We Knew This Would Happen! Fallout From The Boy Scout Policy Change!

[heckofajobbrownie]

And after all this you still purposely misrepresent the point. The point is not molestation.

the point is not pedophilia.

the point is that someone might be looking at young teens in a lustful manner.

A heterosexual man looking at 14 - 16 year old nude girls.

Or a gay adult looking at the same age group young man.

 

I can't tell if you think that would be a valid parental concern. It seems as if you do but you just can't say so.

 

But I shouldn't have even repeated it since it's been said time and time again. I guess you'll spin it some other way once more. But I think anyone else would understand even if you wont.

 

WSS

 

 

No, no, and no!!

 

Are you out of your mind? The point about the Boy Scouts and their history of problems with molestation and pedophilia in their ranks is not molestation or pedophilia?? It's just this downsized conversation about lust that you'd like to have?

 

Wha?

 

And here's our problem in a nutshell. I'm trying to discuss the actual issue. You're trying to confine it to a niche issue where you feel more comfortable making the points you've already thought up and are proud of. It's like when a comedian goes on Jay Leno and takes Jay's question about marriage into his pre-prepared hunk about his in-laws. You just wanted to get to your "non-practicing pedophilia" hunk. Which we've heard before. When we talk about, say, global warming, you use any discussion to get into your "Nobody is willing to sacrifice" hunk.

 

Try discussing the actual issue. This is about the Boy Scouts and their history of problems attracting pedophiles into their ranks, and how people, like you, often equate homosexuality and pedophilia, or homosexuality and NAMBLA. That is the fear that is motivating the Scouts to allow openly gay kids, but not openly gay Scoutmasters.

 

This is not a discussion about whether or not "someone might be looking at young teens in a lustful manner." You're having that conversation with yourself. And if you're wondering why you can't get anyone else to understand that this is the point you're trying to make, maybe you should take a minute and understand why. Because no one else is in your world, imagining that the decision to bar gay Scoutmasters is based on a fear that 1) Gay Scoutsmasters would be getting naked and showering with your children, or 2) they might look at your teen in a lustful manner.

 

So you can stop imagining we're all dense for not seeing your strange sidebar as the main issue. It's just us thinking you're kind of missing the point.

[Stewy]

 

 

No, no, and no!!

 

Are you out of your mind? The point about the Boy Scouts and their history of problems with molestation and pedophilia in their ranks is not molestation or pedophilia?? It's just this downsized conversation about lust that you'd like to have?

 

Wha?

 

And here's our problem in a nutshell. I'm trying to discuss the actual issue. You're trying to confine it to a niche issue where you feel more comfortable making the points you've already thought up and are proud of. It's like when a comedian goes on Jay Leno and takes Jay's question about marriage into his pre-prepared hunk about his in-laws. You just wanted to get to your "non-practicing pedophilia" hunk. Which we've heard before. When we talk about, say, global warming, you use any discussion to get into your "Nobody is willing to sacrifice" hunk.

 

Try discussing the actual issue. This is about the Boy Scouts and their history of problems attracting pedophiles into their ranks, and how people, like you, often equate homosexuality and pedophilia, or homosexuality and NAMBLA. That is the fear that is motivating the Scouts to allow openly gay kids, but not openly gay Scoutmasters.

 

This is not a discussion about whether or not "someone might be looking at young teens in a lustful manner." You're having that conversation with yourself. And if you're wondering why you can't get anyone else to understand that this is the point you're trying to make, maybe you should take a minute and understand why. Because no one else is in your world, imagining that the decision to bar gay Scoutmasters is based on a fear that 1) Gay Scoutsmasters would be getting naked and showering with your children, or 2) they might look at your teen in a lustful manner.

 

So you can stop imagining we're all dense for not seeing your strange sidebar as the main issue. It's just us thinking you're kind of missing the point.

 

Pedophilia and homosexuality do for the most part equate..they are both abnormal sexual behaviour, involving perverted sexual acts..except that sadly pedophilia has victims

 

Some weirdos are wired to have sexual desires for the same sex, other weirdos are wired to have sexual desires for children.

Try and spin it all you want, but thats the way it is.

 

 

It's Retarded to even suggest that a scoutmaster would shower with boys.

- Jerry Sandusky

[VaporTrail]

I suppose in an ideal world we'd get a response to the same question from the other guys who were against the policy on here as well, but that may be wishful thinking

 

I think the point is, it's impossible to stop a man having lustful thoughts about a nubile 16 year old girl. You could see her in a bar, think she's 21, take her home and then get arrested for it, if you're a bit naive like that. But then again, you see so many 16 year old singers, actresses etc whose sexuality is exploited for the sake of sales - think Selena Gomes, Miley Cyrus, Hilary Duff etc.

 

If that's the problem people have - regardless of the genders involved - then I suppose we should shut down any establishment where the two groups of people could come together, including scouts, guides, peewee sports teams, schools etc. If the problem is specifically that they don't want a *man* to be eyeing up a *boy* rather than a girl, then we're back on to the homophobia business again.

 

Spot on post.

[gftChris]

 

Pedophilia and homosexuality do for the most part equate..they are both abnormal sexual behaviour, involving perverted sexual acts..except that sadly pedophilia has victims

 

Some weirdos are wired to have sexual desires for the same sex, other weirdos are wired to have sexual desires for children.

Try and spin it all you want, but thats the way it is.

 

 

It's Retarded to even suggest that a scoutmaster would shower with boys.

- Jerry Sandusky

I think you can loosely get away with calling homosexuality 'abnormal' on a technical definition - the norm is to be straight, obviously - but to call it perverted is just wrong, in my opinion. I mean, what exactly are the perverted sexual acts? Hand jobs? Blow jobs? Anal? Right, cos no straight guy ever engaged in that. What about a devil's three way with your celebrity of choice, would you turn down jennifer aniston because it meant having a threesome with another guy there? I'm not sure too many people would.

 

While we're on the point of pedophilia, you'd have to ask why it's 'unnatural' to have sex with a girl who's hit puberty and is menstruating. Surely the menstral cycle is nature's way of indicating that the girl is physically able to reproduce? Of course, you have the emotional readiness, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that we start banging 13 year olds, just a point to consider when people start talking about what's natural and unnatural.

 

And hey, I'm sure some/many people here would call what I get up to in the bedroom weird or perverted (for the record, it's between myself and the woman I love, so we're good on that front), but frankly, what does it matter if everyone's happy and we're not bothering anyone else?