Readers yet another hint to the supposed confusion between adult same gender loving relationships importantly with consent versus paedophilia which are NOT one in the same. Over these many years we as a community and the advocates namely Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays JFLAG (yet again we have to see the failings) in their proper role as such have poorly rebutted these misconceptions of the two from mainly the tabloids presenting sensational stories of rapes, abuses on children and teens as done so by supposed gay men when we know that most paedophiles including those who carry out same gender paedophilia are heterosexual and the motivator for such crimes is psychological control of the victim(s) more so than sex. Homosexuality has not been linked to paedophilia in any scientific way or any studies that can stand.
But we lack again another element urgently needed which falls under the psychological interventions to be incorporated into LGBT activism, we are eons away from there it seems as the recent homeless MSM civil disobedience and fallout has proven as it is those very glaring missing frontline elements that led to it to have happened a second time.
An article on the issue elsewhere comes to mind from 2010 where the Vatican’s number two linked paedophilia to homosexuality, prompting strong condemnation from gay rights advocates and several governments, including France’s. As a result, the Vatican distanced itself from the remarks. Is this latest spat an illustration of the mindset within the Vatican, or is it evidence of the media’s hounding of the Catholic Church? see the link for the video
http://www.france24.com/en/20100415-church-paedophilia-is-homosexuality-to-blame and http://glbtqjamaica.blogspot.com/2010/04/pedophilia-linked-to-homosexuality-says.html
Have a read of the letter from the Gleaner, my two cents continues below that:
I’m inviting J-FLAG to explain to Jamaica what ‘all-sexuals’ means in its name. Does it mean persons with all kinds of sexual preferences, such as persons who prefer (or rather, as J-FLAG would put it, are orientated) to have sex with animals, children or family members?
I would like to hear J-FLAG’s position on paedophilia because of a recent article in the United States which showed that there is such a group called the National Man-Boy Association and another called B 4 U ACT, which are both organisations for paedophiles. One of their aims is to normalise adult sex with pubescent and pre-pubescent children. They are encouraged by the removal of homosexuality from the list of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1970s. They acknowledge that it was staunch lobbying and political will that led to this removal, and so also want paedophilia to be removed from the DSM.
Sexual pleasure and confidence
Interestingly, The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has as one of its goals: “Young people must be able to have pleasure and confidence in relationships and all aspects of sexuality.” IPPF identifies young people as being from the age of 10-24. Does IPPF mean by “all aspects of sexuality” that young people should welcome or participate in sex with animals, children or family members? Or is IPPF a cover for the legalisation of paedophilia?
Finally, note the trajectory we are on in Jamaica of seeking to legitimise homosexuality and see where it leads. I read recently an article which referenced an essay called ‘The Overhauling of Straight America’ that strategies put forward to normalise and mainstream homosexuality, included talking about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible; portraying gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers; giving protectors a just cause; making gays look good; making victimisers look bad; and launching media campaigns.
We can see this pattern in the pro-gay movement in Jamaica. So I just want to know what J-FLAG stands for, and if protecting tolerance for ‘all-sexuals’, particularly the all-sexuals who prefer children, will be part of their objectives.
I also invite Families Against State Terrorism, the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights and all the other groups which support J-FLAG to let me know if they would support those who maintain that sex with minors and animals should also be a recognised and legalised0 right.
MOTHER OF TWO
The way the letter writer groups the other human rights groups in the bag with the J has made them tainted and I fear there maybe some withdrawal of support if only for the short term as many of the boards of these groups have homophobes on them who may not want the organizations that they have oversight for to go down that road. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) which is being debated and put together for May 2013 it seems disingenuous that the writer did not bother to double check before putting pen to paper as the proposed DSM 5 site is up and running and clearly states the present circumstances despite the agitations from the so called pedo groups.
 The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-V make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder.
This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on.
In general, the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders is reflected in the format of the diagnostic criteria for specific paraphilias. Paraphilias are ascertained according to the “A” criteria, and paraphilic disorders are diagnosed according to the “A” and “B” criteria. The distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders is discussed in the context of specific diagnoses by Blanchard (2009b, 2009c). CONTINUE HERE
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 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.
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Limited to Incest
Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
On the 13th of September Executive Director Dane Lewis responded in a letter to the Gleaner
Peace and tolerance