It sounds like they are trying to call the natural state of throwing a tantrum, a “disorder”.
Since when this has ceased being a natural condition of the human species [at least some of the time], is anybodies guess.
No doubt, the DSM [and its authors] would hold far more credibility, if they were not chronically trying to classify normal aspects of life, as being some sort of “disorder” to be medically exploited for profit.
…What is that condition?…”Hyper Diagnosis Disorder”?…”Medical Manipulation Disorder”?…
I’m going to get a bit leachy, here…and link to an interesting post, which Viamund the Rake made on his blog.
It seems, the pope [Benedict XVI] doesn’t like social equality, wherever the church has to cramp it’s own stile, in order to accommodate it.
Is it “equal rights”, to allow the catholic church to discriminate against homosexuals, when this is a long held tradition of the catholic church?
Apparently, the pope thinks so, because “equal rights to religious beliefs”, is his spin on all of this.
Someone should explain to him, that his church is not above cultural laws…and cultural laws are [usually] written, with the majority interest in mind.
01) The Story
This is one of those curious conflicts that arise, when a country has a state religion, and no separation of church and state [which, I’ll readily admit, even in the USA, does not truthfully exist either…not in practice].
A similar issue arose, back when I was in elementary school, at a private, baptist school. As a church, they had some sort of tax exempt status…but, equal rights laws were making advances, and this greatly troubled the church…because new proposed requirements, would force them not to discriminate, based upon all sorts of criteria, including sexual orientation.
They were outright suggesting to us, that they would “be forced to” hire a homosexual, and let him/her work amongst us kids, if such a person were to apply to work there.
This was just the absolute worst thing, in their minds…and some kind of “tragic crisis”.
Of course, it blew over…
…but, once I had the chance to step back, and critically analyze it…I never understood what made them think, that any self respecting homosexual would ever want to subject themselves, to the abusive environment of that church/school.
Who is going to apply, and stick around, at any place where they were so clearly reviled and not wanted?
Alternatively, shouldn’t they have wanted “the sinner” there, amongst us…where they could “love” and convert him/her?
I guess, their homophobia [and sex-phobia] was the more pressing issue, here.
Ah…my boyhood schooling…the stories I could tell…
Believe me…No church should ever be allowed, to own it’s own school full of children…ever.
Note: I believe this was a response, from a thread at the Newgon Forum.
I would normally agree here…but, keep in mind, we are talking about the UK, here.
They have an official, national religion, and that church is very much a part of the government…which changes the balance and ramifications tremendously.
If tax dollars taken out of my pocket, were being funneled to churches [in any way], and those churches were practicing the kinds of discrimination that I grew up under [and still live in, to a very large degree today], I would be outraged as well.
As a rule, I think any non-government organisation has the right to associate with whomever it wills, and hold a common code of conduct it feels represents it’s views.
I draw a line, when people of opposing viewpoints are expected to finance these kinds of groups…and where people who have no choice [ie: children] are forced into participating in said groups.
At the very least, they should not be rewarded, for behaving in those sorts of ways. They do not deserve to be seen as privileged, and exempted from things like income tax, for example.
I would not force censorship, or our same fate, upon others, either…
…but, we should be clear…wherever association is forced, the rules change.
I think bigots have the right to be bigots, so long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of others, and exploiting others in order to propagate their own goals.
That possibility is not very likely, wherever the various minorities are legally tied to each other.
Do people get into the field of pediatric medical care, in order to fulfill a sexual desire?
No doubt, a few do.
It saddens me to know, that anyone would ever think that this is either acceptable, or that it is “their only option” to know a child intimately…
…and then again, maybe…this man is just sadistic on a personal level…and he gets off on violent rape?
I don’t want to speculate very much, as I don’t know his circumstances, or the path that led him to this dreadful set of circumstances.
I should note, however…This is one of the very few case stories I’ve encountered, where the “victim count” [literal victims, or not] made it to the triple digits [though, it’s just a little past 100].
These kinds of cases are extremely rare…which is why it made the news.
Someone in his position had resources [drugs] available to him, no doubt, to assist him in getting away with this for so long…otherwise, one would be left to wonder, if he were doing violent assaults on children, then how is it that none talked, or showed signs of the assault?
…Or, maybe they have one, or two [or a handful of] charges against him, and they decided to pull his entire clientele into the investigation, claiming they are all “victims”?
Such distortions are very possible, when it comes to this kind of news.
I am curious as to why anyone felt the need to clarify, that “one of the victims was a boy”. That just came off as bizarre. It is as though they had the opportunity to claim homosexual assault, so they went ahead and did so…for shock value?
I do not see the relevance.
For the record…if these charges are true, then this guy should be locked away for a long, long time…and he may never see the outside world, again.
I recognise that kind of behavior, as both predatory and gross exploitation. You do not present yourself to others, under an unrelated and important pretext [ie: being a doctor to service your child’s needs], just to turn around and force some kind of blatant assault [on those who were brought to you, in order to tend to their medical needs].
I am reminded of Dr. Adam Selene [a BoyChat poster, from years back, who was a knowledgeable doctor]…and how he sternly rebuked an anonymous poster [a troll?], who asked for advice, as to whether they should become a pediatrician, in order to gain access to children.
“You don’t get into the medical field, unless you sincerely want to help people”, and “This is no place to get your sexual thrills”, are how I would [more nicely] sum up Dr. Selene’s message.
This is just about as bad, as the “pedophile priests”…
We, as a society, need to start getting smart…and looking at the root problems, which would drive anyone to these kinds of behaviors [and in some cases, atrocities].
You know…I don’t tend to highlight these kinds of cases on my personal websites, though I’ve addressed many of them [at places like BoyChat] over the years.
I do not ignore them [not at all], it is just that my focus has been on bringing the world to a well rounded, even understanding of “pedophilia”, and the issues surrounding it.
I figure, within hours…hundreds [probably thousands] of people will have pounced upon this news story…and they will be letting the whole world know of their own outrage, and whatever it is they think “should be done to” this guy.
I try to provide not only a better quality of personal character, but also a higher standard of integrity, than what you would typically find on the internet…and I hope this comes through clearly.
I refuse to engage in the typical, online behavior.
This is why I normally focus on the positive, rational aspects of “pedophilia”, and upon confronting the social resistance towards it…as well as other forms of taboo, human sexuality.
We need far more level headed voices, like what I am providing.
We need to band together, and remove the broken social behaviors, which would drive anyone to do the kinds of things, that honestly can be called “sexual assault” [on children or adults]…
…but, at the same time, we must respect that there is a clear, distinct line between healthy sexuality [and development], and predatory assault.
We cannot ever hope to effectively address real sexual violence, until we are ready to get serious about not convoluting the issues, and not allowing sex laws, to be used as weapons against peaceful, sexual minorities.
As things stand, persecuted sexual minorities will only be driven underground…Some will become desperate and angry, because they have no safe outlet. These circumstances only act to inflame, whatever serious dangers already exist.
…This pattern of political, social behavior, only acts to encourage sexual violence, and other forms of violence, including murder.
We need to focus on the root social problems, not spend our time, recklessly calling for this guys head on a platter, or seeking bloody revenge.
Is nobody else, at all, interested in confronting these issues, in a way that actually means something?
noun 1. the quality of being fecund; capacity, esp. in female animals, of producing young in great numbers.
2. fruitfulness or fertility, as of the earth.
3. the capacity of abundant production: fecundity of imagination.
…In short, as relates to animals [ie: humans], “fecundity” refers to ones ability to have lots of children.
“Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals.”
02) Found Here
Does having homosexuals in your immediate, genetic tree, increase the fertility of females in your family? It seems, data is pointing in that direction.
There are several natural, and valid, purposes to homosexuality…It looks like enhancement to healthy, human reproduction, might just be a hidden benefit.
One person, describes the “comparing peni” scene [with the young boy erection in it], as “child pornography”…
…another person responds, thoughtfully, with his take on societal differences…and points out the ridiculousness of American movies which hyper censor nudity, while glorifying extreme violence.
They point out, that in Europe, it is just the exact opposite…Nudity is considered normal and healthy, while it is the violence that is considered to be explicit material [and censored more].
Personally, while the scene in question is an enjoyable one to watch, I think this is more so, just because of it’s natural, intimate sweetness.
Many BoyLovers will get excited over it, I expect…but, the boy is rather typical [yet generally cute, in a “scruffy, dirty, young boy” kind of way]…and this is not presented in any kind of erotic way [unless you consider the very fact that it “is” happening, to be erotic].
It is a very real novelty, particularly on account, that this movie made it’s way into the U.S. market, and remains legally available, till this day.
I cannot much recall, any parallel made in the USA…though, certainly, there are some such movies that place young kids, into simulated, sexual scenes.
It often pains me to see people bemoan this charming scene. Good grief! It’s actually quite pleasant…and there is nothing threatening about it.
Read the responses, a bit…and you’ll see where it goes.
It’s sad, that some people cannot see the natural beauty, in such a scene.
Note: I wrote and posted this about a year or so after my YouTube account [eqvideo] got locked and then deleted. This was after months of being hounded and harassed by idiots, who were trying to intimidate and impersonate me on YouTube. My relationship with YouTube has recovered substantially, since that time. I thought this was still worth posting, for historical significance. – Steve 2015
Oh Look! YouTube Does Offer Alternatives…
…and a chance to bring your account back into good standing…
…Well…they do for some, apparently privileged, groups of people.
01) YouTube’s “Mercy”
Being someone who has never actually seen YouTube reach out, with a respectful, understanding and balanced response, towards perceived violations in “terms of service”, this video really caught my attention.
Wow…they really go into detail, with the person in question…even pinpointing exactly where, in the video, the “offense” started.
YouTube gave him 48 hours, to “correct” this very clearly defined material.
There really is no question at all, as to what YouTube is referencing, or what YouTube expects this person to comply to.
My question is…
…If YouTube is this concerned, and that dedicated to working through conflicts amongst it’s users…
…then where was “my” ultimatum?…where was the clarity, in specifying how “I”, allegedly, violated their “terms of service”?…and where the hell was even so much, as a simple e-mail, acknowledging me, or my account, or what some bigot was doing to me?
I went from no problems [except being cyberstalked and threatened, by online sociopaths using YouTube], with an account continually in good standing…to a full stop, suspended account…which I got locked out of, without even so much respect, as a simple acknowledgement that I exist…
Now, that is true contempt.
It is inexcusably shameful behavior, on the part of YouTube…which continues to sweep this kind of behavior under the rug, and whitewash it.
In contrast, it actually floors me, to see evidence of various other targeted people, where YouTube actually takes the time, and care, to respectfully work with people…and resolve the conflict at hand.
I never had problems with YouTube prior to the sudden locking of my account…I minded my own business, and was not harassing anyone.
In all of this, YouTube lost sight of the fact, that I was the one, being targeted and abused by other YouTube users.
YouTube’s response in all of this, was to victimise me all over again, by taking away my account…while allowing the accounts, of those who have lied about me, and disparaged my character, to remain unchallenged.
That is wrong, unethical and just flat out abusive.