Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance

posted at 5:25 pm on August 24, 2011 by Tina Korbe

When I wrote about an objectionable spread of photographs in Paris Vogue – a spread that featured 10-year-old fashion model Thylane Blondeau styled in provocative ways — I fretted that such a magazine feature might, in some way, normalize the concept of sexual attraction to minors:

It’s often said, but bears repeating, that the TV, magazine and advertising images we absorb train our minds as to what is considered attractive — and, yes, specifically sexually attractive — in our culture. So, what does a magazine feature like this say? That it’s OK, even encouraged, to look at a child in a sexual way. …

But it’s adamantly not OK to look at a child in a sexual way, as harsh laws against pedophilia and child pornography attest. Maybe it seems like a leap of logic to move from provocative pictures to pornography and pedophilia, but again, images train the mind’s eye. The more readers and viewers see children in adult poses and in adult clothes, the less jarring it will be to those readers and viewers to see children in adult roles. It’s all highly inappropriate — and in territory better avoided entirely.

What’s crazy is, at the time, I thought we were still years away from any sane person seriously suggesting such a distorted disposition of attraction to minors — i.e. pedophilia — should be repackaged as less a problem and more a disorder to be understood and, yes, tolerated. But one group of psychologists is calling for such a redefinition even now. Megyn Kelly and Shannon Bream were just talking about this appalling push on “America Live.”

B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.

Perhaps that sounds innocent enough (although I don’t think so). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a second: What’s wrong with psychiatrists seeking to help those attracted to children better understand why they have that tendency? Perhaps those psychiatrists could even be an instrument of crime prevention or of after-the-fact justice. But no. Consider: At least one psychiatrist in the bunch has been known to treat child molesters without reporting them, Bream said.

Last week, the group hosted a scientific symposium to discuss a proposed new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia, Bream said.

As all too often happens with any kind of push for political correctness, with a twist of language, the blameless are forgotten. Let’s remember whom both the social stigma against “minor-attracted persons” and the outlawing of sexual activity between an adult and a minor aim to protect. Yes, I’m talking about children, whose innocence deserves to be preserved, whose minds and bodies haven’t fully developed yet, who depend upon adults for their moral formation. Advocacy on this issue must be on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves — not on behalf of those who, however troubled and however tempted, still bear ultimate responsibility for their actions.

Update: At least one reader wondered my justification for the assertion that the B4U-Act movement appears to be headed in the direction of pushing to decriminalize pedophilia. According to Shannon Bream’s report on Fox News, some — although not all — of the presenters at the symposium expressed the view that some level of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. That sounds like the decriminalization of pedophilia to me.

Update: B4U-Act is not alone in the effort to normalize pedophilia. Big Hollywood’s John Nolte has reported on the entertainment industry’s attempt to glamorize sex with children, as well.

Update: Here’s the video from the “America Live” segment that tipped me off:


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

So kaltes; how long have you been attracted to underage persons?

Since your so fired up defending them, I assume you are one of them yourself.

So tells us about your struggle for acceptance and how much shame you feel…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I am an enemy of demagoguery not as smart as my mommy always told me I was when she was tucking me in at night.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

peacenprosperity on August 25, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Indeed. It’s a safe bet that more than a few folks here had a tough childhood, some perhaps experiencing abuse of different sorts. But they don’t use it as an excuse or rationale for criminal activities they might choose to engage in now.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Bah, blaming your childhood is so… 1980s… we don’t need to have a reason to blame anything anymore… just claim you were born a criminal, a pedophile, a homosexual, a murderer, and it’s all forgiven. After all, it’s just a feature of your biology or God’s fault… it isn’t the person’s fault… no no no, we can’t blame people, that would be… racist or mean or something…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Yup, if a murderer looks to me for sympathy because he didn’t get the toy firetruck he wanted on his 10th birthday he’s gonna have one loooong wait.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:04 PM

So kaltes; how long have you been attracted to underage persons?
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Now, that is uncalled for and something a person should apologize for saying.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Now, that is uncalled for and something a person should apologize for saying.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I don’t see it that way.

If you are going to go all out in defending the undefendable there has to be a reason for it. I’m just making the next jump in logic.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Now, that is uncalled for and something a person should apologize for saying.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Explain in full detail what the accomplishment of an appology would do? Sounds to me you are simply a kaltes enabler.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I would think that common sense would dictate that if you are involved in one form of sexual deviancy; such as homosexuality; then it follows that such a person would be more likely to pick up or evolve another sexual deviancy;

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM

BDSM is considered a sexual deviancy by some people. Anal sex is considered a sexual deviancy by some people. Oral sex is considered a sexual deviancy by some people. Yet, all of these sexual “perversions” are engaged in by a great deal of healthy, normal couples. Your assertion is not common sense, it’s an attempt at conflation in order to score cheap points against a lifestyle(homosexuality) that you disapprove of. It’s also an incredibly revolting and despicable tactic. Why not just say “immoral”, so that anything you disapprove of can be compared to raping children?

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I don’t see it that way.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM

That’s because you are so low that nothing is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Now, that is uncalled for and something a person should apologize for saying.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Glad I’m not the only one horrified at this sort of comment, but as I said earlier, it’s all too common when discussion of pedophilia comes up. Some people just can’t help but scrape the bottom of the barrel.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM

That’s because you are so low that nothing is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Funny, this isn’t about me, it’s about the person defending pedophiles… lets not change the subject.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Kaltes, let it be known for all to see that I make no threat, explicit or implicit. But I do believe the world would be a much better, safer, and forward-thinking place if people who see themselves as apologists for evil did not exist.

You advocate for evil in the guise of apology. There can be no common ground among the decent with a person such as you, no matter the words you use to obfuscate your advocacy.

IronDioPriest on August 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Glad I’m not the only one horrified at this sort of comment, but as I said earlier, it’s all too common when discussion of pedophilia comes up. Some people just can’t help but scrape the bottom of the barrel.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I make no apologies for trying to find the motivations of a person who would defend pedophiles.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Bah, blaming your childhood is so… 1980s…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I remember the 1980s…when crusaders like you helped wrongly imprison dozens of people on completely made-up allegations of child molestation(and Satan worship, when it made for better headlines).

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:15 PM

You accused people of rounding up others and putting them in concentration camps and gassing them. What does this bring to mind? Nazi Germany. You called those in favor of capital punishment for pedophiles (in popular use it means people who have sexual relations with minors…most here are not using your clinical definition) Nazis.

Pattosensei on August 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM

1. I did not accuse anyone of gassing, I stated that some of the most extreme commenters would probably like to gas pedos.

2. While Nazi Germany used gassing, just because you gas someone doesn’t make you a Nazi. It might make you a mass murderer, but Nazis don’t have a monopoly on that. Using gassing as an example is simply the least gruesome method of mass execution I could think of at the moment. Should I have said that the pedos would be forced to dig their own graves and then hacked to death with shovels and sticks? That’s the Khmer Rouge for you, but needlessly graphic and wordy.

3. I am in favor of capital punishment for the worst molesters. Was I calling myself a Nazi?

4. Pedophiles, in popular use, means anyone who has any sexual desire for children. If you want to get really technical, in popular use, men who are attracted to 17 year olds often get called pedophiles, too. So the term in popular use is actually extremely broad, and not limited to molesters. Several commenters have said that they see no difference, because they think anyone with deviant sexual desires will always act on them, so they think every pedophile will molest children, just some don’t get caught, or they haven’t victimized anyone YET.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Funny, this isn’t about me, it’s about the person defending pedophiles… lets not change the subject.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Funny how you have no problem getting personal with others in this conversation, but won’t stand for the same to be done to you, you hypocrite.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I remember the 1980s…when crusaders like you helped wrongly imprison dozens of people on completely made-up allegations of child molestation(and Satan worship, when it made for better headlines).

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Sorry, never lived in Kerns Co. I was in Tennessee in the 1980s.

Speaking of nothing being beneath me, hypocrisy much?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Funny how you have no problem getting personal with others in this conversation, but won’t stand for the same to be done to you, you hypocrite.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Really, side stepping your question was hyporcisy on my part? Nice double standard, must be Madison, Wisconsin.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:18 PM

I don’t see it that way.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM

That’s because you are so low that nothing is beneath you.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Agreed. Extremely vile personal attacks just have no place.

I will fisk, beat up, tear apart, mock a person’s position or claims, but it’s wrong to cross the line with such nasty accusations.

It’s also a bannable (and legally actionable) attack and, while I couldn’t disagree with kaltes any stronger, I would back kaltes in reporting it to the HA PTB.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Speaking of nothing being beneath me, hypocrisy much?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM

For someone accusing others of pedophilia, you appear to be made of fine china, sweetie. You want to play with the big boys, quit crying.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:20 PM

It’s also a bannable (and legally actionable) attack and, while I couldn’t disagree with kaltes any stronger, I would back kaltes in reporting it to the HA PTB.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Already have.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:21 PM

For someone accusing others of pedophilia, you appear to be made of fine china, sweetie. You want to play with the big boys, quit crying.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Ahh, but there is the rub isn’t it. I didn’t accuse anyone of an ACT on children did I? I asked how long they had been attracted. That doesn’t imply an act does it.

Seem to make the case that changing the words from “pedophile” which seem to imply an act, and just being “attracted to underage persons” won’t make much of a difference in tolerance now will it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Ahh, but there is the rub isn’t it. I didn’t accuse anyone of an ACT on children did I? I asked how long they had been attracted. That doesn’t imply an act does it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Wow.

You truly are remarkably repugnant.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I deny there are either straight or gay pedophiles. Straight people and gay people are attracted to adults.

Straight people are attracted to PEOPEL of the same sex. Gay peopel are attracted to gay PEOPLE of the same sex. So unless you don’t think children are people…

Let me ask you this. If a 12-year-old boy is attracted to men, waht does taht make him?

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Wow.

You truly are remarkably repugnant.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I feel the same about you.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Google “hot teens” and see what you find. Some sites go out of their way to make underage innuendo. It’s not a gay or straight thing. It’s a pedo thing.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Yeah, those sites go out of there way to have girls taht are/look ilke they are in highschool. Quite different then having sites that have pre-pubesent or even children who just started puberty.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Let me ask you this. If a 12-year-old boy is attracted to men, waht does taht make him?

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM

It makes him a 12-year-old child.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, those sites go out of there way to have girls taht are/look ilke they are in highschool. Quite different then having sites that have pre-pubesent or even children who just started puberty.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Ah, so you’ll excuse sites that attempt to present girls as being 14 years old?

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM

It’s also a bannable (and legally actionable) attack and, while I couldn’t disagree with kaltes any stronger, I would back kaltes in reporting it to the HA PTB.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Already have.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Good. There’s plenty of room for very heated argument – and that room is usually filled, lol – but a person isn’t doing himself any favors when he crosses the line.

There are the ill-advised “heat of the moment” flames that happen, in such cases you plead an honest “mea culpa”, apologize and act a bit more circumspect the next time the urge comes over you.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Good. There’s plenty of room for very heated argument – and that room is usually filled, lol – but a person isn’t doing himself any favors when he crosses the line.

There are the ill-advised “heat of the moment” flames that happen, in such cases you plead an honest “mea culpa”, apologize and act a bit more circumspect the next time the urge comes over you.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 1:29 PM

If Capt. Ed or Allah see fit to ban me that’s fine. I’ll be happy to go elsewhere, but as far as I am concerned, I didn’t cross the line. I may have walked right up to it and challenged the other person to justify their motivations, but as far as I’m concerned the line was not crossed.

Had I implied that the person had acted on children, I would agree both your and MadisonWisconsiConversative that I had crossed the line. But I didn’t imply or accuse anyone of illegal behavior.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:32 PM

It makes him a 12-year-old child.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Nice dodge. Now answer the question. Sexual-orientation-speaking, what does that make him?

Ah, so you’ll excuse sites that attempt to present girls as being 14 years old?

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Negative. What I am saying is that many guys here are talking about peopel that molest pre-pubesent children and you bring up “teen” sites. I think there is a different word for peopel who have a thing for young teens but I don’t remember the word.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Her conclusion is that “the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia.” Let’s take a second to look at what Korbe is saying here: she is saying that the purpose of the conference is to make it perfectly legal to molest a child. WHAT? No one, not a single person, presenting at the conference said anything remotely like that.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 5:24 AM

I don’t think you understand what “ultimate” means and “thrust” does not always mean the same thing as “somebody said ‘Our thrust is…’”

After all, do you know anybody who says “I am a theocrat.” Yet, if you fall into the secular spectrum, you still might think that somebody’s ultimate goal is “theocracy” whether or not anybody says that’s what they are after.

I agree that it is at least a little more diffuse that Korbe (or Bream) represents, but I also think you don’t realize how often this format is used–and you probably in your life have approved of its use. The dissenting summary, has to be a legitimate form of discourse.

Axeman on August 25, 2011 at 1:37 PM

It makes him a 12-year-old child.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:28 PM

It does? I thought it would make him homosexual, since they are “born that way.” How old is he before he’s no longer a “child?”

Apparently you homo-apologists are simply incapable of seeing the way legitimizing homosexuality and just calling it a “preference” is leading to the decay of the morals in our society.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Nice dodge.

Not a dodge, it’s a fact. Don’t give me orders, either. Also, whatever you’re trying to accomplish by exploring the sexual identities of children, it still has nothing to do with the sexual identities of pedophiles. If you want to use low-grade tactics to equate homosexuality and pedophilia because you have the same amount of loathing for both, that’s up to you. It’s still bulls**t.

Negative. What I am saying is that many guys here are talking about peopel that molest pre-pubesent children and you bring up “teen” sites. I think there is a different word for peopel who have a thing for young teens but I don’t remember the word.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I really love all these semantics about pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, etc. They’re all children, and it’s f**king disturbing that you’re trying to play semantics over age groups.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Apparently you homo-apologists…

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 1:40 PM

…the f**k? Please wear your deranged hatred on your sleeve a little more.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Guys, the comment from E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM isn’t even the first one accusing me of being a pedophile in this topic.

If you defend psychologists who hold a conference regarding their area of expertise when they are wrongly accused of having some conspiracy to legalize molestation, you get called a molester apologist, and of course, the next step is to get called a pedo/molester directly. That’s how these things work.

The person behind all of this nonsense has been identified now: it is Judith A. Reisman. She is the “critic” that the fox news article cites. She played the Fox news ladies for fools by giving them a story that was “too good to check”, so they didn’t check it, and neither did Korbe here at HotAir. The result is that everyone has been treating some psychologists who simply want to treat pedos and protect children, as some sort of molestation cabal getting together in an open, public academic conference to discuss openly their plot to legalize molestation and promote pedophiles as “the new gay”.

Wait… that sounds pretty ridiculous…

So back to Judith A. Reisman. Her web site claims she is a Doctor, but no one else seems to refer to her as such. Her CV claims she has a PhD… in communications. So she is a “visiting professor” at a an evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell, an unranked law school which only got accredited in 2010, last year.

From her wikipedia (feel free to follow the links to the many sources in the article), she thinks things like:

- Madonna caused child pornography
- watching porn releases “erototoxins” which damage your brain
- stuff about how gays and nazis are somehow linked
- gays have a massive child recruiting operation:

At a May, 1994 conference of Christian right leadership in Colorado Springs described by the Washington Times as “top secret,” Reisman introduced her theory of a proselytizing homosexual movement. “I would suggest to you,” she told the conference, “that while the homosexual population may right now be one to two percent, hold your breath, people, because the recruitment is loud; it is clear; it is everywhere. You’ll be seeing, I would say, 20 percent or more, probably 30 percent, or even more than that, of the young population will be moving into homosexual activity.”

I could go on, but why bother. The point is that she is a partisan culture warrior who has every reason to grossly exaggerate and lie about the conference and its motives, which fits neatly with her gross exaggerations about pornography and homosexuals in decades past.

and she played a receptive audience of Fox news reporters/anchors/staff, as well as a whole lot of like-minded conservatives, for fools.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I really love all these semantics about pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, etc. They’re all children, and it’s f**king disturbing that you’re trying to play semantics over age groups.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM

You tried to equate being attracted two prepubesant children to fully-developed teens. So I see you see no difference between an 19-year-old attracted to a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old attracted to a 10-year-old. Roger that.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Not a dodge, it’s a fact. Don’t give me orders, either. Also, whatever you’re trying to accomplish by exploring the sexual identities of children, it still has nothing to do with the sexual identities of pedophiles. If you want to use low-grade tactics to equate homosexuality and pedophilia because you have the same amount of loathing for both, that’s up to you. It’s still bulls**t.

Translation: I can’t answer your question without basically admitting that pedofiles are either gay or straight.

BTW, not once had I equated homosexuality with pedophilia. But you just assumed without any proof and you know what they say when you assume…

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Guys, the comment from E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM isn’t even the first one accusing me of being a pedophile in this topic.

If you defend psychologists who hold a conference regarding their area of expertise when they are wrongly accused of having some conspiracy to legalize molestation, you get called a molester apologist, and of course, the next step is to get called a pedo/molester directly. That’s how these things work.

Well first off I object to being accused of calling you a pedophile or a molester, which implies an illegal act. However, that really isn’t the point here.

The point that I have been trying to make as well as many others, is that what was implied, perhaps incorrectly; was the exact same thing that happened in the 1970s with homosexuals.

Did perhaps we Foxnews “rubes” knee-jerk? Perhaps, but with good reason.

I don’t think you can argue that this is exactly the same thing that happened in the 1970s, however you could argue about the results being positive or negative.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM

You tried to equate being attracted two prepubesant children to fully-developed teens. So I see you see no difference between an 19-year-old attracted to a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old attracted to a 10-year-old. Roger that.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM

15-year-olds and 10-year-olds are both children. Good grief, what the f**k is wrong with you? Never mind, I really don’t want to know.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

BTW, I’ll be waiting for that apology for you calling me one of those peopel that think homosexuality and pedophilia are related.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Well first off I object to being accused of calling you a pedophile…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Too bad. You did.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM

15-year-olds and 10-year-olds are both children. Good grief, what the f**k is wrong with you? Never mind, I really don’t want to know.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

No sh!t. I think you’re talking what I’m saying the wrong way. But I’ll be sure to tell the next 19-year-old that I see that he’s a sicko for seeing a 16-year-old and saying that she’s attractive.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Too bad. You did.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM

read the post, it’s at the top of this page, even a liberal from Madison could find it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Okay, Madison, I seee why you’re confused. I didn’t realize that “twink” was gay slang for a man who’s into young-looking teens/young adults. Now I see why you brought up the “teen” sites. I thought a “twink” was someone who was attracted to pre-pubescent boys. Now do you see why I said what I said regarding the “teen” sites?

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

We’re not necessarily talking about someone who has acted

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Again another coat of paint applied into the catch-22 corner. If there is no visible manifestation nobody would even know. Your neighbor might harbor thoughts of murder, but unless he does something (e.g. bragging about his urge to kill) you have zero way of knowing his private thoughts.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Oh my holy god….who are you to say we have to know his private thoughts? If he thinks about murder but never actually murders, he has commited NO WRONG! You just said thought crime was a perfectly reasonable concept.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

even a liberal from Madison could find it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I’ll thank scum like you not to peg conservatives as people who are content with accusing others of pedophilia to attempt to win an argument.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM

MC, read my last few posts.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I’ll thank scum like you not to peg conservatives as people who are content with accusing others of pedophilia to attempt to win an argument.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Once again, you have serious projection problems.

I never said “pedophilia” in the post you are accusing me of calling kaltes in.

You are reading far more into what I said, than what is there. You really need to go have a beer and chill out.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Okay, Madison, I seee why you’re confused. I didn’t realize that “twink” was gay slang for a man who’s into young-looking teens/young adults. Now I see why you brought up the “teen” sites. I thought a “twink” was someone who was attracted to pre-pubescent boys. Now do you see why I said what I said regarding the “teen” sites?

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

When you’re actually going into the semantics of pedophiles versus hebephiles or whatever they’re called, and whatever that other sub-group is, I lose interest in the conversation.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

No, I will not apologize to the people who are defending pedophiles. I never thought I would see that kind of thing on HotAir, and I never thought that I was going to wake up this morning and see more reams of psychobabble garbage and lies from the same apologist.

Sicko.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Show me ONE example where anyone defended a pedophile. Then apologize.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

You are reading far more into what I said, than what is there. You really need to go have a beer and chill out.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM

They can never ever be confronted with the truth. It washes over them like water on a screen. They know something was there, but they could never in their life catch any of it.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM

They can never ever be confronted with the truth. It washes over them like water on a screen. They know something was there, but they could never in their life catch any of it.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Usually MC is pretty reasonable. I was surprised at his reaction.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Guys, the comment from E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM isn’t even the first one accusing me of being a pedophile in this topic.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

It is certainly the most blatant and egregious foul accusation.

I don’t think your positions could be more wrong, but there’s no place for things like that. Although you’ve incorrectly assumed way too much thoughtless, angry and emotional venting on the part of other commenters, that comment did perfectly fit the bill.

You should know if you report it that even among those who strongly and heatedly disagree with you there is support for reportage of such a particularly vile personal broadside.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I really love all these semantics about pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, etc. They’re all children, and it’s f**king disturbing that you’re trying to play semantics over age groups.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Well psychology and the law generally make distinctions between children and adolescents. The age cut off is usually, but not always 14. Over 14 is considered more along “statutory rape” lines, and under 14 is usually considered to be molestation/pedophilia.

In America, we make sex with mid to late teenagers illegal for cultural and political reasons, but this has not always been the case. For example, Hawaii’s age of consent was 14 until political pressure in 2001 forced a change to 16 to bring it in line with the other states. LINK Most states now have an age of consent of 16.

In most of the world, sexual activity with someone 14+ is perfectly legal. This includes Europe (some countries in Europe have higher ages of 15 and 16, but many are 14). Here is a MAP which shows the legal age around the world. The map is mostly right, except South Korea’s age of consent is actually 13.

The degree to which these facts are shocking, and I was pretty shocked to learn how low the ages of consent were in most of the world, just goes to show how the culture is in the United States.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

They can never ever be confronted with the truth. It washes over them like water on a screen. They know something was there, but they could never in their life catch any of it.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM

A pedophile is someone attracted to children, which is what that scumbag accused kaltes of.

As I’ve said, this kind of thing always happens when pedophilia is discussed at HA, but it never ceases to turn my stomach.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Usually MC is pretty reasonable. I was surprised at his reaction.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I’m still waiting for h im to appologize for lumping me in with those “pedifilia and homosexuality are closely related” people. Just becuase I point out there if you’re a pedefile you’re eithe “straight”, “gay” or “bi” doens’t mean I’m one of those types. I’m just sick of the PC-ness of saying “If you’re a man that molests little boys then there is no way that you’re gay….oh yeah, I guess if I have to say it then if you molest girls you can’t be straight either…*sigh*..”

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 2:13 PM

A pedophile is someone attracted to children, which is what that scumbag accused kaltes of.

As I’ve said, this kind of thing always happens when pedophilia is discussed at HA, but it never ceases to turn my stomach.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

A pedophile is someone who as acted on it.

Unless your going for thought crime; which is absurd.

I really don’t see what your getting your panties in a wad over. I doubt there is a man on the board who hasn’t looked a gal for a second and thought she was attractive; if that person had turned out to look 18, but be 16… is that a crime? Especially if it was just a passing thought?

If you dwell on that thought, sure that would be a problem that may lead to an act, and the ACT would make you a pedophile. But as long as you aren’t collecting child-porn, or dwelling on the idea obsessively, I don’t see it as an issue.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

pe·do·phile   [pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

My last response to the cowardly scumbag who crossed the line.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

We’re not necessarily talking about someone who has acted

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Again another coat of paint applied into the catch-22 corner. If there is no visible manifestation nobody would even know. Your neighbor might harbor thoughts of murder, but unless he does something (e.g. bragging about his urge to kill) you have zero way of knowing his private thoughts.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Oh my holy god….who are you to say we have to know his private thoughts? If he thinks about murder but never actually murders, he has commited NO WRONG! You just said thought crime was a perfectly reasonable concept.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I think my point went over you head there. Unless a person “comes out” as a pedophile, nobody would know even to talk about it.
Since you are correct that we can’t read minds we can only go by what someone does. It has to carried over from fantasy into the real world, e.g. trading childporn with other pedophiles.
Get my point?

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

I’m still waiting for h im to appologize for lumping me in with those “pedifilia and homosexuality are closely related” people. Just becuase I point out there if you’re a pedefile you’re eithe “straight”, “gay” or “bi” doens’t mean I’m one of those types. I’m just sick of the PC-ness of saying “If you’re a man that molests little boys then there is no way that you’re gay….oh yeah, I guess if I have to say it then if you molest girls you can’t be straight either…*sigh*..”

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 25, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Well, I don’t know if they are closely related or not. However, it makes sense to me that there is a progression to that kind of behavior. You don’t just become a pedophile overnight. There is a progression.

Like other kinds of criminals, a rapist may start killing his victims if he is allowed to continue. There is a progression. You may start out as one thing, and eventually move to another.

Homosexuality may not even be a step in the progression. You could go from abusing animals (like Jeffery Dahmer) to killing and eating people.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM

My last response to the cowardly scumbag who crossed the line.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

/eyeroll whatever dude… go have that beer.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM

pe·do·phile   [pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

My last response to the cowardly scumbag who crossed the line.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

While I don’t engage in “scumbag” accusations, I’d say that trying to spin with “what is-is” type maneuvers is certainly weasel-like.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Yes, in fact, you personally kaltes are asking for pedophilia to not be a crime.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Not at all. You just fail at reading.

If pedophiles who have never been arrested voluntarily enter treatment, this treatment will, presumably, result in PREVENTING molestations that would have otherwise happened. Preventing molestations means no arrest, no prosecution, no life in prison, because THERE WAS NEVER A CRIME.

Therefore I was arguing that preventing these crimes could be a better alternative to the status quo, which is to do nothing, wait for a molester to victimize one or more victims and get caught, and then drop the Hammer of Zeus on him. I criticized this approach for being too costly and failing to protect children. I never advocated legalization of molestation as an alternative to the status quo.

If you think I did, quote it.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Therefore I was arguing that preventing these crimes could be a better alternative to the status quo, which is to do nothing, wait for a molester to victimize one or more victims and get caught, and then drop the Hammer of Zeus on him. I criticized this approach for being too costly and failing to protect children. I never advocated legalization of molestation as an alternative to the status quo.

If you think I did, quote it.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM

There is no need to change the current definition of pedophilia just to treat people. There should already be people working on such treatment and should have been for YEARS.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Your argument was how much we spend on jails for them. You do not want to spend money on jails for them. That means, it must no longer be criminal if they are not going to face any prosecution and potential repercussions for their actions.

Cut it all up into tiny little pieces, look for the micrscopic aspect of that that supports your notion that you are not advocating for decriminalization all you want. I know what your words mean.

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

wow, first the hatred for gay people….and now some of you are attacking each other.

I think a psychiatrist is needed at HA.
lol

bridgetown on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

pe·do·phile   [pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

My last response to the cowardly scumbag who crossed the line.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

While I don’t engage in “scumbag” accusations, I’d say that trying to spin with “what is-is” type maneuvers is certainly weasel-like.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Oh, to be clear on that – I wasn’t referring to you, MC.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

While I don’t engage in “scumbag” accusations, I’d say that trying to spin with “what is-is” type maneuvers is certainly weasel-like.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Unless you trying to justify thought crime, a Pedophile is some who has been *caught* doing something. Like collecting child-porn or acting on their deviant urges.

After all, if they haven’t been caught, how do we know about it? Unless your a psychological professional treating someone who hasn’t committed a crime, or if your going to a local support group, I don’t know why you would have reason to know.

You can compare it to Clinton’s depends on your definition of “is”; but that is really weak.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Oh, to be clear on that – I wasn’t referring to you, MC.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I understood, but I stand by the “scumbag” label. When faced with the definition of the word, he just says “whatever”. No honor.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I understood, but I stand by the “scumbag” label. When faced with the definition of the word, he just says “whatever”. No honor.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Yes, and your such the adult with your behavior…

Wow, I am so impressed with your example… can I kiss your feet?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

If pedophiles who have never been arrested voluntarily enter treatment, this treatment will, presumably, result in PREVENTING molestations that would have otherwise happened.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM

The problem with that, even assuming they can be prevented, is the overwhelming majority don’t seek treatment before they act. Instead, they are only found out when they act on their impulses. It’s the same as with every crime.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Mark Belling talking about this on Rush’s show right now.

And mocking it appropriately.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Show me ONE example where anyone defended a pedophile. Then apologize.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Read Kaltes’ posts without your blinders on. Then STFU.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM

the f**k? Please wear your deranged hatred on your sleeve a little more.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Yes, anybody who disagrees with you about homosexuals is a hater. I guess labels are only okay if you’re using them, right? Hypocrite.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM

+

astonerii on August 25, 2011 at 2:41 PM

A pedophile is someone who as acted on it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

False.

The ICD-10 defines pedophilia as “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.” The current proposed DSM-V language fits with the ICD-10 language. Psychologists are not lawyers. The DSM-IV doesn’t bind them. If you say you have a thing for kids, but you only masturbate to fantasies of them, they’re going to diagnose you as a pedo anyway. There are no loopholes in practice.

Part of the conference in question was drawing a distinction between pedophiles and criminal molesters, which is something the proposed DSM-V tries to do as well:

Ray Blanchard, in his literature review for the DSM-5, noted the objections and proposed a general solution applicable to all paraphilias, namely a distinction between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder. The latter term is proposed to identify the diagnosable condition, which meets both Criterion A and B, whereas an individual who does not meet Criterion B, can be ascertained, but not diagnosed, as having a paraphilia.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

You guys can side issue all you want. The fact remains that there seems to be a lot of folks “already” and openly petitioning to lower the age of consent right here on Hot Air. I can post a ton of comments from this very thread advocating puberty as an appropriate age for someone to be attracted to.

What other proof do you need to see it’s already headed in this direction?

hawkdriver on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Yes, anybody who disagrees with you about homosexuals is a hater.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Anyone who accuses another of being a “homo-apologist”, yes.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Oh, to be clear on that – I wasn’t referring to you, MC.
whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I understood, but I stand by the “scumbag” label. When faced with the definition of the word, he just says “whatever”. No honor.
MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

It’s one of the areas I usually attribute to a bad upbringing. Teaching basic respect for others doesn’t seem to have been stressed in homes as much over the years. Some of us recall when a bar of soap might be orally employed, if necessary.
:)

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

And the people who get the label of Pedophile in society are who?

Those who get caught at it… which requires and ACT.

You can throw your dictionaries and your high mucky mucky psychological crap all day. But the COMMON USAGE of Pedophile is someone who has HAD sex with a minor.

You can argue that till your blue in the face. But until they get caught at it, nobody knows about them, and nobody cares.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM

It’s one of the areas I usually attribute to a bad upbringing. Teaching basic respect for others doesn’t seem to have been stressed in homes as much over the years. Some of us recall when a bar of soap might be orally employed, if necessary.
:)

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Oh looky, another angel… what grace, what charm, such angelic behavior.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Mark Belling talking about this on Rush’s show right now.

And mocking it appropriately.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM

He did a good job, but I wish Rush had been on – that would have been epic.

Rebar on August 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

The problem with that, even assuming they can be prevented, is the overwhelming majority don’t seek treatment before they act. Instead, they are only found out when they act on their impulses. It’s the same as with every crime.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The whole point of the b4u-act group is to convince pedos to come out of the shadows and get into treatment BEFORE they act. Get it? b4u-act? its the reason for the name.

The psychologists are arguing that because of the extremely hatred, fear, vilification, etc of pedophiles, they are too scared to come in to get help because they might get turned in to the police or have their reputations destroyed.

Now you can disagree with whether their approach has merit, but I think for the media to claim they are trying to legalize molestation is just ridiculous.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

At least your consistent with your distinction without a difference defense.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

15-year-olds and 10-year-olds are both children. Good grief, what the f**k is wrong with you? Never mind, I really don’t want to know.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I see you can’t answer my point about homosexuals who claim they were “born that way,” and knew from early childhood that they were attracted to people of the same sex. I know several such homosexuals.

A fifteen year old is a child? So does that mean that we can rid of all these “gay-lesbian” support groups in our high schools, because there is no such thing as a homosexual teenager?

This discussion is getting ridiculous, and your faux outrage is boring. You’re just glomming onto it to deflect from your inability to respond to valid points.

Have a night afternoon. I’m out of here.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Anyone who accuses another of being a “homo-apologist”, yes.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM

That is what you are. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Don’t like it? Too bad.

See ya later, hypocrite.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM

It’s one of the areas I usually attribute to a bad upbringing. Teaching basic respect for others doesn’t seem to have been stressed in homes as much over the years. Some of us recall when a bar of soap might be orally employed, if necessary.
:)

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Eh, like I said earlier…people like that wouldn’t have the stones to say it to someone’s face in real life…unless they like sudden naps on the floor.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

But I don’t think the argument that they are trying to garner acceptance of the pedo or their behavior is off base.

Again, the language at the website itself would lead anyone to believe so.

catmman on August 25, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

JannyMae on August 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM

That’s why it’s perfectly appropriate to label you as blind.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I challenge kaltes; madisonconservative, and whatcat; to show me ANYONE on the sex offenders watchlist that hasn’t acted. Show me someone on the list that hasn’t done anything, but is still an offender because of thought crime.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM

it’s f**king disturbing MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:43 PM

…the f**k? MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

what the f**k MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

So f**king what? Oh, and just f**king priceless MadisonConservative on March 1, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Take your own f**king advice. Jesus f**king Christ …then f**k off, MadisonConservative on March 1, 2011 at 2:56 PM

AND getting international recognition:

This Daily Telegraph report was picked up in the (second) post on the story by right wing Anerican site Hot Air. Given that their first story was full of comments with gushing praise for the victim having had his revenge on the bully (with barely a handful of comments noting that it was pure good luck that he didn’t accidentally kill the bully and end up at real risk of a trial for manslaughter) this revelation of the mother wanting an apology was too much:

Listen up, you worthless brood mare: if you raised your kids not to be bullies, they wouldn’t get bodyslammed. Now f**k off, because there’s a good chance you’re going to be demanding another apology in the future from the judge that puts your stupid brat behind bars.

That was a comment by “Madisonconservative“. Yes, there is so much to admire on the Right of American politics at the moment.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Eh, like I said earlier…people like that wouldn’t have the stones to say it to someone’s face in real life…unless they like sudden naps on the floor.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM

I have said stuff like that in people’s face. I have no problem with calling it like I see it both here and in my daily life.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

*sniff* *sniff* I’ve never been more proud to be a “Scumbag”. *Golf Clap*

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Damn, you’re whiny. And going months back just to find instances of me saying f**k…kinda creepy. Maybe you and Jim Carrey should talk.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Call me crazy but I get the impression that MC doesn’t throw the f-bombs in people’s faces in real life as often as he uses them here. Just a hunch.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Call me crazy but I get the impression that MC doesn’t throw the f-bombs in people’s faces in real life as often as he uses them here. Just a hunch.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

In his defense, I really do think he just got up on the wrong side of the blog today. Like I said, he’s usually pretty reasonable.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM

We’re not necessarily talking about someone who has acted

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Again another coat of paint applied into the catch-22 corner. If there is no visible manifestation nobody would even know. Your neighbor might harbor thoughts of murder, but unless he does something (e.g. bragging about his urge to kill) you have zero way of knowing his private thoughts.

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Oh my holy god….who are you to say we have to know his private thoughts? If he thinks about murder but never actually murders, he has commited NO WRONG! You just said thought crime was a perfectly reasonable concept.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I think my point went over you head there. Unless a person “comes out” as a pedophile, nobody would know even to talk about it.
Since you are correct that we can’t read minds we can only go by what someone does. It has to carried over from fantasy into the real world, e.g. trading childporn with other pedophiles.
Get my point?

whatcat on August 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Nope, I understood your point just fine. What you said was “If there is no visible manifestation nobody would even know.” My point was, if there was no visible manifestation, he didn’t do anything wrong. You called this a coat of paint applied into the catch-22 corner, implying that the dirty pedophile is gonna miss being properly strung up because we don’t know what he’s thinking. But since he didn’t actually molest anyone (my initial condition that you were commenting on) then what he was actually commiting, by your own logic, was a thought crime.

You said what you said. Own it.

runawayyyy on August 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Call me crazy but I get the impression that MC doesn’t throw the f-bombs in people’s faces in real life as often as he uses them here. Just a hunch.

Akzed on August 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Your hunch is wrong, and you’re f**kin’ crazy.

MadisonConservative on August 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8