Jodi Benson Homophobic

[jpanimation]

Why is this a big deal? She's not going to anti-gay rallies, making public statements or anything like that. She simply told some people in confidence that she doesn't think it's right. I disagree with her views on homosexuality but I don't disagree with her right to have a differing opinion. It's one thing to have anti-gay views but it's another thing to act upon your prejudice. She's been keeping this to herself, for the most part, and someone else's private life is none of my business. I feel the same way about religion; believe what you want to believe in private, just don't preach to us or force us to fit your morals. So I won't be jumping on the bandwagon and crucifying her for her private beliefs. If she starts making ani-gay public statements, then it's fair game.

An analogy could be the upcoming presidential race. If a celebrity told someone in private which politician they were voting for and somehow it got out, I wouldn't attack them if that politician happened to be someone I disagree with. If the celeb was wearing t-shirts, going to rallies, fundraising balls and publicly telling me who to vote for, then I'd attack them since they're inviting it.

[David S.]

I'm normally hesitant to enter these type of discussions, as my primary purpose for joining was to discuss my love of Disney, but here goes:

Well, it's a bit dramatic on my part to call it 'one of the greatest evils you could commit' - but both rape and the forcing of drugs upon others can and has caused irreparable damage.

Actually, I don't believe you were being too dramatic. I believe you were right on the money when you said "Putting a creature or person in a compromising situation they did not consent to is in my view one of the greatest evils you can commit.".

This to me is just common sense morals and ethics that most faiths and independent spiritual beings would agree with. It doesn't mean it is our place to "judge" those who do this or say they are going to hell. But we can certainly abhor the actions themselves (murder, rape, child abuse, animal abuse, etc) and teach others that it is wrong to do these things. Nobody has ANY right to do something to anyone without their consent, ESPECIALLY cause them harm!

So I'm not arguing; just agreeing with your original statement

Getting back on topic: I don't know of one quote where Jesus utters one negative word against gays. So it's a real shame to me that many who invoke Christ's name take it upon themselves to call gays "wrong" and "sinners", as there is no evidence that Jesus himself ever said anything of the sort!

Ah, not quite. First, love itself is not something biological. Love is not physical. It transcends all that. Some would say it comes from the soul. Just like love of, or belief in, God. I will never believe in the "wired" way of looking at humans and their desires. It's not good to think just biology and experiences are at work, there's also a will, or a soul, you know.

Er... Duster, we can argue and debate everything... and I mean: literally everything... and I will respect your opinions, even when I think they're crazy... but not on this. You see, biology is not something for you to 'believe' in or to 'agree with'. It's just a given fact. It's scientifically proven that either you're born gay or you aren't. You believe that, right? You don't believe being gay is a 'choice', do you? Well, that's the way you are biologically wired. Love works the same way. Love is a chemical process in your body. It makes you like some people but dislike other. It's great to see love as this powerful, grand, all-consuming emotion -which is it-, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that it is a chemical process in your body. It's not given to you by God or a 'soul'.

So are you saying that our emotions and feelings (like "love") are ALL governed by mere science? I will agree with you about the physical, sexual, attraction being biological, and whether one is hetero, homo, bi, pan, or asexual being biological (and therefore not a choice), but if someone's grandparents die, and they cry because they love their grandparents, do you see that love as nothing more that the result of a scientific process or a "chemical process" in the body? That mere "chemicals" are why you loved your grandparents, and not because of the happy times you shared and your appreciation of the kind things they did for you?

If so, I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that! IMO, that just cheapens the whole idea of Love and emotions, free will, and even humanity itself. I agree with Duster that humanity has the spiritual potential to TRANSCEND mere science with things like Love - and my personal belief in this has nothing to do with to do with organized religion; it's more an intuitive thing that comes from being highly sensitive and in touch with one's feelings, spirit, and yes, a soul! If you read the transcendentalist writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson you may see where I'm coming from.

Not arguing, and I really don't have time right now to get into a long back-and-forth debate about this. But I believe very strongly that spirituality can exist independently from organized religion, and yes, independently from "science". IMO, blindly following organized religion without independent thought is too dogmatic and can stifle individual spiritual development, but on the other end of the spectrum, an overemphasis on science alone can coldly suck all the intangible, poetic, magic and wonder out of life with its endless attempts to classify, quantify, and explain things, many of which (like spirituality and souls) are simply unexplainable.

To me, the idea that things like love, our emotions, our feelings, our spirits - the things that make us who we are - are nothing more than chemicals in the body, is like saying the movies and music we love are nothing more than the ones and zeros they are encoded with on our discs. That might be the physical form they take, but they are SO much more than just ones and zeros; just as love, our emotions, our feelings, our spirits, and our souls are so much more than mere chemicals!

[ajmrowland]

Why is this a big deal? She's not going to anti-gay rallies, making public statements or anything like that. She simply told some people in confidence that she doesn't think it's right.

Well, we kinda got a shrine to her in the back room.

[Elladorine]

The world tries to paint a black and white picture of sexuality.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Far too many people are quick to dismiss any type of sexual expression outside of a "traditional" marriage of a man and woman to be some type of horrible sin that must be crusaded against. So somehow premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, multiple partners, etc. are all just as "bad" as pedophilia and rape. I obviously disagree with this. As long as there are no victims involved and as long as it's all done between consenting adults, it's really nobody's business.

* * *

While I feel I'm rather open-minded, I do have my own ideals that I try not to force onto others. For example, I'm personally for monogamy. Members at another forum have tried to start arguments with me that I'm wrong for feeling this way, that it's unnatural, or that I'm somehow "missing out." But if my partner and I have made a commitment to each other and plan to keep it, what's the big deal? I may even voice on occasion that I think it's wrong to cheat on a partner; not because it's wrong to "sleep around," but because it's wrong to deceive the partner being cheated on. But for those in a mutually open relationship . . . um, I say go for it. It's just personally not for me. Either way I don't find myself praying for those that don't share my beliefs.

As for Jodi, I think she's entitled to her opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it and no matter how much it disappoints me. As long as she's not campaigning to take away the rights of anyone, she's free to pray for them and further share her ignorance. As I was saying before, her views really don't surprise me (she typically writes "God Bless" with her autographs) and none of it changes how I feel about one of my favorite Disney characters.

* * *

And given that pedophilia has been brought up here, allow me to make some comments since I'm a victim of child molestation myself. While some adults do indeed happen to have an attraction to children, the real issue is if they choose to act upon those urges when they know that it's wrong. Many times, it's more about being in control of someone else than their actual attraction to them, selfishly letting their own desires outweigh the safety and needs of victims too immature to make decisions about their own bodies. If the attacker fails to grasp why it's wrong and doesn't realize he's causing harm, well yes, he needs to be in a mental hospital. But if he knows it's wrong and does it anyway, his ass needs to be thrown in prison.

My attacker triggered a chain of events that screwed up my entire childhood; I still feel its effects to this day even though I'm now in my mid-thirties. Did he know it was wrong? Given that he did it in secret, I'd say yes, and that's what makes all the difference in how he should have been punished.

[Alphapanchito]

And given that pedophilia has been brought up here, allow me to make some comments since I'm a victim of child molestation myself. While some adults do indeed happen to have an attraction to children, the real issue is if they choose to act upon those urges when they know that it's wrong. Many times, it's more about being in control of someone else than their actual attraction to them, selfishly letting their own desires outweigh the safety and needs of victims too immature to make decisions about their own bodies. If the attacker fails to grasp why it's wrong and doesn't realize he's causing harm, well yes, he needs to be in a mental hospital. But if he knows it's wrong and does it anyway, his ass needs to be thrown in prison.

My attacker triggered a chain of events that screwed up my entire childhood; I still feel its effects to this day even though I'm now in my mid-thirties. Did he know it was wrong? Given that he did it in secret, I'd say yes, and that's what makes all the difference in how he should have been punished.

First off, I am very sorry this happened to you and that you are still feeling the effects now. It is a shame, and I feel for you. I don't know details, but it seems that the attacker was selfish and did deserve proper punishment, as I think all sane attackers do, to prevent it from happening again, and to bring some justice to the victim, if that applies.

Wasn't going to say more on the topic, and sorry for getting so for off topic, but I think I have to clear something up. In no way was I saying pedophilia and rape is okay, because it is an evil in our society for reasons previously stated (done without consent, damages lives, as I am very sorry you had/have to experience). Again, I was saying that sometimes people are too quick to judge these people because they have done something that seems so terrible, as it does strongly damage somebody's life. But we still don't know how they justify it in their minds. That was my point. I guess personally, I have trouble thinking that a person can be totally selfish and bad (maybe I'm too sheltered..), and I just don't like to consider this straight off, as many do. If a person knows it is wrong and just acts on an urge, that is a crime of the worst kind. I still always believe they should receive proper punishment, and I personally feel terrible whenever I hear these stories.

Again, I am very sorry if my previous posts seemed insensitive in any way, and I did not mean it that way. I would hate to hurt you because I respect you and really enjoy your personality, posts, and art that you bring to the forums.

[Disney Duster]

Alphapanchito and Neil have taken this topic to a disturbing place. To actually question and debate the morality of such awful things as beastiality, rape, and pedophilia, as well as drug use, and recreational sex is shocking. This just shows that when you take God out of the picture, anything goes. There is then no clear moral compass, and right and wrong is defined and determined by what each person deems acceptable and what makes them feel good. It's also bogus to throw homosexuality in that mix! You can have a healthy and holy homosexual relationship which is impossible with the others mentioned...

ALSO being a Christian is most certainly a choice. I imagine you can feel that you have been born into a faith but at some point you have to make a conscious decision to have a relationship with God and seek his will for your life or not.

I don't think you understood me. Please answer this: Could you choose not to believe what you just wrote? No, the only way would be if someone, like me, wrote something that changed your mind, as in made you believe something else. It's like that for being Chrsitian, too. You just believe it, the only way it is choosing is the same way you can choose to not believe what you write. This may not be how it is for all pople of all religions, but it is for some, and maybe one is Jodi.

Er... Duster, we can argue and debate everything... and I mean: literally everything... and I will respect your opinions, even when I think they're crazy... but not on this. You see, biology is not something for you to 'believe' in or to 'agree with'. It's just a given fact. It's scientifically proven that either you're born gay or you aren't. You believe that, right? You don't believe being gay is a 'choice', do you? Well, that's the way you are biologically wired. Love works the same way. Love is a chemical process in your body. It makes you like some people but dislike other. It's great to see love as this powerful, grand, all-consuming emotion -which is it-, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that it is a chemical process in your body. It's not given to you by God or a 'soul'.

So are you saying that our emotions and feelings (like "love") are ALL governed by mere science? I will agree with you about the physical, sexual, attraction being biological, and whether one is hetero, homo, bi, pan, or asexual being biological (and therefore not a choice), but if someone's grandparents die, and they cry because they love their grandparents, do you see that love as nothing more that the result of a scientific process or a "chemical process" in the body? That mere "chemicals" are why you loved your grandparents, and not because of the happy times you shared and your appreciation of the kind things they did for you?

If so, I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that! IMO, that just cheapens the whole idea of Love and emotions, free will, and even humanity itself. I agree with Duster that humanity has the spiritual potential to TRANSCEND mere science with things like Love - and my personal belief in this has nothing to do with to do with organized religion; it's more an intuitive thing that comes from being highly sensitive and in touch with one's feelings, spirit, and yes, a soul! If you read the transcendentalist writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson you may see where I'm coming from.

Not arguing, and I really don't have time right now to get into a long back-and-forth debate about this. But I believe very strongly that spirituality can exist independently from organized religion, and yes, independently from "science". IMO, blindly following organized religion without independent thought is too dogmatic and can stifle individual spiritual development, but on the other end of the spectrum, an overemphasis on science alone can coldly suck all the intangible, poetic, magic and wonder out of life with its endless attempts to classify, quantify, and explain things, many of which (like spirituality and souls) are simply unexplainable.

To me, the idea that things like love, our emotions, our feelings, our spirits - the things that make us who we are - are nothing more than chemicals in the body, is like saying the movies and music we love are nothing more than the ones and zeros they are encoded with on our discs. That might be the physical form they take, but they are SO much more than just ones and zeros; just as love, our emotions, our feelings, our spirits, and our souls are so much more than mere chemicals!

Exactly, exactly. VERY good. Thanks for writing that.

Goliath, the only thing I will add is that no matter what science says, no matter what anyone says, if they say my feelings are nothing but biochemical stuff I will never believe it, even if they actually seem to "prove" it. I mean it. Besides, the same things that happen in the biology could also happen in the soul, I'd be fine believing they happen in both, and science can't study the soul so they wouldn't know or talk about that one. Oh, and another thing, scientists suspect that being gay is not a gene because they found identical twins (who share 100% the same genesa and pretty much the same experiences) had one gay and one straight. It seems the gay one may have "turned on the gayness in his gene" so to speak, perhaps with his soul, maybe even at birth, who knows. So that would be a like a soul that is gay simply turning the biology of his physical body to follow suit.

So maybe in Pakistan I would be suppressed and taught God is something I don't quite think he is here and now, but my soul may just believe other things than I am taught, just like no one in my family likes Disney like me,[...]

But if you had never heard about Disney all your life, you wouldn't have 'started to like it' because you 'felt it in your soul'. That's not possible. It's the same with Christianity. Why do you think 'uncivilized' people who live in the rainforests all have their own gods instead of believing in the God of the Bible? Because they've never heard of him, that's why! That's why your whole hypothetical story is nonsense. It's possible you would convert from Islam to Christianity (though you would risk your life in countries like Pakistan for just doing that), but not until you had been taught about it and been convinced by others. You don't become a Christian all by yourself.

Well, even if I had to see Disney to know I love it, my soul was still one that was gonna love Disney, my soul still realized it liked Disney as much as it did, whereas if someone else had the same experience of seeing Disney as I did, they might not like it at all. It's the same for religion, perhaps it's the same for gay, who knows. All I know is my soul made me this way, not just scientific randomness that makes me feel like it's all an accident that doesn't mean anything. Everything in me, and life, all means something to me.

[pap64]

Wow. Talk about a heavy subject! In my opinion, though, I think Jodi KNOWS that she has a huge gay fanbase and is dealing with this carefully.

Let's face it. Besides Little Mermaid and Barbie in Toy Story 2 and 3 what else is she really known for? I bet she knows that if she upsets her biggest fanbase with anti gay slanter she will looks credibility in the eyes of many, thus abruptly ending her career.

Like some has said, I think she has the right to not accept the gay lifestyle. Yeah, it does come off as ignorant and elitist, but as long as she treats it with respect and doesn't shove it down anyone's throat then I am OK.

I won't say more, though, since like I said this is a very heavy subject.

[Elladorine]

Alphapanchito- No worries, I never got the impression from you (or anyone else in this forum, for that matter) that pedophilia or rape is ok. And I appreciate the kind words. What's done is done, and while I still admittedly feel the effects of my past I do feel ever-increasingly optimistic about people and life in general. I only hope that I can make connections and somehow use my experiences, both good and bad, to offer something positive to others.

Maybe it'll sound strange but my art has definitely been an active part of my healing process. I spent so many years of feeling the constant shame and guilt of something that I did not completely understand, of something that I never should have been burdened with in the first place. I developed my first eating disorder at the age of twelve due to the sudden onslaught of guilt (it had been happening for years but I didn't actually make any realizations over it until then), had numerous social problems throughout junior high and much of high school, and eventually developed depression, agoraphobia, anxiety disorders, and body image issues. I used to feel like I'd never function as a normal human being, that I'd never find anyone I could even feel remotely comfortable spending my life with; I seriously did not go on my first date until I was 25 because I was not only terrified of men, but felt "dirty." It took eons to realize that I was just a child at the time and nothing that happened was my fault.

Drawing was the one thing I had any amount of confidence in, and eventually became a much-needed outlet that helped me explore certain concepts in my head; I'm quite certain it's why much of my work has an adult slant. I had to learn at a relatively late stage in my life that sexuality was ok and natural within the right circumstances. Had sex not been such a taboo subject growing up at home, maybe I'd have been able to bring up what was being done to me and could have been told it wasn't my fault before it caused so much anguish and heartbreak.

Anyway, it hasn't been my intention to derail this thread further. My earlier point in posting was to agree with Neal pointing out that sexuality is not the black and white issue so many seem to insist on. It's that kind of attitude that represses people into the kinds of unfortunate, unhealthy situations that I've been put under.

[Goliath]

Have you seen the film "Little Children?"

No, I haven't, but I looked up the title on IMDb and it sounds promising, and seeing that Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connelly co-star in it, I'm sure to check it out sometimes.

To add a bit more to what we've discussed before, I wanted to talk a bit more about changing societal views on sexuality. A Dutch magazine did a very interesting and fascinating article about a year ago, about the way views on sexuality had changed in The Netherlands since the 1970's. In the 1970's, there were several important, leading politicians who publicly proposed to get rid of the law which stated that sex between adults and minors was outlawed. They said it could be healthy for children to experience sex with older, more mature partners. A famous artist openly told a journalist during an interview that his 8 year old daughter sometimes used to touch and suck on his penis. I was very shocked to read this, but these people discussed these kind of things openly without them having any consequences --as far as I know about.

What also surprised me, is how the article also told about a big Dutch weekly magazine called Revu, aimed at adult men (still in existance), which in the 1970's would regularly feature nude photo's of 14 and 15 year old girls. These were advertised on the front of the magazine. This was a big magazine, which was openly for sale on all the newsstands. Revu would boast about having found "another blossoming girl of merely 14 years old". These were professional photo-shoots, for which the girls got paid. It sold a lot of copies.

It's unthinkable that any of this would be accepted nowadays, or at any point during the past 30 years. It just goes to show how quickly society can change. I was baffled when I read about it.

This. This right here. And honestly, I don't think there's anything left to discuss in this thread. Jodi believes being gay is a sin. That's unfortunate, but there's nothing we can do to change that.

Excuse me, but since you agree with what a-net-fan wrote, maybe *you* could explain to me what 'recreational sex' and drug use have to do with rape, bestiality and pedophilia? And maybe you could also point out where you think Neal has condoned those last three things, 'cause I don't see it. And please tell me what God has to do with it. Or are you just name-dropping him?

If that was truly the case, then majority of the cases involved with this, the suspect would of ended in a mental hospital to get helped, not prison(where they're going get their ass fucked by bubba). But majority of pedophilia cases, the defendant, if guilty, goes to prison as oppose to mental intuition as psychologist and other mental doctors had determine that pedophilia isn't a psychological genetic that the person inhabited.

Well, people have to go to prison for crimes they committed, regardless of whether or not they are mentally ill. However, there should be some kind of 'treatment' while/after the defendant's time in prison. In The Netherlands we have a system called 'TBS', which means that, when a criminal is diagnosed to be mentally ill, they will serve a prison term first and after that be committed in a mental hospital for some years. After the time in the 'TBS' is supposed to be up, the psychologists treating him have to advice the judge whether or not the patient can be safely returned to society. If not, the patient has to remain in 'TBS'. I don't know all the details of the US judicial system, but it seems pedosexuals automatically get very long prison sentences, if not life in jail, and there is little to no attention paid to rehabilitation.

If 'curing' or 'rehabilitation' is even possible. Lots of psychologists are of the opinion that pedophiles never change their ways (since that's the way they're 'wired'). But they are of the opinion, however, that casting them out of society after they served their time in jail, like our societies do, severely increases the risk of them committing new abuses (as opposed to guide them and keep an eye on them as they return into society, have a job, a home and are around regular people again). I realize this is not a popular opinion and of course it's very understandable that nobody would want to live with their kids near a registred pedosexual, but the studies have shown: they are a bigger danger to society when they get outcasted.

When you read the comments on news sites whenever there's a bit of news about convicted pedosexuals, you'll see they turn Medieval pretty quickly. Often, people are demanding them being put to death, or they propose all kinds of cruel torture measures. While understandable when you think of what those people did, I'm amazed that the majority of the people don't seem to realize that in 90% of the cases, the child abuser is not a dirty old man who dragged a random passing child into the bushes, but that nice uncle, the friendly neighbour or that good teacher. Most of the times, it's someone familiar.

So are you saying that our emotions and feelings (like "love") are ALL governed by mere science? I will agree with you about the physical, sexual, attraction being biological, and whether one is hetero, homo, bi, pan, or asexual being biological (and therefore not a choice), but if someone's grandparents die, and they cry because they love their grandparents, do you see that love as nothing more that the result of a scientific process or a "chemical process" in the body? That mere "chemicals" are why you loved your grandparents, and not because of the happy times you shared and your appreciation of the kind things they did for you? [...]

I didn't quote everything, but I want to react nonetheless. Of course I acknowledge the existence of emotions, like love, happiness, sadness etc. They're here and they're real, si how you I not recognize them? What I'm saying, though, is that those emotions cannot exist outside of our bodies, which means they cannot exist apart from our organs. Your memories about your late grandparents are in your brains, and you're crying because your brains make you feel a certain way about those memories and the realization that you'll never see your grandparents again. And when you get very old, your brains start to lose some of their functions, and that's why old people start to forget certain things. Alcoholics suffer from this at a much younger age, because their drinking has destroyed lots of their braincells.

So, yes: all of our emotions and how we feel about them come from our bodily organs, most importantly the brain. The brain produces certain chemicals when you're in love which account for the feeling of 'being in love'. What it is that triggers the brain to do is, I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows. Some people fall in love with blondes only, others (like me) fall in love with all sorts of women. Our brains just work differently. That's the way we were 'wired'. That doesn't mean the emotions are less powerful or enjoyable. But they are the work of our brains, not our 'spirits'.

[...] If the attacker fails to grasp why it's wrong and doesn't realize he's causing harm, well yes, he needs to be in a mental hospital. But if he knows it's wrong and does it anyway, his ass needs to be thrown in prison. [...]

I don't think it's a case of 'either he doesn't know it's wrong, so he should be treated' or 'he does know it's wrong and therefore he should be in prison'. Pedosexuals are always doing their child-molestation in secret, not neccesarily because they think it's bad, but because they know society thinks it's bad and has made it punishable by law (thank God, I should add!). So doing it in secret doesn't neccesarily mean the person in question thinks it's wrong himself. At least that's what I have read about it. Obviously, I'm not making excuses for anybody who would harm children. Just wanted to add this nuance for the sake of the discussion.

Goliath, the only thing I will add is that no matter what science says, no matter what anyone says, if they say my feelings are nothing but biochemical stuff I will never believe it, even if they actually seem to "prove" it. [...]

And THIS, right here, is why nobody can have a reasonable discussion with you. Because, as you have FINALLY admitted: you don't care for facts. Thanks for clearing that up once and for all, so people don't have to bother discussing with you anymore. Do you even realize how irrational you just made yourself look like?

[...] Oh, and another thing, scientists suspect that being gay is not a gene because they found identical twins (who share 100% the same genesa and pretty much the same experiences) had one gay and one straight. It seems the gay one may have "turned on the gayness in his gene" so to speak, perhaps with his soul, maybe even at birth, who knows. So that would be a like a soul that is gay simply turning the biology of his physical body to follow suit.

I don't know about the case you're talking about. Do you have a link to that story? Besides, I thought you just told me you didn't believe in scientific facts? Or do you only believe in facts when they fit your point of view? Does this also mean you believe gay people 'choose' to turn on their 'gay-gene'? Be careful what you say. The way you presented the story about the 'gay-gene' could be the perfect excuse for religious extremists to justify their "treating" of gays (like Marcus Bachmann and his gay-curing clinic): just surpress the 'gay-gene' and there are no gays anymore.

Really, Duster, how do you NOT see you're saying exactly the same as the anti-gay crowd?!

Well, even if I had to see Disney to know I love it, my soul was still one that was gonna love Disney, my soul still realized it liked Disney as much as it did,

Oh, please, for the love of God! Do you really expect me to write a reply to THIS?!

[...] Like some has said, I think she has the right to not accept the gay lifestyle.[...]

There is no such thing as a 'gay lifestyle'.

[Disney's Divinity]

As far as the issue of old/young attraction, I actually thought a few months ago now that I'm slowly getting older that in some ways I have to censure myself. Because sometimes I find myself attracted to guys who I would've been attracted to when I was their age, and felt awkward for saying things like "He's cute." It made me think how difficult it is to "age" your eyes.

That's why I don't believe there's anything "genetic" behind pedophilic desires--it's just basic attraction. The difference is that pedophiles are unable to control those urges (and, yes, they should be punished for that). I do believe it has more to do with mental problems that they fixate on children. Using Michael Jackson as an example--though I honestly don't believe he was guilty of any of the crimes he was accused of--it would certainly make sense for somebody who was abused or who, in some sense, "lost" their childhood like he did to be obsessed with children. I have heard that there are a lot of cases of people who were abused themselves that re-create that abuse later in their lives. I think mental histories can be linked to a lot of specific sexual desires (like someone who is specifically attracted to older men/women, for example, or any other fetish) in everyone, not just pedophiles.

Also @enigmawing: I wanted to say I'm so sorry for what happened to you. I think you've talked about it before on the forums, but I wanted to post that. Plus, it's great to here that your artistic talents helped you move past that.

[Goliath]

As far as the issue of old/young attraction, I actually thought a few months ago now that I'm slowly getting older that in some ways I have to censure myself. Because sometimes I find myself attracted to guys who I would've been attracted to when I was their age, and felt awkward for saying things like "He's cute." It made me think how difficult it is to "age" your eyes.

That's why I don't believe there's anything "genetic" behind pedophilic desires--it's just basic attraction. The difference is that pedophiles are unable to control those urges (and, yes, they should be punished for that). [...]

I don't know if this is what you meant, but I still feel like you're using the word 'pedophila' to describe an attraction to *anyone* who happens to be legally under-age. Which, as I have stated, is not the case. So I don't really see the connection between being attracted to younger persons (like you said) and pedophilia (= being attracted to young children with no adult feautures). I'm sure you didn't mean to say you sometimes think little children are cute.

I don't know what's the age-range you're talking about, but I don't think there's any reason to 'censure' yourself. If somebody is pretty or cute, he/she is pretty or cute, no matter what the age (again, *real* pedophilia excluded, which is not healthy). For example, I've met or seen girls who I knew or could've knew were about 15 or 16 years old and still I thought they were attractive. Like I said before, this is only natural; they don't look like young children anymore. Doesn't make me an ephebophile, as I've dated girls of my age and have been attracted to much older women as well (in their 40's even). It's just natural to like attractive girls/boys with adult features. Again, this excludes un-developed children, of course.

[Disney's Divinity]

True, there's nothing wrong with it considering people have adult features around 15 and up, but it's always creepy to me to hear older men/women talking about people half (or a quarter) their age, personally.

But I was mostly thinking about people who are technically underage (14-17 range). Because they are considered "off limits," it is a little awkward to comment on their attractiveness. Occasionally though, I'm thinking, "If I were 16 right now..."

[Super Aurora]

but it's always creepy to me to hear older men/women talking about people half (or a quarter) their age, personally.

So fucking true.

[DancingCrab]

Maybe this was all just a big misunderstanding. It could be that Jodi was talking about the girl's bad hair dye job. MAYBE she was just telling her that God did not approve of her hair, and she would pray for her to change it to a more suitable color and this chick just heard her wrong?

[David S.]

So, yes: all of our emotions and how we feel about them come from our bodily organs, most importantly the brain. The brain produces certain chemicals when you're in love which account for the feeling of 'being in love'. What it is that triggers the brain to do is, I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows. Some people fall in love with blondes only, others (like me) fall in love with all sorts of women. Our brains just work differently. That's the way we were 'wired'. That doesn't mean the emotions are less powerful or enjoyable. But they are the work of our brains, not our 'spirits'.

Well, if nobody (even science!) knows what causes the brain to "trigger" the chemicals that represent our emotions, I think it is plausible that there could be a "what came first, chicken or egg" scenario here. In other words, in my example where one is sad because a beloved relative passes away, it doesn't have to be that some chemical triggers the sadness - it could just as well be that BECAUSE you feel sad in your spirit - or, to use another word, soul - that this sadness ITSELF triggers the tears, and the "chemical reaction" associated with the emotion.

I like to think that there is more to my Humanity than just being a puppet under the control of random chemicals in the brain that control my emotions. And that's where the belief in things like having a unique human spirit, or "soul" comes in.

I know science focuses on tangible things that can be "proven", and I'm just saying that just because science cannot prove that intangible things like spirits, souls, and emotions (and yes, God!) can exist independent from the body, that doesn't mean that these things do not exist, because after all, science cannot disprove them, either! Just because you cannot see something with your eyes, quantify it, study it, classify it, and label it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll close with a few quotes I enjoy that seem to fit here:

"It is only with the heart that one can see clearly; what is essential is invisible to the eye"
-from Le Petit Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery (my favorite book)

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter"
- Yoda, from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

But let us agree to disagree as we are unlikely to change each others' minds and neither one can "prove" our position.

[toplaycool22]

Disagreeing with homosexuality does not make you homophobic. Homophobic is when you treat a homosexual with hatred and wish the worst for them. Jodi is a Christian and Christians are taught by the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. However, they are also taught to love the person in the wrong. God says hatred over people is like murder, so hatred against a person is a sin in God's eyes. So, Christians do not hate Homosexuals. God says hate the sin, sin is not a person. So if you are doing something wrong, like lying, stealing etc. God hates lying and stealing. But he loves the person. If my brother lied to me, I still love him, but I wouldn't like what he did. Lying is still wrong. Well, it is the same concept with Christians and the view of homosexuality. Jodi worked with Howard Ashman and she has said nothing but wonderful things about him. Howard was a genius, his work is great. But, she probably didn't agree with his lifestyle. But she still has fond memories of working with him. People need to stop making untrue blanket statements about people who disagree with homosexuality. We have a lot of important things going in this world, arguments on whether being gay is right or wrong should not be on top of the list.

[Disney's Divinity]

I hate when homosexuality gets compared to lying/adultery/etc. It’s sort of like how some mothers say, “I would love you even if you were a murderer!” I guess…thanks? Two people loving one another in the privacy of their own lives doesn’t hurt anyone like lying, stealing, cheating on one’s spouse, raping someone, etc. does.

[carolinakid]

Jodi Benson was also in the original Broadway cast of the 1992 Gershwin musical "Crazy For You" and she's heard on the original cast album. She does a great job singing standards like Embraceable You, I Got Rhythm and Someone To Watch Over Me.

[David S.]

I hate when homosexuality gets compared to lying/adultery/etc. It’s sort of like how some mothers say, “I would love you even if you were a murderer!” I guess…thanks? Two people loving one another in the privacy of their own lives doesn’t hurt anyone like lying, stealing, cheating on one’s spouse, raping someone, etc. does.

EXACTLY, Divinity! And again, Jesus never said anything against gays, so if *some* of the people who consider themselves "Christians" (ie, followers of Christ) believe that gays are "sinners", they are getting this idea from somewhere other than Jesus' actual words!

He did, however, say:

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

"Love one another, as I have loved you"

[toonaspie]

Off-topic discussion in a DVDizzy thread!!!!

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!