ChatterBank14 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.
As defined by the WHO:
F65.4 Paedophilia
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.
The definition of paedophilia is, as can be seen, gender-blind. It's also significantly different from homosexuality as being classed as a medical disorder.
F65.4 Paedophilia
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.
The definition of paedophilia is, as can be seen, gender-blind. It's also significantly different from homosexuality as being classed as a medical disorder.
Yer wot? I just quoted from the WHO medical textbook, and a massive article about homosexuality and paedophilia, that I cite once more for the sake of clarity:
http://
The definition above came from:
www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf
I have no idea what assumptions you think I am making. If it's that "the nature of a sexual act does not necessarily reflect the sexual orientation of the participants," That is hardly an assumption, that's just real life. People do things that they might not want to, for starters, or that they might regret later. And I'm certainly not being naive in thinking that, so I'm just struggling to understand your post.
Could you explain what assumptions you think I am making, why they are rubbish, and why it is that I shouldn't be using the definitions that best reflect those used by the community of people who study this? Would it be fair to say that you have looked up these definitions in your dictionary? The problem is that a general dictionary often doesn't capture the full subtlety of technical language, and sometimes even gets it wrong (or, at least, out-of-date).
For example, the medical literature makes a clear distinction between homosexuals, and "men who have sex with men", as can easily be seen in any search: one stark example is this one:
http://
Where both gay and bisexual men are distinguished from "men who have sex with men".
http://
The definition above came from:
www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf
I have no idea what assumptions you think I am making. If it's that "the nature of a sexual act does not necessarily reflect the sexual orientation of the participants," That is hardly an assumption, that's just real life. People do things that they might not want to, for starters, or that they might regret later. And I'm certainly not being naive in thinking that, so I'm just struggling to understand your post.
Could you explain what assumptions you think I am making, why they are rubbish, and why it is that I shouldn't be using the definitions that best reflect those used by the community of people who study this? Would it be fair to say that you have looked up these definitions in your dictionary? The problem is that a general dictionary often doesn't capture the full subtlety of technical language, and sometimes even gets it wrong (or, at least, out-of-date).
For example, the medical literature makes a clear distinction between homosexuals, and "men who have sex with men", as can easily be seen in any search: one stark example is this one:
http://
Where both gay and bisexual men are distinguished from "men who have sex with men".
Let's cut to the chase, shall we . . . aside from our own tails, that is. I can't imagine how anyone can follow this thread up to this point or contribute to what it has become without getting all falling-over-themselves dizzy? But as some of you can attest, I'm not exactly entirely adverse to dizzy my own self, therefore:
I wouldn't matter if it just so happens that 100% of paedophiles happen to be 'homosexuals' (men and/or women), nor would it make a difference in how we should judge 1% of the same group if the other 99% happened to be paedophiles, (although I imagine most would hope we all know this is clearly not the case).
The point being, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) assign blame or bestow condemnation upon an individual for the actions of most any more so than one single member of a group simply because they are a member of that group by virtue of birth alone . . . no matter how many Christians do precisely that in adopting the doctrine of 'original sin'.
If it so happens that there exists only one decent human being upon the face of the Earth, that's not sufficient reason alone to condemn the entire planet . . . in spite of what any alleged creator has been credited with doing.
You, yeah you know who I'm talking about, don't have to love anyone or everything they do in order to respect their right not to be judged or excluded from the human race on the basis of what others in a similar group have done. Learn to differentiate the right of each and every individual not to be condemned or denied their basic human rights and dignity from the wrongs, however despicable, committed by another.
I wouldn't matter if it just so happens that 100% of paedophiles happen to be 'homosexuals' (men and/or women), nor would it make a difference in how we should judge 1% of the same group if the other 99% happened to be paedophiles, (although I imagine most would hope we all know this is clearly not the case).
The point being, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) assign blame or bestow condemnation upon an individual for the actions of most any more so than one single member of a group simply because they are a member of that group by virtue of birth alone . . . no matter how many Christians do precisely that in adopting the doctrine of 'original sin'.
If it so happens that there exists only one decent human being upon the face of the Earth, that's not sufficient reason alone to condemn the entire planet . . . in spite of what any alleged creator has been credited with doing.
You, yeah you know who I'm talking about, don't have to love anyone or everything they do in order to respect their right not to be judged or excluded from the human race on the basis of what others in a similar group have done. Learn to differentiate the right of each and every individual not to be condemned or denied their basic human rights and dignity from the wrongs, however despicable, committed by another.
jim; [paedophilia is] //significantly different from homosexuality as being classed as a medical disorder."
To reiterate naomi's response - rubbish! It was first coined in the late 19th cent. by a Swiss 'sex worker' (whatever that is), it took about another century to come into common use, and is now bandied about everywhere without much thought, many psychologists do not like the word at all.
The problem with the way you and others use it, is that it attempts to dismiss homosexual assaults on children as being a completely separate phenomenon having it's own set of statistics.
To reiterate naomi's response - rubbish! It was first coined in the late 19th cent. by a Swiss 'sex worker' (whatever that is), it took about another century to come into common use, and is now bandied about everywhere without much thought, many psychologists do not like the word at all.
The problem with the way you and others use it, is that it attempts to dismiss homosexual assaults on children as being a completely separate phenomenon having it's own set of statistics.
Jim, There is nothing in the definition you gave from the WHO to indicate that paedophilia is gender-blind, as you conclude, and I don’t believe it is. The report you’ve linked to does, however, make that claim. Since it struck me that in his efforts to illustrate very specific distinctions the author appears to be verbally tying himself in knots I thought I’d find out who he is – and this is the result.
http://
… and this is the home page to his website you linked to:
http://
His conclusion that “….many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.” doesn’t detract from the fact that the abuse of a child by someone of the same gender is not a heterosexual act.
Not sure you can trust his report to be impartial.
http://
… and this is the home page to his website you linked to:
http://
His conclusion that “….many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.” doesn’t detract from the fact that the abuse of a child by someone of the same gender is not a heterosexual act.
Not sure you can trust his report to be impartial.
Khandro, you are trying to find a relationship between a collection of a least 3 poorly defined psychological states conveniently labelled 'paedophilia' and another collection of undefined psychological states labelled 'homosexuality'. As if this wouldn't be difficult enough, there seems to be enough reliable relevant statistical information to fill a postcard. You are not going to get anywhere with this, best to admit defeat and deal with more nebulous things where numbers aren't involved.
Like pixie said earlier, "It depends if you are talking about the act or the person, perhaps." One can commit a homosexual act without being homosexually oriented. Anyone who describes male-male paedophilia as a homosexual act, and then draws the conclusion that the paedophile was also homosexual, is confusing the act with the orientation.
As to the rest of your post. Is he tying himself in verbal knots? I'm not sure that's quite right. Certainly he is trying to be careful about his language. But As I have illustrated with a link to the medical literature, so does everyone else who studies sexuality. It's been recognised that the act and the orientation do not always match.
But anyway if you don't trust that link, then have a look at the research he cites instead.
As to the rest of your post. Is he tying himself in verbal knots? I'm not sure that's quite right. Certainly he is trying to be careful about his language. But As I have illustrated with a link to the medical literature, so does everyone else who studies sexuality. It's been recognised that the act and the orientation do not always match.
But anyway if you don't trust that link, then have a look at the research he cites instead.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Crosswords30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
ChatterBank67 mins ago
News69 mins ago
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.