a dictionary sometime and also try "exploring" statutes when referring to them, and most importantly try "exploring" an English class or two and learn how to understand and communicate in your native tongue.
Thanks!
Then, perhaps, you can chuckle a little bit when someone makes a tongue-in-cheek remark about Atrios living in PA and the age of consent being 14, instead of killing all humor with pedantry and dragging the whole thing out over many hours.
Happy travels!
Oh, and if you will, please refer disparagingly to how this is a "dead thread" and I'm "hanging on", despite you yourself being here and making a comment. No "brilliant" Eschaton response would be complete without it!
How can it be a dead thread with you in here "exploring" your ass?
If you find any Weapons of mass Destruction up there be sure to contact the Defense Department.
I was right! Thanks for proving I have superior insight into the behavior of message board ninnies like yourself.
Oh, you're an old fag, David? I guess you're hitting on me, as is typical of the abundance of geriatric homosexuals that troll the Eschaton threads.
No, thanks. I go for pussy.
Ah, but does pussy go for you?
RMJ-the idea that Islam and Judaism are not fundy is pretty obviously a semantic/nomenclatural quibble: you think we're saying they're all rightists or something. Praying five times a day is pretty fucking fundamentalist, regardless of the political beliefs or the attitude towatrdsd the mercy of the divine of the praying party. "Liberal Jews" and Orthodox Zionists alike share extreme religious ideas. They are very different but they are still concerned with "basics"-the exception would be Reformed or non-practicing.
Incidentally, while we were in Kuwait (half a year, during the build-up), we never saw a single person praying once. Five times a day those damn loudspeakers start choking and crying, and nobody did anything but turn the tv up. Iraq too for that matter. So similarly if you think "fundamentalist" refers to the inbred morons we have in the US (which actually it does. Earlier point was that "fundamentalist" can not appropriately apply to anything other than Christianity and you've gotten us off it), as a synonym for "devout" or "literalist" or "fire-and-brimstone," that's still reading into the specifics of belief rather than their limits. Islam has a dictum for everything (for example, masturbation is not a sin, according to one cleric we've read, if you do not ejaculate).
Pat Robertson is wrong when he means that all Islam is "Political Islam," sympathetic to the theocrats of the Muslim Brotherhood or the Iranian rulers, but the statement that Islam is a word meaning "submission to God" and a religion focusing on very basic things (brought about as a "revival" in the fundy sense of lax, lost pagan Arabia) is valid.
"Ah, but does pussy go for you?"
Have to turn it down. Now, please, stop hitting on me, old man.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
