• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Conversations with Christians over pedophilia and homosexuality

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Debating christians over the issue of homosexuality is sort of a pre-requisite for living a secular life in Brazil. While most of them have weak arguments, recently I was impressed by an evangelical psychologist who argued for heterosexual superiority.

Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.

Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".

And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.

Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".

I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.

Do you guys have any thoughts?
 

dystopian

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
2,065
Location
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Debating christians over the issue of homosexuality is sort of a pre-requisite for living a secular life in Brazil. While most of them have weak arguments, recently I was impressed by an evangelical psychologist who argued for heterosexual superiority.

Although I am unsure if his conclusion that "heterosexuality is better than homosexuality" is even relevant, or if any sense can be made of it, he presents two reasons under which heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality.

Both of these reasons are based on a 1992 study by Dr. Kurt Freund and Dr. R.J Watson called "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words, "[...]among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality.".

And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.

Both me and my opponent agree that this does not show that homosexual teleiophiles are more likely to molest children, in fact some studies conducted by Dr. Ray Blanchart show quite the opposite, but he says that heterosexuality is superior because (1) homosexual development is twice as likely to result in pedophilia and (2) if we equated the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals on our society, most pedophiles would be homosexuals. He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".

I agree with (1) and (2) but I don't think they show that one orientation is superior than the other. Actually, (2) looks like an "if everybody was gay no one would reproduce" argument.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

"And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. …"

This is a pretty dishonest use of language here. What exactly does 'notably often' mean?

in regards to 1); Twice as likely as among heterosexuals, as he claims? Even if that is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, pedophilia would still represent an absolutely tiny minority of *either* heterosexual or homosexual individuals. 2 out of a million homosexual adults compared to only 1 out of a million heterosexual adults does NOT provide an argument for the "superiority" of heterosexuality.

in regards to 2); Not only are (if these figures are accurate) most pedophiles homosexuals... but in fact ALL of them are mammallian humans. Therefore, lizards are superior. Most criminals in Brazil are Brazilian... therefore, Brazilians are inferior. It's the same logic at play; which should make it clear that the argument he's making is completely ridiculous.

In regards to the gene argument; he clearly doesn't understand genetics. You're generally not going to get a gene that does nothing but make you twice as likely to get cancer. In all likelihood, that gene will have benefits and drawbacks. It might make you twice as likely to get cancer, and half as likely to not get some other disease, or provide you with some sort of other advantage. There's lots of things we can do or have that make us more likely to fall victim to bad things, but which doesn't make those things something you want to not do or have. For instance, what if I told you there was an activity that made you almost *certain* to develop lower back pain later in life? Would you want to cut that activity out of your life? Well, good luck never walking anywhere then.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
That's a very weak argument.

Even if he's correct and there is a relationship between what causes one to be a homosexual and what causes one to be a pedophile, that's no reason to link the two in this manner. It's like saying that eating healthy and exercising causes you to lose weight and being anorexic causes you to lose weight, so therefore eating healthy and exercising is as bad for you as being anorexic. If a greater proportion of healthy-eating people end up becoming anorexic in relation to the number of obese people who do, that's not a reason to flag healthy eating as a problem in and of itself.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
When I was in grades 8 through 12, the incidence of female teachers having sex with male students was zero. I do not recall a single incidence reported in the news, or even suspected by rumor.

As an adult, I know these things are fairly common. At least one or more a month is exposed. Does this mean it's a new phenomena or just a newly revealed phenomena?

It's been said many times, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. A statement such as
The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children". Their study found out that the proportion of pedophiles who are more attracted to boys than to girls is larger than the proportion of teleiophiles (people attracted to adults) who are more attracted to men than to women. In other words,...

means nothing because the statistics upon which it rests are not reliable, either in percentage, or absolute numbers.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Well, I don't know how capable I am to do justice to Dr. Freund's study, but here is the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

I am not an expert on genetics either, but I think he would tell you to imagine a gene and then a mutated version of that gene. The point is not that "there is a gente that does nothing but make you twice as likely to get cancer". I think he's trying to say that there is a mutated gene that does everything the 'normal' gene does, but it makes you twice as likely to get cancer, so that gene is inferior.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,551
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think it's daft for an evangelical christian to cite studies to "prove" that being heterosexual is superior to not being heterosexual. I think the study on its own is an interesting topic in so much as trying to figure out or demonstrate how we humans work.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I'll say more later in the thread, but briefly, that does not seem to say anything about bisexual or homosexual women. What's his rationale for considering female bisexuality or female homosexuality inferior?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. … This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women]". They estimate that a homosexual development resulting in pedophilia is twice as likely than a heterosexual one.
That's misleading, because the expression "results" suggests that there is a certain psychological phenomenon "homosexual development" that then results in either androphilia, or pedophilia.
However, there is no indication that the development of sexual attraction to adult human males (in human males) is part of the same psychological phenomenon as the development of attraction to prepubescent human males (i.e., that the event begins with the development of "homosexual behavior" and ends up going towards either pedophilia or androphilia).

He means "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as including pedophile and teleiophile individuals.
And I can define "orapple" as including apples and oranges, but that does not warrant conflating apples and oranges in other contexts, e.g., when doing research on the matter. If it turns out that, say, watermelons are nutritionally better than apples (let's say they're better in all regards that makes sense to consider, etc., it's not true, but that's not the point) but roughly equal to oranges , saying that watermelons are overall better than orapples may be true, but a silly point to make: placing oranges and apples under the same "orapple" label seems to be useless as a classificatory scheme.

In the case of male homosexuality (as usually defined) and male pedophilia, conflating the two under the label "homosexuality" may be worse than useless - it may be misleading because there already is a common concept of homosexuality that doesn't include pedophilia.
If he claims that the two phenomena are indeed so similar that the classificatory scheme is justified in this context, it would be up to him to present the evidence that supports his claim (not that having good evidence of that would establish his claim that homosexual orientation is worse in any of the senses he might want to establish that).

From a slightly different perspective: the study provides no support whatsoever in support of the claim that predominant or exclusive attraction to adult males in males (which is what is usually known as homosexual orientation in men (or predominantly homosexual)) is in any way worse than predominant or exclusive attraction to adult females.

On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".
Here, he's just assuming a single cause or phenomenon that sometimes turns into what's usually understood as male homosexuality, and sometimes into attraction towards boys.
I might as well say "Suppose there are genes A1, A2, B1, and B2. Now suppose that B1 is twice as likely to give you cancer as B2. Aren't we accurate in saying A2 is better than A1?"
Based on the available info, of course there is no means of telling whether A2 is in any way better than A1.
Why does he think he's dealing with the same underlying phenomenon (which he calls "homosexuality"), rather than conflating apples and oranges?
 
Last edited:

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.

The idea of a genetic cause for homosexuality runs counter to and undermines any hypothesis that homosexuality is a choice and can be corrected through introspection and therapy.

If it is shown that the elements of psychology which make a person a homosexual are present at conception, then such a person is God's intentional creation, not a corruption of God's creation. This presents a theological and philosophical dilemma for those who claim to base their homophobia on Scripture.
 

dystopian

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
2,065
Location
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

Because it's poisoning the well. It reeks of a deliberate attempt to equate being gay with being a pedophile. The latter is almost universally recognized as a very bad thing to be, and equating or even just associating it with homosexuality gives rise to the idea that being gay is a bad thing because of the association. This is similar to what happens with pretty much any other form of bigotry/discrimination. For instance, look at black people in the west. There's a link that's often drawn between black criminals, and black people as a group. If you start talking about the issue as explicitly *black* crime, as opposed to just crime, you run the very real risk that you or people who listen to you start thinking negatively about black people as a whole.


There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia,

Much of which operates from a position of prejudice.


but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No; because they are fundamentally two different things on the basis of mutual consent. A child can not provide informed consent; an adult can. Whether or nor the two forms of attraction have a similar cause is completely irrelevant. For instance, getting an electric shock can cause one person to die, while it can save another person's life... does the fact that the person who got shocked to death because of the same cause that restarted someone else's heart mean that being saved from cardiac arrest is a bad thing? Of course not.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?

There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?

No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.


Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
No, it would not.

Even if this link exists and pedophiles are simply further along the "scale of abnormality" than homosexuals and they simply have more of whatever causative factor leads to both, that would be not reason to associate the negatives of pedophilia with homosexuality.

It would be like saying that self-confidence is bad because too much of it turns you into a narcissist or saying that valuing the quality of your work is bad because when you overdo that you never complete tasks because they're not totally perfect or saying that it's bad to be open to new experiences because too much of that can lead to suicidal risk taking which endangers yourself and others.

If some trait leads to "abnormal" sexuality by having more of that trait, then each point along that scale would need to be judged in and of itself and there's no justification for linking homosexuals with pedophiles instead of linking them with heterosexuals who like to have sex with the lights on. If the level of the trait which causes homosexuality isn't a bad level of the trait then it doesn't matter what problems greater levels of the trait would lead to.


Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

Let's assume this is a valid argument. How does this affect policy? What are we supposed to do with this information.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

It still wouldn't make one better than the other. Say that Trait A governs sexual attraction. People with a low level of the trait are heterosexual, those with a medium level of the trait are homosexual and those with a high level of the trait are pedophiles, so there's a linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia since they both have higher levels of Trait A than "normal". The fact that the levels of this trait in homosexuals are closer to the levels in pedophiles than with heterosexuals doesn't mean that there's a substantive difference between those with low of medium levels of the trait.

It's like saying that people who abstain from alcohol are better than those who drink moderately because sometimes people chug a gallon of moonshine and die of alcohol poisoning.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I'm not sure I get it. He puts "same-sex attraction to adults" and "same-sex attraction to children" under the same label, "same-sex" attraction. Why is that incoherent?
It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?

Dekusta said:
There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?
No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?
 
Last edited:

Random Person

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
562
Location
Ohio
Basic Beliefs
I don't have a philosohy or worldview
Surely, but the argument is not that homosexuality is bad. It says that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality because it's development leads to pedophiles less often than homosexuality's development.

Let's assume this is a valid argument. How does this affect policy? What are we supposed to do with this information.


That's what I was thinking. Maybe research ethics should include something about not labelling something as a valid question until a valid conclusion has been determined.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I forgot to add he also thinks that the results of this study count as evidence for his hypothesis that homosexuality is a twisted, sort of "mutation" that arose from heterosexuals somehow.

And again, that's part of what's wrong. He has no good reason to believe that based on a study about pedophilia. Or does he have any good reason to think he's not mixing apples and oranges, even in the case of men? But even that wouldn't work, because he's just ignoring female homosexuality, and of course for several other reasons.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?

Dekusta said:
There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?
No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?


That sounds like a good counter-argument. "The development of male sexuality is more likely to result in pedophilia than the development of female sexuality, therefore female sexuality is better than male sexuality".

An objetcion would be that both male and female sexuality development are not entirely different, because both of them lead to the same things (either bisexuality or homo/heterosexuality, and many others). The difference between them may occur because of the differences between the male and female bodies, and is not a difference "in the sexuality itself", as it is with male homosexuality and male heterosexuality.

But I'm not sure this is a good reason to reject your argument, since the claim could change from "male sexuality" to the male body. In other words, "the development of a male body is more likely to result in a disorder of sexuality than the development of a female body, therefore female bodies are superior". I think it would be hard for him to bite the bullet in this case, but perhaps he could appeal for other aspects of the male and female bodies to show that, despite using the same logic as his argument for the superiority of heterosexuality, the conclusion that "female bodies are superior" is false.

Still, the term "difference in the sexuality itself" seems difficult to define. Certainly, homosexuality in females and homosexuality in males are different, but they are both "same-sex attraction". However, heterosexuality and homosexuality are different because one is "same-sex attraction" while the other is not. I'm still not sure if this is a relevant point at all.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?


No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.

Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.

Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.

Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?

Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?


That sounds like a good counter-argument. "The development of male sexuality is more likely to result in pedophilia than the development of female sexuality, therefore female sexuality is better than male sexuality".

An objetcion would be that both male and female sexuality development are not entirely different, because both of them lead to the same things (either bisexuality or homo/heterosexuality, and many others). The difference between them may occur because of the differences between the male and female bodies, and is not a difference "in the sexuality itself", as it is with male homosexuality and male heterosexuality.

But I'm not sure this is a good reason to reject your argument, since the claim could change from "male sexuality" to the male body. In other words, "the development of a male body is more likely to result in a disorder of sexuality than the development of a female body, therefore female bodies are superior". I think it would be hard for him to bite the bullet in this case, but perhaps he could appeal for other aspects of the male and female bodies to show that, despite using the same logic as his argument for the superiority of heterosexuality, the conclusion that "female bodies are superior" is false.

Still, the term "difference in the sexuality itself" seems difficult to define. Certainly, homosexuality in females and homosexuality in males are different, but they are both "same-sex attraction". However, heterosexuality and homosexuality are different because one is "same-sex attraction" while the other is not. I'm still not sure if this is a relevant point at all.
You can ask him what he has to say; still, the parallel argument is only if for some reason one is not persuaded by the rest of the more direct counterpoints.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Ok, so I sent him the discussion, and his response was a bit confusing. Here's what he said:

"About the gene reply, well, that is not totally parallel with my argument. When I say " male homosexual" I mean a male individual who is attracted to another male individual, be it adult or child. In that sense, homosexual teleiophilia and homosexual pedophilia share something in common: they are both ways of same-sex attraction. The same doesn't happen to the feature of having "blue eyes" and "nearsightedness". One doesn't share anything in common with the other the same way "homosexual teleiophilia" and "homosexual pedophilia does.

Further, even this is not relevant, I still see that having gene B is better than having gene A, for simply the reduced risk of having nearsightedness. I'd ask what he meant by overall worse being just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness". Worse is still worse, no?

I must say that I haven't read significant research about female pedophilia, but my answer to the other counter-argument and the question about adoption will be the same, I think. Sexuality is different in males and in females because of the different configuration their bodies have. It is not like homosexuality and heterosexuality, which the difference resides in the sexuality itself (one is towards same-sex while the other isn't) so I think it makes no sense comparing the two".
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Let "homosexual*" mean what he means by "homosexual", and let "homosexual" mean what the word "homosexual" usually means in English. The same for "heterosexual*".

Dekusta said:
Ok, so I sent him the discussion, and his response was a bit confusing. Here's what he said:

"About the gene reply, well, that is not totally parallel with my argument. When I say " male homosexual" I mean a male individual who is attracted to another male individual, be it adult or child. In that sense, homosexual teleiophilia and homosexual pedophilia share something in common: they are both ways of same-sex attraction. The same doesn't happen to the feature of having "blue eyes" and "nearsightedness". One doesn't share anything in common with the other the same way "homosexual teleiophilia" and "homosexual pedophilia does.
The gene argument was a reply to your question:
Dekusta said:
There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?
His original gene argument was:

Dekusta said:
On another instance, he told me that "Suppose there are two genes, gene A and gene B. Now suppose that gene B has twice as likely the chance of turning into a cancer than gene A. Aren't we accurate when saying that gene A is better than gene B?".
Obviously, genes do not turn into cancer. So, what did he even mean by that?
It seems he meant a gene increases your chances of cancer, or even causes you to have cancer. If he didn't mean that, what did he even mean?

Dekusta said:
Here's what he said:

...

Further, even this is not relevant, I still see that having gene B is better than having gene A, for simply the reduced risk of having nearsightedness. I'd ask what he meant by overall worse being just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness". Worse is still worse, no?
Actually, better or worse are relative to different matters. It may be that trait A1 is better than trait A2 with respect to some matter M1, but not M2.

Now, it would be better with respect to sightedness, and with respect to reproduction (in terms of passing on genes to one's children to have that gene than to have the other, all other things equal.
But let's say that adults who have gene A and who are not shortsighted are not more likely to develop shortsightedness than adults who have gene B and who are not shortsighted (this is to parallel the case of adult homosexual* men vs. adult heterosexual* men, unless he claims that adult homosexual* men who are not pedophiles are more likely to develop pedophilia in the future than adult heterosexual* men who are not pedophiles).
In that case, it is not better for adults, and with respect to sightedness, to have gene B than to have gene A, and it's not better for adults, with respect to sightedness, to have brown eyes than to have blue eyes.
Granted, it would still be better with respect to reproduction to have gene B. But that is not relevant in the case under consideration, for the following reason:

Assuming - what he has not shown - a common cause, then heterosexuality* is better than homosexuality* with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia. But on the other hand, that does not imply that it's better for adults who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*, with respect to developing pedophilia.
What about "overall better"?
If he argues it's overall better, he would have to show (among many other things) that it's better for adult men who are not pedophiles and with respect to some matter M, to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*.


Dekusta said:
Here's what he said:
...

I must say that I haven't read significant research about female pedophilia, but my answer to the other counter-argument and the question about adoption will be the same, I think. Sexuality is different in males and in females because of the different configuration their bodies have. It is not like homosexuality and heterosexuality, which the difference resides in the sexuality itself (one is towards same-sex while the other isn't) so I think it makes no sense comparing the two".
He's picking and choosing without giving any reason. How would it make no sense to compare therm? What does it matter whether their bodies have "a different configuration"?
Didn't he say "worse is still worse", when comparing the genes blue vs. brown eyes example?
And yet, in that case, there is also a different configuration (one has blue eyes, the other has brown eyes, and that's a difference).
For that matter, homosexual and heterosexual men also have different configurations of the brain (some part of the brains are different, hence the difference in orientation).

Of course, one can be compared femaleness with maleness with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, and the former is better because the chances are lower. How does that possibly make no sense? What part of it makes no sense, if he claims that? (it's a rhetorical question, since that clearly makes sense, and it's better in the sense females are less likely to develop pedophilia (though my argument was actually about child molestation, where there is more data)). Of course, that does not entail that it's better for an adult person who isn't a pedophile to be a woman than to be a man...

So, I would ask him:


1. When you say "better", or "worse", do you mean with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, or with respect to what matter?
2. If it's "overall better", that also requires better with respect to some specific matter, so what matter is that?
3. More precisely, why is it better for adult males who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*?
4. What are you advocating on the basis of that alleged better quality and what's your argument for that?
5. How do you pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?


Is there a link to some place where he makes his arguments?

By the way, here is a link discussing the evidence: (though the Christian should explain what his argument is about (see questions above)).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
 
Last edited:

George S

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
3,031
Location
Venice, FL
Basic Beliefs
antitheist anarchist
Shall we divide the world into those who have molested and been caught and those who have not? Or might it be better to include everyone with an inappropriate sexual attraction to children? Or try to figure out from reported data what a PSA might say to raise people's awareness of pedophilia.

Given a random child who has been molested, who was it?

First* place is ... Incest. (parent, uncle/aunt, cousin)
Second is ... Trusted Stranger. (coach, teacher, priest, janitor, policeman, security guard, babysitter, and many others... neighbor, maid...)

They get themselves into positions where they have access to children. (A lot of children in one family were molested by their uncle -- a fireman who gave tours, (sometimes with a group as small as 1 or 2, I hear,) of the firehouse to children. He was a married man, hetero with adults, bisexual with children.)

_____

Prior probability of being a child molester is estimated at 1 in 100 to 5 in 100. Let's try 5% first and see what happens when we add in homosexuality. It doubles from a 1 in 20 chance to a 1 in 10 chance. Should you tolerate either one??? Just put your brother in charge of your kids and not know what is going on? He's straight with adults. There is only a 1 in 10 chance. The same as the chance your social security numbers end with the same digit. Would you place your child in a place where there was 'only' a 9 in 10 chance of survival? Really?

In the 1% case the probability doubles from 1% to 2%. If there were even a 1% drop-rate among infants in the hospital, I would declare an emergency, not argue whether it is related to where the nurse was educated.

___________________
Sorry for the interruption.
___________________


Judging homosexuality as if it is black and white is nonsense. It is a spectrum. Probability curves of degree of attraction/rejection by sex. They may or may not be mirror images. Consider someone (of either sex) who has been attracted to men and women equally, but only been attracted back by women. (Is there a spectrum to pedophilia? Degree of love of defloration of innocents?, but I digress.)

__________
Source: http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html
 
Last edited:

Potoooooooo

Contributor
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
6,921
Location
Floridas
Basic Beliefs
atheist
"And then they concluded that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. …"

This is a pretty dishonest use of language here. What exactly does 'notably often' mean?

in regards to 1); Twice as likely as among heterosexuals, as he claims? Even if that is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is, pedophilia would still represent an absolutely tiny minority of *either* heterosexual or homosexual individuals. 2 out of a million homosexual adults compared to only 1 out of a million heterosexual adults does NOT provide an argument for the "superiority" of heterosexuality.

in regards to 2); Not only are (if these figures are accurate) most pedophiles homosexuals... but in fact ALL of them are mammallian humans. Therefore, lizards are superior.

Maybe that is why Jesus chose to back as one
ZgyYrO2.gif
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Good thing. I'm familiar with the link you cited. I'll tell him and see if I can get him to answer.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Good thing. I'm familiar with the link you cited. I'll tell him and see if I can get him to answer.

Okay, but it's not just the link. Could you please ask him to answer the questions I asked in my previous post? It's difficult to reply to arguments as obscure as his. If there is a link where he made his argument, could take a look (though I'm a bit busy these days, so I can't guarantee a quick reply, but I will reply sooner or later)
.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund. Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".
 

dystopian

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
2,065
Location
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund.

I have no idea who Graham Clancy is; a quick google doesn't come up with anything.

As for Kurt Freund, your friend might not want to actually use him as a reference... Freund provided strong evidence for a genetic cause behind homosexuality; which if true kind of makes your friend out to be a huge dick (more so than he already appears to be) for reacting this way to a group that was born that way.


Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

...Wat.

He can't possibly believe this nonsense. First of all, "Twink" does not explicitly refer to teenage homosexuals; it simply refers to young (though still 18+ at the least) men with a certain build. Secondly, it is flat-out wrong to claim there is no similar presence of girls in straight culture... very much the opposite in fact. Even a casual comparison of gay and straight porn reveals that twinks don't look any noticeably younger than the women who appear in 'teen' straight porn... and there's a vast market for such straight porn. Either your friend has very little experience with straight porn, or he's just straight up lying to himself in order to prop up his argument.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

Wow.
Let's use the trends in porn to find out what real people really want? That's solid investigation, there. I'll go see how much Lolita-themed porn there is and determine that straights are pedophiles, too. And Lolita costumes at Spender's. Sex-flavored lollypops....
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
So, I've been trying to get an answer from him for a couple days, and here's what he came up with:

"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund. Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".

You need to spend more time researching straight porn, as you have some obvious gaps in your data.
 

Dekusta

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
48
Location
Goiânia
Basic Beliefs
Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
I have no idea who Graham Clancy is; a quick google doesn't come up with anything.

As for Kurt Freund, your friend might not want to actually use him as a reference... Freund provided strong evidence for a genetic cause behind homosexuality; which if true kind of makes your friend out to be a huge dick (more so than he already appears to be) for reacting this way to a group that was born that way.


Furthermore, the LGBT culture seems to place a lot of importance on what they call 'twinks', a term used to designate teenager homosexuals, or homosexuals who resemble teenagers. The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

...Wat.

He can't possibly believe this nonsense. First of all, "Twink" does not explicitly refer to teenage homosexuals; it simply refers to young (though still 18+ at the least) men with a certain build. Secondly, it is flat-out wrong to claim there is no similar presence of girls in straight culture... very much the opposite in fact. Even a casual comparison of gay and straight porn reveals that twinks don't look any noticeably younger than the women who appear in 'teen' straight porn... and there's a vast market for such straight porn. Either your friend has very little experience with straight porn, or he's just straight up lying to himself in order to prop up his argument.


He is referring to Graham 'G'lancy, with G, not Clancy. He or She worked with Kurt Freund in the study cited in the OP. Also, my reaction to this last part was the same as yours, but I didn't know what 'twink' was about. I don't understand him when he says that teen girls look like adult women but twinks look like teenagers. I think he is just desperate.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,030
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
By the guy's logic, the prevelance of the shaved pube look means heteros are inferior.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
"With regards to the link you shared with me, it appears the author focuses only on the studies provided by Paul Cameron and his Research Institute. Those are obviously not trustworthy, but there is much more to this issue than that, such as the studies conducted by Graham Glancy and Kurt Freund.
Actually, that's clearly not true - it should be clear just by clicking on the link and reading it that he does take into consideration a study by Freund.

But that aside, it seems he refuses to clearly answer my basic clarification questions, like:

1. When you say "better", or "worse", do you mean with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, or with respect to what matter?
2. If it's "overall better", that also requires better with respect to some specific matter, so what matter is that?
3. More precisely, why is it better for adult males who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual than to be homosexual?
4. What are you advocating on the basis of that alleged better quality and what's your argument for that?
5. How do you pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?

Definitions: By "homosexual*" I mean what he means by "homosexual", and by "homosexual" mean what the word "homosexual" usually means in English. The same for "heterosexual*" and "heterosexual".
I would press on the questions:

As for the only thing he did to approach my questions (but failing to address them):

With regards to the "overall better" confusion, we can go back to the eye-color gene example. If there is a gene A who gives you blue eyes but a higher chance of nearsightedness, and if there is another gene B who gives you the same blue eyes buth with a lesser chance of nearsightedness, then on the overall comparison, the gene B presents more advantages than gene A, as well as less impactful disadvantages".
But I already addressed that!

Again, let us consider the following scenario:

Let's say that adults who have gene A and who are not shortsighted are not more likely to develop shortsightedness than adults who have gene B and who are not shortsighted (this is to parallel the case of adult homosexual* men vs. adult heterosexual* men, unless he claims that adult homosexual* men who are not pedophiles are more likely to develop pedophilia in the future than adult heterosexual* men who are not pedophiles).
In that case, it is not better for adults, and with respect to sightedness, to have gene B than to have gene A, and it's not better for adults, with respect to sightedness, to have brown eyes than to have blue eyes. Granted, it would still be better with respect to reproduction to have gene B. But if two adults, say Adam and Steve, have genes A and B respectively, neither is short sighted, and neither of them intends to reproduce, then why would it be overall better to have gene B than gene A?

But let's leave the genes aside, because he will probably keep missing the point, given the record.

Let me put it as follows:

Assuming heterosexuality* is better than homosexuality* with respect to the chances of developing pedophilia, that does not imply that it's better for adults who are not pedophiles to be heterosexual than to be homosexual.
If he argues it's overall better, he would have to show (among many other things) that it's better for adult men who are not pedophiles and with respect to some matter M, to be heterosexual* than to be homosexual*, or some other advantage. But what is it?

That aside, what does he advocate in terms of policy?
And how does he pick and choose what sort of things can be compared in terms of whether they're better or worse?
 

credoconsolans

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,900
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Quote Originally Posted by Dekusta View Post
The number of people attracted to 'twinks' as well as their enourmous place in gay porn industry is evidence that homosexuals are more attracted towards young traits than heterosexuals are, as there is no such presence of young girls in straight culture, and when there is, these girls resemble adults and not the other way around".

Sure. That's why women over 40 have excellent careers in cinema and can look forward to many more decades of roles in movies and women at that age who are still single can look forward to a large group of single men their age looking for them to date and not say....oh, some woman 20 years younger...

/sarcasm off
 
Top Bottom