Why do homophobes compare homosexuality to incest, polygamy, etc?
I constantly see analogies along the lines of: 'if you allow homosexuality you also have to allow incest and paedophilia'. By banding homosexuality together with traditionally taboo relationships, it's clearly an attempt to shock and muddy the image of homosexuality.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
For me, the issue regarding any 'moral' dilemma is that of consent.
If two or more people are consensually doing something that causes no harm to others, I see no problem with it, and nor should anyone else.
For incest, although I personally find it distasteful to say the least, I would defend people's right to practise it, providing no children are produced by it, so in the case of heterosexual incest, there would have to be protection involved, but for homosexual incest, I see nothing wrong with it, despite my own inability to imagine myself in that scenario.
For paedophilia, children are not physically or emotionally mature enough to give informed consent, so that's my reason for opposing paedophilia. In the UK, I actually believe the age of consent should be 18, but the law is what it is, and I respect that.
A consensual homosexual relationship/act occurs when two people who can give consent, do so, and cause no harm to others, hence my arguments for having no objection to homosexuality (I admit, I am gay, so could be seen as biased, but I isolate my own opinions from a reasonable moral standpoint, taken from the way I was brought up).
So to answer OP's question, homosexuality cannot be compared to incest or paedophilia, or even bestiality (which I have also heard homosexuality compared to), for the reasons of informed consent and no harm caused to others.
If two or more people are consensually doing something that causes no harm to others, I see no problem with it, and nor should anyone else.
For incest, although I personally find it distasteful to say the least, I would defend people's right to practise it, providing no children are produced by it, so in the case of heterosexual incest, there would have to be protection involved, but for homosexual incest, I see nothing wrong with it, despite my own inability to imagine myself in that scenario.
For paedophilia, children are not physically or emotionally mature enough to give informed consent, so that's my reason for opposing paedophilia. In the UK, I actually believe the age of consent should be 18, but the law is what it is, and I respect that.
A consensual homosexual relationship/act occurs when two people who can give consent, do so, and cause no harm to others, hence my arguments for having no objection to homosexuality (I admit, I am gay, so could be seen as biased, but I isolate my own opinions from a reasonable moral standpoint, taken from the way I was brought up).
So to answer OP's question, homosexuality cannot be compared to incest or paedophilia, or even bestiality (which I have also heard homosexuality compared to), for the reasons of informed consent and no harm caused to others.
Original post by Lady Comstock
I constantly see analogies along the lines of: 'if you allow homosexuality you also have to allow incest and paedophilia'. By banding homosexuality together with traditionally taboo relationships, it's clearly an attempt to shock and muddy the image of homosexuality.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
askew116 is absolutely right in terms of his criticisms of the "analogy". I think the reason that it's usually made is on the basis that LGBT people claim that they can't help who they're attracted to. Those using the analogy claim that if we accept the premise that neither can zoophiles/paedophiles etc., and we think that the latter are "unnatural"/harmful to society, homosexuality must also be "unnatural"/harmful to society.
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Tortious
askew116 is absolutely right in terms of his criticisms of the "analogy". I think the reason that it's usually made is on the basis that LGBT people claim that they can't help who they're attracted to. Those using the analogy claim that if we accept the premise that neither can zoophiles/paedophiles etc., and we think that the latter are "unnatural"/harmful to society, homosexuality must also be "unnatural"/harmful to society.
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
You've made the point much more succinctly than I could
Original post by askew116
You've made the point much more succinctly than I could
Hey, I had decent foundations to build on.
Original post by Tortious
I think the reason that it's usually made is on the basis that LGBT people claim that they can't help who they're attracted to. Those using the analogy claim that if we accept the premise that neither can zoophiles/paedophiles etc., and we think that the latter are "unnatural"/harmful to society, homosexuality must also be "unnatural"/harmful to society.
What also escapes them is that heterosexual people can be included in that analogy.
Original post by Lady Comstock
What also escapes them is that heterosexual people can be included in that analogy.
I'd forgotten that.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
The reason homosexuality is often compared to other traditionally taboo relationships is because, people often say that homosexuality should be accepted in society because "it isn't harming anyone else".
The point being made is that, a lot of other traditionally taboo relationships also don't harm anyone else. For example, an incestuous relationship in which no children are (at risk of being) produced can also be argued to "not harm anyone else". However, the same people supporting homosexuality will have no problem with these other relationships remaining illegal or frowned upon. You might say incest is being "analysed on its own merits" - but the fact is that in this case, it's being analysed against inconsistent standards, compared to those used to analyse homosexuality.
Original post by Lady Comstock
I constantly see analogies along the lines of: 'if you allow homosexuality you also have to allow incest and paedophilia'. By banding homosexuality together with traditionally taboo relationships, it's clearly an attempt to shock and muddy the image of homosexuality.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
Yet these types of relationships have their own merits, downsides, effects on society and so on. Surely if we allow incestuous sex or incestuous marriage, for example, it would be analysed on its own merits, without any reference to homosexuality.
Furthermore, those who peddle this analogy usually hold the view that you should accept heterosexual rights but reject homosexual rights. Yet, it's hypocritical to hold this stance and then attack the logic of those who believe that you should accept homosexual rights but reject the rights of paedophiles, for example.
I don't see how someone can support homosexual marriage, but oppose polygamy, provided all the parties are consenting. Surely the logic in favour of homosexual marriage is that it's between 2 consenting men who love each other. So equally, what's wrong with a man being in love with two women, and wanting to marry them both? If they all consent, then surely that should be fine? Why should other people have the right to tell these 3 people who they can and can't love and marry?
I personally have no strong views on this: if men want to marry each other, or multiple people want to get married, I'm happy with that.
Original post by Tortious
askew116 is absolutely right in terms of his criticisms of the "analogy". I think the reason that it's usually made is on the basis that LGBT people claim that they can't help who they're attracted to. Those using the analogy claim that if we accept the premise that neither can zoophiles/paedophiles etc., and we think that the latter are "unnatural"/harmful to society, homosexuality must also be "unnatural"/harmful to society.
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
I don't really think that's how I see it. Surely if homosexuality is "natural" (ie, a man cannot help loving another man), then it's presumably pretty likely that a man who loves 2 women also cannot help this, as it is innate attraction (I don't think it's fair to extend the analogy to paedophilia, since children can't consent). So if we are to allow homosexual marriage (which I think we should), we should also allow polygamy. Why should someone who loves 2 women (or 2 men) be denied the right to marry the people they love?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Tortious
askew116 is absolutely right in terms of his criticisms of the "analogy". I think the reason that it's usually made is on the basis that LGBT people claim that they can't help who they're attracted to. Those using the analogy claim that if we accept the premise that neither can zoophiles/paedophiles etc., and we think that the latter are "unnatural"/harmful to society, homosexuality must also be "unnatural"/harmful to society.
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
The argument relies on a flawed structure known as "affirming the consequent". The problem can be seen more easily if we use a different argument.
All cows (antecedent) have four legs (consequent).
That animal has four legs (affirming the consequent - we're saying it's true).
So that animal must be a cow.
EDIT: To make the comparison even more apparent:
People with "harmful attractions" can't help who they're attracted to.
LGBT people can't help who they're attracted to.
So LGBT people must have "harmful attractions".
I don't think it's so simple as a facepalm statement. Those people have a point, if we're approaching homosexuality analytically as opposed to from a religious perspective, then we can't just use the same old arguments that people used to use against homosexuality, for other orientation issues or paraphillias.
For example, I've yet to see a valid argument against incest or polygamy.
Original post by Tortious
I don't think this is the statement being made by the analogy.
I understand the point of the analogy as simply to show that, when discussing whether or not homosexual relationships are moral/appropriate, whether or not homosexuals can help whom they are attracted to is irrelevant. (People who support homosexual relationships often make a point of saying that it is not a choice.)
The argument is as follows
- Suppose homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted to.
- Zoophiles and paedophiles (claim they) cannot help whom they are attracted to either, but we still consider those relationships inappropriate.
- Therefore, simply being unable to help whom you are attracted to is not sufficient reason alone to consider a resulting relationship to be appropriate. (It may or may not be appropriate).
- In particular, the fact that homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted is not sufficient reason alone to consider homosexual relationships appropriate.
You can argue similarly for the other scenarios:
Relationships can be appropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
And they can be inappropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
As I said, the point is that whether or not you can help being attracted to someone is of no consequence in a discussion about whether a relationship with them is appropriate.
Original post by askew116
So to answer OP's question, homosexuality cannot be compared to incest or paedophilia, or even bestiality (which I have also heard homosexuality compared to), for the reasons of informed consent and no harm caused to others.
I'm interested to hear what your opinion would be on the following two type of sexual relationship:
Regarding bestiality: Why is it that you think informed consent is necessary? As a society, we tend to do a lot of things to animals without their informed consent e.g. eating them, having them neutered, making them do things for our entertainment etc. Why does consent suddenly become an issue when we're talking about sex?
Regarding necrophilia: Obviously a dead body cannot consent. However, usually we consider consent from the person when they were alive to be sufficient e.g. when taking their organs, using their bodies for medical research etc. Do you think that such consent is sufficient to justify the activity of necrophiles?
(I'm assuming that you don't think either of these relationships necessarily cause harm to others - though let me know if I'm mistaken.)
(edited 10 years ago)
Three quotes at once! 
Apologies if my reply isn't particularly coherent; it's been a long day.
Oh, I wouldn't disagree with you - but equally I fail to see how attraction to several people could be deemed "harmful" (assuming we're using the same hard-to-define-but-consent-based test that would conclude that paedophilia is harmful). In that case, I think same-sex marriage and polygamy are much more analogous, so I've yet to hear a distinction that would justify treating them differently.
I didn't address the issue of consent, which I think is the crucial factor in "same-sex attraction vs paedophilia" type scenarios, because askew116 had covered it. However, like I said to Chief Wiggum, I'd agree that if we're using consent as our test then I haven't heard convincing arguments against incest* or polygamy.
*Subject to the usual caveat that there should be no coercion and we're assuming there's no chance of pregnancy (to dispense with the "birth defects" argument).
Hmm, that's a good point. I think the part in bold is probably the most overlooked when I've seen this topic debated in the past, which I suppose might be why it didn't occur to me when I posted.
Apologies if my reply isn't particularly coherent; it's been a long day.Original post by Chief Wiggum
I don't really think that's how I see it. Surely if homosexuality is "natural" (ie, a man cannot help loving another man), then it's presumably pretty likely that a man who loves 2 women also cannot help this, as it is innate attraction (I don't think it's fair to extend the analogy to paedophilia, since children can't consent). So if we are to allow homosexual marriage (which I think we should), we should also allow polygamy. Why should someone who loves 2 women (or 2 men) be denied the right to marry the people they love?
Oh, I wouldn't disagree with you - but equally I fail to see how attraction to several people could be deemed "harmful" (assuming we're using the same hard-to-define-but-consent-based test that would conclude that paedophilia is harmful). In that case, I think same-sex marriage and polygamy are much more analogous, so I've yet to hear a distinction that would justify treating them differently.
Original post by keromedic
I don't think it's so simple as a facepalm statement. Those people have a point, if we're approaching homosexuality analytically as opposed to from a religious perspective, then we can't just use the same old arguments that people used to use against homosexuality, for other orientation issues or paraphillias.
For example, I've yet to see a valid argument against incest or polygamy.
For example, I've yet to see a valid argument against incest or polygamy.
I didn't address the issue of consent, which I think is the crucial factor in "same-sex attraction vs paedophilia" type scenarios, because askew116 had covered it. However, like I said to Chief Wiggum, I'd agree that if we're using consent as our test then I haven't heard convincing arguments against incest* or polygamy.
*Subject to the usual caveat that there should be no coercion and we're assuming there's no chance of pregnancy (to dispense with the "birth defects" argument).
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't think this is the statement being made by the analogy.
I understand the point of the analogy as simply to show that, when discussing whether or not homosexual relationships are moral/appropriate, whether or not homosexuals can help whom they are attracted to is irrelevant. (People who support homosexual relationships often make a point of saying that it is not a choice.)
The argument is as follows
- Suppose homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted to.
- Zoophiles and paedophiles (claim they) cannot help whom they are attracted to either, but we still consider those relationships inappropriate.
- Therefore, simply being unable to help whom you are attracted to is not sufficient reason alone to consider a resulting relationship to be appropriate. (It may or may not be appropriate).
- In particular, the fact that homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted is not sufficient reason alone to consider homosexual relationships appropriate.
You can argue similarly for the other scenarios:
Relationships can be appropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
And they can be inappropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
As I said, the point is that whether or not you can help being attracted to someone is of no consequence in a discussion about whether a relationship with them is appropriate.
I understand the point of the analogy as simply to show that, when discussing whether or not homosexual relationships are moral/appropriate, whether or not homosexuals can help whom they are attracted to is irrelevant. (People who support homosexual relationships often make a point of saying that it is not a choice.)
The argument is as follows
- Suppose homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted to.
- Zoophiles and paedophiles (claim they) cannot help whom they are attracted to either, but we still consider those relationships inappropriate.
- Therefore, simply being unable to help whom you are attracted to is not sufficient reason alone to consider a resulting relationship to be appropriate. (It may or may not be appropriate).
- In particular, the fact that homosexuals cannot help whom they are attracted is not sufficient reason alone to consider homosexual relationships appropriate.
You can argue similarly for the other scenarios:
Relationships can be appropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
And they can be inappropriate, regardless of whether the attraction is a choice or not.
As I said, the point is that whether or not you can help being attracted to someone is of no consequence in a discussion about whether a relationship with them is appropriate.
Hmm, that's a good point. I think the part in bold is probably the most overlooked when I've seen this topic debated in the past, which I suppose might be why it didn't occur to me when I posted.
Original post by tazarooni89
I'm interested to hear what your opinion would be on the following two type of sexual relationship:
Regarding bestiality: Why is it that you think informed consent is necessary? As a society, we tend to do a lot of things to animals without their informed consent e.g. eating them, having them neutered, making them do things for our entertainment etc. Why does consent suddenly become an issue when we're talking about sex?
Regarding necrophilia: Obviously a dead body cannot consent. However, usually we consider consent from the person when they were alive to be sufficient e.g. when taking their organs, using their bodies for medical research etc. Do you think that such consent is sufficient to justify the activity of necrophiles?
(I'm assuming that you don't think either of these relationships necessarily cause harm to others - though let me know if I'm mistaken.)
Regarding bestiality: Why is it that you think informed consent is necessary? As a society, we tend to do a lot of things to animals without their informed consent e.g. eating them, having them neutered, making them do things for our entertainment etc. Why does consent suddenly become an issue when we're talking about sex?
Regarding necrophilia: Obviously a dead body cannot consent. However, usually we consider consent from the person when they were alive to be sufficient e.g. when taking their organs, using their bodies for medical research etc. Do you think that such consent is sufficient to justify the activity of necrophiles?
(I'm assuming that you don't think either of these relationships necessarily cause harm to others - though let me know if I'm mistaken.)
Bestiality: You make a good point, and as I'm a meat eater, I don't deny that animals don't give us consent, informed or otherwise, to have us eat them. On the other hand, I always buy organic, free range produce, even though this means I can't consume meat/eggs on a student budget as often as I otherwise could, as I am concerned for the animal's welfare while it's alive (I refuse to knowingly eat Halal meat for the same reason, although I do acknowledge I may occasionally unknowingly consume it).
I guess I have to acknowledge that I'm somewhat of a hypocrite on that issue, but I do console myself with the fact that I do only buy meat produce when I can justify that the animal has been appropriately cared for in life.
Necrophilia: Consent given while alive is key to my opinion on this issue. If explicit consent has been given, the emphasis being on explicit, then I'd see it, in the best case scenario, as the deceased's loved ones' final goodbye. Otherwise, with the absence of explicit consent, it's immoral.
I've tried to be honest and answer your questions as well as I could, which, while writing this response I've questioned my beliefs, I have not changed them.
To be honest, I've done it in the past.
I've compared them just because gay people are born gay, and I assume paedophiles are born that way too, in the same way people have fetishes for feet and other stuff like that.
Well, I assume so anyway. I can't see it as a moral thing (like everyone is a paedophile and only some people suppress it because of morals). So I guess I've compared them, but not in a homophobic way, just because of the way my mind works.
I don't have a problem with gay people at all, I've met some gay people in real life who are very nice and other than being attracted to the same sex, no different to anyone else.
I've compared them just because gay people are born gay, and I assume paedophiles are born that way too, in the same way people have fetishes for feet and other stuff like that.
Well, I assume so anyway. I can't see it as a moral thing (like everyone is a paedophile and only some people suppress it because of morals). So I guess I've compared them, but not in a homophobic way, just because of the way my mind works.
I don't have a problem with gay people at all, I've met some gay people in real life who are very nice and other than being attracted to the same sex, no different to anyone else.
Original post by yaboy
Man Claims to be born to love men
Man claims to be born to love animal
Difference?
Man claims to be born to love animal
Difference?
Consent.
Original post by tazarooni89
The reason homosexuality is often compared to other traditionally taboo relationships is because, people often say that homosexuality should be accepted in society because "it isn't harming anyone else".
The point being made is that, a lot of other traditionally taboo relationships also don't harm anyone else. For example, an incestuous relationship in which no children are (at risk of being) produced can also be argued to "not harm anyone else". However, the same people supporting homosexuality will have no problem with these other relationships remaining illegal or frowned upon. You might say incest is being "analysed on its own merits" - but the fact is that in this case, it's being analysed against inconsistent standards, compared to those used to analyse homosexuality.
The point being made is that, a lot of other traditionally taboo relationships also don't harm anyone else. For example, an incestuous relationship in which no children are (at risk of being) produced can also be argued to "not harm anyone else". However, the same people supporting homosexuality will have no problem with these other relationships remaining illegal or frowned upon. You might say incest is being "analysed on its own merits" - but the fact is that in this case, it's being analysed against inconsistent standards, compared to those used to analyse homosexuality.
When you ask people why these other forms of relationships are not OK, they will often give reasons (doesn't matter if they are valid) which are not applicable to homosexuality such as potential for abuse and genetically weaker children etc. I think that everything should eb considered on it;s own, and making a comparison to something else is not valid when they have fundamentally different attributes. You can argue taht homosexuality is equivilent to incest in some ways, but not in all ways.
Personally I think that homosexuality is very simple, let people do it and there are very few downsides. Incest is far more complicated.
Original post by askew116
Consent.
What does consent have to do with it
no one is talking about actually going up and dating an animal or man or have sex with either
if you have sexual feelings towards either what make one natural and one not
Original post by UniMastermindBOSS
To be honest, I've done it in the past.
I've compared them just because gay people are born gay, and I assume paedophiles are born that way too, in the same way people have fetishes for feet and other stuff like that.
Well, I assume so anyway. I can't see it as a moral thing (like everyone is a paedophile and only some people suppress it because of morals). So I guess I've compared them, but not in a homophobic way, just because of the way my mind works.
I don't have a problem with gay people at all, I've met some gay people in real life who are very nice and other than being attracted to the same sex, no different to anyone else.
I've compared them just because gay people are born gay, and I assume paedophiles are born that way too, in the same way people have fetishes for feet and other stuff like that.
Well, I assume so anyway. I can't see it as a moral thing (like everyone is a paedophile and only some people suppress it because of morals). So I guess I've compared them, but not in a homophobic way, just because of the way my mind works.
I don't have a problem with gay people at all, I've met some gay people in real life who are very nice and other than being attracted to the same sex, no different to anyone else.
That's highly offensive, not just to LGBT, but to humanity. Some people are paedophiles - an attraction which affects a very small percentage of the population, but which is outlawed due to consent issues. That does not mean that everyone is paedophile, and that most just suppress it.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
