www.escapistmagazine.com

Leg End #psycho escapistmagazine.com

Joe Mc'techdude is a technician who has never missed a day of work, is bright, works hard, and never asks for a raise. You don't personally know Joe, but you've heard a -lot- of good things about them.

One day, Joe gets arrested for sexually assaulting a child. You do not know the age of the child, how he feels on the matter, if it's actually true, etc. ALL YOU KNOW is that he was arrested for sexually assaulting a child.
Many years later, after being released from prison, he has been filed in the system for his crime, and everyone on your block has been informed of what he is.

For some reason, you are an owner of a local electronics/general tech-goods store.
....
You are now given a choice, you may not ask any questions to Joe regarding his past. You must choose if you hire him on the spot, or if you don't hire him at all. Do you hire him?

Yes. Hired then and there. His past has no meaning as to whether or not he can fix what needs fixin. He served his time. Though, I'll look into the details later.

If a customer comes in and doesn't like it, then they can kindly get the hell out of my fucking store, because they are probably not going to be a very nice customer.

Everyone deserves a second chance. And, if it is a case of "Statutory Rape", then I have no ill, because that charge is bullshit.

Though, if I find out he had sex with say... a 7 year old girl, well... it had better been consensual, not full on rape.

If rape, I'm not going to like him much at first. But, if the alleged victim forgives him, no hard feelings in my book.

Seriously, have you ever met an actual 7 year old? There's no way they have anything like the maturity level to consent, and claiming so is a common justification child abusers use for their crimes (not saying that you would).

Actually, many seven year olds actually do have such maturity. Hell, I know a 5 year old with more maturity than one of my 35 year old friends. Yes, he indeed needs to stop making dick jokes.

Marshall Hare #sexist escapistmagazine.com

The biggest problem is this... Hebephilia accounts for most cases of so called pedophilia. Michial Jackons was not a pedophile, he was a hebephile. Chriss Hanson exposed hebephiles not pedophiles and the list goes on. Straight hebephilia is not rare unlike infantophilia and pedophilia and gay hebephilia. Hebephilia is in fact dominany among all mammals including humans.
src: http://egomoral.com/age-of-consent-throughout-history/

Only up until the 1920s did feminism try to redefine the pubescent nature of humans to not include pubescent females.
src: http://egomoral.com/feminism-and-age-of-consent-laws-in-modern-culture/

The reason modern society permits current ageist policies demonizing hebephiles is because of women. Most women don't acknowledge the hebphilic nature of human sexuality because it's hard on their egos. In current modern society, human relationships are unnaturally defined as same age relationships. No where in the mammalian kingdom or human history is same age male and female relationships dominant. Females need to start breeding young to produce the most offspring and the males need to be at their competitive prime i.e. older and experienced. Most women are in denial regarding the pubescent nature of human relationships despite their extensive efforts to mimic pubescent traits daily. The phenomena is called Child-bride-denial.
src: http://egomoral.com/child-bride-denial/

Helmholtz Watson #fundie escapistmagazine.com

Even if Uganda was a perfectly functioning democracy and even if there was no influence taken by external Christian fundamentalists pushing for such laws and spreading propaganda and whatnot:
Most people in favour of democracy also realize that a democracy can become a tyranny of the majority and that minorities need protections.
Otherwise one could obviously argue that it's perfectly alright for a democracy to... say... enslave a minority if the majority is in favour of it. Or to dispossess a minority of their businesses, homes, to remove their voting rights, put them in prisons or concentration camps etc..
So, no, when a democratic nation comes to the decision to abhorrently violate human rights, we don't respect that. Human rights stand above the will of the majority in most countries' laws and that's a good thing.


..so it's ok for the West to live in the past and try to rule over Africa whenever they do something that Europe or America disagrees with?

Since I mentioned this one and other Western atrocities before: Wouldn't you want the international community to get involved if, say, the Holocaust was repeated? Do you think something like that should be left up to the rulers of Nazi Germany?


Are you really trying to compare what happened to my family to being put into jail because a person is gay? You realize how insulting your comparison is? My family couldn't change their ethnicity but a gay person can decide not to engage in "homosexual behavior"[1]. The two scenarios are NOT the same, my family never had the option to "stop acting Jewish".


Is the idea that, as long as they don't attack foreign countries, it's okay to do that to their citizens? The Holocaust didn't start with the concentration camps. At first, people were disenfranchised, lost their public rights, their businesses, their estates and so on. Then they started getting arrested for trumped up or nebulous reasons. Then they started vanishing. And considering this is the same Ugandan law that had the "kill the gays"-part attached to it in an earlier iteration, I don't think the comparison is far off at all.

If Uganda starts treating gay people like how Germany treated Jews(systematic genocide), then I'll agree with you that there should be foreign intervention. HOWEVER, if they are just jailing gay people, then I would say that I disagree with it but I will not support foreign intervention. My reason is that it doesn't make sense that Uganda should be punished for this, but places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran[2] are not subject to the same disciplinary action by the West. Now, if that were to change, and the West stopped playing favorites with other countries, I might be willing to support intervention.

Jojo #fundie escapistmagazine.com

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think that all dogs that even pose the slightest risk to humans should be destroyed. At the end of the day a dog is a luxury and if it's owners can't keep it under control then it shouldn't be allowed to exist. The dog in this video was possibly a threat, so it had to go. Put simply, I'd rather sacrifice 1000 dogs than let one child be killed by a rabid dog.

In that case lets start some genocide, I'll round up all dogs. Hey, they are all free thinking and therefore can be in a bad mood where they can potentially harm humans. So I'll start here in England, you start where your at, and we'll meet somewhere in Chicago at weeks end. First rounds on me, we'll go get slaughtered after down at a bar and spend the rest of the time high fiveing each other now we've made the world a little safer. Death to all dogs!!!!

To be honest I wouldn't give a monkey's ass if every dog in the world died tomorrow. I find it impossible to care for any creature other than humans.

Dreiko #fundie escapistmagazine.com

A fourty-something sleeping with a young girl around 14 is not ANY different from a fifty-something sleeping with a young girl around 24 if the maturity levels of both girls are similar. Yet, one of the two is accepted in our society (albeit with a few jokes and dirty looks) while the other is ILLEGAL. Do you see the great chasm of illogicality? One that would swallow all the mountains in the world as though it was a singe drop of sand in the Sahara?

Again, there can be equally forceful, abusive and damaging same-age partners for every way older one. In fact, the older person being also with more life experience, may, you know, not be a total degenerate sick bastard and actually want to honestly and sincerely love that person and be nice and kind. Like, you know, how adults who are in relationships are generally perceived to feel towards one-another and why weddings and engagements get all those "awwws" and whatnot. It's the same exact situation that through the prism of our society gets turned into a sick situation when in fact it could equally as much be a beautiful one. Making up for all the sick situations among same-age partners that the "common eye" sees as nice and loving, as if there has to be a balance stricken. Well, I say it's time to start being more outraged with all the sick abusive bastards who're into making the life of adult women miserable and let the little girls that happen to be happy stay happy.

Dreiko #fundie escapistmagazine.com

I watched a documentary about this. Apparently his victim forgave him, then said she was acting older than she was during the incident. Oddly enough, she said she wanted to forget about the whole thing.

I think when these facts are all piled together it is clear that people who cry rape as though it's the worst thing anyone could ever do need to take a chill-pill. Sure, rape is horrible, not nearly as horrible as famine or serious sickness or being burned alive or another million more-horrible-than-rape things.

Pedos have garnered the infamy of gays of years gone by, now if a famous law-breaker is a pedo-rapist specialization he gets WAY more hate than if he's a rapper-rapist type. (these are weak to psychic attacks and resist ghost and poison btw)

Do you know what we can do to fix this? Stop overreacting every single time a such incident occurs. Just like gays became normal (like they were back in Ancient Greece...well...everyone was Bi then) so will pedos eventually.

Lavi #fundie escapistmagazine.com

First off, it ain't female genital MUTILATION. It is female circumcision. If you start calling female circumcision that, then I'll have every right to call male circumcision male genital mutilation. I suppose since I see both as absolutely abhorent (not to be confused with, "anyone who does this is stupid", but rather I would not consider it for me or my children), I ain't busy favouring one over the other.

All this double standard shit comes from some shitty multiculturalism. In tribes, the women do the female circumcision. Men aren't forcing it on the women so bye-bye 'sexism' or degradation of women (and the males in tribes may be circumcised as a rite of passage). Some female circumcisions are done at birth or a very young age and same with the male ones. Perhaps out of all of this comes the idea that AFRICA IS NOT A SINGULAR CULTURE. There are varying forms of female circumcision (total removal of external genital structures and the sewing shut of the vagina to removal of one external structure such as the clitoris). Also, I think it was the Nigerian government that tried to ban fat houses and female circumcision and utterly failed plus made the process more dangerous as it went underground.

Should we intervene? No. All intervening does is send over a bunch of fucking evangelical Christians to Nigeria so they can gain money off the witch-hunts of children. Get your nose out of other peoples' cultures because more often than not, nobody has any idea what the fuck is going on.

Lord George #fundie escapistmagazine.com

[on female genital mutilation]

We make our children horribly obese and give them health issues, they circumcise girls both hurt the children and are probably not a good thing to be doing but we consider one moral and the other abhorrent. So no I don't think we have any right to judge cultures that are not our own and have no right to change it just because due to our upbringing we see it as wrong

Nisselue #fundie escapistmagazine.com

[on Polanski]

Let's see, 13 year old girl raped 40 years ago, people running around screaming RAPE, RAPE!!!
You guys don't have anything more important to worrie about? Like 1 - 2% of the american population sitting in prison? About 20.000 children starving to DEATH each day etc?

But as usual young girl (and we know females are made out of glass) together with sex and we are all running around like monkeys screaming and crying and don't know what the fuck to do.

@Mcoffey Why do you care if he is a threat to the society (fancy words)? He doesn't live in the US anymore, he is not gonna rape anymore of your women so why do you care? Are you as upset about children starving to death each day as you are about this insignificant rape?

And i gotta say it was a stupid move to rape a 13 year old in the US, cause he could just have moved to Spain and

Dreiko #fundie escapistmagazine.com

As for Dreiko, I would hate to live in a world wherein pedophilia is acceptable. You're telling me you'd be okay with your children, let's say aged five, ten, and thirteen, having sex with twenty, thirty, for forty-somethings?

I went with the pedophilia definition most people here use. (basically, if it's under 18, you're over 18 and you have sex with it, you're a pedo in America)

I'd say about age 12-14, depending on the person, is fine yes.

The age of the other partner isn't an issue for me. There can be abusive asshole teenagers and there can be slightly deluded loving and caring fourty-year-olds. Too many time the former is ignored, too many times the latter is overly demonized, as though to make up the difference, this is stupid and needs to change.

I believe some kids are able to give consent at that age, I definitely know I would around age 11 if I actually, you know, had the opportunity and actually wanted to do it. I definitely know I wouldn't have regretted it.

You need to remember, just because you turn 18 it doesn't mean you're mentally mature all of a sudden. Some young teens are much more mature than a lot of adults, they DESERVE to have the right to control their bodies in whichever way they please.

All this is is a way to protect the ones that don't have the necessary levels of maturity by stifling the natural form of those that do and demonizing others for being attracted to the actuality of what they're supposed to be attracted to, simply because it matured too fast.

If an apple is perfectly red and delicious-looking, you wouldn't stop yourself because all the other ones around it are still green.

generals3 #moonbat #sexist escapistmagazine.com

I've followed the issue and I can't help but feel little to no empathy for Weinstein's "victims". Don't get me wrong, Weinstein is clearly a dick who used his status and wealth unethically and he deserves the shaming he currently faces. BUT as far as I know all these actresses and actors who were victims and/or didn't speak out didn't do so because their life was at risk. No it was because their ludicrous wealth and fame was. And I'm sorry but I won't feel sorry for people who are willing to physically and/or morally prostitute themselves for massive wealth and fame. I don't earn millions a year nor am I famous yet I live a perfectly good and happy life so clearly these people didn't need to whore themselves to Weinstein. We're not talking about poor people risking to end up on the street and being forced to fuck to get the only job potentially available to them. No we're talking about people who were willing to throw away their moral and physical integrity to become a member of an arrogant elite club.

Now on the general discussion that has come out of this, it sickens me how some high profile people are using this as an excuse to make insane generalities. Just yesterday I had to hear Trevor Noah tell us that it isn't a "Hollywood" problem but a "Men" problem. Well if he treats women like that maybe he should confess but I ain't nor is anyone in my department, my circle of friends, etc. So no it's not a Men's problem. It's a problem among some men who hold power and decide it's ok to use it unethically. And I'm willing to bet that some women with power do that too. Yes sexual harassment and abuse of power on the workplace is still a problem and it has to be fought. But it's not by making stupid generalizations that we will solve this.

The powerful never have the backing of powerful organizations which could render even attempts at criminal charges useless.

Better they all risk throwing away their dreams and careers so some chodes on the Internet and prominent right-wing pundits can call them hysterical feminazis for complaining about some aggressive flirting.

God forbid we generalize about men. Everybody else is fair game.


How is the military relevant here? Or Bill cosby? Or O'Reilly? Was I referring to those people or cases? No. I was referring to actors and actresses who surrendered their own dignity in order to stay on the good side of someone (Weinstein) who could either make them millionaires or doom those poor victims to a mediocre middle class life. (And even so, who knows it was more bluff than anything else)

Do these powerful people often have a lot of backing? Sure. But clearly not enough to be untouchable otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing". And that's what happened, except "good" should be replaced by "money and fame hungry". They wanted wealth and fame and they got it, and now they complain that they got a bad deal, shouldn't have accepted that deal than. And let's not forget that by abiding to his demands and/or not bringing his behavior to light they reinforced his feeling of invincibility and encouraged his behavior.

MrMixepPixel #psycho escapistmagazine.com

At what point is killing/hurting something wrong?So let me rephrase the decision, what is okay to kill or hurt in situations where equally valuable lives are not at stake? Or in other words, at what point does life hold value or is life sacred?


This is going to be difficult for me to articulate. O_O. Not the best with them word thingies.

I believe that a majority of any group decides what is right or wrong when killing. As an example: If the majority of the people in the group you belong to decide that killing all people with mental illness is okay, then it is okay.

The majority decides when killing is right or wrong.

Ikasury #fundie escapistmagazine.com

people seem to forget humans are vicious savage territorial creatures, if we can get away with it we will, i don't believe anyone that says 'why would i kill someone?' as some succint excuse to remain the moral one... we are animals, we have instincts to mark, claim, and kill to protect that claim... someone, an 'other' that is completely identical to us that believes they ARE us as much as i do... violence and primal instinctive urges are inevitable... many a philosopher has pretty much already stated the natural state of humans is wanting to kill each other simply because anyone besides 'me', as in the conscious 'me' that i am now, will at some point try to control me, therefore to prevent that, i must kill them... this clone-issue is just an extension of that, i cannot control them that is me, therefore to ensure my life is mine, i must kill them...

as someone that is married, as you seem actually interested in people taking this seriously with actual value put in, yes, there is a difference... children and spouses go back to that 'claim' bit of our instinct, if someone else, another me or not, tries to claim my husband... that's reason enough for me to brutally end them... in fact it is my connection to him that i value more then most things in life that preserving it would be reason enough for me to kill in the first place... this 'other' would know and think this too, thus a bloody war between us is on the horizon... how this plays out and how it ends would further define us as separate beings, one the victor, one the scorned... this would likely cause a lot of animosity and result in further conflict until one of us is dead or submits... more then likely dead...

Helmholtz Watson #homophobia #moonbat escapistmagazine.com

Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?

Ok Escapist community, this is a two part question, the first on justification for cultural imperialism and the second on the different views of morality.

First issue:
Now I just finished reading an article on Malawi law that bands homosexuals and one particular section of the article made me feel uneasy. It stated that,

"On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would use foreign aid to encourage countries to decriminalise homosexuality. UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a similar view in October, saying that gay rights were a human right."

The article later went on to state that "Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, where they are often viewed as un-Christian and un-Islamic" and the President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, called homosexuality "evil and very bad before the eyes of God".

I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, because while I don't think it should considered a criminal act, I am also uncomfortable with the reactions I see from the Western political leaders, the reason being is that their attempts to manipulate the laws in Malawai on homosexuality come off as a subtle form of cultural imperialism. What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

Here a few other articles about other African countries against homosexuality and how the West is responding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15558769

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15992099

Second Issue:
When I read the article on Malawai, it made me think of another question on morality, does Moral Universalism exist, or does Moral Relativism exist? I bring this up because, I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed and that it is wrong to do otherwise, and I think that if I was to believe in Moral Universalism, then I would also feel that it is wrong for those African countries to have such a law. However, if I subscribe to the idea that Moral Relativism exist, then while I might not agree with such laws, I guess I would feel that those laws were just a reflection of the morals of the various African cultures and not automatically "wrong". Tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel about the African laws if I followed the idea of Moral Nihilism.Articles such as these give me the impression that Western leaders believe in the idea of Moral Universalism, but what about you? People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.


People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.


would you feel the same way if the African countries were banning bestiality or pedophilia and the West was denying them aid because of the creation of such laws? Wouldn't people who are attracted to children or animals also be an "entire sub-culture of your own society"? Wouldn't those laws be a form of persecution?

Helmholtz Watson #homophobia #moonbat escapistmagazine.com

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/23/469667/california-ex-gay-bill/

A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts. It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer:

"Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy."


Against this, if a gay christian teen wants to pursue this, then that's their choice, not the governments. If California is ok with snake oils like healing crystals(as somebody already pointed out), then I see no reason to not allow people to pursue other kinds of snake oils(like pray the gay away).

but it's not their choice, it's a choice parents are making for them. that's why the law is specifically aimed at legal minors.

Like I said, if gay christian teenagers want to pursue pray-the-gay-away places let them. If the teenager makes the choice, why can't they pursue it


Because ex-gay-therapy does not work.

Because there is no way to prove that it is the teenager's choice and not their parents forcing them to do it.

Because it is inherrently harmful to the teenager's metal health.

If they want it, they can wait until their 18 to undertake it. There's a laundry list of treatments, "Treatments", procedures, and other such things you can't legally do as a teenager


You didn't read my post did you? I said the "therapy" was a snake oil. As for consent, how do I know that a teenager likes the a certain kind of music, or likes a certain kind of fashion and it isn't their parents forcing them? Simple, I ask them if that is what they want. If a kid can operate a machine that can kill multiple(a car), they can choose to go to a pray-the-gay-away place.

I'll be honest and say that I don't know how you would make sure its their choice.

Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?

Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.

So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?

As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?

My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?

therumancer #fundie escapistmagazine.com


The bottom line is that I've long felt that gays and lesbians need to be legally seperated into two differant groups and policed/treated very differantly by society. In general there are reasons why people talk about being violated up the butt with fear (or in jest because it's so messed up). Notice you don't see women talking about being forcibly muff dived or whatever the same way.

Honestly, I can only think of a few times I've really heard about a lesbian sexually assaulting/raping someone outside of stories about women's prisons which is still pretty rare comparitively speaking (my father is a CO) or in porn (usually Japanese Anime) typically directed at men to begin with.

All the "Gay rights" stuff is fine for Lesbians, however we should be redefining the term "police state" for gay men.

These are MY opinions and observations only, and they have been years in the coming (and I have waffled in my attitudes a number of times for various reasons). I expect a lot of people to disagree.

Therumancer #sexist #homophobia escapistmagazine.com

It's political. To be fairly honest very few people care about lesbians in general. Guys are either turned on by it, or don't care as it has nothing to do with them. Women can use it as an insult, but in general don't care that much about it either if they aren't involved.

While I won't say it's never happened, I can't think of many examples outside of fantasy (oftentimes directed at men) where lesbians have attacked and raped children especially in the pre-sexual age groups.

Yet when it comes to gay men, the same cannot be said. When you hear about gay sexual assault it's inevitably involving men, and despite Lesbianism having been prevelent you'll notice that back in say ancient Greece you didn't have young girls being run down and captured as homosexual sex slaves the same way you had it going on with boys. This is incidently where the term "Greeking" comes from (though it doesn't nessicarly have a pedophille connotation).

In general it's the gay men that get the serious opposition when it comes to gay rights. Despite what the media might imply it's not all religious fantatics and such, nor misguided "homophobes" who dislike them for no reason other than being differant (actually most involved have reasons and frequently they have little to do with religion).

Given that the purpose of such articles is specifically to garner attention, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the majority of anti-gay sentiment is men against gay men, you need to focus on gay men to really make a serious issue on gay rights.


[ Is that because they are gay, or because they are men? I mean, when you hear about human sexual assault it's inevitably involving men. Occam's Razor and all, the simpler explanation seems to be about sex/gender and not sexual orientationOnly to you Cheeze, you can argue semantics either way. The bottom line is that your pro-gay, I'm not. There really isn't any point to us argueing about it anymore over the internet.

All we're going to do is retread old territory and accomplish nothing while generating hundreds of responses. ]


Only to you Cheeze, you can argue semantics either way. The bottom line is that your pro-gay, I'm not. There really isn't any point to us argueing about it anymore over the internet.

All we're going to do is retread old territory and accomplish nothing while generating hundreds of responses.


[ If you're going to post the same "gay men are rapists" thing every time homosexuality comes up, the least he can do is post the exact same response every time. Y'know, for balance. ]


His general "well maybe it's a problem with men and not with male homosexuals" is inherantly rididculous for a number of reasons. Foremost of course being the way in which he makes an absurd arguement given that we need heterosexual sex and reproduction to continue the species. So when all is said and done that pretty much trumps anything. Homosexuals by their nature do not reproduce so can be targeted to reduce a problem without hurting our species at all. Anything you target reducing the overall problem.

Plus a lot of it revolves around pre-sexual humans as I've made clear. While there are exceptions to every rule, in general when dealing with a hetero rapist or "child molestor" your dealing with someone going after teens and generally physically capable children. Someone like a Roman Polanski (going after 13 year old jailbait) being the quintessential example, along with various cases of teachers and high school students, etc... In comparison in cases when your hear about like 6-8 year old kids being sexually assaulted the perpetrator is a gay man.

Even when looking at porn, when it comes to heterosexuals your mostly looking at jailbait, for the real little kids it's *almost* universally gay porn.
...
On the other hand when you have cases of someone having sex on like an 8 year old, in the majority of cases it's a male homosexual. This is not to say heterosexuals have not done it, it's just far, far less common.

therumancer #fundie escapistmagazine.com

I am one of the few vocally anti-gay posters on these forums. Albiet I'm middle of the road on the issue compared to many extremists. My thoughts on this specific issue are mixed.

I'm predjudiced against gay men myself. I have nothing against Lesbians in general, and before anyone comments this is not entirely because of porn (most real Lesbains tend to not be all that good looking).

Speaking for myself, I don't mind girl on girl action, and I've said before I see gay men and lesbians as two seperate issues (and if I didn't, I wouldn't find that image occasionally appealing). As much as my inner perv might enjoy say romancing Mako with my female bounty hunter, does this really add anything to the game? Does it in any way expand Mako's storyline or the existing Bounty Hunter plotline? Not paticularly.

This is because I believe that when you get down to it, gay men are invariably interested in pre-sexual humans with various degress of repression there. We're not talking teens (who are called "Jailbait" for a reason). I was attacked by a gay man when I was like six (and lukily repressed the memory). On top of that there are groups like NAMBLA that despite being publically rebuked by the gay rights community, manage to get enough support and money to field such amazing lawyers to defend gay pedophilles that world class casinos are afraid to cross them (I know this because I was security at one and they were scared of us actually doing anything because of NAMBLA, this amounting to an off-the-record directive not to get involved unless we saw someone actually being molested during Code Adam training). Not to mention the fact that it seems in the news that I've heard plenty of reports of "psycho daddies losing control and molesting their young boys, yet I can't think of many (if any) examples of a Lesbian version, except maybe in things like wierd Anime porn (and still examples elude me). Then of course you've also got exposes on the sex tourism trade over the years and how popular young boys are, and how some parents apparently take their young sons overseas so they can pimp them out to gays taking vacations for that reason in relative safety... and making a bundle on it (shows like the old "Inside Edition" or "Hard Copy" used to deal with topics like that specifically because it was shocking).

So yeah, I'm a bigot, and have no guilt over being one. My opinions come from actual experience and observations. Religion, morality, and other things don't enter into the equasion.

In the past I've waffled on the subject into thinking that gay men might be okay, and the pre-sexual molestors might be a tiny minority, but something always happens to snap me back.

See, adults with teens is bad enough (and is illegal for a reason, the only kind of underage sex I support is between two teens), but I can at least understand that on some level. But when you get into kids who aren't even sexually developed/active that's a real problem, and it's been a part of male homosexuality going back to Ancient Greece and Rome.

jawakiller #fundie #sexist #homophobia escapistmagazine.com

Because gays are scary dude... O.O

Haha. Thats prolly the truth. But seriously, I have gotten into fights with gays who think its cool to hit on me. Why? Because I have to prove I'm manly and not gay. I know I'm not into homosexual stuff but the ladies don't. And yes, its necessary.

I wish it wasn't like that but thats just how it is

[And... is it difficult living in Hickville and are your "manly man man" friends as insecure as well?Seriously, there's no other explanation but horrid, massive insecurity for that kind of behavior.]

Wow, that was really stupid sounding. No offensive, I'm sure you're a real nice guy but you didn't even read my comment. I said the only reason I fight gays (with the occasional exception, like when a gay's annoying as fuck) is because some women might get the idea that you're gay. So I'm not proving it to my friends, genius. Ladies are my reason. And here in hickville we would actually be over-joyed if all the homosexuals left. Then we'd go and ride our pick-up trucks and shoot some shotguns. Unfortunately I don't live in this legendary "hickville". And fighting is not always a sign of weakness. People like you are usually the ones I end up fighting.


[You know, I'm just one female out of many, but if I was around to see you get in a fight with a gay guy just because he was hitting on you, I wouldn't find it manly at all. I think it would be kind of dumb. And I wouldn't even be inclined to believe your display of "Look ladies, I'm not gay". Call me crazy, but you simply telling the guy "I'm not gay, so don't hit on me" would be much more convincing to me than a fist fight. Or is it just unreasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt anymore?]


Women like confident men (and those who don't usually turn lesbian or hook up with some wimp). Unfortunately, where I live, women are not like the mystical women on escapist. They're actually real. They are the ones I'm hanging out with so their opinion actually matters. Women like power, so when a homosexual male tries flirting (in a rather sexual way) with me they watch. If I mumble something about not being gay, they walk away. If I tell him (in a loud voice) I'm not a frickin fag (pardon the vulgar phrasing), the women see me as more of a man. Maybe that only happens in college, I really don't know.

But calling me gay is a really lame attack strategy. Just thought I'd say that before more people use the same "he hates gays, must be gay" line.

Oh and by the way, if you really wanna be more "tolerant", tolerate my homophobia. Chow kids!


[Social conservatism is a plague on society. Gotta love the people who say "tolerate my intolerance." There's absolutely no reason to tolerate a person's bigotry. Let's look at it like this:

Intolerance of gays: suppression of rights
Tolerance of gays: furthering of rights to the point of equalityMaybe we should start tolerating intolerance towards blacks or jews or maybe white males. They don't deserve equality either. Fuck it man. Let's go for it. Do you care? I don't care. And about women liking you because you just called a guy a "fricken fag" tells me that you're either in high school where petty shit like that is still funny or you hang out with Sarah Palin..]


A homosexual can't be compared to a Jew or a black guy. Homosexuality isn't a race. Yeah. And shut up with the leftist shit. You don't know much about it so just stop.

YunaX #sexist escapistmagazine.com

to all girls who want to be 100% sure they're safe at a party, don't drink so damn much. I've made some mistakes while drunk, and you know what? for the most part they're my fault. No one was forcing me to keep drinking. I've learned now that if you want to get really drunk or high, do it with a small qroup of close friends, and make sure you can stay over.


I'm sorry ladies, but if you can't take care of yourself when you drink and party, you deserve to be taken advantage of. The guys around you weren't born to take care of you, and if there's sketchy guys around, why drink in the first place? Ladies, please prove that you're worth more than your vagina. There's a brain in there. Use it.

F4LL3N #fundie escapistmagazine.com

The new born conceived through the product of rape is not at fault for that rape, and killing him/her will not change or lessen the pain a woman feels after being raped

[[How many rape victims have you conversed with to acquire this statement? I just want to know where you're getting your information, you know, besides your own heavily religious influenced opinions.]]

Absolutely no where and with minimal religious influence. Maybe I'm wrong. In which case, the mother would have serious mental health issues if killing her baby makes her feel better about herself after being raped. She lost all her power during the incident, and now wants to gain it back. Extreme I know, but it's one potential example of why a mother wouldn't want to conceive a child through rape. The idea that a mother would look down at her belly and call it "a dirty little c***" or something is rather sick too(another extreme example, because quite frankly I couldn't think of any other scenerio where a mother would want this.)

Enlighten me? After all, that's why I'm here.

p.s. I'm completely against rape, so I'm not trying to come off as insensitive about the issue.

EDIT: Well, it's a memory I guess. A constant reminder... In which case, it's still sick. If someone would rather their kid dead then to be reminded of a single bad occasion...

With that in mind, I don't need to get my information first hand off a rape victim to know what I said is true. It's either true or there are some extremely selfish/confused women in the world. Of course, that's a matter of perspective (almost certainly a minority opinion.)

I just think of it this way. Let's say a mother finds out her 5 year old was actually conceived from the rape that occured 5 years ago rather than the partner she originally thought it belonged to. Would she love him/her any less? Would it be okay to kill that child? Would it make her feel better? Short and simple answer, no! If this is true, then surely the same applies to unborn babies.

Therumancer #homophobia #sexist escapistmagazine.com

I've already played games where that has been the case. I'm pretty anti- gay men, (if you want my thoughts on the subject of homosexuality some of the back messages are probably still around. The specifics have little to do with this discussion however) however) but that doesn't mean I get into some kind of frothing rage at the merest mention of gay men or whatever.
To be honest with most video games out there are set up, the only way the protaganist's sexual orientation is going to matter is if they go out of the way to bring it to the forefront. If this means that playing a game where the protaganist gets involved in numerous make out sessions with guys, or makes a big deal about being gay, is not going to appeal to me. After all that kind of thing is hardly a turn on for me, and since I don't like it, there is no real appeal to the situation, if they are going to put that much focus on it for the point of the game, my time would better be spent playing a game where this wasn't the case.
As far as games I've played with gay main characters or protaganists (that weren't me being a perv with a couple of girl characters) there have been a few. "Phantasmagoria II: A Puzzle Of The Flesh" involves an entire subplot about the character you control dealing with their homosexuality in their shrink's office. Then of course there is "Enchanted Arms" where the hero's main sidekick is a male homosexual with a crush on him. Then we have "Persona 4" where one of the party members being a gay man is actually the theme of a whole dungeon section. When it comes to antagonists, let's just say that if you have ever played a game about Conan that has featured characters from the books, a few of them were "boy lovers". Conan was before political correctness when it was written, and while it was never a focus, Conan has a major amount of contempt for gays and "boy lovers", and while never descriptive a number of his enemies were supposed to have been weakened by such "civilized decadence". Of course in the video games they rarely even go as far as the stories (both canon, and very old non-canon) did, which wasn't very far. Like most heroes a lot of his enemies "almost get him" in one way or another (a trap or spell, if not a straight fight) so you really can't call them impotent (so to speak) for their orientation irregardless of what Conan might think.
If you want to get technical, I think this entire "question" is a bit less profound than you might have intended. To be honest homosexuals have been fairly well represented as far as gaming goes, you just have to understand your dealing with a tiny percentage of the population. Fair representation does not mean "equal time with the majority" simply that a group is not totally neglected simply for being what it is. That's why I have such an issue with political correctness, and preferred Bioware's approach to romances in the first "Dragon Age" game to the "everyone is bi-sexual" approach of the second one. Granted you don't see much homosexuality in games in general, but that's pretty much in keeping with the number of homosexuals in society. Such things are there if you look for them, and have been for a long time.
That said, if you were doing a game like "Duke Nukem" but with the protaganist being an agressively flamboyant homosexual (of whatever style) instead of a manly flamboyant heterosexual, I don't think it would find much of an audience. Humor or not, it's meant to be slightly risque in it's own way, and someone without those tendencies wouldn't wind up appreciating the eye candy so to speak. I don't think there is enough of an audience to really sustain it.
That's a somewhat informed opinion as well, because it's been tried. They released those "Cho Aniki" games which are a series of tongue-in-cheek platformers featuring gay musclemen. We've actually seen ports of a couple of the titles to the US. From what I've heard the series has largely survived due to being relatively cheap to produce and a fan
base that is dedicated if not exactly numerous which does make it profitable. If it was tried on a fairly big-budget level like "Duke Nukem Forever" I don't think the audience would sustain it since there just wouldn't be enough gays with enough interest, and even if homosexuality doesn't offend someone they really aren't going to find a lot of gay innuendos aand cheesecake all that thrilling to want to dedicate hours upon hours expoising themselves to it, after dishing out a $60 price of admission.
Such are my thoughts. Due to being an admitted perv I'm intentionally staying away from the idea of lesbian characters because hey, like a lot of guys, I do find that fairly "hot" when presented the right way. Also I do believe that gays and lesbians are differant situations entirely, but that's not something I'm going to go into again. Again there are probably some back messages where I explain it (and the likely arguement would go nowhere) but simply put it has nothing to really do with it being "okay because it turns me on". The point being that I more or less agree with you excluding that aspect of the discussion. Especially seeing as I think that there are enough people out there like me in their "interests" irregardless of why that a hot lesbian heroine can find a niche among the male video gaming population and be sustained at a fairly high level, where I don't think gay men can be. You could probably do a Lesbian version of Duke Nukem and all the guys who bought Duke Nukem would also buy that game for largely the same reasons, and wind up appreciating the eye candy just as much. Whether it's fair or right or not is not something I'm going to argue, it just is, which is why (as I said) I agree with you there.

OniaPL #fundie escapistmagazine.com

[on the Hitman: Absolution nun trailer]

Come on, all this fancy shmancy words and you trying to apply your reasoning to this isn't going to change what's right and what is not.
Seriously, I mean it. Just go and watch it again, and think.

I mean, these kinds of dumbass discussion just indicate the sad state of our world. I mean, because other than whites and heterosexuals were oppressed once in the past means that now it's okay to oppress white heterosexuals, just so that they can have their payback. And now even a woman can't look pretty. Sigh.

(Nobody is oppressing white heterosexuals, That is complete and utter nonsense.

That is like Bill O'Riely complaining about Christians being persecuted in politics.]

But that's basically what it is like. Look around you; atheists are leading the war against regular, good christians. You are not allowed to even believe in God anymore, or even pray in schools! This world is slowly turning to a godless, hopeless place where all faith is being persecuted. I'm sick of our schools, insulting our children with all that monkey talk without them even explaining the other side of the argument.

Delicious Anathema #fundie escapistmagazine.com

I think homos are disgusting and should seek help, but I have no choice to tolerate or avert my eyes at something I want unseen. Also, adoption by them makes me sick to the stomach.

It's sad that whenever people talk about finding a cure or a gene it's classified as homophobia. Judging by the amount of suicide in homos, one would think a cure would be welcome, or maybe some people like to do things nature intended.

Anyway, lesbians are sexy but I too think it's wrong, I'm openly hypocrite in that respect.

A couple making out in public is uncomfortable anyway, regardless of who it is, I have been fortunate enough to not catch men kissing though.

Judas_Iscariot #fundie escapistmagazine.com

Bullying is good. It encourages people who are behaving strangely or failing to develop social skills to do so. It's social Darwinism, being bullied because you are fat? Lose weight. Being bullied because you creep girls out? Start learning to pick girls who are actually interested in you. Bullied for being a slut? Stop spreading your legs for anyone who takes you out once. Bullied for being gay? Stop being so flamboyant.

And if you'd rather not change who you are, then fight back and earn your right to be different.

Society is not responsible for protecting you from mean people. Someone who is abnormal, bases their opinion of themselves on what other people think, is to weak to mount a defense, to stubborn to change, to unlikeable to get others to help, and to unintelligent to strike back verbally or with some sort of clever scheme deserves what they get: they were never going to contribute anything meaningful to society anyways.

Adapt or die.

Liquidacid23 #psycho escapistmagazine.com

I like bullies and think they do an important service in most cases... seriously people in the 1st world countries who run this planet have become soft, self-entitled, petty little pricks who for the most part have lost all meaningful touch with reality... adversity is a good thing as it either makes someone stronger or breaks them... and if they break than they deserve what comes with that...

all this "everyone is equal and special" coddling bullshit is sickening

BudZer #fundie escapistmagazine.com

The reason God does not immediately strike down sinners is because he wants them to seek forgiveness and there is always forgiveness, the problem with homosexuality as a sin is that people instead of pleading for forgiveness take God's word the wrong way and think that he hates them which he does not, he loves them, so they begin to hate God and instead of finding him and his forgiveness, they throw parades to show how proud they are of themselves.