You are all over the place trying to avoid addressing the double standard.
What all these women do is no different than what those homosexual priests did, and certainly worse than what Weinstein did.
We cannot go on where the severity of a crime depends upon whether the perpetrator possesses a vagina or a penis. It's really quite outrageous. It's also utterly and self-evidently indefensible, hence your resort to sophistic word games that really have zero relevance to the matter, since if you want to change the victims of these women from "boys" to "teens", the same then happens to the victims of the homosexual priests.
These word games are dishonest and designed to cover for double standards people know they cannot defend, as well as to cover for leftist protected identity groups at the expense of men.
In Hollywood, it's only men held responsible for sexual exploitation. The stories of women doing it get ignored. When gay men enter the priesthood and prey on teen boys in horrific numbers, the left alter the meaning of pedophile to include a man having consensual sex with a teen boy. But if that teen boy is also assaulted by his female government school teacher, these evil bastards will say he just wanted it.
Speaker to Animals wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:37 am
You are playing word games. It is fucking obvious.
yeah especially the part where i literally said "im playing word games"
Speaker to Animals wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:37 amSay a teenaged boy is sexually preyed upon at church by his homosexual priest and also at government school by his female teacher.
You would argue what his teacher did was no big deal, because he was almost an adult, but the priest is a pedophile.
i don't know who you think youre arguing with here but i definitely wouldn't say it's no big deal, unless i was playing word games. i would probably argue the reasons as to why society views male rape vs female rape differently, which im guessing is because of the physical discrepancy between the genders and the generally predictable sexual attraction of teenage boys. why do you think?
You came at me with that bullshit "a 17 year old male is not a boy" line. That was you.
Did you go after Flounder for implying the homosexual priests were going after children when we all know the targets were overwhelmingly teenaged boys, no different than the teenaged boys female teachers targeted? Did you point out his fucking hypocrisy of constantly defending it with quips like "he wanted it", while then acting like the exact same crime is "pedophilia" when a homosexual priest does it?
No.
You are dishonest. I put you in the Flounder category.
Speaker to Animals wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:51 am
I am arguing with you.
You came at me with that bullshit "a 17 year old male is not a boy" line. That was you.
Did you go after Flounder for implying the homosexual priests were going after children when we all know the targets were overwhelmingly teenaged boys, no different than the teenaged boys female teachers targeted?
I didn't make up the cases they're accused of. There are plenty of sources, if you'd like to research the level of depravity in your organization.
yeah i was ribbing you a little, not sure why you think that means i'm covering for my supposed double standard, but i know better than to ask for evidence to support your opinions
SuburbanFarmer wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:53 am I didn't make up the cases they're accused of. There are plenty of sources, if you'd like to research the level of depravity in your organization.
Somehow, I suspect you won't.
Does it matter that the 17 year old boy was not even a heterosexual. The young actor is gay.
I didn't make up the cases they're accused of. There are plenty of sources, if you'd like to research the level of depravity in your organization.