Whether or not I’d call you a pervert would depend strictly upon what happened, so I’d really need to see the video to make an accurate judgment. If you didn’t share the video then I’m afraid I’d have to label you a pervert.
First you need to figure out what’s going on with Posts 35, 36, and 37.
Don’t run the server or the site, sorry.
Did Daniel bring the horse? That would be pervy.
This thread is giving me the ephebehebejeebees.
There’s never a wish better than this, when you’ve only got five minutes to edit. 
(You can report the problem to a moderator by clicking on the exclamation-point-in-a-triangle in any post but your own, and noting which post(s) of your own is/are the problem(s), as well, of course, as reporting a problem-needing-fixing or rule break of someone else’s by reporting their post.)
Stop looking at those pictures,** 5-4-Fighting**, your hand is shaky on the mouse…
I’m with those who would think no less of any gay male or het female who’d take up Mr. Radcliffe on the offer, regardless of age difference, if that’s what the young man were into. I wish I had looked like that at 17, I would have had to bat the girls off with a stick. And surely a few of their mothers. But I would have let some get through…
I always wondered about things on the web like the “countdown clock to age 18” for personalities like Britney, the Olsens, etc. Like, what, upon that date does the reader of the site stop being 30 years older than his object-of-lust? Really! This seems influenced greatly by a dissonance in our pop media’s minds. They do not seem to wish to abandon the erotification of youth (what was Britney Spears in Baby One More Time selling, if not a common jailbait fantasy?) but at the same time they want to claim righteousness. So they do that by expanding the definition of “child” upward and showing how strongly they hate and loathe the pervs and will go after them (e.g. Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator) which includes going excluded-middle absolutist in trying to ID as a “pedophile” or “child predator” anyone who decides to poach in the teenage range.
But since that directly clashes with the fact that our culture has been seeing teens as fair subjects of desire for centuries (from the epheboi to 14-year-old Juliet to Lindsay Lohan), that forces them to act as if hitting 18 performs some sort of transubstantiation.
Part of the problem with removing the “pedophile” label and allowing a “look all you want but don’t touch” approach to the 15-17 group as category for those of a certain age, is that it would be admitting that the interest is NOT metaphysically “evil”, just unethical to act upon under our construct of morality. And a large part of our culture either (a) just plain and simply considers that an insufficient deterrent, or (b) is indeed emotionally and viscerally offended and sickened by the very idea; and in either case, would rather label the guy ogling the 16-year-olds a “pedophile” so they can be sure he feels like dirt even before he starts thinking about it, and so they can feel righteous.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that none of the producers in Hollywood are like gay, or anything. (Not that . . . etc.)
Tris
Ephebehebejeebees is my new favourite word.
Soon as I saw the “Daniel Radcliffe” I thought “isn’t he like 17? Figure he has hair already…” Heck yeah, more than my brothers and they’re in their '30s.
A pedophile would find him waaaay too old
So I went to the Equus site and read some of the bios. It said Daniel Radcliffe was glad to be working with Richard Griffiths, whom he worked with in the Harry Potter films. I couldn’t place Richard Griffiths from his name, so I looked him up. It’s Uncle Vernon. Apparently he has a long list of strong credits to his name, including a Tony award for stage work. It’s good to see he’s doing well and has a strong career, but I ran across this picture on IMDB and now I’m all confused. You don’t normally see the beautiful people and the not beautiful people mixing like this and it makes for a very striking picture.
&seq=15){kind=link}
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeah, but Richard Griffiths is hardly a man you want around hawt * bois*. Just ask Peter Marwood…
"I mean to have you even if it must be burglary. "
Oh, he’s no water lily. But 17 year olds are stupid. Seriously stupid, even the smart ones. The last time I dated one, I was 25, and it was horrid. They’re pretty to look at, but they don’t know what they’re doing in bed yet, and I’m not a teacher. And they tend to the clingy romanticized passionate view of life that I find cute and precious and exhausting to try and live up to.
But most of my “I wouldn’t actually sleep with him” protestation is that he’s so close to my son in age. It’s, for lack of a better term, oogy. Maybe that will wear off as my son gets older, and I get used to his friends suddenly being gorgeous and of breeding age, but right now it’s new and strange.
If he actually in reality were a bright and emotionally mature human being who I found attractive in all those other areas women like to go on about AND he was interested in dumpy old housewives? Sure, maybe. OK, sure, absolutely. He’s not in the “never in a million years because he’s a child” category. He’s in the, “blanket rule - no teenagers, exceptions must apply in person.” category.
I was trying to figure out if I would have sex with Daniel Radcliffe if he showed up on my doorstep begging me, and I don’t think I would (ignoring the fact that I’m happily married, and the likelihood of it actually happening). I’m 40 years old; 17 year olds DO seem like children to me. They aren’t even finished high school yet. They aren’t even finished yet. They’re so new and discovering everything that I’ve known for decades. And sure, five times a day might be fun for a little while, but I have stuff to do, you know? I think I’ll stick with the “looking, appreciating, but that’s it” club.
wistful sigh
Nevermind. Go back to whatever you were doing. Nothing to see here.
I just have to share this cartoon.
Ditto for me.
In a completely unrelated to the above post but much related to another post post, the possible Dahmer connection to Adam Walsh’s murder is gaining much print. Fascinating that one of late 20th century America’s most infamous murderers could be connected to one of the same era’s most famous murders and it’s this long before the possible connection comes to light.
While none of Dahmer’s other known victims were as young as Adam (though at least two were adolescents), Adam Walsh was decapitated and Dahmer is definitely known to have decapitated several of his victims. In addition Dahmer when he lived in that city (which he did at the time of Adam’s murder) drove a blue van that matches the general description of a van seen speeding away from the mall where Walsh vanished. Hardly open and shut but definitely worth re-opening the case to investigate (though I’m not sure how you would investigate a 26 year old murder when the suspect is dead).
Well, it shows how he got his role in Equus: he’s used to being around horses.
Seriously, Roberts is supposed to represent the “beautiful people” in that picture? Her face looks like it was constructed by snipping bits of pictures out of glossy magazines and pasting them all together. Ugh.
Why is it worth re-opening? Adam Walsh is dead. Otis Toole is dead. Jeffrey Dahmer is dead.
Several reasons. Certainty/closure I’ll count as one, but also because it is not for certain that Dahmer or Toole is guilty, thus the real killer could still be alive or at least unknown.