Heartland

@Lazarus....

Yes Dave but...

<way out on a limb here> anyone who's shared a bath with their kids knows they're fascinated by your dangly bits<no no no>

you may wish to re-assess that - I've been editing my post for the past 15 minutes. Not entirely changed it, but just added a few clauses, since it's a serious subject.

Wow! Talk about an emotive topic!!!

I didn't vote in the poll, but none of those topics really affect me on a personal level, only intellectually. In no particular order, here's what I have a problem with, and I love being polemical:

a) the prevalence of male homosexuals infiltrating government jobs to further their self-interest and political lobbying, and giving favouritism to their own type in terms of promotions/prospects. (I live in Sydney, remember!);

b) emasculated males and woossy 'male feminists';

c) pseudo-intellectual feminists (some of whom are hysterical and/or emotional misfits) who try to intellectualize their hang-ups or blame 'society' for their own body image issues, lack of comfort within their own skin and low self-esteem;

d) people who never have sex because they haven't learnt that until you love yourself you can't love anyone else;

e) cranky menopausal women with an axe to grind;

f) short-haired 50 year old women (see also 'e', above);

g) posers - such as the many goth club types who never have sex yet get around in all sorts of tasteless PVC and bondage gear. (Ah well, not to worry. Fat, pasty-faced types aren't sexy, anyway.);

h) people who put their own 'stuff' on others (see also 'c' and 'e' above);

i) young feminists who've never been married, nor even had a long-term relationship, yet think they know a thing or two about men;

j) sexist lesbians who pre-judge males.

I suppose I could add more pet hates if I devoted more time to it. But that's a nice selection, for starters.

Oh, by the way, do I look fat in this?

Voyeurism doesn't do much for me. I sort of always considered porn movies to be documentaries, in their own way. And doco's can be boring.

nick the stripper wrote:I don't like how people say stuff like "people that molest little children should die a slow and painful death"

You can't just say they are evil people simple as that, everyone has their good and bad points.

Have you got kids Nick? I don´t think so...

@Black Biscuit: I recognize some serious mother conflict between your lines.


To add to the topic:
Not that I m for criminalizing necrophiles in any way, but... err I do have a problem with it, if I happen to be the next to romp with one.

Black Biscuit wrote: a) the prevalence of male homosexuals infiltrating government jobs to further their self-interest and political lobbying, and giving favouritism to their own type in terms of promotions/prospects. (I live in Sydney, remember!);

b) emasculated males and woossy 'male feminists';

c) pseudo-intellectual feminists (some of whom are hysterical and/or emotional misfits) who try to intellectualize their hang-ups or blame 'society' for their own body image issues, lack of comfort within their own skin and low self-esteem;

d) people who never have sex because they haven't learnt that until you love yourself you can't love anyone else;

e) cranky menopausal women with an axe to grind;

f) short-haired 50 year old women (see also 'e', above);

g) posers - such as the many goth club types who never have sex yet get around in all sorts of tasteless PVC and bondage gear. (Ah well, not to worry. Fat, pasty-faced types aren't sexy, anyway.);

h) people who put their own 'stuff' on others (see also 'c' and 'e' above);

i) young feminists who've never been married, nor even had a long-term relationship, yet think they know a thing or two about men;

j) sexist lesbians who pre-judge males.

have you ever considered whether point "h)" might apply to yourself, given the plethora of cartoon stereotypes and pre-judging of personality and motives contained within points a) to j) ?

Could we perhaps have a similar poll starting with "What's the most favourite of your wildest dreams?"

I say goodnight-night,
I tuck him in tight...
la la laaa la la la

And, on the subject of the latest results of the poll:

2 people apparently have a greater dislike of 'promiscuity' than of paedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia.

Does this mean they don't mind people having sex with corpses, so long as they're faithful to one particular corpse?

Delilah wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:I don't like how people say stuff like "people that molest little children should die a slow and painful death"

You can't just say they are evil people simple as that, everyone has their good and bad points.

Have you got kids Nick? I don´t think so...

I don't have a "KID" because I am a "KID"

But having kids doesn't give you the right to decide how to handle pedophillia.

Sure you worry about kids, and rightly so.

But wouldn't it be a lot better to search for the cause of this problem, try to understand these "HUMAN BEINGS", and try to find a way to treat it instead of condemning these people as monsters that should "die a slow and painful death"?

Which do you think is better in the long one?

lazarus corporation wrote:And, on the subject of the latest results of the poll:

2 people apparently have a greater dislike of 'promiscuity' than of paedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia.

Does this mean they don't mind people having sex with corpses, so long as they're faithful to one particular corpse?

I voted for promiscuity on the basis that there's far too much of it going on.

I'm more worried at the fact someone's upset at gay men, but less so at gay women

d00mw0lf wrote:I'm more worried at the fact someone's upset at gay men, but less so at gay women

I know which I'd rather watch

nope, gay men are just fine by me...

andymackem wrote:

d00mw0lf wrote:I'm more worried at the fact someone's upset at gay men, but less so at gay women

I know which I'd rather watch

I don't. *prepares for impact*

Paedophilia is currently the closest thing society has to an 'open-and-shut' evil.

But ....

Are children entirely asexual beings? Francis mentioned the 'dangly bits' fascination. I can't believe I'm the only person on here who as a young (ie primary school age) child played Doctors & Nurses, Catch-kiss etc. This rather muddies the consent waters. Children don't have a language to express their sexuality, but that's not the same as not having a sexuality.

Consent: aged 16. Utterly arbitary. I know girls in their 20s who I don't feel are sufficiently emotionally secure to sustain a sexual relationship (I've turned down more than one). I know 14-year-olds who probably are (they've never offered, though I'd turn them down as well). Different cultures vary a lot. In Russia the age of consent is 14. Is it therefore OK to sleep with a 14-year-old Russian, but not a 14-year-old Brit?

Culture: 100 years ago there was a sexual practise which was regarded as absolutely vile. It was illegal and the merest suspicion of it could wreck people's lives. Its perpetrators lived a shadowy double life of subterfuge and hypocrisy and even celebrity couldn't keep you out of jail if you were found guilty of it.

Nowadays homosexuality is legal, and largely socially acceptable. The idea of a gay TV presenter, politician or even (in some denominations at least) clergyman is no longer a cause for overwhelming scandal. Shows like Queer Eye have mainstream audiences; gay films, literature etc are freely available and most major cities have an identifiable gay scene. The fact that I find the idea of engaging in homosexual sex personally revolting - the idea of sex with another man is as unattractive as the idea of sex with a child to me - does not give me the right to protest this.

Attitudes change, societies change. It might seem unimaginable to us today, but could a future society not feel the same way about paedophilia? And before you jump on me, what might your great-grandfather have said about homosexuality?

/stands well back/

@ Dark... you have plenty of time to find out.

emilystrange wrote:@ Dark... you have plenty of time to find out.

Yeah, about a year. Then, I go to a Heartland meet, consume a metric ton of amphetamine and end up six feet under.
Remember, people, to bury me deep.

perhaps someone could organise the whole thing into one package holiday type thing?

Dark wrote:

andymackem wrote:

d00mw0lf wrote:I'm more worried at the fact someone's upset at gay men, but less so at gay women

I know which I'd rather watch

I don't. *prepares for impact*

Is "both" a valid option?

If not, I'm stuck too.

lazarus corporation wrote:I'm sure everyone here agrees with you - judge by the votes, if nothing else

written as a vegan/chain-smoking/left wing/liberal/humanitarian

but would I give the state in the guise of Tony Blair (or Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy) the right to kill a citizen of the UK - no, absolutely not.

I understand (as best I can, not being a parent) your anger at these repulsive people, but I can't stand the idea of the state having the right of life or death over it's citizens, regardless of the initial excuse (and you can be sure the target audience for the death penalty would grow and grow, starting at paedophiles and then encompassing terrorists, suspected terrorists, people suspected of terrorism and imprisoned without trial because there's really no evidence, people who the state doesn't like...).

NB - I believe that life imprisonment should mean just that.

Absolutely agree. I am not a parent either but I get sick to my stomach at some of the things you hear - we're not talking about teenagers having sex (with other kids their own age or adults) - but abuse of really young kids, some babies, and I think that life imprisonment should mean life. I find it incredible that these people can serve really short sentences and then be allowed back into communities to re-offend - often having admitted that they still find small children attractive. However, I have never been able to accept that a society has the right to take someone's life, however repulsive that life has been.

andymackem wrote:Attitudes change, societies change. It might seem unimaginable to us today, but could a future society not feel the same way about paedophilia? And before you jump on me, what might your great-grandfather have said about homosexuality?

Well, I think, it is unimaginable that peadophilia would become normal, even if you have the consent part from both parties, it doens't seem possible to spend your life with a kid, it will grow, and eventually loose its youth, which was the part that attracted... When you're gay the person is not able to change sexes. Of course you have sex-operations, but that doesn't really count, in this case, i believe, and above it all, it's a different matter...

But then, of course, on does never know...

Oh and by the way, I think incest could be the worst of these, because there's no possibility to flea it (I'm talking about raping-incest now, of course) and it most lightly involves peadophilia too...

But does necrophilia actually occur? Obviously it sounds like a hugely gruesome and ghoulish thing, but is it actually common or even practiced?

I was going to ask, "where do they get the bodies?!?", but perhaps a necrophiliac is also a murderer, then?