Cynic wrote:


Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm?

It is a very brave or extremely stupid person that would ask for such
help. They wouldn't get any. I have seen this.

A twenty-four years old man who admitted striking a woman who called
him a paedophile outside a bar in the Rosemount area of Derry

It could have been worse she could have called him Irish.

On Jul 23, 3:09 pm, Jack N Jill wrote:
Cynic wrote:

Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm?

It is a very brave or extremely stupid person that would ask for such
help. They wouldn't get any. I have seen this.

Indeed.

As long as a natural, sexual interest is seen as psychopathology,
little will change. Unfortunately, the MHA 2007 has not helped
matters. Still too much mileage for The Man (authorities and media) to
catch the bull by the horns, yet. Some things are shifting, but, it
was always going to be a marathon.

We are working hard, I can assure you.

WM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:09:27 +0100, Jack N Jill
wrote:

Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm?

It is a very brave or extremely stupid person that would ask for such
help. They wouldn't get any. I have seen this.

I know they cannot do that today. That's why I asked whether it might
be better if they *could* do that. The Todal appears to believe that
it would not be a good thing, and it is far better if people with such
a condition pretend that they do not have it rather than seeking help.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:34 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

So you think it best that a person who has a condition that they did
not want and has no control over should live a lie or be a social
outcast? Do you feel the same way about any other condition that a
person is born with? Epilepsy, perhaps, which was at one time a
similarly unacceptable condition.

There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis, or an addiction to violent porn.

It is for the best that those with socially unacceptable conditions keep it
to themselves - and of course seek expert help, if such help is available -
so that they can continue to function in society and not be harmed or cause
a breach of the peace.



Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm? Or
maybe epileptics would be better off living a lie and pretending to
others that they don't have the condition. Living in constant denial
and maybe proving their normality by becoming bus drivers or airline
pilots rather than being helped to control their condition and live in
a way that is unlikely to present a danger to others?


It will never be possible for a paedophile to say "I'm proud to be a
paedophile" in the same way that another chap might say "I'm proud to be
gay". Society can be very tolerant so long as people conform to social
norms. I daresay people might even tolerate a paedophile in their midst so
long as he didn't try to seduce their children or persuade other adults to
his way of thinking. In many a school, there will be a teacher who is known
to be attracted to children and who comes to watch them in the showers. The
children will joke about it but won't go complaining to the authorities
unless they are actually molested.

On Jul 23, 3:36 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Cynic" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:34 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

So you think it best that a person who has a condition that they did
not want and has no control over should live a lie or be a social
outcast? Do you feel the same way about any other condition that a
person is born with? Epilepsy, perhaps, which was at one time a
similarly unacceptable condition.

There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis, or an addiction to violent porn.

It is for the best that those with socially unacceptable conditions keep it
to themselves - and of course seek expert help, if such help is available -
so that they can continue to function in society and not be harmed or cause
a breach of the peace.



Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm? Or
maybe epileptics would be better off living a lie and pretending to
others that they don't have the condition. Living in constant denial
and maybe proving their normality by becoming bus drivers or airline
pilots rather than being helped to control their condition and live in
a way that is unlikely to present a danger to others?

It will never be possible for a paedophile to say "I'm proud to be a
paedophile" in the same way that another chap might say "I'm proud to be
gay". Society can be very tolerant so long as people conform to social
norms. I daresay people might even tolerate a paedophile in their midst so
long as he didn't try to seduce their children or persuade other adults to
his way of thinking. In many a school, there will be a teacher who is known
to be attracted to children and who comes to watch them in the showers. The
children will joke about it but won't go complaining to the authorities
unless they are actually molested.

You see, you can manage the appropriate distinctions, when you try,
even if you cannot bear to mouth a different terminology.

The thing is, Todal, and this is often your issue ... you are actually
quite a prude ... that is not a criticism.

[wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping
sore on your penis]

Do you ever ask yourself why not (and in other circumstances we could
explore)?

You do know, that the present sexual hysteria (in law and outside) is
very recent and only token in nearly every country?

Who do you think is carrying out the millions (billions?) of 'sexual
assaults' ... non-society?

WM

On Jul 23, 3:36 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Cynic" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:34 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

So you think it best that a person who has a condition that they did
not want and has no control over should live a lie or be a social
outcast? Do you feel the same way about any other condition that a
person is born with? Epilepsy, perhaps, which was at one time a
similarly unacceptable condition.

There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis, or an addiction to violent porn.

It is for the best that those with socially unacceptable conditions keep it
to themselves - and of course seek expert help, if such help is available -
so that they can continue to function in society and not be harmed or cause
a breach of the peace.



Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm? Or
maybe epileptics would be better off living a lie and pretending to
others that they don't have the condition. Living in constant denial
and maybe proving their normality by becoming bus drivers or airline
pilots rather than being helped to control their condition and live in
a way that is unlikely to present a danger to others?

It will never be possible for a paedophile to say "I'm proud to be a
paedophile" in the same way that another chap might say "I'm proud to be
gay". Society can be very tolerant so long as people conform to social
norms. I daresay people might even tolerate a paedophile in their midst so
long as he didn't try to seduce their children or persuade other adults to
his way of thinking. In many a school, there will be a teacher who is known
to be attracted to children and who comes to watch them in the showers. The
children will joke about it but won't go complaining to the authorities
unless they are actually molested.

[There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made
public.]

BTW, it is not the attraction to minors, in a paedophile, which is a
'medical condition', it is the ego-dystonia which arises or when
actions are carried out. The psychiatric/psychological professions are
still in debate about the whole issue.

WM

The Todal wrote:

There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis,

I did once. I caught a dose and went to the STD clinic as it was known
then. I was given my magic number and asked by a doctor if I wouldn't
mind a couple of students sitting in for the exam'. Of course not, I
never do. If it helps them learn etc.

I was only 18 and in walked 9 students all female who were invited
by the doctor to examine my penis closely to diagnose the problem.

On Jul 23, 3:58 pm, Green Gilbert wrote:
The Todal wrote:
There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis,

I did once. I caught a dose and went to the STD clinic as it was known
then. I was given my magic number and asked by a doctor if I wouldn't
mind a couple of students sitting in for the exam'. Of course not, I
never do. If it helps them learn etc.

I was only 18 and in walked 9 students all female who were invited
by the doctor to examine my penis closely to diagnose the problem.

.... now I understand your name

WM

"Green Gilbert" wrote in message
...
The Todal wrote:

There are many medical conditions that one wouldn't want made public. You
wouldn't announce to a crowd of strangers that you have a weeping sore on
your penis,

I did once. I caught a dose and went to the STD clinic as it was known
then. I was given my magic number and asked by a doctor if I wouldn't
mind a couple of students sitting in for the exam'. Of course not, I never
do. If it helps them learn etc.

I was only 18 and in walked 9 students all female who were invited
by the doctor to examine my penis closely to diagnose the problem.

A friend of mine with a weeping sore on his penis went to a STD clinic,
feeling very uneasy about having to sit with all the promiscuous sluts when
he knew that he had been faithful to his wife for 20 years and his condition
was not actually an STD. He said it was actually quite nice at the clinic -
the young ladies were flirting with the men and plainly many of them had met
at the clinic on previous sessions.

I think by being so prudish and straight-laced, I've missed out on all the
fun.