You could start with those changing it to rape fantasys
Changing it to gay dudes being a risk
And changing it to adult consensual sex somehow being a risk.
They have all missed your criteria
Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester
Changing it to gay dudes being a risk
And changing it to adult consensual sex somehow being a risk.
They have all missed your criteria
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Hahahahaaha. So what exactly is MY pathology, honey? I ask you again. Who am I, specifically, hurting? Is there a problem of women going out and getting themselves raped plaguing this nation? Or should you, perhaps, butt out of other people's fantasies with your disgusting, prurient judgments?
Cullennz wants a medal because he's never had a rape fantasy. I've never had a diapering fantasy either. BLAHHHHHHHH, on a personal level. But do I, isissxn, have the right to declare consenting adults who do "deviant" and "abhorrent?" No. No, I *********** do not.
Guess what, guys. Your personal (IMO boring) sexual proclivities do not determine law, goodness, or propriety. And thank god, I daresay. What a dreadfully empty world it would be if that was the baseline.
You should be deeply ashamed of your sickening bigotry. Pathetic. I'm off to get tied to my bed by another consenting adult. Peace.
I don't really care what fantasies you have had.
If you have to bring them up you should put in some warped pedophile with fantasies of being alone with kids and doing the deed being put with kids
But that's all cool according to you
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Yeah... because all of the times isissxn has stressed the difference between a fantasy and acting on a fantasy (and the difference between doing so with and without consent) never happened. And she never stated she wasn't defending pedophiles...
What thread have you been reading?
Yeah... because all of the times isissxn has stressed the difference between a fantasy and acting on a fantasy (and the difference between doing so with and without consent) never happened. And she never stated she wasn't defending pedophiles...
What thread have you been reading?
No problem.
She said rape fantasy
Except her accepted pedo having her healthy fantasys about shagging 4 year olds and there being no problem with them having access to them I tend to disagree with.
Because apparently fantasys are fine right?
Belz...
Fiend God
You do realise that, almost without exception, serial rapists spend years eating cereal before actually raping someone?
I'm sure you're aware that this sort of reasoning is a fallacy?
It's not a matter of opinion. You're starting to sound like Boggis.
Not personally, no. Does something need to be universally pleasurable in order to be acceptable?
Then you are profoundly ignorant of the evidence on this topic, and you should go out and do some real research before you form an opinion on the matter. Decades of research on this have yielded NO EVIDENCE of a causal link between the two.
Maybe you should stick with the subjects you CHOOSE to learn about, then, rather than proudly displaying your ignorance. We're trying to educate you on the matter but you are CHOOSING not to learn.
No link between violent fantasy and action?
Putting aside the fact you have dangerously gone off Prestiges strict subject.
Have you not read any papers?
Belz...
Fiend God
No causal link, I said. Why do you change what I said?
No, we're still squarely on topic: smartcooky thinks that fantasizing about illegal/violent sex means you're more likely to engage in it. That's the same logic used by anti-video game yokels. It's sensible, but not supported by the evidence. It's just more proof that smartcooky believes in thought policing.
Yeah, that's why I know there's no causal link.
Except you are the one making the claim its less likely
Not unlike a pedo and a 4 year old.
Evidence please
Belz...
Fiend God
What? What is the claim you think I am making, here?
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
A fantasy is a thought. How are you going to know about someone's fantasy if they don't tell you about it and never act on it? Are you a mind reader?
And could you point me to the post where isissxn said that pedophiles should have 'access' to children?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
In any case, the jury is still out on this
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/menta...es-cause-aggression-answer-may-depend-n205556
Belz...
Fiend God
Argument from ignorance. You can't rationally conclude that there's a causal link after so many studies have failed to find one.
There's a difference between a woman fantasising about the scenes in fifty shades of gray and a man doing the same. The latter is somewhat creepy in my opinion. It depends on whether one is fantasising about being the one acting without consent (creepy) or being acted upon (whatever rocks your boat). Luchog gave a plausible explanation of this earlier.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
No, but it's a pretty darn good start. And give that there have been studies done on this for decades with no causal link found, the "absence of evidence" is now becoming a good case for evidence of absence.
Nope, sorry, that does not support your assertion at all, especially if you go read the actual study instead of the rather sensationalist reporting of it. All it says is that some people already prone to violence respond favourably to depictions of violence. It says nothing about violent films causing violence.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
What assertion? I have made no assertion
Argumemnon: "Do you believe that violent movies or video games lead to actual violence?"
smartcooky: "Yes, I do. I know it is controversial (there are about as many psychologists on one side of the debate as there are on the other side). I would rather remain on the side of caution."
How is this an assertion?
No, you are misquoting the study.
"Using PET scanners to peer into the brains of volunteers watching especially bloody movie scenes, researchers determined that the way a viewer’s brain circuitry responds to violent video depends upon whether the individual is aggressive by nature."
Aggression and violence are not the same thing. You have substituted one for the other as if they were.
"Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention."
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
LOLWUT.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
This **** isn't new, kids. Google "bodice ripper." Women have been digging on these FANTASIES since they've been reading erotica.
I've never seen or read more than a few pages of 50 Shades of Grey because I find stilted purple prose to be a REAL turnoff (and the heroine sounded like a *********** idiot besides), but its existence and mass popularity should be a little clue that my fantasies are hardly relegated to some isolated freak corner of the sexual pop-culture lexicon.
Comparing an adult woman who likes to roleplay a sexy pirate kidnapping and having his way with her to a pedophile scheming for time alone with innocent children is sick, cruel, bigoted, risible, and of course, lame. And cullenz, I'm now certain you didn't read a single one of my posts beyond a little scan for naughty trigger words. I literally have said the opposite of everything your barely-comphrehensible "response" insinuated. Literally. Every single one. Right down to the post of mine where I outright disagreed with Arguememnon about trusting non-offending pedophiles around children. What is the point of having a discussion if you're not reading the responses?
In fact, I'd quit talking about pedophiles altogether before this particular thread drift started. I'd presented and reiterated my semantic argument, bowed out of the ethical one that was evolving, and wasn't posting, only reading. I then jumped back in because smartcooky said a "tiny, tiny minority" of "deviant" and "abhorrent" women indulge in what could be considered "rape fantasy." I couldn't let something so incorrect and offensive stand unchallenged, though I of course had no delusions about successfully educating anyone so entrenched in bigotry as to make that hideous comment in the first place.
There might be a lurker who could learn something. Or another "deviant" with my same interests who isn't comfortable enough to stand up for herself and might appreciate reading MY caustic retort. Because I am comfortable, super comfortable, with my exact and specific sexuality. Every single facet of it. And all the moralistic anti-psychiatry twaddle you can regurgitate onto the page doesn't change that. I speak for all the (consenting adult) freaks today. Mind your own business, and don't compare weird adult fetish-play to disgusting, abusive crimes against innocents who can't consent.
Good day!
I've never seen or read more than a few pages of 50 Shades of Grey because I find stilted purple prose to be a REAL turnoff (and the heroine sounded like a *********** idiot besides), but its existence and mass popularity should be a little clue that my fantasies are hardly relegated to some isolated freak corner of the sexual pop-culture lexicon.
Comparing an adult woman who likes to roleplay a sexy pirate kidnapping and having his way with her to a pedophile scheming for time alone with innocent children is sick, cruel, bigoted, risible, and of course, lame. And cullenz, I'm now certain you didn't read a single one of my posts beyond a little scan for naughty trigger words. I literally have said the opposite of everything your barely-comphrehensible "response" insinuated. Literally. Every single one. Right down to the post of mine where I outright disagreed with Arguememnon about trusting non-offending pedophiles around children. What is the point of having a discussion if you're not reading the responses?
In fact, I'd quit talking about pedophiles altogether before this particular thread drift started. I'd presented and reiterated my semantic argument, bowed out of the ethical one that was evolving, and wasn't posting, only reading. I then jumped back in because smartcooky said a "tiny, tiny minority" of "deviant" and "abhorrent" women indulge in what could be considered "rape fantasy." I couldn't let something so incorrect and offensive stand unchallenged, though I of course had no delusions about successfully educating anyone so entrenched in bigotry as to make that hideous comment in the first place.
There might be a lurker who could learn something. Or another "deviant" with my same interests who isn't comfortable enough to stand up for herself and might appreciate reading MY caustic retort. Because I am comfortable, super comfortable, with my exact and specific sexuality. Every single facet of it. And all the moralistic anti-psychiatry twaddle you can regurgitate onto the page doesn't change that. I speak for all the (consenting adult) freaks today. Mind your own business, and don't compare weird adult fetish-play to disgusting, abusive crimes against innocents who can't consent.
Good day!