erislover, I’ve been less-than-touched by the vitriol you’ve directed at me throughout this thread. While you’ve purposefully taken things I’ve said out of context, and ignored earlier explanations, you’ve written a fair bit here, and it’s only fair to do my best to reply to at least some of it. Please realise that I’ve gone over a lot of this already, and am pretty bored of rehashing the same things by now.
Why are they emulating this [popular] person in the first place?
I’m not sure what relevance this has to the point I’ve been trying to make.
There are plenty of different reasons for why they’re trying to imitate a pop star. Firstly, as you pointed out, this person is very popular. She is constantly in the public eye; many adore her, she is someone to look up to (though I can’t say I exactly agree with those sentiments, many Britney fans obviously do). They are NOT just imitating her because they want to be sexy, or to attract the same kind of attention from older men as Britney does. They’re copying her style of dress because they’re told by the media, the shows they watch, the magazines they read, that it’s cool, pretty, the thing to do. Another thing to consider is that at least where I live, the clothing shops aimed at teenagers are stocked to full with Britneyesque fashion. If you’re of a certain age and size, there’s often not much choice. I’m perfectly aware that there will be a certain number of girls who do dress like it to be sexy, and because they want boys writhing all over them like Britney in her music videos. However, I don’t think this is the single reason for emulating a pop singer. Do let me know of the reason of the significance of this question for you.
In what way is thinking disrespectful? Disrespect manifests itself how?
Thinking isn’t disrespectful. Someone can have a disrespectful attitude towards a group of people – black people, gays, women, teenagers – and while they wouldn’t necessarily go out and rape a woman because they didn’t think they were worth more than that, or steal from a black person because ‘the blacks stole it all in the first place anyhow,’ their attitude is likely to manifest itself in some small way. A good example of this is talking about women (and young people) in a derogatory fashion, which definitely occurred in this thread. Must I refer back to the talk of ‘nymphettes’ ‘screwing,’ and ‘bouncing’ AGAIN? Some people find racist jokes, jokes against minorities or ‘weak’ and ‘vulnerable’ people amusing, I, in general, do not. I tried to make it clear that everything I said here was based on personal opinion and personal moral standards; you seem to have missed that.
I dare say everyone here knows women aren’t just for leering at. But we are talking about leering. Can you recognize the distinction?
Can, and have. You must realise that I know people here based almost solely on the things they have discussed in this thread, and based my tentative, early judgments of their character around that. I admit, someone who ‘took my side’ here is likely to be more favourably seen by me, particularly at this early stage. I don’t think there’s anything essentially wrong with that. If I got to know some of the people here, I admit that for almost everybody, I’d probably find them to be far better people than my FIRST impressions based on ONE thing I am sensitive about suggested.
Is wrong to speak about what it would be wrong to do?
No, not really. I’ve talked about criminal things before (murder, theft), and my desire to indulge in them, but I do consider it a distasteful thing to do, and try to avoid it as much as possible. I certainly would never speak of it in lewd, surly terms in front of a crowd of people potentially ‘affected’ by my thoughts, and expect them to laugh along with me. While not morally WRONG, it’s just not something I particularly approve of. Again, personal standards.
What is filthy? thinking about that which we shouldn’t or couldn’t do? Why does this apply to sexuality and attractiveness but not to, say, telling our parents off or leaving class whenever we darn well feel like it? And why could we discuss those things but not this? In short, what is so special about this case?.. I am genuinely asking: what is special? Why is it special?
I was speaking from the possible perspective of one of the girls (or chaperones) on the train. If I was a mother there, protective of my little girl, my instant, instinctive reaction to hearing that a man there had been turned on by my ‘baby’ would be, ‘What a filthy pervert.’ Similarly, had I been one of the girls there, I wouldn’t be too thrilled to think of such a man being excited by me and my friends. Looking back on it, I phrased this part rather badly. Nobody’s perfect. We all write things when emotional or tired sometimes. Acceptable?
I don’t think it’s particularly special, but to me, it’s a little closer to home than a lot of things. It’s also less common to hear about leering at teenage girls than it is to say, hear about wanting to punch your boss in the face. Think about this: If someone you cared for was killed in a hit and run accident, would you not be at all upset by people making tasteless jokes about wanting to ‘mow down that slow little old lady?’ Besides, we’re all different. You can hardly deny my right to personal outrage.
the action is irrelevant, the thought is criminal. Please explain this; and, since the action is irrelevant, please do so without referencing action.
I think you’ve got confused somewhere. I haven’t said this, and obviously, I’d much rather men THOUGHT about doing dirty things with little girls than actually going out and doing it. I don’t consider the action ‘irrelevant,’ or less significant than the thought. We all think about doing things that aren’t ‘right,’ and most of us show the restraint to obey the law. It’s those who overstep the mark from having ‘nasty’ thoughts to doing nasty deeds who are the real criminals, of course I’m aware of that.
With my quote about the under-aged girl having sex with an old man, when I said ‘tempted,’ I meant ‘tempted into ACTION.’ I thought this was pretty obvious, and nobody else seemed to take it the wrong way. I hope this clears things up.
Add the following sentence to the beginning of the thread: “Note: I do not consider pedophilia a good thing. I also do not consider that the sole purpose of women’s existence is to please me sexually.” Now is it ok? Why not?Why should one curb thoughts which one doesn’t intend to act on, and which one doesn’t base their whole motivation for action on? Really, what the hell would be the point?
I have to admit, I would have been less incensed by the whole thing had the OP acknowledged, in no uncertain terms, that he didn’t think his feelings concerning this were the most ‘acceptable’ things in the world. The impression I got was ‘a bunch of schoolgirls turned me on, heeheehee, silly me,’ and we were all supposed to laugh at his improper use of ‘nymphettes,’ and so on. I disagreed, alright? Of course, according to certain people here, this makes me ignorant and stupid, rather than just of a different mind-set. Wonderful.
I’ve spent a LOT of time explaining my feelings in this thread, and I’ve now addressed every question YOU’VE asked directly. I don’t think there’s any need to continue, and we’ll have to agree to disagree, okay? 
(Will you keep the top hat on? Please?)