On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:03 PM, shempmcgurk<shempmcg...@netscape.net> wrote: > I'm snipping out everything else because I want to focus on the above. > > This is what, in effect, Judy referred to as "luring". And that's probably > what Crowley did. But "luring" is not necessarily a bad thing; it seems to > be, as I indicated in an earlier post, to be a tool that police use to catch > malefactors, as you indicate above. > > Judy seems to feel that "luring" is automatically assumed to be a bad thing > to do; but it appears from your post that it isn't. >
I don't like the word "luring". It sounds too much like what ScienceofAbundance's ilk do to confused/lacking sexual confidence/perpetually horny underage boys, boys the chicken hawks "sense" with their gaydar are begging for it. I'm straight (and good looking and was a junior and high school jock, so muscle, not fat) and I had to fight off the chicken hawks while a teenager. The experiences don't leave a good feeling towards gays. I grew up in a time and place when if an adult grabbed for your crotch (or worse), you got out of the situation ASAP and didn't utter a word about it to anyone. I wonder just how good the gaydar was for priests, gym teachers, ministers, US congressmen and senators when they used their position to take sexual advantage of someone in less of a position to make an informed, adult choice in the matter? Is your gaydar as good as a straight guy's wish/hope that "she want's it/me"? I guess "luring" is the correct word here. You can be "luring" without being lurid. It's not unusual for police to call your attention to something, have you come to look out of curiosity, and now you're there. It might not have been necessary to induce Gates to go outside. He was on a roll and probably would have followed Crowley outside, shouting. It's standard procedure if you watch Law and Order to see the detectives ask someone to step outside to discuss something so their wife/husband won't have to hear, then cuff them.
