Gay Perverts

[B_cheeseygarcia]

I guess it will never stop being shocking to me that someone could think this, let alone write this so openly and not feel any shame.

Like I'm the first person to write it. Look at the data and you'll see that gay men and black women account for the majority of people with HIV. Viruses have to do with being clean, remember the black plague back in the 14th century. It wiped out 1/4 of the population, but if it wouldve broken out today, when people bathe regularly, it mightve killed 8 people. Bath houses and ghetto crack infested street corners are the breeding grounds for disease, and its too bad that 2 specific groups of people had to fall victim to that.

 

[submate]

If he had taken photos of hats on people and put them on a website would it have gained media and police interest (and comment)? I think it is of interest only because it is "sexual" ........ a fearful thing in some societies.

 

[HyperHulk]

Like I'm the first person to write it. Look at the data and you'll see that gay men and black women account for the majority of people with HIV. Viruses have to do with being clean, remember the black plague back in the 14th century. It wiped out 1/4 of the population, but if it wouldve broken out today, when people bathe regularly, it mightve killed 8 people. Bath houses and ghetto crack infested street corners are the breeding grounds for disease, and its too bad that 2 specific groups of people had to fall victim to that.

You would be the first person I've ever read that has so wantonly exposed his prejudices and ignorance. Congratulations for you. You're too remarkably unintelligent and lazy in both your research and commitment to challenge your beliefs and grow as a human being for me to waste too much energy on educating you. If your parenting, schooling and google/wiki has failed you so miserably there is nothing much I can add to help you overcome your startling stupidity. Nevertheless, there are more straight (heterosexuals) in the world with HIV than gay. That's a fact. HIV is a disease that is spread through blood primarily, it has little to do with hygiene. The majority of African-American women do not hang out on ghetto crack infested street corners and most bathhouses in the US have been closed for years.

I'm amazed that you've managed to turn on a computer, coordinate using the keyboard, find this website and yet you can't educate yourself on something that's been part of the society's consciousness for over 20 years. Take comfort in knowing though that I would gladly choose the company and friendship of an HIV positive crack infested street walking African-American transgendered woman over you any day of the week, because that person would still have more class in her dirty fingernail than you have in your entire being. Again, congratulations. What you possess is rare and it's a gift for all of us to know how very weak, dumb and thoughtless some people can be. The fight for human dignity carries on--please enjoy the show while sitting on the sidelines, with your tiny head in the sand.

 

[auncut10in]

Like I'm the first person to write it. Look at the data and you'll see that gay men and black women account for the majority of people with HIV. Viruses have to do with being clean, remember the black plague back in the 14th century. It wiped out 1/4 of the population, but if it wouldve broken out today, when people bathe regularly, it mightve killed 8 people. Bath houses and ghetto crack infested street corners are the breeding grounds for disease, and its too bad that 2 specific groups of people had to fall victim to that.

I am sure you must just be a troll. No one could be so stupid to think that AIDS or the black plague was caused by people not bathing. Especially since gay men are knows for paying special attention to their grooming habits. You could not possibly be that stupid even if you are a straight guy from Ohio could you? The question is are you a total idiot or just a bigot? Humm maybe both.

 

[marleyisalegend]

I am sure you must just be a troll. No one could be so stupid to think that AIDS or the black plague was caused by people not bathing. Especially since gay men are knows for paying special attention to their grooming habits. You could not possibly be that stupid even if you are a straight guy from Ohio could you? The question is are you a total idiot or just a bigot? Humm maybe both.

don't forget the KKK still marches in ohio so maybe he was confused by a pamphlet he received from them. and isn't he right anyway?? gay men and black women spread aids, mexicans cut grass, and jews make the best lawyers, right??

 

[marleyisalegend]

None of this is offensive to me. Does that shock you? I don't get what I should be upset about. When my kids were playing soccer, you could shoot any pictures of them you want. They were quite adorable, but not very sexual, sorry.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for labeling this thread gay pervert. You owe us all an apology. Quite frankly I find that more offensive than any of your worries about photographing my family.

what's so offensive about calling gay perverts when every other threads insists that blacks are uneducated, self-victimizing, and spread STD's?? i guess if offense is your worry you'll have to stand in line. besides, would it make any difference if the person filming your daughter has been twice convicted of molesting minor-aged girls?? you still comfortable with him filming her??

 

[auncut10in]

what's so offensive about calling gay perverts when every other threads insists that blacks are uneducated, self-victimizing, and spread STD's?? i guess if offense is your worry you'll have to stand in line. besides, would it make any difference if the person filming your daughter has been twice convicted of molesting minor-aged girls?? you still comfortable with him filming her??

I guess nothing is wrong with calling gays perverts and blacks uneducated self-victimizing disease spreading people if you are a raciest bigot. That was the impression I had of you when you started that other thread and said all of those racist remarks. I was hoping you were better than that. Guess I was wrong. Sometimes first impressions prove to be the right impressions. I will try and remember what you are in the future and ignore your bigoted remarks. And yes you are not the only bigot on this site. You have a friend in Ohio who seems to think nothing of gay racist remarks as well. You are just the only black gay bigot that has surfaced.

 

[marleyisalegend]

I guess nothing is wrong with calling gays perverts and blacks uneducated self-victimizing disease spreading people if you are a raciest bigot. That was the impression I had of you when you started that other thread and said all of those racist remarks. I was hoping you were better than that. Guess I was wrong. Sometimes first impressions prove to be the right impressions. I will try and remember what you are in the future and ignore your bigoted remarks. And yes you are not the only bigot on this site. You have a friend in Ohio who seems to think nothing of gay racist remarks as well. You are just the only black gay bigot that has surfaced.

you've competely twisted my ideals but that's okay, i'm used to it. NOWHERE did i imply that gay men are the only perverts (though it's been argued here that perverts don't exist, only prudes).

second, i never made racist remarks. i'm the only bigot on this site?? that's COMPLETELY laughable. this thread addresses gay perverts because the perverted thread i'm talking about is ihabited with gay stories of boys touching other boys in their sleep, since the article that spawned this discussion is about a gay pervert. there's a difference between FOCUSING on gay perverts and SAYING that all blacks are uneducated, but i'll try to explain this in terms you can understand.

the article is about a GAY PERVERT, that's where the discussion comes from

this is no NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM saying gay men are the only perverts, it's simply focusing on one type. like you can say criminals and focus only on murderers, there are all types of criminals, i'm addressing a specific one. if the article had been about a man filming women this would've been a thread about straight perverts. do you get it?? you're basically watching someone eat a salad and insisting that that's the only food they eat. i have started many threads in ATTEMPTS to make people laugh here, make them think, and be open-minded towards different people. funny though most of the comments i receive are negative and ONLY focus on one or two threads from forever and a day ago. get over it.

PS since you're feeling so vocal why don't you stop by another thread i created that's all about celebrating differences. unless of course you're only in the trolling mood today.

 

[dreamer20]

You sir, would be wrong. Read this story where a teacher was charged for filming the crotches of female wrestlers:

Teacher's Videos Spark Criminal Charge, Accused Of Close-Ups, Without Girls' Consent, For Illegal Purpose - CBS News

So this comes down to what state you live in, what laws are on the books andwhat your intent is.

A man in Texas who was charged with photographing up the skirt of a 16 year old girl in a changing room had his case dismissed earlier this year because the judge ruled that there was not enough expectation of privacy in the store's changing room. If that's the case, then I expect Ware's case will be similarly dismissed. If Texas's peeping tom law can't protect a 16 year old girl in a changing room, then it has no hope of protecting girls playing on an open sports field. Sounds like the cops were reaching really far on this one. As the defendant's lawyer pointed out, what happens when fans videotape the Dallas Cheerleaders, who wear substantially less?

Texas police were wrong to apply the "peeping Tom" law to David Ware who used no hidden camera and actually filmed a sport in the public domain. He shouldn't have been prosecuted,kept his film and lusted over it, if he so desired. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, stated that the government had no business interfering with (or criminalizing) the private sexual affairs of citizens.

 

[musclebutt2]

Marley, you are being completely unreasonable. Your arguments are straw men and you like to compare apples to oranges. Even when people answer your questions succinctly you reject their answer if it does not match with what you want to hear.

The title of this thread you started is misleading and is an offensive slur. You have somehow ingested and sublimated all of the scare tactics the supporters of Prop. 8 and their ilk use as weapons to dehumanize homosexuals and incorporated it into your rhetoric. Your appeal towards calm discussion is compromised by your lack of listening and the tendency to project your unwarranted fears onto others. Have you noticed that 80% of your posts in this thread concerns heterosexual pedophilia? How does that relate to the title of this thread except as an insidious attempt at guilt by association?

You will be misunderstood if you don't choose your words carefully, that is the nature of this medium. You can't get around it and you can't casually dismiss it. If you are misunderstood, you have to clarify your position with better chosen words. I do not observe you doing this; citing another illogical example to forward your agenda does not help. Being controversial and making people think is a two way street. Are you thinking or just talking?

It would be easier to get your answers if you simplified your question. It is perfectly okay to discuss multiple topics in one thread; however, you do not have the skills to do so. It plainly confuses you.

I think the gist of your concern isn't so much about sex, but about power. The inequality or loss of power when somebody does something to you without your consent. Whether it be of a sexual nature is only a detail. While you bring up morals as a defense, there seems to be an underlying and unrealistic expectation that the code of law always reflects the moral code. That is not so. I know you don't want to accept it, but that's just how it is. The U.S. considers itself to be a secular society; therefore, secular law trumps religious or moral law. Let me point out that religion and morals are not the same thing, nor are they interdependent. It is my understanding that one of the most respected secular rights in this country is personal freedom. Therefore, any laws that curtail personal freedom are to be avoided or reluctantly implemented, even if they are moral. There is also no guarantee that all citizens share the same morals or ethics, so it wouldn't be proper to codify into law one interpretation of upstanding morals not shared by all. The same would apply in declaring one national religion. An example illustrating the opposite extreme may be seen in countries ruled by Islamic law. What you argue for is a slippery slope that would foreseeably change American culture into a society similar to Iran or Afghanistan.

Returning to your concern on abuse of power, there are already certain laws on the books protecting victims in 70% of the situations you have previously outlined. Your citing them as examples doesn't prove anything except as a ploy to inspire indignant outrage at a problem that doesn't exist.

Your original scenario involved a clothed adult male filming other clothed adult males in public without their knowledge. So technically, any other example you bring up should retain the same elements, i.e. some type of power differential between two fully clothed adult males in public. Children are not involved in this scenario, neither are females, nor relatives. The man was filming total strangers. Any example you cite that strays from the main tenets of the original scenario is comparing apples to oranges and thus invalid.

So to answer your question, if a random clothed man with a camera zoomed into my clothed crotch on a busy streetcar what would be my reaction? I would be creeped out and move to another car. If I did not observe nor catch him doing it, then ignorance = bliss. If I found out later at some website that my crotch was on display without my permission (I would know it's my clothed crotch shot because my name is embroidered in contrasting thread across all my pants) I would contact the poster or webmaster to remove the offending picture. Of course I would have to provide additional supporting documentation proving my identity in the picture... possibly to someone who has already stolen my identity once. My other option would be to send the thief a snarky email, ignore the picture, and then carry on with my life.

I hope this answer helps.

you've competely twisted my ideals but that's okay, i'm used to it. NOWHERE did i imply that gay men are the only perverts (though it's been argued here that perverts don't exist, only prudes).

second, i never made racist remarks. i'm the only bigot on this site?? that's COMPLETELY laughable. this thread addresses gay perverts because the perverted thread i'm talking about is ihabited with gay stories of boys touching other boys in their sleep, since the article that spawned this discussion is about a gay pervert. there's a difference between FOCUSING on gay perverts and SAYING that all blacks are uneducated, but i'll try to explain this in terms you can understand.

the article is about a GAY PERVERT, that's where the discussion comes from

this is no NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM saying gay men are the only perverts, it's simply focusing on one type. like you can say criminals and focus only on murderers, there are all types of criminals, i'm addressing a specific one. if the article had been about a man filming women this would've been a thread about straight perverts. do you get it?? you're basically watching someone eat a salad and insisting that that's the only food they eat. i have started many threads in ATTEMPTS to make people laugh here, make them think, and be open-minded towards different people. funny though most of the comments i receive are negative and ONLY focus on one or two threads from forever and a day ago. get over it.

PS since you're feeling so vocal why don't you stop by another thread i created that's all about celebrating differences. unless of course you're only in the trolling mood today.

 

[BigRig13]

you're obviously ignoring the damage inflicted upon victims of sexual abuse. is oogling a guy in the gym gonna hurt him? no. is it okay to take a picture of his crotch and post it on the web when he doesn't know about it?? if that's okay then kindly let me know when your mother will be leaving for work. you must admit that, at a certain point, a line of morality is crossed. if sex were 100% free there'd be 45 year old men having sex with 12 year old girls who aren't yet capable of understanding the dynamics of a sexual relationship and will ultimately be left damaged and rejected when the man returns home to his wife. the fact that you justify it by "lack of control" is quite frightening. i'll never control murder so does that mean i should ignore murder too?? the problem is you're under the assumption that sex is some beautiful, wonderful thing that only happens between two consentual people. often times it is, many times it's not. there's a reason we have laws about sex, imagine the damage done if every person is given free reign to indulge in their sexual fantasies and fetishes.

When straight men start realizing their dropped-jawed stares in public, mid-sentence, during a conversation with their wife or coworker at every nice set of boobs that walks by their table shows much less self-restraint than limiting your leering to quick glances in a locker room, I’ll start caring about the nonsense in this thread. Have gay men ever told straight guys or women they’re completely inferior and need to get out of the way of men’s work. Let’s focus on the real damage. Jesus...