The DoubtingThomas dating / relationships MEGATHREAD

[_DoubtingThomas]

You are trying to argue that a 20 something male having a desire to have sex with females of that age group is normal

What I am trying to say is that I have no interest in 17 year olds. Dating a 17 year old is not wrong or illegal (my state), but I decided not to. You see no one is forcing me, I made the decision on my own. I am only interested in adults. Your Ephebophilia theory isn't correct and was not appropriate.

[_EAllusion]

You cited a study that you misrepresented arguing that 17 year old relationships with 20 somethings is actually quite common as a means to say that you don't want a relationship with a 17 year old? How does that work?

Back on earth, you got into an exchange in which you claimed such relationships are normal. That's the who point of the exchange. Honor said, "A normal person accused of attraction to underaged persons wouldn't need to qualify they wouldn't do something that would result in their going to jail."

You picked out the phrase "a normal person" and wrote in reply, "I disagree, the legal age of consent is 16 or 17 in many US states. Many men in their early 20s do date 16-17 year olds, it is more common than you think, especially with minorities and Mexicans."

The rest is you inartfully attempting to defend that claim. The origin of that whole exchange is me pointing out that your posting history here carries strong overtones of attraction to late teens as evidenced by the fact that you, to the near-exclusion of any other topic, have posted hundreds and hundreds of comments whose thematic thread is either how sexual relationships between late teens and older people isn't as bad as people think or how it is desperately important that you have a sexual relationship with a late teen, or failing at that, someone who has traits as similar to one as you can find. As you've taken a lot of heat for this, you edit posts and back off and say things like, "Fine. I don't want that. Happy now?!" but then return to similar posting themes. I am being cautious and kind by merely describing this as "strong overtones." If this is accidental, it still exists. If you have ASD or another disorder that produces obsessional thinking and get "stuck" on topics, which is plausible given that one of the few other things you'll discuss is your desire for extra-terrestrial intelligence life to be real, you've gotten stuck on a real unfortunate topic for several years. And I'm someone who is sympathetic to some positions you stake out here.

[_DoubtingThomas]

And I'm someone who is sympathetic to some positions you stake out here.

Thank you. I will stop (hopefully very soon), I promise. But Lemmie's desperate attempt to link me to incels (and possible criminals) is widly inappropriate. What do you think?

You cited a study that you misrepresented arguing that 17 year old relationships with 20 somethings is actually quite common as a means to say that you don't want a relationship with a 17 year old? How does that work?

I really don't I stated that many times. I wanted to show that 18 is not borderline illegal or immoral. Lemmie said, "Your stated plan to seek out 18 year old girls who are 15 years younger [what the hell??] than you, while misrepresenting yourself as a virgin seeking another virgin, is utterly dishonest and wildly inappropriate. It would be irresponsible of readers of your posts to encourage you in this borderline illegal and definitely immoral plan."

I honestly feel Lemmie wants to see me to die.

[Guest]

Lemmie quoting incel crap.

Not only are men shamed for their natural sexuality, but the harm inflicted by sex acts that involve children has been overstated. There is substantial evidence that children typically respond with resilience to so called "potentially traumatic events

What the F___ is that garbage?

[_Lemmie]

Not only are men shamed for their natural sexuality, but the harm inflicted by sex acts that involve children has been overstated. There is substantial evidence that children typically respond with resilience to so called "potentially traumatic events".

What the F___ is that garbage?

I didn’t say that, DT, I was quoting a site: https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackp ... atched_men

Fix your quote.

Here is my actual post:

In this next one, DT did not discuss children but rather young teenagers not being harmed by sex with older people. He has made the identical points about overstatedness and resilience, however, many many times:

Not only are men shamed for their natural sexuality, but the harm inflicted by sex acts that involve children has been overstated. There is substantial evidence that children typically respond with resilience to so called "potentially traumatic events".

And DT’s version:

I do want age of consent laws to protect children, but the idea that 16 and 17 year olds can't consent to sex is ridiculous. The law needs to change because consensual sex is not rape

viewtopic.php?p=1110967#p1110967

[_DoubtingThomas]

And DT’s version:

Of course it is not rape if it was consensual, the legal age is 16 or 17 in most countries, including femenist countries

So are you just going to ignore the facts?

[_DoubtingThomas]

And that has nothing to do with your incel qoute about children. What the Hell?

[_EAllusion]

Lemmie appears to have decided, quite some time ago, that you are a middle-age man pretending to be a younger person with a predatory interest in teens that gets some pleasure out of posting about it here. Needless to say, I don't think that's a warranted conclusion from what we've seen. I think Lemmie routinely overreads things. You do post defenses of your own views, as a literal incel, that at times mirror the toxic incel community. That doesn't mean you are an active participant in that community, as Lemmie has inferred, but you certainly could be. Either way, it's not a great look to be adopting. There's a difference between me saying your posting contains strong overtones of ehebephiliia and Lemmie saying your an aggressive persona of a middle-aged sex pervert. Here, however she's not even doing that. She's pointing out that your arguments seem straight out of the pages of incel-dom, because they do.

I don't agree with everything you are saying. Case in point, me disagreeing with you right now. As an example, I agree that there's no evidence to believe that 17/20 year old relationships are harmful in a way that could possibly justify sex offender penalties they sometimes produce. But this isn't just a passing opinion of yours or, really, a particular brickbat that you like to return to. It's an part of an all-consuming theme related to your personal desires that ties into nearly everything you wish to discuss.

[Guest]

There's a difference between me saying your posting contains strong overtones of ehebephiliia and Lemmie saying your an aggressive persona of a middle-aged sex pervert. Here, however she's not even doing that.

No she’s not.

Lemmie appears to have decided, quite some time ago, that you are a middle-age man pretending to be a younger person with a predatory interest in teens that gets some pleasure out of posting about it here. Needless to say, I don't think that's a warranted conclusion from what we've seen.

Would you please stop saying that? The last time I mentioned his age, which was many, many months ago, you disagreed and presented your case, and since then I have NOT referred to his age, mostly out of respect for your opinion, regardless of what my opinions are. Continuing to recycle that version gives DT ammunition that is inappropriate. Your “routine” assumptions about me need an update.

[_EAllusion]

Fair enough. I was, indeed, referring to what you've said last I thought about you commenting on the topic. I respect that you've since changed your view, or, at least, changed your view about expressing your view.