Here we go folks, and look who is writing this stuff.
www,narth.org
For many years, Western society has considered adult-child sex to be legally, socially, and morally taboo. Pedophiles have been judged criminal by the courts, sinful by theologians, and psychologically disordered by the mental-health profession.
Slowly, however, that situation has been changing.
A Fringe Element Begins to
Make Inroads into the Mainstream
NAMBLA--the North American Man-Boy Love Association--was once the lone voice lobbying for the normalization of pedophilia. NAMBLA representatives marched in gay-pride parades as a fringe element of the gay-rights movement.
Then in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p. 133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164).
A British university professor wrote: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed" (p. 323). A professor of social science at the State University of New York says he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" (p. 325) and child pornography.
A.P.A. Publishes a New Study:
Not All Pedophile Relationships are Harmful
The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.
This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.
The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.
The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims," using instead neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." Similarly, they say we should not talk about the "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy."
The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term "abuse" may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish...but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.
In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.
Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.
Here's another report that details how homosexual activists are working to lower the age of consent -or outright abolishing them to gain access to kids.
It sounds like you are a victim of sexual abuse...and like Johnny you anger is misdirected. Pedophiles are not homosexuals, they are people who prey on children. Seek therapy with someone who understands sexual abuse...and please do it before history repeats itself. Child molest keeps occurring in families that do not stop the cycle of shame...and I don't mean hyper-vigilence and hate...I mean through theraputic means.
You have to get in touch with your feelings and your anger. Hating the gay lifestyle will not free you...
You're making a completely unjustified leap. def59's posts are not indicative of past abuse. They are indicative of belief that homosexuality is immoral, even depraved, which is a perfectly legitimate belief if one believes the Bible. I say that as one who doesn't believe it, but knows what it says.
Agree with him or not, def59 has documented his statements. Also, whether or not you agree, men who lust after boys, but not girls, are homosexual pedophiles, just as men who lust after girls, but not boys, are heterosexual pedophiles. The categories are not identical, but they do overlap.
If you disagree with def59, put forth an argument. Keep your idiotic personal "evaluations" to yourself.
You see him as making arguments as per the Bible...I read his posts to NiKA... thought they were a little far reaching myself...
But the anger and adamant refusal...presents to me a deeper issue. So, I ask any of you:
Have you or a member of your family been molested?
Do you have an inner gut feeling a family member may be homosexual?
Are dreams of homosexual acts disturbing your sleep?
Why all the outrage? The arguments don't change. Thread after thread, page after page, post after post...At some point you have to stop stating your opinion and think about why it holds so much power...
Ye, shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free....
Firstly when I type www.narth.org it takes me to register.com and states the domain has been registered but does not take me to the home page. Therefore your first article (which mentions no names anyway) does not appear under the url you cited.
Secondly the pdf file you cite requires more checking and research. Firstly that it is genuine (snopes has nothing on it) and secondly that the information it provides is accurate. Even if the individuals cited in the document exist, the "evidence" is marshalled to attack every decent gay person on this planet as supporting and approving what is written. This is not only insulting but untrue.
It is, however phrased, very much along the lines of all homosexuals should be tarred with the same paedophilia brush. Just like the Nazis used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to tar all the Jews with international conspiracy. It does not represent my views nor the views of any gay people that I know or correspond with.
Have you referred this document to the FBI? If genuine I am sure that they would be interested.
If genuine, I am sure that the religious right would seize upon it with gusto but they appear to be more upset with adult matters (the reality anyway) regarding gay marriage.
I once, or maybe several times, referred to my own prison experiences when I worked in a prison that contained a high number of convicted paedophiles. Heterosexual paedophilia was far more represented than homosexual paedophilia. Just as you don't tar all heterosexuals as having a paedophile agenda nor should you for all homosexuals.
And an interesting resource which shows quite a few aruments and claims you can make against gays, set in juxtaposition with previous things said against another group.
If you look at the InstantUBBCode box below the Posting area, there's a button that will prompt you for the URL and your short desciption text and write the tag for you, if you like.
Trefor: P-Mosh posted this on the "Who Took My Thread" thread:
quote:Godwin's Law prov. (Usenet) "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Oh, and you stuck an extra ] in the URL tag, that's why it didn't work. Find where you typed [ U R L ] and change it to [ U R L = (without all those spaces) and it will work.
I changed the ] to and = and it still doesn;t show the short link which I typed in.
Further there is no UBB codebox appearing under the posting area on my computer. Boy must I be an ignoramus!
Thanks for clarifying Godwin's Law. Never heard of it before but then I wasn;t around very much in usenet days. The juxtaposition on the page I cite merely shows where similar arguments have been used before and comes from the Matthew Shepperd pages. It seemed to me to be talking about arguments rather than politics and personalities.
Tref: You can edit the other post to refer to this one, if you like. You may have the Advanced Posting interface enabled, which is why you don't see that box under your posting area. If a little window opens when you reply, you won't see what I'm talking about, but the same URL option should be available off of one of the little pulldown blue menus at the top of that posting box.
It sounds like you are a victim of sexual abuse...and like Johnny your anger is misdirected. Pedophiles are not homosexuals, they are people who prey on children.
Well Karmic,
I see that you think I am "angry". I guess when one has a strong opinion, you interpret it as "anger". And that makes me really angry at you! No just kidding. But I do not agree with your assessment that pedophilia is mainly heterosexual. I have found it to be the opposite. Almost every Roman Catholic pedophile preist I have read about has been homosexual. And there have been numerous cases up in Anchorage in the last few years that I have read about where it was older men molesting little boys.
And as Def said; when an older man molests a little boy, he is in fact a homosexual. He may also be a pedophile, but he is still a homosexual. You may say
quote: Pedophiles are not homosexuals, they are people who prey on children.
, but if a homosexual act is perpetrated on a little boy, then how is the perp not also a homosexual? It is hard for me to understand why you strongly want to keep the word "homosexual" out of the equation.
I mean, why the adamant defense against such reprehensible perverts?
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on March 12, 2004 at 11:57.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
28
35
18
Popular Days
Mar 9
46
Mar 12
30
Mar 10
29
Mar 11
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Catcup 13 posts
Zixar 28 posts
Trefor Heywood 35 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Mar 9 2004
46 posts
Mar 12 2004
30 posts
Mar 10 2004
29 posts
Mar 11 2004
19 posts
notinKansasanymore
By the way, my family motto, "Live just and fear not" is Old English; the "just" means "honestly," as in "live honestly."
Fear is not irrelevant. Action in spite of fear is what courage is made of.
"Live just, and fear not."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Not
Well, if that's the way you took it, I apologize. I never intended to paint academia with a broad brush.
But, I felt justified to pick your post apart, just as others have picked mine in other times.
We all have sayings and yours sounds nice. Sorry, about editorializing it.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I guess I would have amend my earlier post and say "some" in academia are leading the charge to legalize pedophilia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
And no doubt you can give the names and university/colleges of these "some" academics def?
Surely they should be reported to their Deans and Faculties immediately!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Tref
Actually, I am.
Def
California court bans gay marriages and Mass Legislature OKs initial ban.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Here we go folks, and look who is writing this stuff.
www,narth.org
For many years, Western society has considered adult-child sex to be legally, socially, and morally taboo. Pedophiles have been judged criminal by the courts, sinful by theologians, and psychologically disordered by the mental-health profession.
Slowly, however, that situation has been changing.
A Fringe Element Begins to
Make Inroads into the Mainstream
NAMBLA--the North American Man-Boy Love Association--was once the lone voice lobbying for the normalization of pedophilia. NAMBLA representatives marched in gay-pride parades as a fringe element of the gay-rights movement.
Then in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p. 133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164).
A British university professor wrote: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed" (p. 323). A professor of social science at the State University of New York says he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" (p. 325) and child pornography.
A.P.A. Publishes a New Study:
Not All Pedophile Relationships are Harmful
The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.
This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.
The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.
The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims," using instead neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." Similarly, they say we should not talk about the "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy."
The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term "abuse" may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish...but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.
In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.
Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Here's another report that details how homosexual activists are working to lower the age of consent -or outright abolishing them to gain access to kids.
http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Really
All you have to do is a google search and this stuff comes right up.
So do we igore the evidence?
Do we label it as hate speech, intoleranc, bigotry, or do we confront the gay rights agenda head on?
How's that for documentation Tref?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh man i am sick reading the pedophilia stuff by def
"....the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy...."
WHAT ???????????????????
what is this ?
the only pedophiles i have personally known were heterosexual
but my 2 youngest brothers were molested pre-puberty by a man of the cloth
this is a very hurtful subject for me
still trying to figure it all out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
def,
It sounds like you are a victim of sexual abuse...and like Johnny you anger is misdirected. Pedophiles are not homosexuals, they are people who prey on children. Seek therapy with someone who understands sexual abuse...and please do it before history repeats itself. Child molest keeps occurring in families that do not stop the cycle of shame...and I don't mean hyper-vigilence and hate...I mean through theraputic means.
You have to get in touch with your feelings and your anger. Hating the gay lifestyle will not free you...
Peace...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Whoa, karmic!
You're making a completely unjustified leap. def59's posts are not indicative of past abuse. They are indicative of belief that homosexuality is immoral, even depraved, which is a perfectly legitimate belief if one believes the Bible. I say that as one who doesn't believe it, but knows what it says.
Agree with him or not, def59 has documented his statements. Also, whether or not you agree, men who lust after boys, but not girls, are homosexual pedophiles, just as men who lust after girls, but not boys, are heterosexual pedophiles. The categories are not identical, but they do overlap.
If you disagree with def59, put forth an argument. Keep your idiotic personal "evaluations" to yourself.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
you say potato...
You see him as making arguments as per the Bible...I read his posts to NiKA... thought they were a little far reaching myself...
But the anger and adamant refusal...presents to me a deeper issue. So, I ask any of you:
Have you or a member of your family been molested?
Do you have an inner gut feeling a family member may be homosexual?
Are dreams of homosexual acts disturbing your sleep?
Why all the outrage? The arguments don't change. Thread after thread, page after page, post after post...At some point you have to stop stating your opinion and think about why it holds so much power...
Ye, shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free....
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
An interim reply to def:
Firstly when I type www.narth.org it takes me to register.com and states the domain has been registered but does not take me to the home page. Therefore your first article (which mentions no names anyway) does not appear under the url you cited.
Secondly the pdf file you cite requires more checking and research. Firstly that it is genuine (snopes has nothing on it) and secondly that the information it provides is accurate. Even if the individuals cited in the document exist, the "evidence" is marshalled to attack every decent gay person on this planet as supporting and approving what is written. This is not only insulting but untrue.
It is, however phrased, very much along the lines of all homosexuals should be tarred with the same paedophilia brush. Just like the Nazis used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to tar all the Jews with international conspiracy. It does not represent my views nor the views of any gay people that I know or correspond with.
Have you referred this document to the FBI? If genuine I am sure that they would be interested.
If genuine, I am sure that the religious right would seize upon it with gusto but they appear to be more upset with adult matters (the reality anyway) regarding gay marriage.
I once, or maybe several times, referred to my own prison experiences when I worked in a prison that contained a high number of convicted paedophiles. Heterosexual paedophilia was far more represented than homosexual paedophilia. Just as you don't tar all heterosexuals as having a paedophile agenda nor should you for all homosexuals.
As I said this is an interim reply.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
An interesting article about the NARTH v NAMBLA contraversy from the March 2002 American Psychologist
http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:X_UNql...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]American Psychologist March 2002
[This message was edited by Trefor Heywood on March 12, 2004 at 9:24.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
And an interesting resource which shows quite a few aruments and claims you can make against gays, set in juxtaposition with previous things said against another group.
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html
Compared with what some of these gays claim, def's allegations are on the mild side!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Careful, Trefor! If Tom reads that last post, he's going to invoke Godwin's Law on you...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I have to read!?
It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Toldja so!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Oh, btw. Those long URLs really screw up the formatting. Here's how to do it without the whole thing showing up:
Use [] where I use {} in the following:
{URL=http://biglongURL/x/y/z}Short Link{/URL}
and it will show up as Short Link
If you look at the InstantUBBCode box below the Posting area, there's a button that will prompt you for the URL and your short desciption text and write the tag for you, if you like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
What is Godwin's law? Sounds something ancient and anglo-saxon!
Thanks for the advice on the URL stuff - I am still feeling my way around this tech stuff so bear with me!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: P-Mosh posted this on the "Who Took My Thread" thread:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oh, and you stuck an extra ] in the URL tag, that's why it didn't work. Find where you typed [ U R L ] and change it to [ U R L = (without all those spaces) and it will work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I changed the ] to and = and it still doesn;t show the short link which I typed in.
Further there is no UBB codebox appearing under the posting area on my computer. Boy must I be an ignoramus!
Thanks for clarifying Godwin's Law. Never heard of it before but then I wasn;t around very much in usenet days. The juxtaposition on the page I cite merely shows where similar arguments have been used before and comes from the Matthew Shepperd pages. It seemed to me to be talking about arguments rather than politics and personalities.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Here's Trefor's article, with its URL shortened:
American Psychologist March 2002 (Trefor's article)
Tref: You can edit the other post to refer to this one, if you like. You may have the Advanced Posting interface enabled, which is why you don't see that box under your posting area. If a little window opens when you reply, you won't see what I'm talking about, but the same URL option should be available off of one of the little pulldown blue menus at the top of that posting box.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Karmicdebt said
Well Karmic,
I see that you think I am "angry". I guess when one has a strong opinion, you interpret it as "anger". And that makes me really angry at you! No just kidding. But I do not agree with your assessment that pedophilia is mainly heterosexual. I have found it to be the opposite. Almost every Roman Catholic pedophile preist I have read about has been homosexual. And there have been numerous cases up in Anchorage in the last few years that I have read about where it was older men molesting little boys.
And as Def said; when an older man molests a little boy, he is in fact a homosexual. He may also be a pedophile, but he is still a homosexual. You may say
, but if a homosexual act is perpetrated on a little boy, then how is the perp not also a homosexual? It is hard for me to understand why you strongly want to keep the word "homosexual" out of the equation.I mean, why the adamant defense against such reprehensible perverts?
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on March 12, 2004 at 11:57.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.