Binary wrote on Apr 24^th, 2016 at 10:16pm:

What do you say? Are you seriously suggesting that people go out of their way to choose to be attracted to children? Why the frack would someone do that?

If they choose to act on that attraction, and to hurt someone, that is where it become criminal.

That's why homosexuality is fundamentally different to pedophilia. Same sex partners give informed consent, underage children can not.

boxy wrote on Apr 24^th, 2016 at 11:40pm:


They may have their differences but I believe at some point or other both the pedophile and the homosexual decided to
continue down the path of sexual perversion from an original standpoint that was otherwise.

According to Greg we shouldn't think differently. He already has said nobody can "control" being into kids or animals.
If you're gay society says thats okay. Guess you're lucky then because seemingly you could just have been born a pedo.
Both are the same, yet one is the lucky guy not rotting in prison.

Binary wrote on Apr 25^th, 2016 at 1:19am:


You can choose who you have sex with, but you can't choose  who you're sexually attracted to.

Sex acts and sexual attraction: two different things.

All this talk of penguins and poofters has got me thinking.

The claim that there is a distinction between a sex act and a sexual attraction is a false dichotomy. Sexual attraction is a psychological response to a person who resonates with a sexual idea or fantasy that a person holds. A sex act is simply another element of a sexual idea or fantasy that a person may hold. Neither the person nor the act can be sexually relevant or interesting without the sexual idea or fantasy to support it.

Sexual fantasies are not simple, have continuity but are not fixed, and have multiple elements. A person can have many different fantasies, prioritizing different psychological needs and desires. In one case the idea of surprising a novice nun in her boudoir may do the trick, in another a spanking from the mother superior may be more satisfying.

A simple turn on a theme can introduce a new element of spice to an existing fantasy, and so over time the characters and activities will evolve. There is no reason why some of these turns and twists may not be consciously contrived, and equally possible they may emerge from the imagination without prompting.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence demonstrate that a fantasy revolving around a nun fetish may not necessarily be a black and white heterosexual fantasy, and such a belief may be nothing more than force of habit.

I once had a budgerigar who spent all it's time kissing it's own reflection in a tiny mirror in it's cage. When the mirror was removed it began pecking it's own feathers out.

There are a couple of different hypotheses we can make about this:-

a) Maybe it was a gay budgie.

b) Maybe it was a narcissist.

c) Maybe it's odd behavior was a sign of congenital mental problems.

d) Maybe it had mental issues due to being unnaturally constrained.

e) Some or all of the above.

I guess the only reasonable thing we can conclude is that other animals can display behaviors indicative of mental problems just like humans.

Shithouse Rat wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 6:27pm:



In my experience, human beings are attracted to things and behaviour which results in them experiencing pleasure.

If the behaviour involves a sexual element, most people feel, well that is all the better !

i.e.
How many human experiences are better than the experience of the sexual orgasm ?



It is feeding your carnal nature and character though.

Sexual orgasm feels like reality, but it drags you down, closer to the earth, adama.

Shithouse Rat wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 11:56pm:



Cunning one,

No argument.



And imho, our creator would have the same mind.