The Sigil said:
Boom. This statement is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst. "Being a MAN, [you have] fantasized about [any girl you find attractive.]?" Holy heck. This offends me greatly - it implies (a) homosexuals are not men, (b) those men who are governed by their MINDS instead of their HORMONES are not real men, and (c) men spend most of their time objectifying attractive women as sex objects.
You are reading far too much into this than should be. I am speaking from a straight man's perspective. Since I am not gay, I do not feel qualified to say what goes on in a gay mans mind. So as a straight man, we'll assume that you've had straight man fantasies about straight women. Is this any clearer?
I don't undestand how you got to that conclusion with letter (b) so I can't really defend what you pulled out of thin air.
As far as (c), I don't remember where I explicitly stated or even hinted at ALL MEN spending most of their time objectifying women as sex objects. I do remember saying that ALL (straight) men fantasize about women, whether they are single, engaged, married or what have you. The significance of a (straight) man fantasizing about women was part of a larger statement which I will not restate here because we are past that discussion. But it sure would help if you quote the entire section and left it unedited in the future, thanks.
The Sigil said:
Please, mods, tell me this statement alone is enough to slam the lock on this thread.
Do you have some sort of fetish with getting threads closed or something? You are trying awefully hard to discredit this thread. If it is getting you this upset, then please don't read it anymore. Even Eric is taking part in this PHILOSOPHICAL debate. You're the one trying to make this discussion look bad, please don't. Of course, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you might be just misunderstanding me and taking it the wrong way or to the extreme. I don't know...
The Sigil said:
Infidelity suggests married people are in fact tempted. Jerry Springer suggests family members are in fact tempted. What you seem to fail to realize is that there are a vast number of people who are capable of RESISTING temptation.
Yes, but these are the extremes. I didn't want to include them because I didn't have the strength or time to debate them. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that these people (married, gay, siblings, unattrative) could indeed be friends with females, but that is because they had no reason to NOT be "just friends" with them.
The Sigil said:
Again, humans are different from animals.
Animal -> Stimulus-response, stimulus-response
Human -> Stimulus-thought-choice-response
Gads.
True, but I fail to see what this proves as far as friendship goes. This is really a philosophical debate, not a scientific (or religious) one.
The Sigil said:
So you can't truly be friends with an attractive girl unless you go further with her? Wrong again. What the heck does having sex have anything to do with friendship.
I know that is wrong, I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I never said that or hinted at it. What I did say was, you can pretend to be "friends" all you want, but you will always have those urges, fantasies, whatever you want to call them. And those urges imply you want to go further. Whether you do or not is beyond the point. You are simply strong willed in not giving in, it doesn't mean you don't want to or don't have the feelings/fantasies/urges.
And before you forget everything I said before this paragraph, let me reiterate:
Yes, if you are gay you won't have these urges with a female friend.
Yes, if you are married you won't (or at least shouldn't) have these urges with a female friend.
Yes, if you are the brother of the chick you won't have these urges with her.
Yes, if she is ugly you won't have these urges with her.
The Sigil said:
Unfortunately, it was. 
I think it will be clear to the mods that this thread is over. It's not really exploring anything but bigotry and/or ignorance.
--The Sigil
*sigh*
To quote Dr. Phil, "Ya just don't get it, do you?"