My buddy Jeff emailed me a link to this group with the title, "Oh my god. I can't believe this is real." The Christian Boy Love Forum. I know, it sounds like something from South Park, but they're apparently serious. A sample:
Many boylovers who have attempted to change their orientation say their ability to love others and their self-esteem have been severely damaged. The American Psychiatric Association claims that this attraction begins in adolescence, and efforts to eliminate it are usually ineffective. However, like ex-gays, some boylovers have found change possible. Many Christian boylovers acknowledge that God can change one's orientation if he wishes to, but feel that he often apparently chooses not to. God does however promise that his grace will be sufficient, and that his power will be made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).
Paraklesis believes that boylovers are called to rejoice in what God has given them, and to seek to channel their love for boys in healthy ways. Most boylovers are able to control their behavior, and many of them form special friendships with their young friends (YFs) that are life-giving and satisfying for both.
Just when you think you've seen it all...
What kind of an idiot would let their kids have a "special relationship" with one of these guys?? It would be like asking NAMBLA to babysit for you.
Although I will give them credit for one thing. It's nice that they tell us; it gives the rest of us the option of staying the hell away from them. That's pretty unusal for pedophiles.
The concept of a "Honey pot" in network security comes to mind. This could well be a set-up by some anti-gay organization or person to attract a certain type of response. Then they can use it in an attempt to undermine the argument that being gay is not a choice by saying "So what? These weirdos say they didn't choose their orientation either."
Expect to see references to this in anti-gay rhetoric soon.
Proof once again that religion can be used to justify -any- self-serving behavior.
If this is real I think we should be uh, nicer. It sounds like its for people who are honest with themselves but no okay with themselves. It's hell living that way.
It is possible for pedophilic relationships to be genuinely healthy, but all instances of that in the historical record come from hierarchical societies. We know about the Spartans, the samurai had a practice called shudo which is largely ignored now. We moderns may simply have no way to make good use of it.
The fact that those societies were hierarchical is irrelevant; almost every society that has ever existed has been. The problem is that such relationships in those societies served a key social function and were openly acknowledged by most people. In some, they served as a way of delaying male marriagability until the same generation's female population was ready, often while training warriors.
In our society, the secrecy such relationships have makes them far less healthy for the child, and only part of that secrecy is due to the laws against it. An equal part comes from the fact that our society has lousy sex education, and suppresses genuinely consensual sexuality EXCEPT when it can be commercialized.
Almost invariably, pedophiles were themselves molested as children, so they learned that sexuality is all about using a weaker person for their own gratification. A large percentage of them DO get married and even have kids of their own (as the CBL website basically promotes) ... but when the child reaches the age the parent was molested at, watch out. If this group encourages the pedophile to TELL their spouse beforehand AND get genuine counseling (and NOT just pray to "god;" twisted folks talk to god all the time), this might make a difference, but it could also be used as a justification for more intra-family secrecy and thereby perpetuate the abuse.
I have my doubts about what is parody and what is not...
But check these out:
Christian Womens Wrestling
a Fringe group is just that. a fringe, as disgusting as that forum is, doesn't represent Christianity as a whole.
the internet can create strange gatherings of deprived minds, and will band around each other and deceive themselves of their actions. This is some heavy duty denial.
This group of people Remind me of "the Dolls House" volume from the Sandman graphic novel series, were there is a convention of serial killers at a hotel. Each "collector" goes on and on about how they like to "collect" and see it as a natural outlet of who they are, and if denied that desire, that humanity in a whole is off balance and the world needs serial killers like them.
I've seen deprived people in subcultures surround themselves around other deprived minds, they all talk the same way in defense for their lifestyle.
-"I'm misunderstood and this is who I really am,"
-"There are other people like me, so I'm not a bad person at all"..
such minds are a facet in every sub-culture, large or small.
I thought they already had such an organization: The Roman Catholic Church.
"Deprived Minds" would make an aweseme band name. Especially with that "does not mean what you think it means" aspect to it. At least, I'm assuming the word barney's grasping at and missing is "depraved". But I've never heard of a depraved mind - just depraved people.
As for deprived minds, deprived of what? Oxygen? Glucose? Stimulation by YFs?
a fringe, as disgusting as that forum is, doesn't represent Christianity as a whole.
I love that sentence!
Thanks for bringing all of that up. Especially the fact about openness in historical societies. That seems like something that should have occurred to me. I feel like our culture has gone backwards with regard to sex. We have to reduce it to something dirty and embarrasing when its not about reproduction, but it seems like sex serves an important function in building relationships, when the participants understand that of course. Most people can't even use the word sex to mean male or female.
Actually, Ed, I've known about these Boy Love groups for a long time. Remember back in the 90s when a Boy Scout troop dismissed a Scoutmaster for being gay? What the gay activists either didn't realize or glossed over was that this man was a member of a Boy Love advocacy group (as in actively encouraging pedophiliac activities between men and boys). In reality, he wasn't dismissed for being gay, he was dismissed for being a pedophile.
In reality, he wasn't dismissed for being gay, he was dismissed for being a pedophile.
You know, maybe this is just a media meme. Whenever a "boy lover" is outed and/or prosecuted, then the debate becomes "Well, can we trust gay men around our boys" instead of the real debate. I've noticed over and over again, that one of the media's jobs is to create a false debate on whatever topic. I see it all the time.