Think about this when you see someone here calling another a pedophile or rapist apologist or

[upaloopa]

Misogynist

Psychological projection



Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.

Although rooted in early developmental stages,[2] and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence,[3] the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.[4]
Projection was conceptualised by Freud in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess,[5] and further refined by Karl Abraham and Anna Freud. Freud considered that in projection thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one's own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.[6] What the ego repudiates is split off and placed in another.[7]

Freud would later come to believe that projection did not take place arbitrarily, but rather seized on and exaggerated an element that already existed on a small scale in the other person.[8] (The related defence of projective identification differs from projection in that there the other person is expected to become identified with the impulse or desire projected outside,[9] so that the self maintains a connection with what is projected, in contrast to the total repudiation of projection proper.[10])

Melanie Klein saw the projection of good parts of the self as leading potentially to over-idealisation of the object.[11] Equally, it may be one's conscience that is projected, in an attempt to escape its control: a more benign version of this allows one to come to terms with outside authority.[12]

[seabeyond]

1. he asked at what age he could be sexually attracted to a girl before being called a creep or

pedophile.

no one called him one. he is the one that asked how young of a girl he could sexualize before he fell into that camp

you talk about people making misstatements and calling them out.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

6. I've seen people called creeps for being say, 55 and dating a 25 year old.

Right here, as a matter of fact.

[pintobean]

13. This might help

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

Read sea's post again, then think really hard. Was it the poster's use of the word 'creep' that set people off? I don't think so.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. What is this, some Jedi mind trick?

"You did not see the word "creep" in the title of seabeyond's post"

Okay, I didn't see it.

[pintobean]

17. Try again

This time, think really, really hard.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. No, first go back and tell seabeyond to edit her post

So you can look like you're making sense.

[pintobean]

22. Maybe you should read the OP

since that's what she replied to. Then put her post in context.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. She is still talking about a post that was deleted two days ago, not the OP of this thread

Hell, I replied to it and I forgot what the hell he said. Was the word pedophile even used?

I didn't know what the guy was getting at. But apparently even lusting after a 25 year old would be creepy if you're a certain age, so apparently there is some kind of legitimate question to be asked.

[pintobean]

30. Yes, it was.

I wish he would have fully followed Warren's advise and copied the op in a reply.

All these threads refer back to that one. I think this OP is a response to a HOF thread, which is about the deleted thread in the mens group. It created quite the shitstorm because of the word pedophile.

I don't find your example creepy.

[boston bean]

34. The OP is, get with the program. She responded to it here.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

37. And she brought in the word creep, not used in this OP but the other one

Try to keep up. Thanks.

[boston bean]

40. was pedophile used?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

45. She's saying it was apparently, as well as the word creep

And I'm pointing out other things that people find "creepy" that have nothing to do with children or teenagers.

[boston bean]

49. You can't recall?

You posted in the thread?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

52. Did you read #24? You should know what I said

Yeah, I can't recall. Sorry, councilor. I'll defer to your expertise because I suspect this is gonna be a hill you want to plant a flag on.

[boston bean]

54. I know I'm such a "b*tch" being concerned about one who thinks or one who supports

the right of one, to wonder on a message board just how young is too young to lust after before they are considered a pedophile.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. Do you want to start calling out who you think supports it?

Please proceed.

By the way, 50 year old man in a relationship with a 25 year old woman? Creepy? Your thoughts.

[boston bean]

58. If he was married and divorced his wife of 25-30 years for a younger woman, I think its shitty.

Creepy, no. They are adults. I might find him to be having a mid life crisis or a bit immature. Because there is a lot of life lived between the ages of 25-55. I would wonder what they would have in common. Because that means a lot in relationships. but not creepy.

And as to your first question, I don't need to call them out. You can go in that thread or the one in HoF to dtermine who might/does support it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

61. I see nothing in TMG thread that shows support

I see a few people who assumed he was talking about 20 year olds.

Latter suggestion, I'll pass.

[redqueen]

94. Yeah, totally. I know when I read the word "pedophile" I *ALWAYS* think of 20 year olds.

[BainsBane]

176. and you're more outraged by the use of the word creep

than a question about sexual attraction to underage girls.

[bettyellen]

81. the question "what is too young" isn't creepily speculative as it is?

He didn't modify it with "for a 50 year old"- so that was NOT the context.
Only how young the girls could be was of interest. Creepy.

[BainsBane]

88. I'll remind you

He how old girls had to be for one to be attracted to them. He distinguished feeling attraction from acting on it, which make clear he was talking about underage girls.

Any human being should find that outrageous. There is no reason why women should be any more outraged at pedophilia than men are.

"Creepy" is about the mildest of terms one might use to describe such a thing.

[nomorenomore08]

110. At best, he asked an ambiguous question and phrased it in the most awkward possible way...

So in other words, how could he expect people not to assume the worst?

[redqueen]

113. He wasn't ambiguous at all.

He specifically asked how young they could be before lusting after them would get you labled a "pedophile" or a creep.

I guess I can understand why the defensive people here are choosing to ignore that he used the word "pedophile", but it doesn't make it any less sickening.

[nomorenomore08]

117. I can't know exactly what was in his head at the time. What I do know is I was more and more creeped

out by that OP the more I thought about it. And even trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt didn't remove the "ick" factor.

[snooper2]

201. This looks like a good place in the thread for a musical interlude

I'm thinking, how about a badass cover song?

Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car" covered by Boyce Avenue- WORKS!

[nomorenomore08]

98. "Half your age plus 7 years" is a good rule of thumb, I think.

Not that I give a shit, so long as everyone involved is an adult...

[BainsBane]

106. If people are over 18, I don't give a flying fuck

as long as it's consensual. That is as far as what other people do. I make my own decisions.

[Quantess]

14. "creepy" is a subjective opinion

and I agree that a 55 yr old dating a 25 year old is "creepy". It's an opinion.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. It is?

For whom? The 55 year old or the 25 year old? Two consenting adults engaging in a relationship?

There are a lot of people in this world who think judging adults on their romantic relationships is perfectly acceptable behavior. I just didn't think it was done or tolerated here.

I mean, really, I'll just have to remember this when I hear the word "creep" thrown around from certain sectors, because apparently age of consent and actual pedophilia have jack shit to do with it.

[Quantess]

21. In your opinion it isn't and in my opinion, it might be.

I didn't say it's seriously wrong or harmful or anything. It's not that big of a deal, but it would definitely generate gossip within local circles.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. I don't care for the gossip in the small town certain circles

That kind of gossip usually branches out to other relationship groups.

[Mojorabbit]

41. When I was 25 I was seriously creeped out by older men hitting on me.

I guess it depends on the person.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. My scenario wasn't about unwanted advances from some old slob

It was about people actively engaged in a mutual romantic relationship.

And I'm sure you can probably think of a circumstance where you didn't feel an older man was hitting on you, but being charming and conversational in a social setting.

[Skittles]

157. you cannot make others not find things creepy

Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2013, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

for example, I find men getting excited by grown women wearing schoolgirl costumes VERY creepy

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

160. Everyone seems to want to go back to the sexual fetishes in this thread

Okay, yes, all fetishes are creepy. I get all that.

But people who find relationships between normal adults, and consenting people creepy I'm not going to coddle. If a guy says to you "Two gay men marrying and kissing at the alter is creepy", wouldn't that change your opinion of that person?

[SamReynolds]

188. You asked a question that will not be answered here.

Or the response might be a stomping, "It's not the same thing!". But indeed it is the same. You've made a good point, no one can argue with it, so they'll deflect and diffuse in search of a way to claim you were 'wrong'.

People who let their feelings shape their opinions, like those in this thread, are actually pretty 'creepy'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. As an opinion, is it not possible to discuss it?

I think "what age differential constitutes creepy?" is a reasonable point of conversation. Certainly, discussing appropriate age differences is a topic that is not unique to the men's group, in fact women dating younger men is seen as evidence of "the amazing pace at which women evolved once they gained freedom and independence."

There's a cottage industry of surveillance of TMG looking for something to alert on.

[boston bean]

47. This the best you got?

An article about the different social norms and attitudes regarding women dating younger men. In the case you link to, both adults and a three year age difference and relating that it to a post about how young is to young before one is considered a pedophile? Come on you can do better than that!

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. It isn't just "the best", it is good.

The OP in question was asking about the very same topic, but because the TMG surveillance team is apparently paid by the hour... here we are.

The shitstorm is in full swing because the OP unfortunately didn't follow the good advice:

Piece of advice? If you (delete the op), make sure you copy the EXACT text of the OP into a reply first, so no one can later on try to act like it said something specific that it did not.

The result was entirely predictable.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. Well, at least he didn't reply "if the post is alerted, I'm confident it will stay"

That works....sometimes.

[opiate69]

59. "The result was entirely predictable"...

As was the cast of characters... Only, we seem to be missing at least one.. She must be busy drawing up next weeks outrage orders with iverglas and eloriel over at the other place.


Oh wait, that was all supposed to be a secret, wasn't it?

[BainsBane]

101. Good lord

You are obsessed with Iverglas.

[boston bean]

60. Not quite no one was supporting someone who was

asking how young was too young before they were considered a pedophile. To be a pedophile, one must be attracted to young pre-pubescent girls. And barely a peep from you mens room guys. Supporting him through it though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. The question was clearly and obviously asked in a non-literal way.

Obvious to anyone posessing both halves of their wit at any rate.

The dictionary is very helpful in providing the definition of pedophilia. There was no reason to ask the question if the literal answer is what was being requested.

The question asked was clearly and obviously "what age difference is inappropriate?" and if it had been asked in any other venue with a less dedicated surveillance team, it would have been uncontroversial.

[boston bean]

67. Oh Lumberjack, doth prtest to much, do you not see your

former host linking to posts in HoF in that same thread? Surveillance much?

Twisting churning, turning..... anything to get it to go away after it was called out by Quantesss, who doesn't even participate regularly in HoF... If you think this is all about HoF members, I suggest you re-read her thread, and the responses before the poster deleted the thread in your group.

You are using another derailment tactic... yet the evidence of who is stalking who is a plenty in you group, where almost every other thread is a response to something written in HoF, or an actual thread linked to PROVE MISANDRY!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!

The thread your former host is so fond of linking to, to prove MISANDRY, OMFG!!!!! was about a woman jailed for miscarrying and a poster in HoF said something to the effect as to this is why she thinks males should be castrated once they hit puberty or something like that. You want to talk about not being able to distinguish a rhetorical, imaginary occurence, being used to make a point about the other side of the spectrum and how this women and other women are treated because of their body parts, well..... It really should not have been that controversial to anyone, including you and your former host, or anyone with both halves of their wits!!!! At any rate..... I've proven here who the surveyor is. Maybe this OP does have a point afterall. but not with anything Freud.... but projection is often a great way to try to win a message board argument. You've been unmasked and so haven't your buddies who wouldn't have anything to talk about in the mens group, if HoF didn't exist.

[LittleBlue]

68. Wasn't that link to HOF

for a post that joked about castrating all boys once they reached puberty? I'm certain it was, and I'm certain it received no action by you as the host.

In fact, I went and got the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125525338#post1

Not your finest moment.

[boston bean]

69. duh, did you read what just I wrote?

[LittleBlue]

73. I read it

but somehow I still don't think "rhetorical" comments about castrating boys is acceptable.

To be honest, I don't think you're fit to manage that group, if that's the sort of thing you condone.

[boston bean]

75. Shall I quit now father/boss/man?

Your opinion means squat to me.

[LittleBlue]

84. This has nothing to do with me being a boss man

I hope to god you don't have male children. Would you make these defenses in front of them?

Listen, I'm all for a good mohel joke. Lord knows I probably laugh at humor that is questionable. But you don't. You are normally very, very sensitive when it comes to jokes regarding sexuality and women. A jest about boys being castrated happens in your group, and suddenly your sensitivity drains away and now you can have that inappropriate laugh.

Can you not see how this makes your sensitivity look disingenuous, or at the very least hypocritical? If you are aware of this inconsistency, why are you group host to a group about gender equality?

[boston bean]

91. I didn't see it a jest. I saw it as making an exasperated point

about the other side of the coin. The other side of the coin NOT happening on a minor or large scale. If you know differently, Please post stories about young males hitting puberty being castrated because of some sort of government policy or cultural leaning.

It doesn't exist. The comment was a way to show how disgusted she was with the story of a woman being jailed for miscarrying her baby.. Have you mentioned that at all.

Now, you don't have my permission to question me about anything personal using veiled insults and uninformed opinions about me personally. Please stop that.

[LittleBlue]

97. I hope you are aware that in India

castrating boys is part of a religious ceremonial money scheme? I didn't even need to google that, it was on PBS a few months ago.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/12-yr-old-castrated-forced-to-be-part-of-eunuch-group/Article1-1021176.aspx

Regardless of whether you are aware of that, you are suddenly curiously insensitive.

And I would like an answer to that question. If you have male children, grandchildren or relatives, would you feel comfortable if someone read your justifications to them? That she was just expressing frustration, and so in your eyes that makes it acceptable?

[boston bean]

105. Very sad and disgusting incident. How many boys are being castrated in India, do you know?

Lots of boys are molested and/or murdered here in the US. As are girls. That is why it is so disgusting to me to have someone question how young is to young to be attracted to before being considered a pedophile. You?

Here in America we also have people creating laws using moral judgments to control our bodies. Again the story the poster was responding to was about a woman in Mexico, I believe, who received a JAIL sentence for 23 YEARS for miscarrying. Do you have anything to say about that?

I owe you NO answers about my personal life and in fact your continuing questioning about my personal life is creeping me out. Again. Please. Stop. It.

[LittleBlue]

129. I would have to know what he's asking

I was linked to the thread after it was deleted and never actually read the original. Is he asking whether pedophilia is acceptable, or if Suki Waterhouse and Bradley Cooper are acceptable?

Outrage at a woman being jailed for miscarriage is understandable, expressing that frustration with the halfhearted suggestion that all boys should be castrated at puberty is certainly not acceptable for a forum like this. I will ask you no more questions about your family, but I will also take that as an admission that you would be uncomfortable if someone read your justifications to your male family members. The next question is why you would feel that way, and how can you reconcile that feeling to your defense of it? If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but that's the only possible interpretation I can see.

That thought process will lead you to understanding.

[boston bean]

132. You can make whatever assumptions about me that you would like.

Doesn't mean you have a freaking clue about anything you truly know nothing about. Jesus Christ this is weird.

Someone so focused on my family..... and how I interact with them and how I feel about them... creeping me right the fuck out.

Don't respond to me again in this line agin, please.

[LittleBlue]

139. Your family really has litte to do with this

It could be your male friend, it could be your priest (if you have one), it could be a male coworker/boss. I will change the question to make it more acceptable for you: Would you be comfortable expressing your view on live TV?

The question is really just a hypothetical to see whether you'd be ashamed to express these opinions around people you care about, or whose opinions mattered to you. Obviously on the internet, anonymity shields from the judgements of people close to you.

Really, you feigning the creep response is so telling that it's not even funny. It could not be more obvious that you're yelling "creep!" at a hypothetical questions as a defense mechanism. A question that is making you uncomfortable not because you actually feel creeped out, but because you've defended something (castration of boys) that you are clearly uncomfortable with.

[boston bean]

141. My friends would realizeI wasn't defending castrating or for castrating boys.

ferchrissakes... But discussing the context of which a reply was posted. You really are presumptuous. I've told you enough about me now bug off. It really is creepy whether you want to admit it or not.

[SamReynolds]

189. Oh dear lord, that is SICK!

I peeked once into HoF. I said some things they didn't like about their zealous cries for censorship. I felt like I was talking to 12 year-old girls. I haven't been a 12 year-old girl in over 40 years... so you can imagine how bent out of shape I was for being kicked out of their little nest.

They're a hateful bunch alright. "Castrate all men at puberty." Holy hell, can you imagine if a man here said something about "Spaying all women at puberty."? I don't know why their brand of sexism is tolerated here. What's funny is that I was told this site was sexist... I really wasn't expecting all of it to be from the women! (I guess I'm a little sexist myself!)

[BainsBane]

193. You participated in that thread

and said nothing at the time. Isn't that interesting. Could it be that you didn't bother to read it then anymore than you did now.

You were kicked out of that nest on the advice of MIRT, who suggested that rather than tombstoning you from the site. I suppose we could have opted for the latter. You insulted all feminists, which means you insulted equal rights for women. And here you choose to attack those same feminists and line up in defense of a post advocating pedophilia. But if women who don't know how to stay in their place don't like it when men lust after underage girls, it must be a good thing.

[BainsBane]

190. Do you actually read?

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)

It appears not because you clearly didn't read the post you're linking to. But don't let that stop you from defending someone asking how young of a girl he could lust after without being called a pedophile, and who explicitly distinguished acting from attraction. But feminists oppose it, so it must be okay. We oppose rape too. Does that make it okay? Oh right, I forgot. You don't care about who is raped. You made that clear in another post. How anyone can defend the garbage you do is beyond me.

[LittleBlue]

204. I read the entire thing

You are arguing that there is an acceptable context to suggest the castration of boys.

Would you make the same argument for rape or genital mutilation of girls? Do you think there is an acceptable context to suggest the rape or genital mutilation of girls hitting puberty? Of course you would not.

[BainsBane]

207. I am arguing that?

Show me where I argued that?

[LittleBlue]

210. Your quote

Do you actually read that? It appears not because you clearly didn't read the post you're linking to

What are you trying to say with this, other than there's a context where it's acceptable? Like if I read it enough times, I will eventually see that it's acceptable.

[BainsBane]

211. Read your own link

I'm the one who told the poster to edit her remarks. She said she would not because the post was meant as a rhetorical strawman to get at the larger point. Her call. So much for your reading comprehension.

[LittleBlue]

214. You did

Hopefully you were suggesting she edit it because you saw it as wrong and not because you were afraid others would see it. Of course, if you go back and read your original reply to me in this thread, it does appear that you weren't referring to yourself, as I hadn't mentioned you, but to the context. For some reason you saw something wrong with it at the time but are now telling me to "do you read?", that doesn't make any sense. Why did you see a problem with it originally, yet are now telling me I can't read when I'm pointing out that it's wrong? Your replies don't have any consistency.

I suppose that puts you ahead of everyone who read it and saw nothing wrong with it, which appears to be your own forum hosts and everyone else in that thread.

The truth is that I'm not outraged by it. I'm only highlighting it to show how ridiculous it is for a gender equality group to have hosts who see nothing wrong with rhetorically suggesting boys should be castrated at puberty. Watching Bean try to explain that one is one of the most pathetic displays I've ever seen at DU.

[BainsBane]

224. Well, she did say in that post she didn't mean it

that she was using it to make a point. I didn't recall the details of the whole argument and don't have time to reread it now, but I took her at her word.

Your antipathy toward feminists clearly outweighs any concern about pedophilia, which is the topic of this entire controversy, so much so that the only outage you can summon is about a clumsy rhetorical device someone used in HOF--someone, I might add, who is not a regular poster there. So in this entire controversy, Boston Bean and I deserve your wrath, but not those who insist pedophilia is natural and therefore comparable to homosexuality.

And by the way, men on this site have defended female genital mutilation. I don't recall your opposing that. So let's review the list of what you can't be bothered to care about: rape, pedophilia, and female genital mutilation.

[SamReynolds]

238. Wow, you're thick.

I'm sure you would just as readily defend the mutilation of girls if the context were similar?

[opiate69]

70. Oh, I don't know about all that....

Seems to me we had plenty of decent discussions during the two blissfully quiet months (give or take) that your resident loudmouths took their sabbatical. Unlike your little echo-chamber, which - if memory serves - was as quiet as a graveyard during that period. But hey, they're back now, so you guys can all go back to your usual M. O. of haranguing and brow-beating the rest of DU (and the Men's Group in particular) in order to try to get your pound of outrage-flesh.

[boston bean]

71. So as long as the little ladies keep their mouths shut all is well...

whateva.

[opiate69]

74. I see you haven't divested yourself of straw futures...

[boston bean]

76. I'm not vested in straw, never have been.

I'm not a jackass.

[opiate69]

78. Ah.. Well, given your perpetual use of strawmen, I just assumed.. As for the other claim,

Surely some would disagree with your self-assessment.

[boston bean]

92. Classy.....

[opiate69]

95. Ah, yes.. because you and yours have ever always been the fucking picture of decorum and civility..

In fact, I do seem to recall a post from one of you outright stating you had absolutely no intention of even attempting civility.. naturally, all the rest of you went right ahead and condemned them right?? oh.. wait.. no.. you all jumped in with a hale and hearty round of "atta-girls" and "me too!".

what was that you said earlier about getting what you get??

derp

[boston bean]

96. I'm not usually civil when confronting sexist assholes. Is that the instance you speak of/reference?

Do you think sexist assholes deservean iota of respect when attacking women and feminists?

Sometimes I will try reason first, but if it fails and they dig in further my civility level goes down. I am a human you know. Think of me that way, not just as a woman, it might help.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. You're often uncivil when you confront your fellow DU'ers too.

Or are you describing someone here as a sexist asshole? If so, whom?

[boston bean]

108. Wow, nice to know how you feel.

Means nothing to me. I got my fans and I got my critics, you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. I get mail.

I can be uncivil too, but I don't need to justify it by dehumanizing them.

[boston bean]

123. Now I'm a dehumanizer. Always considered myself to be a pretty

empathetic person when confronting or helping with real issues and problems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. You're rambling.

Linking to the posters own words about his meaning is hardly twisting.

I rarely read what is posted in HoF, because unlike you, I honor the purpose of safe haven groups to allow people to discuss the topics of their interest, free from the disruption of outsiders.

And yeah, mandatory castration of men at puberty isn't kinda misandry, it is squarely in the middle circle. It was alerted, but the posters confidence that it wouldn't be hidden was justifed, because obviously it doesn't violate this community's standards.

[boston bean]

86. Ok, take your own advice. ie People responding to a posters own words

is not twisting, OK!

Hey I've never even posted in the mens room. You can see how interested I actually am with anything you folks have to post regarding how misandrist women are.

It's not misandry because it doesn't happen, like women being jailed for miscarrying or not being able to control their own bodies. The poster was stating in a exasperated way that sometimes those kinds of stories(a woman being jailed for miscarrying) make her think that, as in could you imagine if this was being done. NOT sereiously do it, or seriously contemplate it. You want the right to read into things that suit your view.....

an imaginary thought with no basis in reality is NOT MISANDRY. It's a comment. One may find it offensive. No country is castrating young males when they hit puberty. Yet they are controlling womens bodies, even right here in the good old USA. You need a bit more to convince me her comment was misandry.

[BainsBane]

103. No, that is not what he said

He said "how old." He then distinguished between feeling attraction and acting on it, which made clear he was referring to underage girls.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. At my age, I would consider it inappropriate to act on an attraction to a 24 year old.

(setting aside the fact that I'm married)

So no, it's not clear at all, and since you've already read his explanation of what he meant, you're simply making up shit.

[BainsBane]

114. I consider his explanation a cover up

I don't believe him. I'm not making up shit. I quoted the OP accurately. You are rewriting it to make him look better.

As a host, you should have locked that thing on sight. You bear responsibility for not doing so.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

116. Oh, boy....

....anyone else see where this is going?

Whelp, Warren, you weren't wrong.

[BainsBane]

119. Where is it going?

If you're going to respond to one of my posts, speak to me directly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

126. Go ahead and time me, if you wish

I know you don't like it when you're not replied to right quick.

[BainsBane]

127. Do you actually have anything to say to me?

because you haven't done so yet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Why bother reading what people say before calling them pedophiles?

I mean if all of our "explanations" are simply cover ups, then why not simply put all of DU on ignore?

[BainsBane]

122. Where did I call him a pedophile?

Provide the link.

I happen to care about DU, which is why I volunteer a significant amount of my time on MIRT. I alerted on that OP because I think crap like that makes the site look bad.

[polly7]

118. It made it clear to you ...

not to me!!!

Lots of things are 'creepy', asking that doesn't automatically mean he was thinking of underage girls AT ALL. I worked in bars as soon as I was old enough ......... at first it felt a bit creepy being hit on by every second older man I served a drink to ... after a while it didn't bother me at all. How do you know this poster isn't older and wasn't referring to young, legal aged females??? Did HE frame it using the word Pedophile in his post, or did YOU?

[DLevine]

128. Yes, he used the word pedophile.

He asked how young a girl can be before lusting after her would be considered pedophilia.

[polly7]

131. Ah well ....... I'm still not as quick to accuse someone of being a pedophile

for asking a question that might have meant nothing more than being seen as one for finding a 'legal-aged' girl sexually attractive. Did anyone ask him?

[DLevine]

137. I agree that doesn't make him a pedophile.

I don't remember if anyone asked him to be more specific. I did find the post extremely creepy. I would feel the same way if it was an adult woman asking about young boys.

[polly7]

142. See, I wouldn't have automatically assumed he was talking about underage girls at all.

But I'd have asked. Hey ....... I was called a 'rape apologist' by the same gang. Kind of funny, as I've been assaulted myself - twice, and have volunteered many hours in Women's Shelters trying to make things better for others in the same situation. Throwing labels around when you know nothing about the person you're demeaning is so easy here, some seem to live for it and the outrage they can generate without even taking the time to find out the intent.

[seabeyond]

144. how young can a girls be to find her SEXUALLY attractive before considered a creep or pedophile.

[polly7]

145. What?

Yeah ...... I get that was the question he asked.

[BainsBane]

194. Well, as long as it wasn't a woman who said it

It must be okay.

[polly7]

196. Do you always make things up?

Wait ....... scratch that. Stupid question.

[BainsBane]

199. Okay

Perhaps you can provide a link where you didn't defend a man over a feminist?

[polly7]

200. Ahhh, I've posted many, many articles and links for women's rights and equality.

Does it bother you that not all women here don't fall in line with your authoritarian, black or white, women are always victims no matter what the intent (why didn't you ask the author of the OP what he meant ....... it's just easier and more satisfying to claim to know though and run around screaming ugly labels at something you're only able to guess at).

Perhaps you could explain why you were using a sock here.

[BainsBane]

203. So you can't provide any?

I'm not talking about what you have posted, though truthfully I haven't seen those posts. I'm talking about situations like this one where you inevitably defend men over women, and feminists in particular. I have seen you defend any and everything posted by anti-feminists. The topic seems to matter far less than the parties involved. In this case, one of the pedophile apologists has already been tombstoned. Thankfully, Skinner takes the issue far more seriously than you do.

Evidently you feel invoking the sock is some sort of argument in defense of your own repeated attacks on other women. I've explained it many times. I'll refer to you to this link for a detailed explanation, though I expect you and most everyone on the site has already seen it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519981

[polly7]

208. Nah .... I say what 'I' think, and really don't care what you

or 'men' here think. It's odd that everything you post has an 'us or them' mentality and everyone who doesn't join you in it is picking a side. Some of us just prefer to know what's in someone's heart before running around accusing them of one of the ugliest things possible. That's not quite as satisfying though, right?

Anything else?

[BainsBane]

212. Actually, my entire experience with you has been from your "us vs. them"

perspective. You began by attacking ME because I didn't like one of your Men's Group friennd's posting on "consent." You decided you hated me--and you admitted it was because you didn't like what I said to one of them--and have consistently spewed venom since.

[polly7]

215. OFFS.

I don't even know you, why would I hate you? What a waste of good energy that would be. Please ..... my post here wondering why the poster you're so enraged at wasn't questioned as to what he really meant before being called a pedophile wasn't meant to upset you this much, so my apologies. I didn't realize it was so hurtful.

(As for 'spewing venom', you might wanna look in a mirror, know what I'm sayin'? )

[BainsBane]

242. That's a good question

That only you can answer, but you've expressed tremendous hatred toward me in several posts and said some truly nasty stuff. I even asked you what you took such a dislike to a perfect stranger, and you had some excuse about not liking what I said to someone else. I suggest you do a search since your memory obviously fails you.

I'm not aware of anyone calling that poster a pedophile, though I might have missed it. I know that I alerted on the post and have summarized it here. He could have taken Warren's advice and preserved the original text in a post before self deleting, but chose not to. That is itself revealing. But it has to be the feminists who are wrong. It couldn't possibly be a man.

And no, I don't know what you are saying. I have never treated you with anything close to the hostility that you have treated me. Not too long ago you lashed out at me personally and called me despicable because you didn't like a news article linking a young man's shooting in New Orleans to Trayvon Martin. You decided that was entirely my fault, despite he fact it was widely reported in several publications. You've made yourself perfectly clear. You of course are free to despise perfect strangers if that's what you need to do to feel okay about yourself, just as I am free to go back to not paying any attention to you. It's not like you ever have anything of substance to say anyway.

[polly7]

247. Maybe you could pm me with your self-pitying bullcrap if you're so

upset with me. I've responded to you exactly as I respond to anyone else. You're getting creepy here .....

[Violet_Crumble]

239. I'm so sorry you got slapped with that label, polly...

I got told that I don't have a problem with sex trafficking. I was thinking to myself WTF?? but I see it's a tactical 'debate' tool or something. So, yeah. I totally agree with you about the labels thing...

[BainsBane]

240. No one said that to you

except you yourself. Why is it necessary to fabricate persecution? Life that dull?

[Violet_Crumble]

241. Yes, they did accuse me of that. Here's the link...

I said I supported legalised prostitution, and this is one response 'If You don't see a problem with sex trafficking and legalized or any prostitution , you haven't been paying attention.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=26025

So, is there any chance of an apology for accusing me of lying?

[BainsBane]

243. The link doesn't support what you claim

You yourself said you were going to go sign petitions legalizing prostitution. Ismnotwasm does not accuse you of supporting pedophilia. She disagrees with your position on prostitution, which does involve sex trafficking, as the UN, the State Department, and multiple human rights organizations have documented. She disagrees with you on the issue and says you haven't been paying attention. You apparently find that unacceptable. You have the option to alert on posts you see as over the line. It appears to me that you have developed an irrational level of anger that is impeding your understanding of that and other posts in that thread.

I have only had positive experiences with you in the past, but I did witness what I thought was an uncalled for attack on HOF members in that thread. There obviously is a long history there that I know nothing about, but that animosity is clearly coloring how you see this entire controversy--wrongly, in my opinion.

Nor, I might add, does Polly7 claim in her post that anyone accused her of supporting pedophilia. She was referring to the guy in the men's group who posted the OP that led to this entire thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

244. Uh, how was that not accusing me of supporting sex trafficking??

And I didn't say anyone accused me of pedophilia. I was very clear about what I was accused of, was attacked by you and accused of making it up, produced the link where I was told I support sex trafficking, and yr insisting it never happened? How does that work?

I'm not sure why yr giving me a lecture about alerting, when that's got nothing to do with you popping up here and attacking me. Irrational level of anger? I'm not the one attacking people and calling them liars. That would be you...

Hey, last time I checked I *am* a HOF member, and a founding one. I made the mistake of thinking that people in that group still tolerated criticism, but it appears some can't tolerate it. The point I raised about how one person's OP does not mean that a whole bunch of men were sitting there agreeing with it was totally ignored, so that's the end of me participating in any way in what is an echo chamber full of hostility...

[BainsBane]

245. You said the post was an attack

The site has a system for dealing with posts people find inappropriate. It wasn't a lecture.

Did you not say you supported legalized prostitution? This is her quote:

If You don't see a problem with sex trafficking and legalized or any prostitution , you haven't been paying attention. Or have never worked n the sex field.

Sex trafficking and prostitution are bound together. That is a fact, and I referred you to any number of sources that show that. Ismnotwasm accused you of not paying attention. Your response to me here indicates you have chosen not to pay attention to that fact (if you were in fact serious about your comments in HOF about prostitution). Pretending one doesn't follow the other doesn't make it so.

You expressed your opinion and others told you what they thought. Do you assume your right to express disagreement means no one dare challenge you? That would seem odd given your comments about an echo chamber.

[Violet_Crumble]

246. Accusing me of supporting sex trafficking isn't an attack? It is, no matter how it's twisted...

Here's what they said to me yet again:

If You don't see a problem with sex trafficking and legalized or any prostitution , you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=26025

You accused me of making that up, when I hadn't.

Uh, of course I support legalised prostitution, and wish the US would follow how it works here. Brothels are legal and well regulated and have nothing to do with sex trafficking.

No, I expressed my opinion and was attacked by a few sarcasm impaired types. What I encountered there was an echo chamber where misrepresenting other people's views seems to be a favourite thing to do. Which is why I believe polly when she says she was called a rape apologist, because I encountered first hand being accused of supporting something I definitely don't support and had never said I did...

[polly7]

249. There's one thing you need to learn Violet,

with some people here, everything is black or white, people aren't allowed to make mistakes (if those mistakes can be used for a run-on rant against something I'm more convinced than ever the poster never meant) and these ugly labels and accusations are just education and really are for your own good lol! What you say will be twisted and used ........ it's guaranteed.

(I also support legalized prostitution.)

[polly7]

248. Strange, isn't it.

and thanks Violet I'm sorry you were accused of something so ugly too. Seems to me though if they couldn't spend 24/7 365 days a year labeling people with the ugliest shit possible, they wouldn't have much to talk about. That debate tactic sucked in junior high ... now it's just pathetic. imho.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

64. "Supporting him through it though."

Oooooh boooy.

[BainsBane]

104. What are you doing in this thread?

You're attacking those who were outraged at the question. That sure looks like support to me.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

121. Bullshit

I've attacked no one, aside from the ones who start with their usual snark right out of the gate.

[BainsBane]

125. Really?

What was your last post to me? Why don't you share your feelings on that OP. I saw what you wrote about your own feelings on attraction. Completely fine. But how do you feel about someone posting something like that in YOUR group? It certainly appears that you take exception to others calling out the OP, and you attacked Seabeyond for her having done so.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

130. All I asked her was about creeps (the word she used) and age gap between consenting adults

That's an attack?

I want clarification, because many in your group seem to have an issue with old farts and young women. As much as the usual suspects will "FFS" it in denial, I'm sure.

[BainsBane]

133. You continue to evade the question

What do you think about the OP in the Men's group?

As for me, I made clear in a previous post, as long as the parties are consenting and over 18, it's their business. On a personal level, I don't like men or women who only date people younger than themselves, just as I don't like men or women who will only date whites. But I make a distinction between my personal views and what is socially and legally inappropriate.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. I already said up thread....

....I don't remember enough of the OP other than I thought he was talking about seeing a teenager or twenty year old, not children, as attractive and if it's okay to recognize them as such. I never got the impression he was trying to actively pick them up or would even consider it.

But I'll take your word for it, it was about pedophilia, and he was wearing a trenchcoat with a kleenex box over his wang while posting, because you're obviously very invested in it and studied his words carefully, far more than me.

[seabeyond]

143. SEXUALLY attractive. how YOUNG can a GIRL be to find her SEXUALLY attractive without

be considered a creep or a pedophile.

got it

that is what was asked. that is why people were bothered. that is why it takes it to a kid.

SEXUALLY attractive

[BainsBane]

150. the precise language was "how old"

but the distinction between feeling and acting on it make clear he was referring to underage girls.

[BainsBane]

146. The revealing part was that he distinguished between attraction and acting on it

That made clear to me he was talking about underage girls.

I don't consider anything related to rape, child molestation, or pedophilia a joke. You bet I take it seriously.

[seabeyond]

148. yes. instead of merely attractive, he made clear sexually attractive. used pedophile and not acting

on it.

but, there are those that insist he is talking about an adult relationship

[bettyellen]

87. the question wasn't about age differences- it was how young of a girl is "too young"

big difference.

[Squinch]

136. With the assumption that it would be so young that the poster

needed to include a caveat in his question in which he assured the reader that he would not act on his desire, which sounded an awful lot like he assumed the answer would be of illegal age.

So, essentially, the question was, how young could a girl be that he could view as a sex object, before all the other guys in the forum thought he was gross.

Apparently, from all the discussions since, it's pretty damn young.

[bettyellen]

191. yep, several posters are attempting to rewrite the OP - so they obviously saw it was

problematic and that they ignored it. Now they are covering it up. All of which is kind of creepy.

[orpupilofnature57]

83. Me Too, I'm 55 and couldn't imagine dating a 25 yr old, Lusting for one ?

YEP.

[B Calm]

154. +1

[The Straight Story]

8. This could be an interesting discussion

Is a natural desire something that should be shunned by society - say a 13yr old boy is attracted to someone his own age (male or female) in a sexual manner. Is such a thing creepy? If not, what physical mechanism causes them to no longer find someone attractive of that age when they reach a different age?

There must be some sort of scientific reason that we think someone is broken when something they felt at one age continues on at another age (their body has changed in size, etc, but obviously their mind has failed to develop).

I have seen many females do similar things with young male singers (the bierber who was discovered at 14 yrs old, one direction, etc and so on) - screaming fans, lusting after someone who they should not. We had males in high school in Twilight that set off a slew of desire.

So are all those people creepy and sexualizing a child? Was it ok when the biebs was 14, or 15, or what age?

The question seems like a valid one that could be asked on a sociological/psychological level and discussed (without a bunch of emotion clouding it).

Here is a decent discussion on the topic:

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/does_being_attracted_to_teenagers_make_me_a_pedophile

[bettyellen]

79. and then he deleted and he and several others tried to spin that it was about adults....

but it didn't say that originally. Creepy and willfully deceptive behavior.

[Posteritatis]

2. Oh boy, an armchair psychology thread. Those are always classy and educated here. (nt)

[etherealtruth]

3. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

[LittleBlue]

4. People ought to be careful throwing around these terms

They are very serious accusations and shouldn't be made lightly. To use them carelessly as throwaway insults is to diminish the seriousness of the accusation.

Outside of the occasional newly registered right wing troll that MIRT cleans up, I've never seen a defense of child molestation on DU.

[Bay Boy]

5. Insert joke here:

I don't recall what comedian said this one.
"Why is OK for people to say they like kids, but if you get specific it gets creepy.
For example if I say I like 10 year old boys all of a sudden I'm weird"

[Iggo]

7. Ah, the old three-fingers-pointing-back-at-you.

See also: I'm rubber, you're glue.

[Shivering Jemmy]

9. Freud is not worth citing

He set back psychology for decades with shoddy research and half baked hypotheses.

[safeinOhio]

28. Good call, if

you can now go on to explain how to reshape the behavior or social norm. While Freud never quantified his work, he gave us lots to do to try.

[bhikkhu]

10. In another way: people hate most in others what they struggle with in themselves

awareness of that tendency helps to keep us from being assholes.

[Oilwellian]

11. Urp a Durp

Can you explain how a woman is projecting when she refers to a man as a misogynist?

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. When she couches that objection using phrases like "LOL poor widdle menz!"

Then it is not unreasonable to wonder about her own sexist beliefs.

[boston bean]

44. In response to men defending misgynistic actions and words

by playing victim? Well, you get what you get I presume.

MISANDRY!!!!!! OMFG!

[opiate69]

48. Ya know, my kids grew out of that whole "he did it first" thing by around 10 or so...

Just sayin'.

[boston bean]

50. Are you reading the OP?

is right!

[Squinch]

155. Right?

The original discussion about "how young can a girl be" was seriously disturbing.

Now, the side discussions are becoming kind of funny. This one loves to toss around psychology terms incorrectly. It's like Freud meets Miss Malaprop.

[alphafemale]

12. Freud? Seriously? So you believe women want penises and want to fuck their fathers?

Sorry. Freud is pretty much not taken seriously anymore.

[Rex]

15. You do know that Freud was a misogynist right?

Or did you just 'google up' the first thing you could find?

"Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own," - Sigmund Freud.

[pintobean]

19. I wonder if he ever called anyone a quack.

[Aerows]

25. Anybody looking toward Freud

as a bastion of wisdom on misogyny, homosexuality or pedophilia probably should be labeled a quack, because the man was an idiot and a drug addict.

[opiate69]

27. I'll take "Poisoning the well", with a side of "Historian's fallacy", Garcon.

[Aerows]

29. You don't need to poison the well with Freud

nor do you need a side of limited perspective because they can't see the future. What you need is the realization that despite being revered for a time, when it is discovered that they are full of shit, you need to quit quoting them like they know what they hell they are talking about.

Example: Gallileo stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Church "scientists" and moral norms of that era dictated that he was wrong. He wasn't pardoned until the 20th century.

Modern psychology and sociological theory is MUCH more developed than it was during Freud's time. Freud's judgment was also questionable because most of his theories are colored by the fact that he was a raging cocaine addict.

[opiate69]

32. While some of his work has been rightly dismissed,

Anybody who has actually, ya know, studied Psychology ( ) is well aware of the lasting impact his work had, not only on therapuetic processes such as psychoanalysis, but also in the works of others who came after and, to borrow a phrase, "stood on his shoulders".

[Aerows]

43. Standing on the shoulders of giants

only works when you are standing on a foundation that is actually valid scientific work and not quackery. He isn't completely wrong about everything, but his work involving female sexuality is, quite frankly, quackery.

I don't think you have to have a degree in Psychology to realize that all women don't secretly want to have sex with their fathers, suffer from a castration complex because they don't have a penis, or that cocaine addiction and overdose leads to good scientific theory.

You can correct me if I'm wrong there, but somehow, I don't think you will get very far if you go down that road.

[Rex]

181. Who knew that quoting Freud's own words would cause such projection

from others here? I mean, it is kinda funny really. Freud was a misogynist, I guess people need to get over it in this century.

[Aerows]

182. nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

"Standing on the shoulders of giants" never turns out quite like those who pursue science thing it will. It often turns out that you discover something more brilliant.

I know it does with writers, and that's why I stand on the shoulders of giants from about 4000 years ago.

They taught us how to convey our language and to express ourselves so that future generations could protect themselves, love themselves, and raise a better generation of human being.

That is what I wish for humanity.

[Rex]

183. Social democracy

the only way to travel!

[opiate69]

42. Or, are you dismissing the concept of "projection", out-of-hand?

Because, I know that term gets regularly bandied about here when it pertains to repukes.

[Aerows]

46. Absolutely not

I think we all carry emotional baggage to one degree or another and that creates blindspots in the way that we evaluate a situation. I think the argument works both ways - dismissing claims of misogyny when it is clearly operating at some level is just as bad as dragging it in when it isn't warranted.

Becoming polarized that one side is always right and the other side is always wrong is what creates such situations (and yes, in those cases, projection often is a factor).

I don't have a yardstick that I can say "if it measures like this, it is X and if it is a mm further it is Y". None of us do, that's why we have to use our judgment. It's not perfect, and neither are human beings .

[Aerows]

23. Oh boy

Let's start with what Freud thought of homosexuality.

The man was obsessed with sex, with no thought of emotional attachment that comes along with a healthy sexual, loving relationship. He would have just said I had penis envy, even though I have no desire to be a man, nor do I have a desire to have a partner that is a man but can't attract one.

Freud was a piece of work that brought some really screwed up notions of sexuality into psychology that damaged a generation of study.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Someone posted a badly worded op, and every single person who responded talked about ADULTS

and the thread is tossed around like a chew toy as evidence that "some" people on DU want to enable child abuse.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. It's inexcusable. I'm a parent. I think people who harm children are the scum of the Earth, and abso-fucking-lutely they need to be separated from society for good.

But what you have here is some with an obvious agenda around adult sexuality- things like topless protesting, or boob pictures- trying to score points by tossing out about the lowest form of insinuations at people they don't fucking know from Adam.

Short answer, it makes DU suck. But, it's hardly new.

[boston bean]

38. Freud is that you?

Who is that person inyour signature? Can't place...

[pintobean]

39. And since I don't know him from Adam

I took that post to mean what it said. I'm not part of that agenda driven crowd, as you know.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Fair enough. Like I said, best case scenario it was worded badly.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but he can defend his own words, or not.

I don't appreciate being attacked for not calling the OP "creepy" enough when the first thing I said was "if you're 50 and you're hitting on 20 year olds, you stink of creep"... I think that pretty much implies that anything worse that that is at LEAST creepy.

[pintobean]

62. Well, both your and her reactions are understandable.

I would have voted to hide her post, but her reaction was based on her own experiences and we can all get emotional sometimes. It probably didn't occur to her that it could have been one of the repliers who alerted.

I didn't have any problem with any of the replies, and thought you gave the guy some great advice.

[nomorenomore08]

147. +1

I think this one of the most reasonable posts I've read on the subject. Like other posters, I initially - sort of automatically - gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, but the more I thought about that OP the more it rubbed me the wrong way. I still rather doubt that the guy is any kind of sex criminal, even a potential one, but he may have inadvertently shown more of his "darker side" than he intended.

But I'm not a mind reader. Even if half the posters on here seem to think they are.

[redqueen]

149. This has *nothing* to do with 'mind-reading'.

This has to do with that OP being up for a full 24 hours, passing muster with a jury, and having exactly ONE person (Quantess) who seemed to be the least bit bothered with the use of the word "pedophile".

Don't play this off like it's about assumptions because it fucking isn't.

[nomorenomore08]

156. I agree it was creepy. Like I said, it creeped me out the more I thought about it.

That OP should not have been posted to begin with, or at the very least, should not have been phrased in that way. And I regret not questioning, or objecting to, it in the first place. So I'm sure as hell not taking the side of the "defenders."

[seabeyond]

162. kali pretty much hit the pedophile button also. nt

[BainsBane]

109. Don't you think the hosts should have locked that thread?

Rather than now rewriting it to make the OP look better?

What I find rather unattractive is the group mentality that kicks in where you all seem to defend anything that's posted in that group.

[pintobean]

134. It was a CS issue, not an SOP issue.

I have to wonder; did you take me off ignore so you can see the whole battlefield?

[BainsBane]

138. I think I took you off because of a MIRT issue

involving a subthread you started. I've had to take a couple of people off ignore because I'm on MIRT.

Edit: I don't think that particular OP fit the SOP of any part of DU, and clearly it was a massive jury fail.

[nomorenomore08]

166. In retrospect, YES, of course it should've been locked. And I don't feel too good

about not reacting to it when I first saw it - must've been sleepy/stoned late at night. And I wonder if other posters simply didn't want to touch the whole thing with a 10-foot pole.

[BainsBane]

167. That would make sense

if not for their defense of it in that very thread, here, and in Quantess's thread.

[nomorenomore08]

168. Yeah, I'm certainly not confident enough of the guy's benign intentions, to defend him in any way.

At the very least, the way he asked the question was all wrong, and yes, fucking creepy. I'd say he deserves most of the criticism he's gotten for it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. In retrospect, I should have asked him to rephrase his question.

The question of "what is an appropriate age difference?" is a legitimate and interesting "discussion of interest to men".

Unfortunately, it was expressed in a way that invited controversy.

It is not a hosts job to enforce community standards. It is the hosts job to enforce the SOP. The topic, as the participants in that thread understood it, was a discussion consistent with the SOP.

MIRT members know this, and those that pretend not to are using their authority to grind a personal axe.

[bettyellen]

192. that was not the question Jeff- it was how young is too young.

And there's a big difference. Which many ignored. It should have been acknowledged instead of this bullshit coverup where the question is rephrased for his benefit. That is insulting and dishonest.

[lumberjack_jeff]

219. About half of the respondents answered the question "how old is too old?"

That may or may not have been the intent behind the OP, but it's patently and demonstrably true that age differential - both ways - was the question as understood by those responding.

The OP was self deleted. I don't remember exactly what he said, all I remember was my interpretation - an interpretation consistent with that of the jury.

I do remember at the time thinking that flippant writing might cause it to become a controversy magnet when the outrage patrol got hold of it.

[LanternWaste]

229. A rather none-too-clever way to petulantly trivialize the concerns of others.

"outrage patrol" A rather none-too-clever way to petulantly trivialize the concerns of others, and whitewash obvious intent (and content).

[bettyellen]

231. half of the respondents ignored the question asked-which was how young is too young?

I was kind of astounded that they all ignored the real question being asked.
Why do you think you all ignored the real question? I'm genuinely curious.

[BainsBane]

197. Granted, I should really read the SOP of the men's group

but I would be very surprised if it included discussion about attraction to underage girls. I'm pretty sure the administrators would not agree to that.

Edited, your SOP: "Discuss issues of interest to men." Is it your contention that sexual attraction to underage girls is of interest to most men in that group?

[lumberjack_jeff]

217. The responses in the thread made clear what the understood meaning was.

I don't remember what the actual verbatim text of the OP was, and I strongly suspect that you don't either.

What I do know is that those that replied to it, and the jury that reviewed it, didn't read the same post that you are now paraphrasing to us.

From your perspective, the fact that the OP was self-deleted is really convenient, because now it can be anything your imagination would have wanted it to say.

And no, I wouldn't say that pedophilia is of much interest. Certainly not as fascinating and team-building a topic as other groups find it, at any rate.

[BainsBane]

221. Warren specifically asked him to preserve the text of the OP in a post

He chose not to. Why do you think that was? I think it's because it would show exactly what we have quoted here. Several people remember the text quite well, whereas you rewrote it in a post above. He asked "how old" can a female be before it's appropriate to be attracted to her. He explicitly distinguished attraction from acting. The only reason to make that distinction is because he was referring to girls under 18. Why you should find this contention so implausible, I'm not sure. I assume it is because since you and most other men in that group don't think that way, it's hard for you to conceive that someone in your midst would--that coupled with the fact that animosity toward feminists prompts many of you to automatically defend anything we oppose.

I see no reason why this should be a feminist vs. men's group issue, since pedophilia or whatever the accurate term is for attraction to minors is not gender specific. However, many of us women do have clear memories of being hit on by adult men at very young ages. For me such public approaches began at 10 years old in public, as was the case for many women who posted in Quantess's thread. Of course a number of women here were sexually assaulted at younger ages, like 4-6. I am sure several male members have similar experiences. It is not nearly as uncommon as you suppose.

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. On the other hand, why do you think Warren suggested it?

He "specifically asked" because he knew that the issue would become an urban legend when you got hold of it and we'd find ourselves in the pointless exercise of arguing about what you imagined rather than what was said.

What specifically have you "quoted here"? I would like to see the entire post, verbatim, so that we can talk about why the jury and those who responded in the thread so fundamentally misunderstood it.

And your assertion (whatever tenuous relationship to the post in question it might have) is plainly wrong and I explained to you why upthread. It may be natural for me to find a 22 year old attractive, but it's inappropriate AT MY AGE to act upon it. It's also why posters in that thread responded "half your age plus 7" as being a workable rule of thumb.

Child molestation is too common, and those guilty of it should be put away. But that has nothing. at. all. to do with the topic at hand.

[seabeyond]

225. instead of just saying people are lying, you might want to prove people are lying. what has been

accomplished in both this thread, and the thread in the mens forum is exclusively keeping out the word pedophile.

talk about rewriting the post.

yes.... we know what it said. you guys did not address it the way it sounded and many interpreted. that is fine. why would you. it was volatile and you knew it. you shifted it to mean differently than the wording of the OP. again, fine. you chose not to address the elephant in the room that was that post. again, i hear ya.

that does not mean every one else did not see it. and that we must ignore what it said.

we did see the question at what age a man is able to be sexually attracted by a girl without being called a creep or PEDOPHILE. no touching, just looking.

and you and warren and others are trying to paint it into something that it was not

that... is dishonest.

[BainsBane]

226. You may consider it inappropriate

but it is not illegal, and many older men and women do have relationships with younger women OVER 18. I myself might have a private thought about a vast age difference, but I don't express it publicly since it really is none of my business. Pedophilia, however, is another matter.

I think Warren asked it because he interpreted the post as you did. It was clear from the responses to the thread you all didn't get at what he was asking, except for Aristus in his edit to his own post. I attribute that to my earlier point that it didn't occur to Warren, like you, that he meant anything illicit because you guys don't think that way. I believe you are wrong, as many here do. If he had wanted to preserve his post for closer examination, he would have done so. That he chose not to is revealing.

The topic at hand is indeed child molestation or pedophilia. It is stated in the OP and even the title.

[bettyellen]

227. I want to know why several people are pretending the words "age difference" was anywhere in that

OP. That is so dishonest. It's possible you assumed that was what the questions was about- but those words were not there.
It was: how young is too young? And that is problematic, and you know it.

[snooper2]

213. Damn this is a long thread...I think we need two musical interludes...

Since we already have one cover song above, let's keep with the trend

How about-

Radioactive - Lindsey Stirling and Pentatonix (Imagine Dragons Cover)

[seabeyond]

222. this was fun. my son

sits in front and switches channels all the time, turning me onto the cool songs, or songs that he knows i will like. radioactive is a fav. but, he was standing her and clicked your song then had to explain to me this was not an original. sigh... but, it was done well and is fun. like original better and gonna have to go find it and listen. i do like violin in the music though

thanks

[JVS]

65. What did I miss?

Links please.

[LittleBlue]

66. I asked the same

and was directed to a deleted thread in Men's Group. From what others have written, the OP asked how young a woman could be before it was considered "creepy" to find her attractive. An argument ensued, the jury didn't hide, and he ultimately self-deleted.

[BainsBane]

85. Look in the men's group

for the deleted thread. The original text isn't there any more, but you can see the reaction to it.

[redqueen]

99. He asked how young someone had to be before lusting after them would get you labeled a pedophile

or creepy.

The word "pedophile" was used - he wanted to know how young the lustee could be before one would be considered a pedophile, and no one batted an eye, except Quantess, whose post was hidden.

[b.durruti]

115. Repugnant. ~nt~

[BainsBane]

82. Why do you suppose he made he distinction

between acting on attraction and feeling it if he wasn't talking about underage girls?

You equate that to posting pictures of adult women? WTF?

[ismnotwasm]

89. You should see what we have going in HoF

Calling pedophilia a sexual orientation--comparing it to being Gay, which a jury voted to leave, bringing up discredited evo-psych as well as a total anthropology comparison fail.

But, I'm out of this thread, I thought you gave the guy good advice as well, but now we have an invasion of I don't know what in HoF. But the creep factor is getting very high. That self deleted thread isn't the half of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. If I felt that it would be appreciated, I'd go into HoF and weigh in, but I suspect it wouldn't.

I think comparing it to being Gay ought to be unacceptable, for a variety of obvious reasons.

[bettyellen]

90. That OP made DU suck, Warren. Not hard to trace the suckage back to it's source.

[redqueen]

100. At least the message is consistent.

It's only the act of calling these things out that makes DU suck, to some people.

To others, well, we see the actual source and do the calling out, regardless of how loud the squealing gets.

[bettyellen]

124. and it's free speech when you say something heinous, but not when you call it that. LOL.

different day, same bullshit.

[redqueen]

135. And they can ask about how young someone is before lusting after them gets you labeled a "pedophile"

but if you have a problem with them asking that, that means that you're accusing them of being a pedophile.

Criticizing the OP asking that question is therefore much worse than asking the question to begin with.

[BainsBane]

152. Don't you know

it's all because we are all Dworkonites who see male sexuality as pathological.

[nomorenomore08]

171. Yeah, I don't know why some people persist with these strawmen. Smacks of insecurity to me. n/t

[BainsBane]

173. I suppose it's more convenient than actually thinking about

what people write.

[nomorenomore08]

175. Reducing someone to a caricature means never having to say you're so sorry...

Or wrong, or an asshole... You get the idea...

[nomorenomore08]

178. I have to say, some of the stuff in the Men's Group makes me shake my head as well.

Most often I don't respond to those threads, lest I be accused of disrupting, and there is stuff posted that I find valid and interesting too. I've argued with a few guys there, but mostly I try to remain in good standing. Same with HoF.

[BainsBane]

179. I've seen you try to be agreeable in there

and yeah, there is definitely stuff I don't agree with in HOF, and I just stay out of it. That's why I don't blame people for not calling out the OP that started all of this. I do, however, find their continual defense of him unattractive.

[nomorenomore08]

180. Agreed. Like I said, I have no reason whatsoever to stick up for the guy.

He made his own damn bed with that sleazy-ass OP of his.

[boston bean]

158. The ONLY correct answer to that question was over 18

with a side of this question is sick.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. How about we try this- if you have a problem with something I've ACTUALLY said, fine.

You know, the actual words on the actual screen.

Because I'm getting very tired of these games around people arguing with things they think I said, or they wish I said, or they imagine I meant when I said the opposite.

The OP was creepy, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he meant adults. If you want someone to defend the OP itself, ask the person who posted it. I'm talking about the broadsides against the rest of us.

[gollygee]

159. IF that's so, it sounds a lot like

when seybeyond was attacked for using holding open a door as an example of benevolent sexism. Everyone defending the OP in this case and saying, "You know what he meant! Stop being so literal!" was ridiculously literal with seybeyond, when that was just an example and only in some circumstances and not meant to be taken as specifically what benevolent sexism is.

[Sheldon Cooper]

36. LOL!

This is the best you could do? You'd have been better off doing nothing.

[ismnotwasm]

72. Aw

Somebody got their Oedipus complex hurt.

[BainsBane]

80. :)

[Comrade Grumpy]

93. I think I'm a masochist.

I keep reading these threads. I need help.

[Quantess]

151. I know, me too. I stopped reading replies to my own OP after the first 2 hours

and I'm going to send this one to the trash can. You all can discuss it without me.

[Squinch]

107. Oh, Upaloopa, just because you project, doesn't mean the rest of us do!

You must really be enjoying that psych class you are taking. You don't seem to be able to stop tossing around psychology terms. Not very accurately, but you sure are using the vocabulary!

[Dash87]

153. I have idea wtf half of these threads are. Potato chips, anyone?

Insider DU fighting or something?

[Tien1985]

169. Yes

Inside DUer fighting. Someone posted a thread in the men's group asking what age girls have to be before men can "lust" after them. Obviously, that went down about as well as a turd in a punch bowl and a number of people were pretty pissed that someone would even think that was an okay thing to ask while others defended it. The post was eventually self deleted and now some are acting like it was really about May/December relationships while others are still arguing that being attracted to little girls is "natural".

In the meanwhile, the whole thing just ripped the ugly scab off the festering wound that is gender discussion on DU.

[Scootaloo]

161. And sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar

That is, a person who I think is a pedophile, or a rape apologist, or a misogynist often really is what I think they are. There's a reason the notion comes into my head, after all, and it's not because I wish I could rape little girls and want to clue that so someone else.

[nomorenomore08]

172. This world is filled with fucked-up, unpleasant people. So why wouldn't a few of them be on DU?

[BainsBane]

174. statistical probability says some are

and no I have not referring to anyone in particular.

[Hekate]

164. It's a fragment of a sophomore essay minus a conclusion. Grade: Inc.

[LostOne4Ever]

170. My college 1301 pysch prof told us once

If anyone starts showing you ink blots or talking about Freud to slowly back out of the room and run far far far away.

Further, I have had my pseudo-science for the month filled already having debated a climate change denier last week. Sorry.

[Iggo]

187. TTMFT*

*Trashing This Thread.

[snooper2]

195. When you copy and paste, plagiarize something off the intertubes

You should at least put the source link with it..


It's a being nice thing

[Dash87]

198. I've called some article authors misogynist, but it was deserved.

A couple of them could be summed up as "All women are whores who are money-hungry leaches that only go after rich jerks and not nice guys who are absolutely perfect in every way like me." That's fairly misogynistic, imo, so it's justified.

I'm not sure how many were posted in DU. Most were found in the cesspools of YouTube.

[tjwash]

202. YES!! 100 plus responses by the same 3 peeps!

-

-

-

-

[maddezmom]

206. Actually it is about a different member

[William769]

209. Thanks, then I am clueless.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

216. is "creepy" the new "nasty"?

[LanternWaste]

218. I'm also thinking that someone is trying far too hard to rationalize an untenable position

I'm also thinking that someone is trying far too hard to rationalize an untenable position, and doing so in such a way as to petulantly imply that all critics his are guilty of the same indictment as he is...


I imagine even the learned Dr. Freud dealt with patients attempting to justify the unjustifiable, and defend the indefensible...

[intaglio]

220. So these terms can never be used?

No matter what the actual evidence? And all because it means you are just as bad?

So, if I see an OP where the author asks what age a girl must be before it is permissible to feel lust towards them I am not permitted to conclude and reply that the author seems to be verging on both misogyny and pedophilia.

If I see a post where the author falsely argues that many accusations of rape are false or that a minor was the prime instigator of sexual contact between themselves and an adult then I cannot state that the author is being a rape apologist.

Right ...

The idea of projection has always been dubious and, probably, like many of Freud's contentions rest on little or no evidence - just like your argument here.

[bettyellen]

228. otherwise, according to some here- you are making DU suck. All posts should be left to stand without

comment, ESPECIALLY if they are by men who like to make up excuses for rapists or people who eyeball girls who are too young. We should just ignore them, and guess that we are misinterpreting them.

[Squinch]

233. Actually, I do believe in projection, and

the really interesting thing is that if you look at posts in some of the other threads on this topic, you will find the OP author projecting wildly.

The original OP on viewing young girls as sex objects was disgusting. But some of the conversations taking place around it are ridiculous to the point of being funny.

[pipi_k]

232. Uh, oh...

OK so I read through a few of the top replies and gather that this is in reference to some specific recent event.

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I will comment on the concept in general.

I think there's not a day that goes by where someone doesn't come out of the woodwork to label someone else something very nasty. In most cases, based on very limited information, or maybe even statements/information that the finger-pointer has totally misinterpreted.

Even if there's not a lot of evidence that someone IS a racist/misogynist/pedophile/nasty act apologist, etc., for example, but has perhaps unintentionally written something dicey...there will be plenty of people jumping up and down, torches and pitchforks rattling, labeling the person a dyed-in-the-wool whatever.

Because it's so cool to be morally superior to other people. And how can we feel morally superior unless we hang labels on them based only on words on a computer screen instead of what's in a person's heart.

Which, BTW, we can never truly know.

But people hurl the labels around here anyway, not even having a clue that what they label others could very well be what they themselves are deep down inside.

[Squinch]

234. Interestingly, you just told all of us that, in pointing out rape apologia and pedophilic

communication, that means that we are all really rape apologists and pedophiles.

But then that means YOU called us that.

Hmmmm...... wouldn't that mean that, by your logic, having called us rape apologists and pedophiles, you are a projecting rape apologist and pedophile?

Gosh. It would seem that your theory doesn't work that well.

[seabeyond]

235. since you called him calling you, does that make you a double rape apologist and pedophilic? nt

[Squinch]

236. Makes one nauseous, no? In all kinds of ways.