Dannyboy-the-Dane

I, for one, actually enjoy this new focus on the characters; they've always been the main attraction for me, and it's not like the mysteries are gone.

Happy birthday, broseph. Don't spend it all at once. Or ... something.

Okay, well, then I kind of feel like a stud right now; I finally signed up to a dating site, and within a day I was already talking to two cute girls in my area, one of whom had initiated the contact herself. I haven't even messaged anyone else.

Never said it did, just remarking on it ...

Hm, not really funny to me I'm afraid.

Not getting it?

That's an amazing concept.

When one of my friends undoes his ponytail and lets his hair flow free, he totally has the Fabio look.

I've decided to properly venture out into the exciting world of internet dating. One of the first profiles I notice is a girl from my uni course.

Happy birthday, archenemy!

@kav82, I feel I've already explained my reasoning quite well, but @Dr\. bob have been kind enough to further elucidate my point. I still don't feel I can simply give a straight, general answer; if I actually knew somebody was a paedophile, the first thing I'd do would probably be to ask them a lot of questions to get to know them and their paraphilia, because, as mentioned, I feel we don't know enough about it. As Dr. bob says, if I knew and trusted the individual, then yes, I probably wouldn't mind it - though I hardly think a morally conscientious paedophile would like to be given the responsibility of a child. If I didn't know and trust an individual, I wouldn't leave my kid in their care to begin with, paedophile or not.

I've been wearing glasses for the majority of my life and so they just feel like a natural extension of me at this point; I feel naked without them. They're not without their issues, though, as Goafer mentioned, but I've never been able to stand the idea of putting in contacts. Laser surgery is a more likely alternative for me, but it seems like such a huge thing.

I avoided the question because I, like you, simply don't know enough about it. That's my entire point - all we have are stereotypical assumptions, and thus we shouldn't be quick to judge.

That's actually somewhat scary ...

How do you know? I wager that assumption is based on the stigmatised view of paedophiles as predators, but is there actual research backing this up? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people also have this exact prejudice about homosexuals way back - that they were sexual predators incapable of controlling their urges? Today we all know at least one gay person and thus know it's not true, but paedophilia is still stigmatised, meaning we only ever hear about the ones that do bad things. My point is that we need to research and understand paedophilia so we can find out how best to help them instead of demonising them based on the attraction itself.

A belated happy birthday!

Man, sorry to hear that. Any chance of you being able to sort some of it out?

Brilliant ending. Absolutely brilliant.

I am not entirely certain what you are trying to say, so forgive me if I am mistaken: Are you saying it would be horrifying to live in a world without taboos? Is your fear that paedophilia will become "accepted" as homosexuality is well on its way to? Because if so, I think you fail to understand the core difference between the two: A paedophilic relationship can never be consentual for obvious reasons, thus it will never become morally acceptable in the manner that a homosexual relationship between consenting adults is. What can happen is that instead of villainising those attracted to children, we realise they are people with involuntary tendencies whom we ought to help either control or get rid of said tendencies so they can live a good life. That is why taboos are horrible - because they are illogial and prevent us from making sound judgements on what actually matters. Well, we've already tackled the two greatest taboos I know of. I do have another topic that is potentially taboo: Is democracy the best form of government? And if not, then what is?

'Grats!

Is The Night Of The Doctor included on the disc?

You completely missed the point of my post. I am talking about natural physical appearance - body, facial features, colour of eyes, hair, skin etc. - everything that you were born with and which is thus not a product of your personal style, grooming and fitness choices, but which still plays a large role in whether people consider you beautiful. For the most part, i.e. for all other purposes than attracting a mate, these characteristics are in theory completely inconsequential; they have no bearing on any skills, they say nothing about your personality. But because physical attraction plays such a huge role in our biology, it does heavily affect how we interact with other people, and thus is becomes very consequential, and that is what a lot of people are unhappy with. Yes, part of your appearance is the product of your personal choices, but another part, a large part, you have no say in at all. That was the entire point of my post, to explain why people look down upon valuing outer beauty: because a large part of it is outside your control and thus says nothing about you as a person.