Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

That's from last October, but if you haven't watch it yet... How Lauren Southern from The Rebel Media, the same who interviewed Peterson and Christine Brophy on their recent research, became a man:


https://youtu.be/gGpZSefYvwM

As she, err... he, concludes: How far is it going to go? Are we going to embrace reality or fiction?
 
Article is from April last year.

Danger is that if they start treating pedophilia as a ''sexual orientation' instead of a disease. Pedophiles can start saying that ; ''see we aren't sick, this is just the way we are''. ''So be ''tolerant'' and accept us as we are. Since you also accept gays. Don't be a racist.''


Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html

A paedophile has the 'same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male', psychologist says

Paedophilia is a “sexual orientation” like being straight or gay, according to a criminal psychologist.

The idea that sexual attraction to children is an “orientation” is highly controversial as it suggests that offenders cannot change.

But, writing on the Reddit networking website, the psychologist said it was possible to treat child sex abusers on “the understanding that the attraction may always remain”.

The psychologist set up the “ask me anything” thread on Reddit. Their identity was not revealed but was verified by the website.

Asked “can paedophiles actually change?”, the expert wrote: “I believe Paedophilic Disorder is a sexual orientation with individual that are attracted to child features. In other words, an individual with paedophilia has the same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male, or a homosexual feels towards their same gender.

“With that being said, it needs to be said that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a finite category. We know that heterosexuals may engage in homosexual behaviour, and deny they are bisexual or homosexual.

“We know that individuals with paedophilia may engage in sexual behaviour with adults. For some, they may use this as a cognitive distortion to explain away their sexualisation of prepubescent children.”

However the psychologist stressed in a later edit that they had not mean to imply paedophiles could not be treated – to an extent.

“Treatment, to me, isn’t about modifying the orientation per se, but getting the individual to find more appropriate behaviours to engage in,” they wrote.

“An individual can have paedophilic interests without ever acting on these behaviourally. However, as I am working with criminal offenders, my experience is entirely weighted to those who have engaged in this behaviourally.”

The psychiatrist said they focused on three main areas when trying to treat a child sex abuser: “One, do you understand who can and can't provide consent? How will you go through and identify this? Two, can you identify the risks or situations which would increase when you engage in sexual activity with someone who can't provide consent? How can you avoid these or limit them? Three, what can you focus on positive in your life which can replace or mitigate when you may be most likely to offend? What are some things you can do which are adaptive and help you in the long run?”

In May 2015, research from the National Crime Agency suggested 250,000 men in the UK could be considered "true paedophiles" - adults who are attracted to pre-pubescent girls less than 12 years old.

Talking to The Independent in the wake of the research, one psychologist working said they should be treated as victims rather than offenders.

“It is a disease, it is a trait, it is not a choice. They haven’t chosen to change, but they can learn how to live responsibly with their sexual desires," Petya Schuhmann, who works with a scheme in Germany called Project Dunkelfeld, which allows individuals to anonymously contact therapists who help them control their sexual urges towards children.

Last year, a self-confessed paedophile, Todd Nickerson, a freelance graphic designer from Tennessee, caused uproar after writing an article asking people to be understanding of his "sexual orientation".

Called I'm a paedophile, you're the monsters, the piece explained how he believed his molestation as a child was the reason he is now sexually attracted to young girls. He also mentioned his membership of the "Virtuous Paedophiles" forum - an online community of paedohpiles who have vowed never to act on their sexual urges.

In July 2010, the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated that "paedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges".

The idea of treating paedophilia as a disease has long been controversial.

In 2013, Donald Finklater, of the child protection charity the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, said: "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."
 
[quote author= bjorn]Danger is that if they start treating pedophilia as a ''sexual orientation' instead of a disease. Pedophiles can start saying that ; ''see we aren't sick, this is just the way we are''. ''So be ''tolerant'' and accept us as we are. Since you also accept gays. Don't be a racist.''[/quote]

Apparently this is already a reality!! - I could have placed every sentence in bold, because that's how shocking this article is!!


Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

by Jack Minor –

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another — whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.
 
Leave it to the Guardian to make pedophilia acceptable. Again I could have set every sentence in bold but that would make it unpleasant to read. Article is from, Thursday 3 January 2013

They try to label pedophilia as misunderstood. Just as homosexuality once was. They even say that sex with a child was normal hundreds of years ago. So what went wrong that it is now illegal, pedophiles are victims of a mob like mentality. Not only that, apparently it's not even harmfull for children, it's even positive!!!


Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia - and even how much harm it causes

In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.

A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.

But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."

Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, honorary research fellow at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.

Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – "the psychiatrist's bible" – has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.

If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.

Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question – as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia – something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).

Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."

For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".

• This article was amended on 3 January 2012. The original incorrectly suggested that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychological Association, and misspelled Dunkelfeld as Dunkenfeld. This article was further amended on 21 January 2013 because the original referred to Sarah Goode as a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester. This has been corrected to say honorary research fellow.
 
How do they say:

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

, and also that people become pedophiles because they were abused themselves. It's a circle that they're trying impose. And it's like saying that abuse is ok because no one gets hurt by it. :huh:
 
3D Student said:
How do they say:

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

, and also that people become pedophiles because they were abused themselves. It's a circle that they're trying impose. And it's like saying that abuse is ok because no one gets hurt by it. :huh:

Notice that they already have their so called research sorted out. All what is left to do is to impose and make it acceptable in society. And they are working hard to empower Pedophilia.

From a 4STS perspective it makes perfect sense to normalize Pedophilia. 4STS seeks absolute control before the realm border crossing and after and nothing can hardly be more traumatizing than being sexual abused as a child. Trauma is the most effective way for entrapping souls and to stop and even degenerate soul growth.

Though, people will certainly resist the pedophilia agenda. But the only question is how many people will resist it when the programming is complete? Besides, remember when the C's said that there is a US color revolution in the works. Take note that they said this before Trump came in the picture. So the PTB where already preparing a color revolution, but to what end? I am starting to wonder if they are trying to call in a new form of fascism in the name of equality.

Meaning the PTB have to get totalitarian to supposedly prevent a fourth Reich from happening because there are so many intolerant and racist people? And with ''intolerant'' and ''racist'' people I mean those who resist gender theory and ultimately pedophilia.

They are selling 'gender theory' and everything that follows with it as the next phase of mankinds evolution. Our traditional gender roles only enslaves us. And so does our negative view on pedophilia, because sex with children is actually about ''Love''


- The psychopath Elite are creating humanity in their own image.
 
Yep, they are pushing hard in many western countries (also in germany) to make pedophilia not only an acceptable thing but legally not punishable. In fact it is globally pushed. I think that this is partly the driving force behind this gender insanity. They even try relentlessly to educate the children and youth themselves, into thinking in that direction in schools (no kidding!). Without much resistance and in fact a lot of support and ignorance instead... One can only imagine what the next generation will do (and will become) after this "education" has gone into full swing. We are in the middle of it and it doesn't look good.

So far russia has made a number of sensible and good steps to punish/ban that kind of evil. The question is: For how long can they and the rest of the world resist? Those psychos are pushing hard.
 
Pashalis said:
Yep, they are pushing hard in many western countries (also in germany) to make pedophilia not only an acceptable thing but legally not punishable. In fact it is globally pushed. I think that this is partly the driving force behind this gender insanity. They even try relentlessly to educate the children and youth themselves, into thinking in that direction in schools (no kidding!). Without much resistance and in fact a lot of support and ignorance instead... One can only imagine what the next generation will do (and will become) after this "education" has gone into full swing. We are in the middle of it and it doesn't look good.

So far russia has made a number of sensible and good steps to punish/ban that kind of evil. The question is: For how long can they and the rest of the world resist? Those psychos are pushing hard.

Insane times we live in:

Gender is up to debate
Heterosexuality is up to debate
Pedophilia is up to debate.

Identify yourself as a girl or boy and you are intolerant. Because only 'gender neutral' is about equality.

Identify yourself as a male heterosexual and you must be a sexist. Identify yourself as a women heterosexual and you willingly enslave yourself under male dominance.

Speak out against pedophilia and you are racist.

There comes a time that speaking out against pedophilia= hate-speech. To live in a society where pedophiles are protected and glorified. Where children are raped and doing something about it makes you the enemy of the state.

I would have never saw all of this coming in a million years. It's just far to Evil to comprehend.
 
Rebel Media, again. About a FOX tv show trailer wiped out from the whole internet, Salon's article and interview with a 'well-meaning pedophile, and why it's the Left who defends and promotes that insanity. Oh, and after "I, Psychopath", now we apparently have also "I, Pedophile" documentary. :shock:

How the Left pushes pedophilia
Faith Goldy of TheRebel.media looks at the latest outrageous attempt by Hollywood liberals to sexualize children.


https://youtu.be/vJZWNkJrKJc

"...The marriage between pedophiles and the Left is born of the moral relativism that underpins the radical left-wing thought..."
 
Pashalis said:
Yep, they are pushing hard in many western countries (also in germany) to make pedophilia not only an acceptable thing but legally not punishable. In fact it is globally pushed. I think that this is partly the driving force behind this gender insanity. They even try relentlessly to educate the children and youth themselves, into thinking in that direction in schools (no kidding!). Without much resistance and in fact a lot of support and ignorance instead... One can only imagine what the next generation will do (and will become) after this "education" has gone into full swing. We are in the middle of it and it doesn't look good.

This push of theirs is incredible to witness. It's sickening how people can even act like this is up for debate and that the 'consensus is not in'. This universal taboo of normal people, though universally practiced by sickos, is pretty much the last moral barrier for them to break. If they succeed and seemingly normal people start to accept pedophilia as being just a part of the sexuality spectrum, it's all over for humanity. The comets won't be able to come fast enough.
 
Article is from 2012, but I think still relevant seeing how this 'Liberal renaissance' has progressed.

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29

SYDNEY, October 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Australian school children are to be told that heterosexuality is not the norm, according to a new education department pilot program called “Proud Schools.”

“Heterosexism” is one of the evils that the Proud Schools program is intended to stamp out, along with “homophobia and transphobia,” education officials have said. According to the minutes from the Proud Schools steering committee on March 22, 2011, the program focuses on reversing “the dominance of heterosexism rather than on homophobia.”

The program defines “heterosexism” as the practice of “positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship,” according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report. “It involves ignoring, making invisible or discriminating against non-heterosexual people, their relationships and their interests. Heterosexism feeds homophobia.”

The committee suggested that teachers must monitor the playground in order to stamp out “heterosexist” language among children in out-of-class hours.

The education department has allocated $250,000 for the pilot program that is running now in 12 state schools.

The program was initiated in 2010 by Labor’s former Education Minister Verity Firth and has been implemented and supported by current New South Wales Education Minister Adrian Piccoli. Piccoli said his department was dedicated to “stamping out homophobic bullying”. A similar program is already in use in Victoria, called the “Safe Schools Coalition” to “support sexual diversity”.

Proud Schools recommends using Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education classes, starting in Year 7 (12- and 13-year-olds), to “incorporate learning about same-sex attraction and sexual diversity.”

Homosexualist groups and left-leaning columnists are furious and aiming editorial attacks at the Sydney Telegraph for having criticized the program as “politially correct” and for having revealed the text of the Proud Schools steering committee.

The Telegraph’s Miranda Devine wrote that “at least” 10 Liberal Party MPs are “extremely concerned” about the program, and will complain to Education Minister Adrian Piccoli this week.

Devine quoted Upper house MP Fred Nile who called the program “propaganda” and asked the government to defund the program.

“I’m totally opposed to the brainwashing of high school students, especially when they are going through puberty,” Nile said. “Homosexuals at most make up 2 percent of the population - I don’t know why the education department would give priority to promoting this.

“We will have more confused teenagers than ever…children should be allowed to develop themselves,” he said.

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell defended the program, vowing that it will not be shut down.

“I don’t believe that sexual orientation is any more a matter of choice than one’s gender,” O’Farrell said. “Whether discrimination is on the basis of gender, sexuality, race or something else - it is unacceptable.”

In an editorial, the Telegraph said that it “goes without saying that any measures to stop bullying or abuse in our schools are desirable and welcome,” but the newspaper questioned whether the Proud Schools program “is so ridiculously proscriptive and politically correct it might have the opposite effect.”

“Indeed, it appears that far from merely promoting tolerance, the program seeks to advance a political agenda. Teaching high school students that gender and sexuality are ‘fluid’ concepts and that ‘binary’ notions such as gay and straight are ‘heterosexist’ is not an anti-bullying message. It is presenting a particular view - and doing so as though it is scientific fact.”

Gay News Network reports that Devine’s article has been “condemned” by Opposition Education spokesperson Carmel Tebbutt and Green Party MLC Cate Faehrmann, the homosexual groups ACON and the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.
 
bjorn said:
[quote author= DianaRose94]To be fair I'm not sure Cyrus is the healthiest of person mentally speaking. I know someone who got to know her when she was still a Disney kid. According to this person, Cyrus went through a lot of horrible things. I think that's why she's at the same time extremely narcissistic and yet truly seems to want to do good. In any case, she's a very good puppet.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it's my impression that many of those Disney kids end up mentally screwed. Just what is happening over there?



-----------------------------------

Selling the idea that sexuality is just a construct of mere subjectivity, gay porn is liberating straight men... :


1 in 5 straight men watch gay porn, according to researchers
https://www.indy100.com/article/sexuality-porn-gay-straight-homosexual-heterosexual-viewing-data-statistics-survey-7510826

A new study has tracked the porn-viewing habits of 821 gay, straight, and bisexual men.

The study, published in Archives of Sexual Behaviour, found that 55 per cent of men identifying as 'gay' watched 'straight' porn, while 21 per cent of men identifying as 'straight' watched 'gay' porn.


It prompted researchers to ask the question:

Are these men really identifying themselves as what they are?

Dr Martin J Downing, the study's lead researcher, said the study confirmed the men identifying as 'straight' didn't have sex with men, while the men who identified as 'gay' didn't report having sex with women.

Their behaviour and identity appeared to align, so Downing saw the viewing habits as “some level of evidence” of sexual attraction being a spectrum across sexes, at least in terms of the pornography people viewed.

Downing said the viewing habits of men identifying as 'bisexual' were quite different from men identifying as 'gay' or 'straight'. They reported watching a significant amount of 'straight' porn, 'gay' porn, and 'bisexual' porn.

[Bisexual men] are more like heterosexual men in some things, and more like gay men in other things, but that’s a reflection of their own unique attractions. They’re not identical to either group in terms of their porn viewing, which I think is really interesting for understanding bisexuality.

The study adds weight to arguments that male porn consumption is more varied than common preconceptions and that male sexuality is a broader and distinct spectrum than we previously thought.
[/quote]


They do all end up all kind of screwed. I think they are put Under a lot of pressure by family and their studio and a lot of them do a lot of drugs without anyone telling them no. I also don't think it's healthy at such a Young age to have fans (worshipers really) that drool over you. A lot of them must feel and be very entitled while simultaneously being pushed around like puppet by their agents/ parents. Besides, I have a feeling that pedophilia, especially among the Disney crew must be rampant. I don't have proof. But I remember reading an article in 21st Century from an actor who's been in the business since he was a kid. He was saying that even when he a kid adult in the business would offer him drink and alcohol. Also, he pretty much admitted that pedophilia is a serious issue in Hollywood. He was forbidden by his agent to be around certain actors without a chaperone because terrible thing could happen. Even some very famous actors were on the "predator" list. That doesn't mean that he wasn't courted.

Here's the article I'm referring to: http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/11/i-ran-the-gauntlet-of-pedophiles-in-the-entertainment-industry-says-former-child-actor/

I found another article anout pedophilia in Hollywood http://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/corey-feldman-talks-hollywood-pedophilia-corey-haim-and-difficulty-of-naming-names-288763/

I use to think that our society would never allow and tolerate pedophile because we were above that. However, nowadays, I'm more sceptic. There are just too many taboos and a misguided push for inclusion. For exemple, I do Wonder among the percentage of transexual, how many are deranged predators? I've seen that a law is trying to be pass in which man who identify as women would be allowed to be in women prison. How many of these people aren't simply serial rapist/ abusers? How many who want to transition because of another underlying and undiagnotized mental issue (depression, schizopheny)? How many come to think of themselves as another sex because of their education and not because of a profound need to change? How many would not transition if they were more confortable and happier in their life? I know first hand that when you don't feel fulfilled in life, you can make yourself believe thing about yourself or about the world that are completely untrue.

Also, with the sexual liberation being what it is, a question that nags at me is how many people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual truly are what they say they are. Being sexually different is cool and I think if it wasn't, a lot of people would simply be heterosexual without issues or identify as gay or lesbian and nothing more.

I'm also annoyed by feminists who do not want to recognize that women and men are biologically and psychologically different. Mind you some feminist are againt sexual identification nonsense. But they are adamant about the fact that our gender is a construct. I partially agree with this in the sense that a lot of what we are is learned. However, anyone who seriously observe Young girls and boys can't tell that they act and react to things is subtly different ways. For exemple, can we honestly say that girls and boys have the same way of playing with their toys? That may seem a silly example, but I feel that it is in little things like that we see that yes, man and women are NOT the same. I feel like a lot of people just want to see what they want to see. What's weird to me is that some people completely disregard the work of psychologist who have proven that men and women ARE different.

The thing that truly changed my view about pedophilia is actually not all of the things mentioned above but a book I read and the reaction to them. It's called All the Ugly and Beautiful things. Basically, it's about a little from a troubled home who meet a biker without much purpose in life involved in a sort of drug business when she's about 8. The book start out well enough. The biker I mentionned feel bad for the girl and take on the role of big brother of sort. This could have been a beautiful book about how two unlikely people push each other, about how by helping other you can heal yourself. But it isn't. The biker soon develop romantic feeling for the little girl and so does she. I think it's when she's 13 that they get physical. What more, in the book, anyone opposed to this relation is considered a loon and judgemental.

Now, guess what was the reception to this book? It has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. No kidding. If you go on goodreads/ amazon lots of glowing reviews about this "beautiful" love story. The love story is a typical case of abuser and a victim who has been so destroyed by life that she doesn't realize she's one. And yet, people are cheering. This made me realise that yes people are disgusted by pedophilia but not half as much as they think they are. Besides, as a previous poster noted. There is a serious push for pedophilia right now. Salon published a article written by a pedophile. Cracked, if I'm not mistaken, has done something along that line by publishing an article apologetic of pedophile.

The end of the gender, sexuality nonsense, is that we will have a society without rules. I was going to say that we were going to turn into animal but I don't think animals sleep with their Young. Instead we will become machines without heart or brain.
 
By the way, this is kind of related to the thread on the Work about Ariana Grande, but I will post about this here because I think it is more related. I'm a straight girl about her age but I have always been bothered by Ariana. She literally looks like a child. Like a child turned into a sex kitten to please adult male. She's is 23, but could easily pass for 15 and has the body of a 12/13 year-old girl. Don't you find it pervated? It's not just her appearance but also her persona. On one hand she often take on a doe-eyed, innocent, child like attitude (on photoshoot) while wearing very revealing outfits. She's one popstar among hundreds, so her success may mean nothing. But I do Wonder if her career in particular wasn't pushed so that people could become more acceptable of child oversexualisation. She's the perfect celebrities for that task. After all, it would be impossible for a magazine to write about her image because she's of age and the writer (especially if he's male) would be accused of policing her.

This article is spot on about celebrities oversexualisation: http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/2014-vmas-oversexualization-pushed-music-industry-puppets/
 
Thanks for sharing DianaRose94.


[quote author= DianaRose94]The thing that truly changed my view about pedophilia is actually not all of the things mentioned above but a book I read and the reaction to them. It's called All the Ugly and Beautiful things. Basically, it's about a little from a troubled home who meet a biker without much purpose in life involved in a sort of drug business when she's about 8. The book start out well enough. The biker I mentioned feel bad for the girl and take on the role of big brother of sort. This could have been a beautiful book about how two unlikely people push each other, about how by helping other you can heal yourself. But it isn't. The biker soon develop romantic feeling for the little girl and so does she. I think it's when she's 13 that they get physical. What more, in the book, anyone opposed to this relation is considered a loon and judgemental.

Now, guess what was the reception to this book? It has received overwhelmingly positive reviews. No kidding. If you go on goodreads/ amazon lots of glowing reviews about this "beautiful" love story. The love story is a typical case of abuser and a victim who has been so destroyed by life that she doesn't realize she's one. And yet, people are cheering. This made me realize that yes people are disgusted by pedophilia but not half as much as they think they are.[/quote]

Exactly. By now I have read several pro pedophilia articles, many on MSM outlets. The comments where even more disturbing.

People where doubting whet ever it should be accepted if children give their consent.

Others went as far as saying that pedophilia should be accepted in porn. Because not doing so is the main reason that grown ups rape children.

And some even said that pedophilia is part of loving children. And if it wasn't taboo, healthier relationships could come out of it.

Now that the Establishment is giving pedophiles a voice. Just look at how many of these creatures are rising up to demand their rights. It is overwhelming and they are backed up by the Government, MSM, scientific community, and social justice warriors.


[quote author= DianaRose94. ]By the way, this is kind of related to the thread on the Work about Ariana Grande, but I will post about this here because I think it is more related. I'm a straight girl about her age but I have always been bothered by Ariana. She literally looks like a child. Like a child turned into a sex kitten to please adult male. She's is 23, but could easily pass for 15 and has the body of a 12/13 year-old girl. Don't you find it pervated? It's not just her appearance but also her persona. On one hand she often take on a doe-eyed, innocent, child like attitude (on photoshoot) while wearing very revealing outfits. She's one popstar among hundreds, so her success may mean nothing. But I do Wonder if her career in particular wasn't pushed so that people could become more acceptable of child oversexualisation. She's the perfect celebrities for that task. After all, it would be impossible for a magazine to write about her image because she's of age and the writer (especially if he's male) would be accused of policing her.[/quote]

+ taking into account that many in the showbiz aka Hollywood who spot talent are probably pedophiles themselves. Promoting their lifestyle and reality upon society through 'entertainment.'

I wonder when Ariana Grande song lyrics will contain sexual objectifying children. And if she wouldn't do it, another pop-star puppet will certainly take on that role.
 
Back
Top Bottom