Wondering

[delwynmarch]

lizzyben wrote:
> All I'm saying is that it gets slippery to sometimes refer to one 
> group, sometimes to the other, without always making clear which 
> group you're referring to - it tends to create the impression that 
> there isn't a distinction, or that gays & pedophiles/ebiophiles
> are in fact one and the same group.

Del replies:
The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from
the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't
register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the
ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and ephebophilia.
Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't
assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people
saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"!

> I'm basically just talking about the terminology, not 
> even the underlying philosophical/moral issues.

I understand what you're saying, but I can only point out that that's
what I've tried to do right from the beginning, by explaining my use
of the terms gay (men who love adult men) and ephebophilia (men who
love teenage boys). But this terminology was immediately dismissed in
favour of philosophical/moral accusations that I was somehow equating
the two.

So again, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like I did try
and take all those precautions you mention. If you re-read my posts
without projecting any preconceived profile on me, you'll see that I
*never* equated gay with ephebophile. I always consistently argued the
theory that the canon presents us with ephebophile!DD and not at all
with gay!DD. Sure, when taken out of their contexts, some of my words
can be made to mean pretty much anything. But that's not right, is it?

Del