Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You lost when you had Mal in your sig for the duration of the bet. That put you mentioning Mal in every post.
El Magnifico was on my sig for a long time (December) I did not add his name during the bet. You know that. But I guess you are trying to take over the Bootlicker job ....or no....wait. El Magnifico has two boots. There's room for one more. That's it.
Perhaps your weasely excuse might be relevant if you had not updated that sig during your bet.
You are easily among the top ten most dishonest people I've ever encountered. I would have a hard time deciding whether you were number 1, 2 or 3. You can take heart that there might be one or two more dishonest people than you roaming the earth. Maybe.
And I sure do hope Mal doesn't take that bet because you showed in this thread that I'm likely to be your fallback to troll if you can't troll him or NLT anymore.
Slither back under your rock.
El Magnifico was on my sig for a long time (December) I did not add his name during the bet. You know that. But I guess you are trying to take over the Bootlicker job ....or no....wait. El Magnifico has two boots. There's room for one more. That's it.
Perhaps your weasely excuse might be relevant if you had not updated that sig during your bet.
You are easily among the top ten most dishonest people I've ever encountered. I would have a hard time deciding whether you were number 1, 2 or 3. You can take heart that there might be one or two more dishonest people than you roaming the earth. Maybe.
And I sure do hope Mal doesn't take that bet because you showed in this thread that I'm likely to be your fallback to troll if you can't troll him or NLT anymore.
Slither back under your rock.
She Lost that Bet... She's PuckeredPete, and she's so Dishonest she has to create a bet out of thin air that is NOTHING like the Challenge NLT Suggested and then stand by her Idiotically Dishonest Claim that it is.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7156570-post10.html
I am just Shocked that Ravir has hitched her wagon to that Dumptruck.
peace...
Perhaps your weasely excuse might be relevant if you had not updated that sig during your bet.
You are easily among the top ten most dishonest people I've ever encountered. I would have a hard time deciding whether you were number 1, 2 or 3. You can take heart that there might be one or two more dishonest people than you roaming the earth. Maybe.
And I sure do hope Mal doesn't take that bet because you showed in this thread that I'm likely to be your fallback to troll if you can't troll him or NLT anymore.
Slither back under your rock.
She Lost that Bet... She's PuckeredPete, and she's so Dishonest she has to create a bet out of thin air that is NOTHING like the Challenge NLT Suggested and then stand by her Idiotically Dishonest Claim that it is.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7156570-post10.html
I am just Shocked that Ravir has hitched her wagon to that Dumptruck.
peace...
You must bug Ravi really badly for her to throw her lot in with Pete.
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was treated on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the closet and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APAs nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
Whats noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly cut loose the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.
So all the people who had this terrible illness were cured overnight by a vote!
Read MOAR!:
Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery
And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...
"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled
Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."
1971: Zapping the APA Convention
The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.
It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.
Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...
But not always:
University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia
Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002
Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)
Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...
With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.
"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...
Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."
In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."
"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."
Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.
The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.
The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."
A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.
In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."
She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.
She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...
You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.
Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.
And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.
The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.
History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.
I'm just an Observer.
peace...
She Lost that Bet... She's PuckeredPete, and she's so Dishonest she has to create a bet out of thin air that is NOTHING like the Challenge NLT Suggested and then stand by her Idiotically Dishonest Claim that it is.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7156570-post10.html
I am just Shocked that Ravir has hitched her wagon to that Dumptruck.
peace...
You must bug Ravi really badly for her to throw her lot in with Pete.
Ravir Hates me because her Posse's gone... She and that Pack of Fags tried their Damndest to run me out of her for 2 solid years...
One by one... They all fell off... Gunny... Dis... CW... EZ... del... even Cali... That one never made any sense... And of course now she's lost A15...
Now she's basically here by herself.
Poor thing.
peace...
I think you're a POS and I would have happily paid for Art's ticket to visit you.
She Lost that Bet... She's PuckeredPete, and she's so Dishonest she has to create a bet out of thin air that is NOTHING like the Challenge NLT Suggested and then stand by her Idiotically Dishonest Claim that it is.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7156570-post10.html
I am just Shocked that Ravir has hitched her wagon to that Dumptruck.
peace...
You must bug Ravi really badly for her to throw her lot in with Pete.
Ravir Hates me because her Posse's gone... She and that Pack of Fags tried their Damndest to run me out of her for 2 solid years...
One by one... They all fell off... Gunny... Dis... CW... EZ... del... even Cali... That one never made any sense... And of course now she's lost A15...
Now she's basically here by herself.
Poor thing.
peace...
Good Lord you are Stupid...
peace...
She Lost that Bet... She's PuckeredPete, and she's so Dishonest she has to create a bet out of thin air that is NOTHING like the Challenge NLT Suggested and then stand by her Idiotically Dishonest Claim that it is.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7156570-post10.html
I am just Shocked that Ravir has hitched her wagon to that Dumptruck.
peace...
You must bug Ravi really badly for her to throw her lot in with Pete.
Ravir Hates me because her Posse's gone... She and that Pack of Fags tried their Damndest to run me out of her for 2 solid years...
One by one... They all fell off... Gunny... Dis... CW... EZ... del... even Cali... That one never made any sense... And of course now she's lost A15...
Now she's basically here by herself.
Poor thing.
peace...
Spot on. Did he really freak over a milkman joke?
Big time. He sniveled and sniffled like a beeyatch, deceitfully portraying it as somehow an "attack on his family". What a wuss.
I've heard that joke hundreds upon hundreds of times throughout 21 years in the military; not once did i ever hear anyone cry that it was an attack on their family....ever.
Deceitful micromal's a whinin' lil weasel.
Well, you wouldn't have run into El Magnifico in the military....so that may be reason why.
The History behind Normalizing Homosexuality...
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.
So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!
Read MOAR!:
Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery
And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...
"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled
Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."
1971: Zapping the APA Convention
The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.
It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.
Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...
But not always:
University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia
Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002
Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)
Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...
With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.
"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...
Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."
In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."
"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."
Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.
The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.
The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."
A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.
In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."
She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.
She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...
You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.
Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.
And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.
The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.
History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.
I'm just an Observer.
peace...
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was treated on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the closet and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APAs nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
Whats noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly cut loose the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.
So all the people who had this terrible illness were cured overnight by a vote!
Read MOAR!:
Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery
And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...
"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled
Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."
1971: Zapping the APA Convention
The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.
It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.
Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...
But not always:
University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia
Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002
Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)
Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...
With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.
"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...
Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."
In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."
"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."
Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.
The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.
The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."
A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.
In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."
She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.
She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...
You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.
Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.
And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.
The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.
History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.
I'm just an Observer.
peace...
There is a book called "The Journal of Homosexuality"
That's pretty weird.
Are all the words in it red?
Hey ol Mal-content.. Maybe it's non of my bidness but you seem to obssess a scoch much on the homos. Doth you protest too much? I mean isn't it enough that you just choose not to be queer?
Or are you?
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was treated on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the closet and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APAs nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
Whats noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly cut loose the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.
So all the people who had this terrible illness were cured overnight by a vote!
Read MOAR!:
Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery
And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...
"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled
Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."
1971: Zapping the APA Convention
The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.
It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.
Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...
But not always:
University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia
Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002
Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)
Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...
With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.
"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...
Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."
In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."
"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."
Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.
The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.
The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."
A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.
In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."
She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.
She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...
You can read MOAR at the link under the headline.
Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.
And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.
The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.
History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.
I'm just an Observer.
peace...
There is a book called "The Journal of Homosexuality"
That's pretty weird.
Are all the words in it red?
Hey ol Mal-content.. Maybe it's non of my bidness but you seem to obssess a scoch much on the homos. Doth you protest too much? I mean isn't it enough that you just choose not to be queer?
Or are you?
FUCK YOU HUGGY!...
How ya been you old Queen?...
peace...
its like blonde hair or brown hair.
its a a slice of human kind is all.
the only reason it ever became though of as bad was when societies needed as many births as possible to be succesful so it was demonized.
why cant people move out of the past and understand it?
its like blonde hair or brown hair.
its a a slice of human kind is all.
the only reason it ever became though of as bad was when societies needed as many births as possible to be succesful so it was demonized.
why cant people move out of the past and understand it?
I agree with post no. 1. Schizophrenia, manic depression, or pedophilia are also slices of human kind. But we don't make prior categories vanish because people in one of those groups have cash and clout to buy enough lawyers and PR firms to make them "acceptable". All of us here have to admit, things have radically changed in ten short years. To me, there is something rotten in Denmark, over the last ten years this issue has been thrust into American awareness. To whos benefit? We have a category of mental dysfunction for just about EVERYTHING nowadays. But suddenly, people with gender confusion and all the resulting sexual confusion is...NORMAL? Something isnt adding up here.
Difference is that pedophilia has a victim; the children. As for schizophrenia and manic depression, they are mental disorders which clearly cause distress and disability along with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom. Being homosexual, in and of itself, is not and does not. One cannot attempt the fallacious and absurd rationalization that homosexuality also causes the above due to others harassing gays because quite obviously the stressor would not be the fact that the person is gay, the stressor is bigotry itself.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) includes this definition for mental disorder: A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (i.e., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. The syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event. It must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. No definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of mental disorder. Also known as mental health, mental impairment, mental illness, brain illness, and serious brain disorder (DSM-IV, 1994; p. xxi).
Being gay does not infringe on others rights, nor does it, by itself, harm the person who is gay.
Your analogies then, are spurious.
As for normal; using one definition from Webster (according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle), gays are not normal, since they are in the minority and the norm/average is heterosexual.
Using another definition from Webster (occurring naturally <normal immunity), it is normal, as homosexuality occurs naturally in nature.
But who really gives a damn whether a persons benign trait is normal or in the minority? If the person with that trait is not infringing upon others rights, then who are we to berate them, harass them, judge them, or discriminate against them?
