Rue

I have been as crystal clear and careful as possible not to cross the line and to carefully document the words I have looked at from Keng. I conclude with bring your attention to these words of his; "there is only one proper way to engage in intimate relations" "I recognize the truth, I see reality as it was created; I don't subscribe to delusions, etc. in an attempt to legitimize sinfulness." "....all through history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sexual acts with boys, male children between the ages of at least 10-14 years-old." It is necessarily delusional when a human says to another, there is only one truth and that they are the one who recognizes it and can see it and everyone else must believe them and use it as he does to hate gays and condemn them as evil and accuse them of being pedophiles. The vision in his words above that all though history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sex with boys is his vision. He created it. It originates from his mind. Its his sexual feelings he is placing in print and asking you to believe comes from others. If I gave someone an ink-blot test and they kept telling me they saw a man having sex with a boy in say 20 of the 20 pictures I have him to look at, what should I conclude other then, its preoccupying his mind and to be so preoccuped means something unresolved is flowing from the vision. That I would suggest is not fancy psychology or anything else, just common sense. Its time Keng end his attacks on gays and move on. Cuz I aint going anywhere until he does and he's really in trouble when I start coming to him in his visions.

Here are words I contend evidence blatantly a deliberate, carefully thought out desire to say gays are evil because they molest children, i.e., the necessary conclusion they ask to you arrive at is that gays are evil and pedophile. What is interesting is Keng would have you believe since he did not use the word "all" the intent of these passages is acceptable. Just so you know, the choice of the words is crucial. They repeat the exact same feeling over and over. Its expresses a vision of a man having sex with a boy and then a need to be angry at homo-sexuals for it. Its repeated so often and so repeatedly its why another poster early on asked, what was this poster molested by some man and can't get over it? It was another poster who asked the question not me, but I do ask, why the need to hate gays and link them to pedophilia? Why do you think the poster needs not just to link the two, but call anyone who won't agree with him and condone this exercise sick as well? Why? "To simply dismiss someone's homosexuality as "that's just the way they are" is disingenuous. You're suggesting that people can't change how they think, their attitudes, how they behave; people should simply go with how they feel. This is exact reason why some much is wrong with our society." "The practice of man-boy love is something that is a celebrated aspect of the homosexual lifestyle; this is something that the gays themselves advocate. Moreover, many incidents of pedophelia occur when a man assaults a boy or a woman assaults a girl. So there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality." "So men who engaged in homosexual acts also readily engaged in pedophelia, as well means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. And that's how it works. Always go after the kids. That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this." "That's what gay activists have done; they make everyone interpret everything as being gay, even when it's not. " "The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour. You're trying to deny the fact that homosexuals engage in this kind of behaviour; that in itself is morally reprehensible." "So do homosexuals, but instead of overcoming it they "embrace" it and try to normalize it by brainwashing people like you and advocating the homosexual lifestyle." 'I don't distinuish between heteros and homos who commit pedophelic acts, but the discussion here is about the connection between pedophelia and homosexuality, and the greater tendancy for acts of pedophelia to be homosexual--ie., this is in response the fallacious assertion that homosexuality and pedophelia are two totally different things, a myth that the gay rights movememnt spreads for their own political gain." "Male pedophiles who engage in relationships with young boys are homosexuals. What else can they be?" "So older men having "relationships" with children of the same sex. That's not homosexual behaviour? And if not, then why is it viewed as one of the three main divisions of homosexuality?" "....everybody here seems to be defending or denying such behaviour by homosexuals. It's bad enough that arguments are made that they aren't sexual deviants in the first place, but to defend them when they engage in other forms of sexual deviance...? " "Again, I've never made the claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles. But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, and it's practice is labelled as "man-boy love" to obfuscate its true nature--as though somehow when gay men victimize 14 year-old boys it constitutes "love," rather than sexual assault/abuse. "

Guess what famous Christian theologist made the following remarks; Invoking the teachings of Christ when you don't really understand what they mean is not only ignorant, it's insulting and disrespectful. "People who follow the teachings of Christ are the only true Christians, they are the ones who will find everlasting life in Heaven." (translation: if you have my beliefs you get to go to heaven otherwise you are evil and going to hell) loving one's neighbour doesn't mean you have to accept their sinfulness (its o.k. to hate someone and judge them) "Moreover, one cannot be "intolerant" of sin and sinful people; it is those who are sinful and evil who are intolerant--intolerant of good, intolerant of faith and virtue. " (hating and judging others is acceptable) Morality never "advances". It either exists or doesn't, and there is no connection between the passage of time and an "advance" in morality. (close your mind, do not let it grow and open itself to creativity and new possibilities, remain stagnant and fixed and entrenched-anything other then your own belief should be repressed and blocked out, focus on the hear and now and only on your own beliefs) "one's faith will always lead to division and discord, both within the family and society, and ultimately one can only try to live one's own life with as much faith and Christian resolve as possible. I will always continue to voice my concern about sin and sinful people, but ultimately if the sinner chooses not to abide by the word of God, then that is a path that they have chosen and will suffer the consequences. " (its a good thing to be conflicted and make others feel conflicted) Now I ask what kind of mind takes the alleged Christian religion and uses it to justify the above thoughts? Why would anyone want to justify such thoughts? Does condemning people to hell who don't agree with you sound socially adjusted? Does telling people having faith ALWAYS leads to division and disord (conflict) sound healthy to you? What mind believes faith necessarily creates conflict? What kind of mind makes the sweeping statement that morality never advances, i.e., is fixed in time and space and it must be the one the preacher believes in to be said to exist? Does that sound like someone preaching Christianity or does it sound like someone trying to justify blocking out any opinions but his own and denying the constant state of evolution and mutation in all creative life forces? Why? Why the attempt to subdue to on-going evolution of the life essence in all of us? Does that sound healthy? Does a healthy mind stay arrested in development at one fixed point and shut out everything else? What kind of mind tries to rationalize judging others as being acceptable? Think about it. Someone who shows you he will deliberately use words he knows hurts others, then tells you anyone who does not think like him is going to hell, and its o.k. to judge people and be intolerant of them-what kind of person is that? Do you think that is someone who is feeling well adjusted within society or with himself or others? Its the kind of questions that must be asked when someone preaches like this. Dismissing them as innocent religious opinion is to me as dangerous as the person sharing these twisted concepts. To me the above thoughts expressed are necessarily anti-social and narcissistic, i.e. show a disdain for society and fellow humans as well as the preacher's inabiloty to differentiate his feelings from others and realize other opinions other then his own are equally as valid let alone could teach him something.

Another thorough response to Keng's love notes to the world, he says; "I've never made the claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles." The the very next sentence just like Kapitan would, after saying the same thing, he states; "But pedophelia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, and it's practice is labelled as "man-boy love" to obfuscate its true nature--as though somehow when gay men victimize 14 year-old boys it constitutes "love," rather than sexual assault/abuse." The above denial of suggesting all homosexuals are pedophiles is contradicted in the very next sentence. I ask you, if we are to accept Keng's comment, why in the next sentence did he not state pedophilia is an aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. Those words are deliberate and deliberately ambiguous in reference to suggest pedophelia and homosexuality are necessarily one in the same. How after that, how after suggesting the two concepts are the same, is it germaine to suggest oh nut I didn't use the word "all"? Does that denial because keng did not use the word "all" come about because he has no idea his words are generalizations? He has been told over and over again such phraseology is being interperated as negative gernalization of an entire group of people-if for no other reason (and he claims to be Christian) why would he not acknowledge the pain these words cause and qualify his statement now that he has been told they cause pain to people? Why repeat them again and again? I would contend the decision to deliberately choose words to make negative generalizations of all gays are not religious opinions, but being done repeatedely because at this point Keng knows they are hurtful but he feels compelled to keep hurting. why? Why the compulsion to keep hurting people with words? What compels someone to keep using words you know will hurt someone? Its interesting but awhile back another poster Kapitan used to engage in the exact same responsez and wording. I asked Keng if he used to be the Kapitan and he did not respond. Oh by the way the m..o., the precise method of repeatedly engaging in an act that someone knows are hurtful are evidenced by these other words of Keng; "The two (homo-sexuality, pedophilia) are closely linked. Many pedophile are homosexuals. Most acts of pedophelia are between men and boys, women and girls; not only is this pedophelia, it's also homosexual behaviour. " "think of how prevelant pedophilia is, and that it already has a foot in the door because of the widespread public acceptance of homosexuality" "man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture" "Going to a movie and driving a car are two totally different things. Pedophelia and homosexuality are not. Pedophelia is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture. Ancient Greek men who engaged in sex with boys are pedophiles and homosexuals." The above words are deliberate not innocent. They are intended to deliberately suggest gays are pedophiles. The semantic defence that Keng has not used the word "all" is laughable because it does not address or excuse his actions nor does it explain why a good Christian like him when being told what he is doing is hurting people would continue to do so deliberately?

As long as Keng persists I am here to send back the love; In regards to his comment; "The relationship between Rene Schere and Guy Hocquenghem comes to mind; but to be honest I try to read much about gay rights activists, so I'm sure there are tens of thousands of more cases of gay rights activists who were initiated into the lifestyle through pederastic/pedophilic experiences. " If you read the above you can see he meant to say he tries NOT to read much about gay rights activists. So he admits he is ignorant of what he talks about but does not let that stop him from professing on the topic. It shows someone who knows he does not know what he is talking about but thinks its acceptable to talk about it anyways. That to me speaks for itself. It shows premeditated, deliberate awareness of ignorance as to a subject but showing a head-space that feels nto being aware of something doesn't mean it can stop him from claiming he does. This is why I send to Jefferiah this is not an innocent opinion. This is one stated by someone who knows it is being created as he goes along. That necessarily is not innocent. It is in fact a classic example of a corupted thought process whether you use the philosophical or psychological definition of coruption. More to the point he once again trots out two names and then uses that as his arguement to suggest and I quote "there are tens of thousands of mroe cases of gay rights activists who were intiated into their lifestle through perastic/pedophilic experiences". Once again Keng's words clearly state, by his comments that; 1-he thinks it is rational to believe that because he feels he is aware of two examples of people he thinks describe his conception of what homo-sexuals do, that this then proves tens of thousands of gays are doing the same thing. This is a classic example of someone who shows the world he stereotypes. He creates a category, then provides an example that he thinks establishes the category as true, then with no sequence, leaps to the conclusion tens of thousands of other gays engage in the identical behaviour. That leap or gap between his conception and then pronouncing it on tens of thousands of others, isn't even done with humility or with qualification-its done wth the words; "I'm sure". The words "I'm sure" again show the smeer, that leap to assign a negative stereotype to tens of thousands, is deliberate, its not done innocently. Now can Jefferiah please explain to us all how the above is a religious opinion? How is it? Tom me it simply is the manifestation of someone who keeps repeating images of what he thinks are gay men having sex with children. why? Why the continued reference to gays as pedophiles? To me keng keeps repeating he is fixated with this vision and keeps repeating it. So you tell me Jefferiah, do you think Christian principles tell you to continually visualize such a concept and project it on gays? Is that what a religious belief is? Or is it a personal conflict being expressed outwards? Well?

A belated response to Jefferiah. I did not want to highjack the posts earleir on. In response to my suggesting to Keng he should read what the Dali Lama says about homo-sexuality, Jefferiah assumed I told him to read it because I felt the Dali Lama approves of homosexuality. No Jefferiah, I told him to read it, precisely because its an example of someone JUST LIKE Keng, or probably you, who feels its legitimate to feel, that ANY sex other than for reproduction is not considered accpetable. I wanted you to see an example of someone who basically would h ave the same religious fundamentalist views as Keng BUT expresses it in a way that does NOT necessarily use words that single out gays for negative generalizations. The point you missed Jefferiah is this; In the traditional fundamentalist position as to sex only for reproduction as the Dali Lama believes (which by the way is not necessarily the only Nhuddist approach; Homo-and hetero-sexuality are defined and assigned the same moral references."Sexual misconduct" is defined as coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery. By the way homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka). So both hetero-sexuality and homo-sexuality would be judged by the Dali identically. Its not because the sex is gay its being condemned but because its not for reproductive purposes. So my point Jefferiah is that if this was really Keng's view he would not be continually engaging in comments designed to suggest gays are pedophiles or for that matter they are immoral. Finally Jefferiah at no time did I say Keng is a pedophile or stalking children and for you to suggest that as you did is bullshit. I could not have been clearer in what I was saying and its interesting because when I clarified it for you, you simply dismissed the clarification and made this assumption. I will say it again, my comments are directed at his words and the necessary implication that he exhibits confusion as to sexual concepts and therefore sexuality and the feelings that flow from them. Is that simple enough for you? How about this-if someone repeatedly calls others a pedophile or sexually deviant or immoral, I of course can't help but ask are in fact talking about a part of themselves they are not sure how to deal with? The thoughts come from within them-they certainly don't come from me. I can only question what I am hearing just as you could question my words if I was telling everyone I thought they were pedophiles. Taking ownership of our feelings and thoughts Jefferiah is not something alleged Christian preachers or their condoners like to do because it would require they use the same judgement they place on others on themselves as well. In case you haven't noticed Jefferiah, this bullshit pretesense that one can use Christianity to judge others, but not expectrf to be judged in return is nothing more then someone saying do as I say, not as I do. Its bullshit no matter how much you try spin it as innocent religious opinion and me being abusive for challenging it. If I see someone beating on someone, I am not a bully for stepping in between and pushing the bully off. My pushing the bully off does not make me abusive. The person I am pushing off is not an innocent victim-he's been caught in the act and exposed for it and has openly admitted he knows what he is doing and in fact goes to great measure to justify it. Using your analogy where does it end? Can we all spew intolerance as long as we insert some references to Jesus now and then?

Jawa I don't want to misdirect this lien of topic but remind me to get into a religious exchange with you on the issue as to whether Jews killed Jesus or the Romans, etc. Lets leave that for another time. I actually have read some interesting theories Jesus may have been gay. I have also read theories he was in fact married and had children. Certainly his teachings challenged the sexual "norms" of the day because of course he would have not encouraged people to stone anyone simply because they were gay or anything else. His belief in teekam olam, the Talmudic principle of healing the world through positive actions would never have condoned or supported the kind of hatred we see certain individuals try use Christianity for. By the way the institutionalized form of homo-sexuakity we see in the church is akin to the kind we see in prisons. Its a different behavioural phenomena that homo-sexuality we talk about between consenting adults. Given the power imbalances and repression of sexuality that goes in in institutions the kind of homo-sexuality you see expressed given the lack of free will and consent is technically a sexual predator type behaviour that can be differentiated from two same sex adults cosnenting. Much different components. Its why I hate it when we use the same words but we really mean different things. Its our limited vocabulary sometimes that does this, othertimes its our limited brains. Lol.

Lol. Not quite. Israel does not insult Christians and their beliefs wel at least not intentionally. In fact it guarantees their rights to equality in the constitution to practice their religion and it actually has excellent relations with Christian anthropologists. There are some very good cultural exchanges actually. Israel also gets a lot of genuine strong support from Christians so the last thing its going to do is insult their beliefs. But I see what you are trying to say. But please I beg you don't compare this intolerant wazoo to Israel. They have enough problems. Another day another group to insult.

Cyber we know pedophiles are either exclusive (only have sex with children) or inclusive (also have sex with adults. The criminal statistics and sexual deviancy statistics that exist show there are more inclusive then exclusive pedophiles and that the majority of pedohiles in the inclusive category when they do practice adult sex practice hetero-sexual sex or as you say are married. In the exclusive category the vast majority of pedophiles simply molest who is accessible. We also know that something like 90% of known pedophiles are male. These constant references to pedophilia being homo-sexual of course is idiotic as the term homo-sexual only applies to consensual adult sex between consenting same sex participants. These experts you are trying to deal with have decided if you engage in sex with a child of the same sex, that makes you homo-sexual. Just fo r your curiousity the actual rate of inclusive pedophiles who have same sex with consenting adults is far lower then inclusive pedophiles who have hetero-sexual sex. Interestingly when tests are done on hetero-sexual men who feel strongly that homo-sexuals lust after boys, they usually are shown to themselves find themselves having problems coping with their own desires for young women or seeing their sexual attraction to younger women as normal. It sort of works like this. If a straight man say like me at 50, finds Anna Kornikova (whatever that tennis player's name is) sexy, that's normal. But if a 50 year old gay man finds a young man attractive its considered pedophilia. Its the same social standards that have found it acceptable for older men to date young women but when women date younger men, its questioned. Such perceptions and standards of course are cultural. In the psychiatric and psychological worlds, sexual behaviour is defined as abnormal or a potential disorder or abnormnality when its between two adults, if either party says they have problems with it, or when there's a power balance causing exploitation, or when someone is making themselves phsyically, emtionally or mentally ill because of their sexual habits or there is violence involved. The classification of pedophiles is based on a sliding adjustable scale in terms of age gap and power imabalances as well as lack of all ro some sexual characteristics. Technically when you have two adults of large age difference engaged in it, we could when it becomes a problem not be talking about pedohilia but some either paraphilia such as sexual masochism or sexual sadism, or personality disorders where one or more of the parties could be a psychopath, sociopath, have a manipulative personality, be histrionic, or narcissistic or simply someone with low self esteem who looks for people he/she can control. Interestingly you would find forensic psychiatrists or psychiatrists in general far less likely to toss around these defintiions or assume then lay people (if you excuse the pun). You know to actually properly diagnose someone can take a long time, not days, sometimes many months or years. Anyways I am off to sniff a bicycle seat or maybe a tree.

Keng asks; "Okay, so if pedophelia is a "psychological disorder" how is it then that an older adult having sex with children that are say 12-14 and don't fit into the profile of what some would consider pedophelia, is not a psychological disorder?" Please read Keng's comments. Oh he read the Psychiatric Manual and definition from the American Psychiatric Encyclopedia. His comments later on in his response clearly indicate he did and is disagreeing with them. So ask yourself why would he ask the above question? Its kind of peculiar since the definition clearly states that an older adult having sex with a 12-14 year old could be considered a pedophile. If its him simply not understanding what he read, how was he able to go on and reject it in detail? Go on and read his comments, starting at; "You clearly still don't get it.' Does that sound to you like someone who misunderstood what he read or understands it and because he understands it, he deliberately rejects it? Who does he refer to when he says "you" clearly don't get? Does he mean himself, gays, the medical community, anyone he disagrees with, or all of the above? I APOLOGIZE TO MODERATOR CHARLES ANTHONY who had to remind me not repeat verbatum wording without appropriate reference or when necessary to avoid the volume and stick to the reference. I did repeat it in a very fullsome manner in this case from the Psychiatric Manual, and American Encyclopedia on Psychiatric Disorders deliberately to provide a basis for this next comment-in my opinion I do not think this is a matter of someone stating a simple opinion and respecting the opinion of others, I believe his words deliberately dismiss the environment around him and in particular the medical community and the very professionals who have the training and expertise he does not to be able to comment on the topic he continues to present with subjective opinions. Only his opinions are not stated respectfully, they are said to confront and reject anyone who disagrees with him. If any of you thought Keng would hopefully read the terminology and would concede it is what mainstream medicine now works with, you are mistaken. He's not interested in anything but his feelings expressed as subjective opinions being validated. Herein lies my problem? he rejects anyone who does not agree with him. He rejects anything as invalid that does not meet his criteria and yet he expects others to concede to him what he won't in them? Why the double standard? Why the imbalance? Its a classic case once again of someone telling others tthey don't get it, but does he? It is not like he doesn't read. He can't say he doesn't know what the definitions are. Its not someone saying, I disagree with the definitions, its someone going the next step and dismissing what he's being told by people who have far more training and expertise in the area then he does. This is no longer a simple exercise in expressing one's religious opinion in case anyone still does not notice. These are his words not mine; "If you read any book about the history of homosexuality or the gay rights movement, there will likely be a discussion about pederasty (man-boy love). " Keng continues to make sweeping generalizations. He stated ANY book. Does anyone believe ALL books on gay and lesbian history discuss the topic? Does anyone believe even if SOME did, this then justifies him then making the leep to assuming a discussion about pederasty advocates pedophilia? Does that sound rational or logical to make such quantum leaps that start out with a sweeping absurd generalization, then jump without cohension or cognitive sequencing from one feeling to another? I can only again look at the words he's used and that is clearly what I see being expressed and evidenced by those words. I ask you people reading his comments, why do you think he keeps saying what he does? What do you think causes someone to make such sweeping generalizations? Is is inappropriate to ask that question? When I keep seeing the same negative gernalizations repeated over and over, I am wondering is it deliberate or is it actually innocent because if you ask me to believe its innocent then does that not necessarily mean he is confused about sexuality and basic sexual concepts that differentiate sex between consenting adults and sex between adults and children. Now if you believe that is innocent then ask....how is that so if he now dismisses what the conventional medical community has to say about how to define the difference between consensual adult sex and sex between adults and children. This refusal to acknowledge the difference is not innocent, its a deliberate choice he's made. When you repeatedly engage in concepts that tell the world, there is no difference between adults having consensual sex and adults who have sex with children just what message is that? Does that sound like an innocent religious opinion to you? Here are the words; "all through history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sexual acts with boys, male children between the ages of at least 10-14 years-old." I ask you again, why does he project on all gay men that they fantasize and have sex with boys. Where does th concept of fantasizing about sexual acts with boys originate from gay men or his mind and something in his mind that causes him to express sexual concepts outward in such a manner? They are not my words. They are his. I can only comment on them and say the concept that ALL gays fantasize about boys, is the fantasy he constructed or defined and now imposes on them. He keeps doing it over and over. He keeps constructing the fantasy and then saying it belongs to gays but does it? Just who is seeing boys being sexually violated? Am I supposed to simply accept his vision as reality or am I allowed to say, no its his reality-its his creation-is the world he lives in-its the world he has chosen to see and feel and now express and he doesn't just say, please appreciate my world he says-its my world or none. If you don't come into my world, you have no rights, you do not exist, you are invalidated. Here is someone who told everyone he only speaks scientific facts. When asked to provide them at first he said he didn't want to, then he said he couldn't. Now he says- I dismiss science. So which one is it? Read his words; "If you consider this healthy, consentual behaviour, then you need serious help." Now he not I is prescribing medical treatment. He's not a psychiatrist or psychogist. In fact he has dismissed absolutely psychology and psychiatry and then who does not share his sexual feelings needs help? By the way that is what we are talking about, sexual concepts, sexual terminology, sexual attitudes, all fancy ways of courching the term sexual feelings or what we feel sex should be. Just read his words, they are full of reference of what sexual feelings should be. Again by telling everyone else they need serious help who is he talking about? The psychiatric and psychological communities? Anyone who accepts gays? Gays? Himself? Is he asking for help to himself for his confusion with gay and pedophilel feelings and concepts or do you think he is simply defining anyone he does not agree with as sick? I would contend if I openly state what your motives are, and that you are therefore evil and also argue you are sick and need help, that necessarily allows you to ask me what my credentials are to say that and whether I am healthy enough to say that and what my motives are and whether I am evil.

Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe. Genral Bokassa, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot,. don't get me started-but whitey do have some noteable ones, Hitler, Stalin, and al those nice settlers from the past. Yes I would say we are all equally as sicko twisted which explains Wayne Newton but not Celine Dion.

O.k. our dancing leaves a lot to be desired but we are trying our best. Also there is one white guy you should fear and that is Wayne Newton. Have you seen that guy lately? Also Celin Dion. She is scary.

I think you are dead on. The problem is the records we keep on "serial kilers" is limited to Western jurisdictions. when you get outside the so called first world West the resources to keep statistics on sociopaths and psychopaths or all the other huge range of behavioural criminal disorders becomes quite difficult. The only studies I have seen right now suggesting we can trace mental illness genetically is with schitzophrenia, addictive disorders and the mood disorders and autism which now are hinting it could be carried by a recessive gene although by no means are such studies conclusive at this point. Also I am sure you are aware of the studies of sociopathic serial killers that seem to indicate chromosone defficiency or some sort of other biological or physiological anomaly, or even a brain injury, but its the kind of genetic phenomenanot specific to a race. There are studies leaning to genetic theories but its very difficult to prove because you need an accurate uninterupted family tree to trace it back to the original illness and of course genetic sequencing is far more complex then that. In fact the only studies I have seen really seeming to indicate something is that with certain kinds of sexual disorders (pedophilia, or sexual sadism) they seem far more prevalent in males and that men tend to murder at far higher rates then women. I suspect some of that could be the link to testosterone and male hormones and chromosones, and some of it is social conditioning but where when begins and the other leaves off is anyone's guess since its a mix of both. Are white people crazy of course. Do they have a monopoly on serial killers, probably not although I suspect a recessive gene prevents caucasians from being able to dance. As for my people we tend to be hypochondriacs but I suspect that is a cultural phenomena that started when Moses started threatening people with boils.

Well I stand corrected on JBG's major point which is there are heavy concentrations of the middle class in certain neighbourhoods which was the point of my clarification. Whether Higgly that's a large enough middle class to prevent a revolution, well I leave to you and the rest to speculate on. Some would argue it only takes a few to make a difference others argue from a sociological perspective you need I think its around a 30% middle class segment to make a difference. Obviously in this case, we would all agree the Middle Class in Pakistan grew larger and with it certain expectations. I would imagine as well Higgly $10,000 to a Pakistani has different meaning then it does here. All I can tell you is their legal profession which is a small percentage of its mdidle class may have disproportionate clout for their size in this when all is said and done for obvious reasons but call me a cynic I don't think the military is going anywhere.

O.k. I promise I am done here is the final list, and it is the list of paraphilias of which pedophilia is the one we talk of. Pedophiles can be exclusive or inclusive, if exclusive they only do it with children, if inclusive they do it with adults. Pedophiles can also fall under another paraphile behaviour or sexual disorder as well as can any human. There have been some legal cases defining a sub-type of pedophilia as one that focus on pubescent children as opposed to non pubescent children but its technically not a diagnosis just a sub-categorization. The choice of the victim is only relevant in terms of the treatments prescribed. The desire however for the same or opposite sex does not get it classified as homo or hetero but pedophile sex. Here someone else explain this to Keng. There was just a news item of some man arrested for trying to have sex with his bicycle seat in public. Time for a new one to be added to the list. Exhibitionism Fetishism Frotteurism Pedophilia Masochism Sadism Transvestitism Voyeurism Scatologia Necrophilia Partialism Zoophilia Coprophilia and Coprolalia Klismaphilia Urophilia Masturbation Autogynephilia Asphyxiophilia or hypoxyphilia Video voyeurs Infantophilia Acrotomophilia Apotemnophilia Autoassassinophilia Autonephioplia Ephebophilia Erotophonophilia Gerontophilia Hypephilia Kleptophilia Mysophilia Narratophilia Pictophilia Somnophilia Scoptophilia Stigmatophilia Troilism

Here take a pick from the menu; paraphila of which pedophilia is but one of many forms of it, is but one in a long list of things Keng should be waging spiritual war on; List of Sexual Disorders Sexual Disorders Short Description Paraphilias Paraphilia is used to indicate sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations that are not part of societally normative activity patterns. Frotteurism Frotteurism is obtaining sexual arousal and gratification by rubbing one's genitals against others in public places or crowds. Vaginismus Vaginismus is an involuntary spasm of the muscles surrounding the vagina that closes the vagina. Vaginismus Treatment and cure Female Orgasmic Disorder A lengthy delay or absence of orgasm following a satisfactory excitatory phase. Sexual Masochism Sexual masochism involves acts in which a person derives sexual excitement from being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise abused. Sexual Sadism Sexual sadism involves acts in which a person derives sexual pleasure from inflicting physical or psychologic suffering on another person. Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder A persistently reduced sexual drive or libido, not attributable to depression where there is reduced desire, sexual activity and reduced sexual fantasy. Transvestic Fetishism Men with transvestic fetishism are typically heterosexual, and many have been or are married. Male Erectile Disorder Inability to gain an erection or inability to maintain an erection once it has occurred. Sexual Dysfunctions Sexual dysfunction disorders are generally classified into 4 categories: sexual desire disorders, sexual arousal disorders, orgasm disorders, and sexual pain disorders. Sexual Aversion Disorder An avoidance of or aversion to genital sexual contact. Gender Identity Disorder Strong and persistent identification of the self with another gender. Fetishism People with a fetish experience sexual urges and behavior which are associated with non-living objects. Foot Fetishism, Tickling Fetishism, Wet and Messy Fetishism Female Sexual Arousal Disorder A failure of arousal and lubrication/swelling response. Transvestitism Cross-dressing by heterosexual males is called transvestic fetishism or transvestitism. Dyspareunia Pain during or after sexual intercourse is known as dyspareunia. Male Orgasmic Disorder A lengthy delay or absence of orgasm following normal excitation, erection and adequate stimulation. Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Addiction, Premature Ejaculation Sexual Disorder NOS Many sexual disorders are not classifiable as sexual dysfunctions or paraphilias. These disorders are placed in this residual category. Some other Sexual Diosrders: Rueaphilia; being sexually aroused by smart asses

Here's the one from Enclyclopedia of Mental Disorders in case the other one was not easy enought o read; Pedophilia Definition Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children. A paraphilia is a disorder that is characterized by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies generally involving: nonhuman objects; the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner (not merely simulated); or animals, children, or other nonconsenting persons. Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be directed toward children of the same sex or children of the other sex. Some pedophiles are attracted to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children, while others are attracted to adults as well as to children. Pedophilia is defined by mental health professionals as a mental disorder, but the American legal system defines acting on a pedophilic urge as a criminal act. Description The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty. The sexual behaviors involved in pedophilia cover a range of activities and may or may not involve the use of force. Some pedophiles limit their behaviors to exposing themselves or masturbating in front of the child, or fondling or undressing the child, but without genital contact. Others, however, compel the child to participate in oral sex or full genital intercourse. The most common overt aspect of pedophilia is an intense interest in children. There is no typical pedophile. Pedophiles may be young or old, male or female, although the great majority are males. Unfortunately, some pedophiles are professionals who are entrusted with educating or maintaining the health and well-being of young persons, while others are entrusted with children to whom they are related by blood or marriage. Causes and symptoms Causes A variety of different theories exist as to the causes of pedophilia. A few researchers attribute pedophilia along with the other paraphilias to biology. They hold that testosterone, one of the male sex hormones, predisposes men to develop deviant sexual behaviors. As far as genetic factors are concerned, as of 2002 no researchers have claimed to have discovered or mapped a gene for pedophilia. Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Some think that pedophilia is the result of having been sexually abused as a child. Still others think that it derives from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life. Some researchers attribute pedophilia to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically. Some regard pedophilia as the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner. Since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. This drive for domination is sometimes thought to explain why most pedophiles are males. Symptoms A pedophile is often very attractive to the children who are potential victims. Potential pedophiles may volunteer their services to athletic teams, Scout troops, or religious or civic organizations that serve youth. In some cases, pedophiles who are attracted to children within their extended family may offer to baby-sit for their relatives. They often have good interpersonal skills with children and can easily gain the children's trust. Some pedophiles offer rationalizations or excuses that enable them to avoid assuming responsibility for their actions. They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are "teaching" the child about "the facts of life" or "love"; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them. All these rationalizations may be found in pornography with pedophilic themes. Demographics Pedophilia is one of the more common paraphilias; the large worldwide market for child pornography suggests that it is more frequent in the general population than prison statistics would indicate. Together with voyeurism and exhibitionism, pedophilia is one of the three paraphilias most commonly leading to arrest by the police. The onset of pedophilia usually occurs during adolescence. Occasional pedophiles begin their activities during middle age but this late onset is uncommon. In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married. The frequency of behavior associated with pedophilia varies with psychosocial stress. As the pedophile's stress levels increase, the frequency of his or her acting out generally rises also. Pedophilia is more common among males than among females. In addition, the rate of recidivism for persons with a pedophilic preference for males is approximately twice that of pedophiles who prefer females. Little is known about the incidence of pedophilia in different racial or ethnic groups. Diagnosis According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,fourth edition text revised, the following criteria must be met to establish a diagnosis of pedophilia. Over a period of at least six months, the affected person experiences recurrent, intense and sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or actual behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children aged 13 or younger. The fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of daily functioning. The affected person must be at least age sixteen and be at least five years older than the child or children who are the objects or targets of attention or sexual activity. A diagnosis of pedophilia cannot be assigned to an individual in late adolescence (age 17 to 19) who is involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old person. In establishing a diagnosis of pedophilia, it is important for a mental health professional to determine if the patient is attracted to males, females or both. It is also important to determine whether incest is a factor in the relationship. Finally, the doctor must determine whether the pedophilia is exclusive or nonexclusive; that is, whether the patient is attracted only to children (exclusive pedophilia) or to adults as well as to children (nonexclusive pedophilia). One difficulty with the diagnosis of the disorder is that persons with pedophilia rarely seek help voluntarily from mental health professionals. Instead, counseling and treatment is often the result of a court order. An interview that establishes the criteria for diagnosis listed above may be enough to diagnose the condition, or surveillance or Internet records obtained through the criminal investigation may also be used. An additional complication in diagnosis is that the paraphilias as a group have a high rate of comorbidity with one another and an equally high rate of comorbidity with major depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse disorders. A person diagnosed with pedophilia may also meet the criteria for exhibitionism or for a substance abuse or mood disorder. Treatments In the earliest stages of behavior modification therapy, pedophiles may be narrowly viewed as being attracted to inappropriate persons. Such aversive stimuli as electric shocks have been administered to persons undergoing therapy for pedophilia. This approach has not been very successful. In 2002, the most common form of treatment for pedophilia is psychotherapy, often of many years' duration. It does not have a high rate of success in inducing pedophiles to change their behavior. Pedophilia may also be treated with medications. The three classes of medications most often used to treat pedophilia (and other paraphilias) are: female hormones, particularly medroxyprogesterone acetate, or MPA; luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, which include such drugs as triptorelin (Trelstar), leuprolide acetate, and goserelin acetate; and anti-androgens, which block the uptake and metabolism of testosterone as well as reducing blood levels of this hormone. Most clinical studies of these drugs have been done in Germany, where the legal system has allowed their use in treating repeat sexual offenders since the 1970s. The anti-androgens in particular have been shown to be effective in reducing the rate of recidivism. Surgical castration is sometimes offered as a treatment to pedophiles who are repeat offenders or who have pleaded guilty to violent rape. Increasingly, pedophiles are being prosecuted under criminal statutes and being sentenced to prison terms. Imprisonment removes them from society for a period of time but does not usually remove their pedophilic tendencies. In 2002, many states have begun to publish the names of persons being released from prison after serving time for pedophilia. Legal challenges to this practice are pending in various jurisdictions.

Here once again verbatum is the American Psychiatric Association's description of pedophilia. Fact Sheet: Pedophilia Most adults who sexually molest children are considered to have pedophilia, a mental disorder described in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior. Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV as one of several paraphiliac mental disorders. The essential features of a paraphilia (sexual deviation) are recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or children or other nonconsenting persons. The Characteristics of Pedophilia According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-year-olds. Those attracted to males usually prefers slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults. Pedophiliac activity may involve undressing and looking at the child or more direct physical sex acts. All these activities are psychologically harmful to the child, and some may be physically harmful. In addition, individuals with pedophilia often go to great lengths to obtain photos, films or pornographic publications that focus on sex with children. These individuals commonly explain their activities with excuses or rationalizations that the activities have "educational value" for the child, that the child feels "sexual pleasure" from the activities or that the child was "sexually provocative." However, child psychiatrists and other child development experts maintain that children are incapable of offering informed consent to sex with an adult. Furthermore, since pedophiliac acts harm the child, psychiatrists condemn publications or organizations that seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders The purpose of the DSM-IV (and of the manuals which preceded it) is to provide clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based on scientific data. Psychiatrists and research scientists use these descriptions to diagnose an individual's mental illness, to communicate with each other in a common language about mental illnesses, to develop new treatments tailored to specific illnesses and to plan the most effective treatments for their patients. The DSM-IV is not a diagnostic "cookbook," but is intended to guide the psychiatrist's own informed clinical judgment. The DSM-IV and its predecessors are not legal documents. The cautionary statement in the introduction to the DSM-IV reads, in part: "The purpose of the DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study and treat people with various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder or mental disability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination and competency." Individuals with pedophilia may limit their activities to their own children, stepchildren or relatives, or they may victimize children outside their families. Some threaten the child to prevent the child from telling others. Some develop complicated techniques for gaining access to children. They may select a job, hobby or volunteer work that brings them into contact with children. Others may win the trust of a child's mother, marry a woman with an attractive child or trade children with other individuals. Except when pedophilia also is associated with sexual sadism, the individual may be kind and attentive to the child's needs in order to gain his or her affection, interest and loyalty, and also to prevent the child from reporting the sexual activity. Pedophilia usually begins in adolescence, although some individuals report they did not become aroused by children until middle age. Often the pedophiliac behavior increases or decreases according to the psychological and social stress level of the individual. There is little information on the number of individuals in the general population with pedophilia because individuals with the disorder rarely seek help from a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. However, the large commercial market in pedophiliac pornography suggests that the number of individuals at large in the community with the disorder is likely to be higher than the limited medical data indicate. Individuals generally come to the attention of mental health professionals when their child victims tell others and when they are arrested. Pedophilia is almost always seen in males and is seldom diagnosed in females. How Psychiatrists Diagnose Pedophilia When evaluating who may have pedophilia, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in the DSM-IV. (See "DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia," below.) All three must be present for the diagnosis to be made. Whether or not all three criteria are present, an individual who has had a sexual encounter with a child has committed a crime. Psychiatrists nationwide support the federal and state statutes that define the criminality of any sexual act or molestation involving a child. Treatment for Pedophilia Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medications that have been used include anti-androgens and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (commonly called SSRIs). But unlike the successful treatment outcomes for most other mental illnesses, the outlook for successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with pedophilia is guarded. Even after intensive treatment, the course of the disorder usually is chronic and lifelong in most patients, according to the DSM-IV, which is the reason that most treatment programs emphasize a relapse-prevention model. However, both the fantasies and the behaviors often lessen with advancing age in adults. Additional Reading Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), 1994, 886 pages, ISBN 0-89042-062-9, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1400 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger). Has the person had repeated fantasies or urges about engaging in sexual activity with a child generally 13 years or younger, or has he actually had sexual encounters with a child? If a psychiatrist sees an individual who has engaged in sexual contact with a child, the diagnosis of pedophilia should be strongly considered. (An individual who committed a single act of molestation while under the influence of drugs, for example, but who had not intentionally targeted a child and was unaware of the victim's age, would not receive the diagnosis. However, this of course in no way diminishes the seriousness of the act of molestation.) A person need not have actual sexual contact with a child to be diagnosed with pedophilia. A person who is preoccupied with sexual urges and fantasies that disturb his functioning (that is, negatively affect his relations with others or impair his ability to work effectively) could also be diagnosed as having pedophilia, even without ever engaging in a sex act with a child. The fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning. Is the problem clinically significant? That is, has it caused "significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning?" (Note: The same criterion is applied throughout the DSM-IV to other mental illnesses.) Under this criterion, a sexual encounter with a child constitutes "clinical significance." To make a DSM-IV diagnosis, the psychiatrist assesses the individual for either clinically significant distress or clinically significant impairment. Most individuals with psychiatric symptoms experience a subjective sense of distress that may include feelings such as pain, anguish, dysphoria (unpleasant mood), shame, embarrassment or guilt. However, there are numerous situations in which the individual has symptoms or exhibits behaviors that do not cause any subjective sense of distress, but nonetheless would be judged "clinically significant" and warrant a diagnosis of a mental disorder if they come to the attention of a psychiatrist. In such situations, this judgment is based on whether the presentation causes significant impairment in one or more areas of functioning, including social, relational, occupational and academic functioning. For example, it is well recognized that many individuals who are experiencing serious problems related to substance abuse (e.g., violent behavior, poor work or poor school performance due to alcohol or other drug use) deny that their substance abuse is causing them any distress. Such individuals would be given a diagnosis of substance dependence or substance abuse, in spite of their denial, if the psychiatrist determines that these substance-induced problems are causing significant impairment. Similarly, many individuals who act on their pedophiliac urges claim that their behavior is nonproblematic and may even claim it is "beneficial" to the child. Nonetheless, the DSM-IV would consider such individuals to have pedophilia because, by definition, acting on pedophiliac urges is considered to be an impairment in functioning. The person is at least age 16 years and at least five years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13- year-old. Is the person at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child who is the object of his fantasies or activities? Psychiatrists must use judgment when evaluating a person in late adolescence who is engaged in a single ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. Although such a person might not be considered as having pedophilia, such relationships often lead to other psychological, medical (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy), social and family problems and should be strongly discouraged.

I should have clarified in my earlier comment when I Pakistan has none in regardsto Middle Class I meant none big enough to sustain the kind of buffer between the elite and poor. I concede it has a middle class, just I am questioning whether its large enough to be a political factor of stabilizing economic force. Pakistan is estimated to have 170 million of which its government claims 30 million are "middle class". Middle class in Pakistan is defined as whether a family earns $10,000. I think though what they would consider middle class, we would probably define most of that mdidle class as what we call the lower working class in Canada-i.e., people with jobs other than subsistence ones. Is that 17.6% of the population sufficient enough for a liberal democracy? Not sure. All I know is it is tied up at the topend of the world's nations with Indonesia, Russia and Britain in financial inequality and the US still ranks the most unequal country in terms of financial distribution. The middle class certainly grew in Musharaf's time and because of a sudden surge after 9-11 but it now seems to be shrinking again. Lawyers of course are a very small group within that middle class, many of whom would be considered military and civil service. Not sure if its large enough to make a political difference or prevent the kind of resentment that happens when there are polar extremes from rich to poor. This middle class seems more concentrated in urban areas as JBG said for obvious reasons but what also appears to be happening is the urban areas are under strain as more and more poor people head to them. Of course the above is on top of an elaborate social class network depending on your name, where you are from, etc. Any way you slice it Pakistan's leader whoever he is has a precarious economic situation.

There are some people who are absolutely and utterly convinced Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. So my question is, if anyone but Michael, any 50 year old man, wanted to have a pajama party with your children who were 7 and 8 and sleep in the same bed as them when you are not there to see what is going on, would you agree? Why do I use the above anaology. Because I believe that with certain topics, its fair to ask the person calling others pedophiles whether they are. In my case for those of you who think I am being unfair to Michael Jackson, ask me, would I have a pajama party and sleep in bed with your children and ask you to leave? No. Fair question. I have no problem answering it. That is the point. Anything I have said, applies to me as well. I welcome the same standard. I have no moral standard I hide behind. I have never claimed to be moral just contemptuous of those who say they are.

In response to Jefferiah; ".. you said in response to Kengs mad rant on pedophilia, that these were his own sexual feelings and he must take charge of them. You basically accused him of being a pedophile. That he projected this idea about grooming youngsters on gays because they are his feelings." Exactly. "And it was probably jokingly..." No it was stated as seriously as I could possibly say it. "This is a dumb argument." You call it dumb because you have not understood what I have said and why I have said it. "The fact that someone is dead set against something may in some situations mean they are repressing something, but not always, and certainly not most of the time. " What makes you able to make such a generalization? What do you base your assumption? See before you call me dumb and reject what I have said, be careful, because you too are engaging in what you think you are accusing me of. Now let me explain what I said because I did not at any time make a generalization as you did. I am commenting specifically as to what Keng has said. I comment specifically as to the words he has used. His words, specifically conceive homo-sexuality and pedophilia as the same act. He does not distinguish. He believes any sexual act by a gay person is the same as pedophilia. Its his words not mine. His inability to distinguish between the two is evidenced by his own words. His comment that the problem with society is that people in society won't repress their sexual feelings come from his words not mine. And now I will state it again, a person who says to others-your problem is you won't repress yourself sexually and you are evil for having sexual feelings, is NOT I repeat not talking about someone else. He is talking about himself. Why do I say that? Because I simply read his words. They are referring to himself. His words refer back to himself in each and every remark. I am not the one who feels gays are threatening he does. A person who feels threatened by another adult simply because that adult engages in an act that makes him feel threatened is in fact talking about his own feelings when he says gays are evil and Nazi like and pedophiles. These are all words to rationalize his subjective feelings precisely so someone like you will say, its just an opinion. Its not just an opinion. Its an opinion based on an internal subjective feeling being turned outwords and imposed on us all and so its capable of being questioned by those of us who feel it is directed at. If you in your world want to define it as a simple opinion do so. But you arenop different then Keng when you call be dumb simply because you can't understand something I am saying or because you don't agree with it. I did not come on this forum and express any sexual feelings of disgust, Keng did. So I have the wrte to say to him, take ownership of them and I am deadly serious, in my opinion someone who uses the references Keng does is not an innocent. At no time did I call him gay or a pedophile. What I said and I repeat is that his words show he has conflicted sexual feelings, he is sexually confused and that is why he can't differentiate hetero hom and pedophile sexual concepts and definitions. What he actually is I suspect but would never come out and say precisely because its not my intention nor quite frankly do I care other then to say to him to his face-he is a bully, a hateful man, and his using religious references do not change the content of his hatred or confusion he expects everyone else to condone. You can, I won't. "That is completely ridiculous, SIR." So in my opinion is suggesting what Keng has stated is a simple opinion or you trying to pretend it is such. Trying to say the smell does not reak to me is ridiculous. However please be my guest, try sell it as perfume. It does have attractive qualities to many. I do not doubt that for a second.

Scott why don't you actually go and look at the studies on who pedophiles are and how they operate. There are actually statistics to show that a pedophile does not as you say have a preference for one of the sexes. Pedophiles are governed by a sexual impulse that is not attracted to male or female characteristics and that is precisely why they are pedophiles. They are not sexually attracted to male sexual characteristics or female ones. They are attracted to an asexual body type one that is neither male or female. Even if they fuck a boy Scott, its not a male to them-its the fact the boy has no prounced sexual features that they are attracted. That said, it is absolute bullshit to suggest pedophiles have preference for one gender over the other. What the statistics show is pedophiles fuck ANY child if they have opportunity or access. This concept you have if they have a choice of a boy or a girl, some of them will only fuck boys is bull. If pedophilia happens in a same sex institution its not because the pedophile is gay its because that is where we has access and opportunity. In fact statistics kept on pedophiles and who they molest shows no difference in rate as to who they pick and at one point with another person I responded on this forum with studies and statistics as to that point and I am not going to repeat them to you again. What I am going to do is tell you, if you want to come on this forum and make comments that pedophiles have a preference for one gender then put up or shut up. That is an absolute myth by people who will not take the time and effort to research what pedophilia is. I will say it again, pedophiles choose their victims not because of their gender but because of access and opportunity. They choose children not because they are boys or girls but precisely because they have no pronounced sexual organs or features which threatens pedophiles. Stop and think. If a pedophile got off on sexual characteristics why fuck children then? There cna you understand it if I put it in such simple terms? They fuck children precisely because their lack of sexual features is what turns them on. Some of us have gotten into their heads Scott. We know how they tick and operate and what they look for and when and why they look for it. They are no more gay or straught then you are a liberal.

Its human nature when we look at a political conflict in another country to look at it from a reference point where we make all kinds of assumptions based on our own political concepts we take for granted and so think should exist everywhere. Pakistan since its inception has had military rulers. Its not Canada of course. Less then one percent of its population controls its wealth. It has no large pronounced Middle Class. You are either part of that tiny elite or you are basically a humble person leadng a very basic life. It doesn't have the roads and highways we have here. Its a large country with mountains and rugged terrain making it impossible for the military to govern. To get your troops to move on the ground from point A to B is not easy at all and even if you can the terrain makes it problematic. Here is the other reality. Pakistan is a nation of thousands of nations or villages each with their own rules. To rule such a place the reality is I doubt any liberal democratic model is going to work the way say it would in Canada precisely because of the above practical realities. Pakistan's governments have always been corupted. Its just a fact of life for most third world nations. Coruption or bribery in fact oeprates as a kind of tax. There are always two economies in a country like Pakistan's-the one the elite control and the other, the black market. Ultimately what happens to Pakistan has to be decided by its people. I am not sure sitting in my chair in Toronto and assuming the world should be run like it is in Canada means much to a person living in Pakistan. Why would it? Pakistan has always moved from regime to regime with military coups and assassinations. Voting processes are always suspected of being corupted. Its just the way it is there. Its of concern to the West only because its vital to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations that use its territory on the Afgfhan border for its base of operations and because it has nuclear weapons. If those two elements were not there, come on, no one would be talking about Pakistan but Pakistanis or perhaps Indians. I think the reality is to run such a country as it is, it will always have some sort of military government or a coalition of the military with a civilian ruler they can control. The Liberal democractic model we all think is the best one needs a lot of things if it is do practically exist, for starters a very entrenched and large enough middle class. Pakistan has none. The other thing Liberal Democracies require to oeprate are citizens who can read and write and cna interact with it. People forget that literacy in Pakistan is still a huge problem. If people can't read or write, it makes it very difficult for them NOT to be dependent on their relgious clerics or trusted village elder to tell them what they should do and think and this is a combustible element at the moment. In the thousands of its villages, or its mini nations, none of us know what each villageleader or its clerics are thinking. Are they all fundamentalist terrorists? How would we know? Does anyone have an idea how in a country its size and with its numerous villages how one would go about accurately measuring opinion?

The assumption that Oprah was imposing Western culture on these students is 100% bull. Uniforms by the way have been a staple in third world country schools long before Oprah was born. It comes about precisely because they are not Western, i.e., they can't afford an unlimited wardrobe. As for the curriculum, if some bothered to find out what it was they would realize it is not based on imposing any Western values. More to the point suggesting Oprah Winfrey is culpable or stating if she was a Republican she would be treated worse is sheer and utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is a teacher in a same gender school has engaged in pedophilia and used her power from being a teacher and her access from being a teacher to engage in it. Opportunity, access and power balance is what pedophilia is all about. This can and does happen anywhere in any institution where such conditions exist. It has nothing to do with Oprah or her being rich and to suggest it does just does not get it-sort of like Keung who from the question he asked shows he doesn't have a clue what pedophilia is in the first place suggesting from his question the molestation of 12 and 14 year olds would not make it pedophilia. Oprah did a good thing in starting the school. She has nothing to apologize for. The woman herself was molested. She is being accountable. If there has been abuse of power it will come out in spite of some idiots in this world who think it happens because people are rich or they are not pedophiles oh no they were gays right Keung? Its part of that gay conspiracy right Keung? Isn't that where you are headed? This issue will be resolved, the pedophile prosecuted and these children will heal precisely because she was accountable unlike say the Catholic Church. Christian Monks or the Canadian government who ran the forced assimilation units that molested, and deliberatelyexposed aboriginal children to tb in Canada pursuing a policy of forced assimilation by child abduction.

Two things are possible; 1-someone did as she said put a swastika on her door, then when she felt she was not being taken seriously, started putting swastikas on her door to get someone to react; 2- 1 is a lie she made up and in fact she may have what is called histrionic personality disorder or a variation thereof. In this disorder which for some reason is noted more in young women then other groups, she may be feeling compelled to engage in attention getting behaviour (negative, positive, passive, aggressive, subtle, blatant) because she feels insecure or un-noticed or unloved or unappreciated and craves acceptance and love. This could be as a result of many things in her life ranging from low self-esteem, perhaps harsh overly judgemental parents or unaffectionate parents, bio-chemical imbalances, socio-economic pressures, sexual molestation, any number of events that may have traumitized her, etc. To fully understand it one would need to a full physical and family case history then slowly find out what has been going on in her life and in particular what she feels she has lost control of or does not feel she can control. Most probably this person has depression or some other kind of mood disorder. Its possible she could have an obessive compulsive disorder, low spectrum autism,and many many other conditions. Bottom line, this person may be histrionic not deliberately evil and it may be as simple as a hormonal imbalance, insomnia or a vitamin defficiency triggering it or unresolved conflicts, etc. The courts will simply send her for a psychiatric assessment, they probably will put her on an anti-depressant and she'll be forgotten. It was a cry for help. Whether she gets it is anyone's guess. Did she do it for political motive. Probably not. Someone smart enough to manipulate things for political agenda don't limit themselves to just one form of expression of their political views. No one is suggesting she is a Zionist activist on campus sorry to say Kuzadd. Give the political conspriacy theories a rest. She has an emotional disorder. A young woman with an emotional disorder. Hmmm. Imagine such a concept. Histrionic personality disorders do not make one a Zionist conspirator Kuzadd just conflicted.