Crosswords2 mins ago
Social Media Backlash Against Russia
I notice there are a lot of 'boycott the Winter Olympics' and protest posts against the Russian attitude towards the LGBT community; and quite rightly so.
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You seem to have gone quiet jim, are you thinking? What if that late 19th century obscure Swiss 'sexologist' was wrong and there is no such thing as 'paedophilia', after all the word has only gained common usage over the last two or three of decades. Maybe there are just bad men assaulting children, and maybe a lot of those bad men just happen to be homosexuals; http://
Hmmm. A citation from world net daily, a conservative/right wing organ. "Research" from Steve Baldwin, chief executive of the grandly named conservative/right wing advocacy group, "The Council for National Policy". Research "endorsed" by Professor Judith Reissman, with her PhD in communications, and tenure at Liberty University - a conservative/religious/right wing outfit. Judith Reissman who accused Kinsey of being a paedophile, who thought the homosexuals gave rise to Nazism?
Hmm. Not much of an "authoriteh" eh?
Said "Research" unpublished in any peer-reviewed journal.
And just maybe, Khandro, it is you and your prejudices that are wrong, and that the truth is as many psychiatrists and sexologists say it is; That paedophilia has little to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality and much much more to do with regressed/fixated or stalled sexual development, and that predatory males who commit acts of child abuse are principally motivated by the fact that the targets of their sexual obsessions are children.
So far you have presented the prejudiced view that homosexuality is linked
to child abuse and are able to offer only dodgy statistics, the odd article about individual abusers, and a link to some "research" from authors with an anti-gay agenda.
Hmm. Not much of an "authoriteh" eh?
Said "Research" unpublished in any peer-reviewed journal.
And just maybe, Khandro, it is you and your prejudices that are wrong, and that the truth is as many psychiatrists and sexologists say it is; That paedophilia has little to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality and much much more to do with regressed/fixated or stalled sexual development, and that predatory males who commit acts of child abuse are principally motivated by the fact that the targets of their sexual obsessions are children.
So far you have presented the prejudiced view that homosexuality is linked
to child abuse and are able to offer only dodgy statistics, the odd article about individual abusers, and a link to some "research" from authors with an anti-gay agenda.
Typical classic Lazygun waffle; A poor attempt to discredit any sources which do not meet your myopic view, not on intellectual and observational content, but on the spurious grounds that they are from a conservative/religious/right wing university, - which would of course rule out most international higher seats of learning, including Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard.
On the subject of "My prejudices", I suggest they pale into insignificance in comparison to your prejudiced defence of 'normal' homosexuals, by attempting to entirely separate them and any relating statistics by the convenient term 'paedophiles'. Why do you believe that these abusers of children warrant special status, when those who rape are called 'rapists', those who murder are called 'murderers'? - Men who sodomise young boys are 'homosexuals', - nothing else.
.
On the subject of "My prejudices", I suggest they pale into insignificance in comparison to your prejudiced defence of 'normal' homosexuals, by attempting to entirely separate them and any relating statistics by the convenient term 'paedophiles'. Why do you believe that these abusers of children warrant special status, when those who rape are called 'rapists', those who murder are called 'murderers'? - Men who sodomise young boys are 'homosexuals', - nothing else.
.
Khandro, if LazyGun hadn’t said what he said I’d have said it. Your source, like Jim’s (batting for the other team, so to speak) isn’t credible. This is not unbiased research from reliable, impartial sources, but from people promoting their own specific agenda. None of these links stand up to scrutiny.
//Men who sodomise young boys are 'homosexuals', - nothing else. //
I agree that men who sodomise young boys are homosexuals – but I don’t agree that they are nothing else. They are also paedophiles. Homosexuals are not necessarily paedophiles any more than heterosexuals are necessarily paedophiles. Paedophiles are paedophiles. Yours is a ridiculous argument, Khandro.
//Men who sodomise young boys are 'homosexuals', - nothing else. //
I agree that men who sodomise young boys are homosexuals – but I don’t agree that they are nothing else. They are also paedophiles. Homosexuals are not necessarily paedophiles any more than heterosexuals are necessarily paedophiles. Paedophiles are paedophiles. Yours is a ridiculous argument, Khandro.
in my experience homosexuals, and i have counted a fair few as friends over the years don't interfere or sexually abuse little boys, they are quite happy with their own age groups, homosexual men, that they are in relationships with, it doesn't mean to say that some are not promiscuous, i knew many who were, but that goes for the heterosexual community just as well. Sexual abuse with little children happens in the home, within families, as much as it does anywhere.
On what basis do you make the claim, Naomi, that my source isn't credible -- and, if I may as, what is your source? Certainly, my source was not a single source but in fact several -- including the World Health Organisation, several directly-cited research papers, as well as the one you claim "isn't credible" but was based on the same original, peer-reviewed research. At any rate, I was citing far too many sources (including a few that I looked at but didn't cite) for the whole thing to be dismissed as a single source -- unless, perhaps, the entire field of research into this area is dismissing collectively?
As to the claim that "paedophiles are homosexuals" -- I don't see that there is any evidence for this at all. Or, at least, as has been well-established, it is a clash in definitions. As I have shown earlier, the literature clearly distinguishes between what people do, and what their orientation is. This distinction is worth making because in sexuality, as in every other walk of life, there is a difference between deed and thought.
So, anyway, I'd like to know what you are basing your argument on.
On a side note, the whole "last word" thing is a distraction. I absolutely do not need to have the last word. But of course, like everyone else, I never like to leave an argument if I don't feel that it's ended, or if I've not made my point to the level that I wanted. I should be as free to make that assessment as anyone else.
As to the claim that "paedophiles are homosexuals" -- I don't see that there is any evidence for this at all. Or, at least, as has been well-established, it is a clash in definitions. As I have shown earlier, the literature clearly distinguishes between what people do, and what their orientation is. This distinction is worth making because in sexuality, as in every other walk of life, there is a difference between deed and thought.
So, anyway, I'd like to know what you are basing your argument on.
On a side note, the whole "last word" thing is a distraction. I absolutely do not need to have the last word. But of course, like everyone else, I never like to leave an argument if I don't feel that it's ended, or if I've not made my point to the level that I wanted. I should be as free to make that assessment as anyone else.
naomi, //Paedophiles are paedophiles.// Your notion that somehow this group is a separate entity within the overall context of male masculinity is exhaustively researched in 'The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century' http://
by Steven Angelides. It is worth reading and, should meet your criterion of being unbiased.
by Steven Angelides. It is worth reading and, should meet your criterion of being unbiased.
@ Khandro "Typical classic Lazygun waffle; A poor attempt to discredit any sources which do not meet your myopic view, not on intellectual and observational content, but on the spurious grounds that they are from a conservative/religious/right wing university, - which would of course rule out most international higher seats of learning, including Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You really are getting desperate, aren't you?
1. The "research" being offered as a citation by you is poor. It is non-peer reviewed. It has not been produced by an expert in the field, but the chief executive of an advocacy group with a homophobic mandate.
2. Professor Judith Reissman might very well be an expert - in communication, from which subject she obtained her PhD. How does that make her any kind of expert in psychiatry or human sexuality?
3. To attempt to draw a commonality between Liberty University and Cambridge, or Oxford, or Harvard is simply risible. Liberty University is a private institute, formed by evangelical christians and with an evangelical remit. It teaches young earth creationism, for petes sake! Its school motto is "Training champions in Christ". It does not have an impartial world view. Nor can it be considered on the same level as genuine institutions of higher learning.
Go and learn something about human sexuality. Stop with the bad science. You have a conclusion - homosexuality predisposes to child abuse - born out of your own prejudice, and you are desperate to find any scrap of "evidence" no matter how poor, how biased, to support that conclusion. That is simply awful science. You clearly have zero understanding of statistics, with the laughable" lollipops equates to homosexuality" presentation. Normal adult homosexuals are no more likely to commit child abuse than normal adult heterosexuals, and it is extremely distasteful the way you continue to attempt to defend your bigotry.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You really are getting desperate, aren't you?
1. The "research" being offered as a citation by you is poor. It is non-peer reviewed. It has not been produced by an expert in the field, but the chief executive of an advocacy group with a homophobic mandate.
2. Professor Judith Reissman might very well be an expert - in communication, from which subject she obtained her PhD. How does that make her any kind of expert in psychiatry or human sexuality?
3. To attempt to draw a commonality between Liberty University and Cambridge, or Oxford, or Harvard is simply risible. Liberty University is a private institute, formed by evangelical christians and with an evangelical remit. It teaches young earth creationism, for petes sake! Its school motto is "Training champions in Christ". It does not have an impartial world view. Nor can it be considered on the same level as genuine institutions of higher learning.
Go and learn something about human sexuality. Stop with the bad science. You have a conclusion - homosexuality predisposes to child abuse - born out of your own prejudice, and you are desperate to find any scrap of "evidence" no matter how poor, how biased, to support that conclusion. That is simply awful science. You clearly have zero understanding of statistics, with the laughable" lollipops equates to homosexuality" presentation. Normal adult homosexuals are no more likely to commit child abuse than normal adult heterosexuals, and it is extremely distasteful the way you continue to attempt to defend your bigotry.
@ Jim I skim read a couple of paragraphs of the Steven Angelides link, Jim, and was surprised that Khandro was offering that as a kind of defence of his indefensible prejudice, because it seemed to me based upon my limited read of the paper that Angelides was arguing more or less the exact opposite of Khandros position.
I was intending to read it in more detail later,in case I had missed something.
I was intending to read it in more detail later,in case I had missed something.
Yes I have read the article in its entirety and he clearly shows how the concept of 'paedophilia' [his quotation marks] emerged. Perhaps you do not understand just what it is I am saying. I am opposing your view that it exists as a separate phenomenon and can be analysed as such and seen outside of general sexual behaviour, and Angelides attempts to demonstrate how it is related to, and is an extremity of the norm, not something to be seen in isolation, as you have claimed by stating that there is no connection whatsoever between paedofilia and homosexuality.
[Moral issues are outside of this.]
[Moral issues are outside of this.]
@ Khandro Perhaps you should try harder to characterise your viewpoint then.
So far, your hypothesis is that adult male homosexuals are more predisposed to child abuse than their adult male heterosexual counterparts.
You have used a variety of dodgy methods to defend this thesis, from the use of false equivalence about the relative harms of child abuse of boys versus girls, through to some nonsense about camp counsellors, the use of a binomial bayesian back of the fag packet statistical "analysis" and the use of clearly partisan homophobic "studies" to support your notion.
And despite your denials, despite your citing of the Angelides article,( because I do not think the article says what you think it says) the facts remain; Paedophilia is much more to do with fixation/regression than it is to do with the heterosexual or homosexual orientation of the abuser.
Your continuing doggedness in defence of your bigotry is rather sad.
So far, your hypothesis is that adult male homosexuals are more predisposed to child abuse than their adult male heterosexual counterparts.
You have used a variety of dodgy methods to defend this thesis, from the use of false equivalence about the relative harms of child abuse of boys versus girls, through to some nonsense about camp counsellors, the use of a binomial bayesian back of the fag packet statistical "analysis" and the use of clearly partisan homophobic "studies" to support your notion.
And despite your denials, despite your citing of the Angelides article,( because I do not think the article says what you think it says) the facts remain; Paedophilia is much more to do with fixation/regression than it is to do with the heterosexual or homosexual orientation of the abuser.
Your continuing doggedness in defence of your bigotry is rather sad.
Let's just be clear what your opinions are. The following quotes are verbatim:
"As I said above, not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but a lot are,
why do you think the likes of the odious Peter Tatchel are so keen to have the age of consent lowered?
I'll tell you why, so they can bugger our children with impunity."
"...the case that male homosexuality and paedophilia are linked is clearly demonstrated beyond doubt by [jim360's] figures which you are invited to refute."
"Adult men sodomising young boys is homosexuality and nothing less."
Now, by comparison, some quotes from Angelides. Firstly, from the abstract:
"... homophobia played a central role in [the category of "paedophile"'s] formation... the category of the 'paedophile' was homosexualized in order to demarcate 'normal' from 'pathological' masculinities."
So, pretty much straight away, we can see that linking paedophilia to homosexuality is, in Angelides's view, part of an agenda. This claim crops up again in the Introduction.
Later on, he goes on to establish the early view of paedophilia as being:
"...essentially a regressive state..."
"'The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals', Revitch and Weiss declared... [NB: from a 1962 paper]"
Then, after a period analysing the rise of feminism, we come across this quote from An Australian Feminist movement:
"As the Melbourne Alliance of Revolting Feminists bluntly put it in their Manifesto. 'Just as all men are potential rapists, so are all men potential paedophiles.'"
Slightly earlier, a fringe movement called the North American Man Boy Love Association called for "Repeal all age of consent laws [1979]", but instantly Angelides notes that "...many gay, lesbian and feminist activists believed that the politicisation of the category of the 'paedophile' was at odds with feminism and many of gay liberation's feminist principles." So already there is an established rejection within the majority community itself of paedophilia.
He goes on to establish that identifying and condemning child sexual abuse became tied up in the rise of feminism, in contrast with earlier views discussed above. Although perhaps the issue was exaggerated, the recognition of the concept comes when children are desexualised, by the feminist and gay liberation movement. (For more on this, one needs to see an earlier article of Angelides' on Feminism and Child Sexual Abuse).
But now comes the link between homosexuality and paedophilia:
"...I suggest that the category of the 'paedophile' emerged ... [as] an identity category that functioned in large measure as a means of deflecting attention away from the fact that child sexual abuse had been exposed by feminism as a problem congruous with dominant and not marginal forms of male sexuality."
"Negative images of homosexuality and the rhetorical association of homosexuality and paedophilia were frequently deployed in public discourses..."
"...it seems to be gay activists' campaigns for the de-criminalisation of male homosexuality and equalisation of the homosexual age of consent laws that provided the most fertile ground for such discursive manipulation."
[Note that for a while the age of consent for gay men in the UK was two years higher than for heterosexual sex -- an incongruity that naturally gay men sought to bring to an end.]
"...a homophobic fear of homosexual equality was transformed into the homosexual=paedophile equation."
"...it was not long before the rhetorical association of homosexuality and paedophilia was transformed into the emergence ... of an overtly homophobic category of the 'paedophile'."
At this point I'm running out of characters. But a further reading makes Angelides' views clear: a link between homsexuality and paedophilia is only "apparent", and was part of an anti-gay/anti-feminist agenda, with its origins in an attack on the traditional man. This wholly contradicts your views quoted above.
"As I said above, not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but a lot are,
why do you think the likes of the odious Peter Tatchel are so keen to have the age of consent lowered?
I'll tell you why, so they can bugger our children with impunity."
"...the case that male homosexuality and paedophilia are linked is clearly demonstrated beyond doubt by [jim360's] figures which you are invited to refute."
"Adult men sodomising young boys is homosexuality and nothing less."
Now, by comparison, some quotes from Angelides. Firstly, from the abstract:
"... homophobia played a central role in [the category of "paedophile"'s] formation... the category of the 'paedophile' was homosexualized in order to demarcate 'normal' from 'pathological' masculinities."
So, pretty much straight away, we can see that linking paedophilia to homosexuality is, in Angelides's view, part of an agenda. This claim crops up again in the Introduction.
Later on, he goes on to establish the early view of paedophilia as being:
"...essentially a regressive state..."
"'The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals', Revitch and Weiss declared... [NB: from a 1962 paper]"
Then, after a period analysing the rise of feminism, we come across this quote from An Australian Feminist movement:
"As the Melbourne Alliance of Revolting Feminists bluntly put it in their Manifesto. 'Just as all men are potential rapists, so are all men potential paedophiles.'"
Slightly earlier, a fringe movement called the North American Man Boy Love Association called for "Repeal all age of consent laws [1979]", but instantly Angelides notes that "...many gay, lesbian and feminist activists believed that the politicisation of the category of the 'paedophile' was at odds with feminism and many of gay liberation's feminist principles." So already there is an established rejection within the majority community itself of paedophilia.
He goes on to establish that identifying and condemning child sexual abuse became tied up in the rise of feminism, in contrast with earlier views discussed above. Although perhaps the issue was exaggerated, the recognition of the concept comes when children are desexualised, by the feminist and gay liberation movement. (For more on this, one needs to see an earlier article of Angelides' on Feminism and Child Sexual Abuse).
But now comes the link between homosexuality and paedophilia:
"...I suggest that the category of the 'paedophile' emerged ... [as] an identity category that functioned in large measure as a means of deflecting attention away from the fact that child sexual abuse had been exposed by feminism as a problem congruous with dominant and not marginal forms of male sexuality."
"Negative images of homosexuality and the rhetorical association of homosexuality and paedophilia were frequently deployed in public discourses..."
"...it seems to be gay activists' campaigns for the de-criminalisation of male homosexuality and equalisation of the homosexual age of consent laws that provided the most fertile ground for such discursive manipulation."
[Note that for a while the age of consent for gay men in the UK was two years higher than for heterosexual sex -- an incongruity that naturally gay men sought to bring to an end.]
"...a homophobic fear of homosexual equality was transformed into the homosexual=paedophile equation."
"...it was not long before the rhetorical association of homosexuality and paedophilia was transformed into the emergence ... of an overtly homophobic category of the 'paedophile'."
At this point I'm running out of characters. But a further reading makes Angelides' views clear: a link between homsexuality and paedophilia is only "apparent", and was part of an anti-gay/anti-feminist agenda, with its origins in an attack on the traditional man. This wholly contradicts your views quoted above.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.