Ugh. Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. You might as well say that being a rapist is a sexual orientation. The fact that you a trying to spread the kind of disgusting propaganda that ‘certain’ parties in the mile-long ‘LGB+++++++’ acronym speaks volumes. Paedophilia is just part of a general depravity. So-called ‘paedophiles’ (a misnomer if ever there was one) will fuck anything as long as it’s depraved and taboo. Paedophiles are rapists. ‘Rape’ is not a sexual orientation.
Well, that’s the problem when you try to use morality as a measure of truth.
If you accept that homosexuality is an “orientation,” there is nothing biologically to distinguish it from paedophilia as an “orientation.”
There are no sexual orientations. There is sexuality, that may become perverted as a consequence of sexual assault.
Perversion doesn’t lead to rape by definition necessarily. But only a pervert can rape. Rape is a perversion.
I have no idea what any of this means or how you define and differentiate concepts.
People take something morally reprehensible and bend themselves into a prezel in an effort to try and distance themselves from it. They break definitions and invent new words just so they could pretend something is not what it is.
Believe it or not: Every philia, every orientation, every sexuality is as a rule of thumb just sexual attraction. Not more and not less. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and philias are one and the same category.
We just invented separate categories for them based on the three criteria of:
- Target of attraction
- Role in sexual functioning
- Distress impairment or harm
Sorry. I deal in raw facts and objective evidence.
I dont think heterosexuals are besmirched because homosexuals exist, i dont think homosexuals are worse because pedophiles exist, and i most certainly dont think play-pretend-association-games born from some people’s inability to get their disgust and emotions under control.
Just because kingdom animalia includes both cats and dogs does not mean that jellyfish suck.
This line of LACK of thinking is absurd. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality and homosexuality has nothing to do with heterosexuality despite all of them running off of similar functions, instincts and concepts.
They are separate, individual concepts and i am very much irritated when someone attempts to blur, mix and blend them based on some flyby emotional reaction like disgust.
I have no idea what any of that means, child rape apologist.
2 Likes
Have a like and my explicit expression of respect for this performance. You successfully departed from every and anything i have said and entered your very own little pocket dimension where you have no idea what has been said, but the opposition is clearly a child rapist or smth.
Emotions are one hell of a f-ing drug and demonstrations like these are very precious.
1 Like
I have no idea what any of this means. Have a nice day 
And you as well
It’s not good to mock them like this.
What horror are they blocking with that high?
Getting to the medical side of things, this ideological rrinterpretation of perversion is both a cruelty towards the victims, and complicity in creating new ones.
I am not saying perversion can or need be cured. Ypu can’t go back in time and be 4 again. But the trauma requires teatment, or harm will come to themselves and to others, sure as soil pushes up little roses.
Untreated sexual trauma is tossing a coin on the creation of a new psychopath. That is the criminality of ideological perversion.
You can’t treat what you don’t admit is a disease.
Perversion is not the disease. It is a symptom. The disease is repressed trauma.
Heterosexuality is the population majority norm and the reason why people are getting fed up with homosexuals is because we’re tired of a population minority dictating their sexuality over us that we want nothing to do with.
Relationships between men and women are the population majority, tolerance has its limits.
There are two genders or sexes, men and women.
1 Like
You know, until this moment, I wasn’t sure about you.
Frankly, I’m still not.
1 Like
Yes, well said.
1 Like
Well, precisely. When I went to verify, I found disconfirmation.
and as Ronald Reagan also said - quoting Adams - in his rebuke of ideological pontificating:
“Facts are stubborn things.”
1 Like
And if you can’t admit you are mixing confabulation and some truth, it’s best to avoid interacting with what others say and all that nasty cognitive dissonance. Posting as if responding, that’s the ticket.
I am not saying narcissism can or need be cured. You can’t go back in time and be 4 again. But the toxic interpersonal patterns require containment, or harm will come to themselves and to others, sure as soil pushes up little roses.
You seem to have no interest in discussing the subject, but some interest in discussing me. Why is that?
You said before I am here to insult. I think this is important. What am I insulting?
Do you see me as a toxic threat that must be contained? Because, if you do, you ought to now that that is a perfect description of repression.
Toxic interpersonal patterns need containment. It’s right there in the post. For example, it’s best not to show emotions to narcissists, because this is what they often seek. So, you contain the pattern by not reacting emotionally to them. There are other strategies to make sure the toxic pattern is contained, not the narcissist. They are as free as any citizen blithely walking the streets. No force is used.
Emotions should never be ignored, it would be like a surgeon ignoring blood.
However, one should also probably never obey them.
You feel it would be a danger to show me emotions. But who would the danger really be for? What do I represent? In reality I am words on a page with an ignore button.
At the same time, in this attempt, you end up showing considerable anger, at least displeasure. So the whole object is undone. But maybe it is an emotional, rather than rational, object? Maybe the id does not formulate rational motives?
If you can put into a cogent string of words what it is I am insulting, we might yet wrest this conversation from the swamps of the id into the prairies of egoic reason.
That’s utterly ridiculous. I asked you many questions about your post and your assertions and if you’d bothered to answer the discussion would have been focused on the topic as those questions were. The post prior to that one also asked questions about your assertions. In the post prior to that one I explained why I disagreed with your assertions….on the topic. Which led you to focus on ‘believe’ rather than anything I said on the topic. And my first response to you focused on the topic. If you responded to me I don’t think you replied to that post, but just the thread. In posts in responses to others, I responded…on topic.
I really don’t know your motives.