- This topic has 85 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ujm
Are you in denial that pedophilia is a real, serious and consistent problem in our community, MORE so than even homosexuality?
Complete denial.
It isn’t even close. I suspect you are making stuff up againAvira
I dont fi d thst aspect interesting, so I ignored it.
I don’t think it will any more than an unofficial club.
If you do you do. I hear youubiq: Both homosexuality and pedophilia are considered to be sexual orientations. The homosexual orientation affects fewer people than the pedophilic orientation.
YU is different than most yeshivas because it’s a University which tries to abide by the guidelines of having a university while having a Yeshiva and Semicha program. If there wasn’t social pressures to have these clubs, they wouldn’t. But now there are lawsuits and it gets complicated how we deal with these things. There’s nothing wrong with having a therapy group if it’s done withing the right parameters. YU in general I think makes up its standards as it goes along, as there isn’t a Rav Soloveitchik Zt”L to give guidance. There are frum people who went to YU who learn every day make honest livings whose wives dress tznius and there are some people who went to YU who know as much yiddishkeit as a conservative Jew. It’s not a perfect system, I don’t think even most of modern orthodox people would admit to but for a certain demographic in America it serves a purpose. The battles of a community in a more established Yeshivish community is not the same as those of in a more American modern community. Growth takes time. I think in the long run the “Right Wing” YU types will establish more baal habatishe institutions.
ubiq: How on earth would you know that. Do you have any proof?
ubiq: How do you know that? Do you have any proof?
UJM
No need to repeat yourself
If you have a source by all means I’d be interestedUbiq, I’m referring to clubs vs personal intervention resources.
Clubs where the people can know each other will lead to illicit relationships. That’s the main practical problem with this, besides the chilul Hashem
Ubiq: Why are you accepting at face value that homosexuality is a more prevalent problem than pedophilia? The research is readily and easily available. But you admit above that you do not know the comparative figures. As such, you should have the humility to not deny the problem of pedophilia.
Rather than defend Y.U. on the basis you have, you should be questioning the lack of a Y.U. Pedophilia Support Club.
just
“ubiq: How on earth would you know that. Do you have any proof?”proof of what?
avira
Yes I understand your concern.
Though as I said the club exists regardless. The difference is whether it is recognized by YU. YU recognizing it won’t lead to illicit relationships.UJM
I have no idea what you are talking about
YOU brought up pedophilia. Why don’t you back it up *
To answer your questions
Why are you accepting at face value that homosexuality is a more prevalent problem than pedophilia?”
Because The research is readily and easily available.
AND because we are discussing an LGBT club. as they say the proof is in the pudding.” But you admit above that you do not know the comparative figures.”
I admitted no such thing . It is easy to Google plus puk chazi (l’havdil elef alfei havdolas) plus
” As such, you should have the humility to not deny the problem of pedophilia.”
I never denied the problem* (i’m not really asking, I know why it is because you are not an honest person)
ubiq: According to research, approximately 1.7% of the population is of exclusive homosexual orientation. Whereas somewhat under 5% of the male population is of the pedophilic orientation. It is very clear that men attracted to children is notably more prevalent than men attracted to their same gender.
See the article entitled “Pedophilia” in Psychology Today.
Ujm
“According to research, approximately 1.7% of the population…”
Yiu accidently wrote the number backwards
Gallup poll in Feb 2022 estimated 7.1 %And I enjoyed that you stuck in “exclusive” as if oh it’s not exclusive then it’s ok
Ujm, I am reluctant to read research on this topic, but could you check whether they traced these numbers through time and countries? Making a behavior normalized might increase number of people who follow it. The more teachers put they as their pronouns, the more kids are following them.
Ubiq, a recognized club will draw way more members. Many young men will come out of the closet if this is normalized, thus leading to way more illicit relationships
also I love that you wrote “Whereas somewhat under 5%”
when the article you cited said “The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown,… Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male population ”
So the numbers aren’t known it may even be less than your transposed 1.7% a far cry from it being “very clear”
never change
Ubiq: I’m discussing exclusively homosexual for a reason. If someone is bisexual that indicates he can be attracted to both genders. As such, in regards to our discussion of helping Jews who have no other outlet for their taaivos other than their same gender, that point isn’t relevant to those who are bisexual, since they can find a shidduch of the opposite gender. Studies have consistently shown that a majority of people who say they experience homosexual taaivos, also say that they are attracted to the opposite gender as well, thereby those taaivos are non-exclusive. So for the purposes of this discussion, it is correct to focus on those with exclusive taaivos only.
The Gallup poll is an outlier and inconsistent. According to Gallup, if you take them at their word per the polling results, the percentage of the US population that identifies as homosexual has DOUBLED between 2012 and 2022. Do you credibly believe there was a doubling of this population in literally ten years? Public opinion issue pollsters such as Gallup, Harris, Marist, etc. have long been known to produce desired results for a left-wing audience. They consistently cater their results to comply with the left’s expectations. Also note that Gallup’s poll makes a cholent of combining transsexual, bisexual and homosexual all in that one figure that you quoted.
Other, more academic, research have shown significantly lower figures. The General Social Survey in 2017 reports it is 2.4%. ( sda dot berkeley dot edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss16 ) in the US. Internationally, the Psychological Science in the Public Interest reports that less than 2% of the overall population identify as exclusively homosexual ( www dot researchgate dot net/publication/301639075 ).
With a larger percent of the population being attracted to children than to the same gender, it is clear the problem of pedophilia should be addressed with at least greater priority than the problem of homosexuality. Even if we were to accept the Gallup figure of 7% (which in reality, as explained above, is an unrealistic figure and combines the number with transsexual, bisexual, etc.), even that is within the same ballpark as the 5% of the population that is attracted to children. As such, you still cannot deny that the aveira of pedophilia (which also severely victimizes innocent children) should be addressed with at least the same alarcity as that of the aveira of homosexuality.
AAQ: Your point is absolutely correct. See my citations above.
Avira
“Ubiq, a recognized club will draw way more members.”
The opposite is true not many LGBT are interested in being outed by their teshiva. And they are very wary that the “Torah approach” will include conversion therapyUjm
Lol ok so let’s take the lowest estimate for LGBT. The highest for oedophilia . All in a desperate attempt to make your point.You conclude “As such, you still cannot deny that the aveira of pedophilia (which also severely victimizes innocent children) should be addressed with at least the same alarcity as that of the aveira of homosexuality.”
Ok sold. Start the club you have my support. Beracha vehatzlachaUbiq, au contraire – YU kids have no problem holding hands with their sin partners in public, because it’s tolerated by the community. They walk beraish galei into movie theaters, hand in hand. Check out what goes on in teaneck or Flatbush before everyone moved out of there. Once toeva becomes more out in the open, they will only do it more.
Already that’s happening. Remember the homosexual couple a few weeks ago who were married, with one of them dressing up as a man? This man was thrown out of a Flatbush day school because the girls could tell he was a man, and they were disgusted.
Guess what? He says that in Washington heights everyone is very accepting of him and his “husband”, who wears a hat and jacket and is involved with yeshiva college as a liasion and teacher of Hebrew. Yeshiva college wished his sin family a mazel tov on social media on the arrival of their adopted son, who if converted, is not jewish at all, as they either went to a fake OO beis din or tricked a real beis din into converting the kid.
A few points
(1)Although the Yetzer Horah for toevah is real for those who struggle with it, I question how many people were really born with that Yetzer Horah versus how many people have it as an “acquired taste” Yetzer Horah that comes from living in a society that borders on looking up to those engaged in such behavior and treat them as a sacred cow. I don’t trust research on this subject because I don’t believe it is conducted impartially.
(2)Once people do have that Yetzer Horah there are no easy answers about what to do. A LGBT that is like (it’s safe to say L’havdil Elf Havdolas) a Chevra Shemiras Haloson or a macshom L’fi whose members don’t deny being nichsol in Loshon Hora is in fact a wonderful thing. How can anyone not support a group that exists for the sole purpose of fighting a Yetzer Horah? No matter what that Yetzer Horah is.
(3) This group is not going to be that type of club. Even if (best case scenario) it will have some elements of it. I oppose it vehemently BUT end of the day you can’t wish this problem away. There are people who are convinced they have this Yetzer Horah and are convinced it is something they were born with that can’t be changed. They are not going to listen to anyone who hostilely tells them otherwise. What are your words of wisdom for them? What should be done for and about them?
vira
I’m not sure what your last comment added
to remind you where We are.You raised concern that the group i question will make it easier to find each other (leading to more averia)
To which I replied that I hear you though am not so concerned, because there already is such a group (remebemr thats how the whole story began the yare suing for official recognition, but the group exists) . The only thing that would change is that the Yeshiva would have some say over it .I don’t understand what your last comment adds.
If you are raising a new concern that an officially sanctioned club would lead to acceptance . Again I hear, though society is heading down that road anyway . and I’m not convinced this leads to acceptance. ITs hear we know it we dont need to accept it. Same as Guard your eyes, or machsom lfi does it lead to “acknowledging that we say Lashon hara” ? Obviously, but we all know that. Same here the problem exists as you say ” kids have no problem holding hands with their sin partners in public,” So what now ?
We can ignore it, and hope it will go away (and write those people out of Orthodoxy)
Or we can acknowledge it and provide support.In short if I understand your new concern correctly; that it lends them support / brings it out into the open. As you already acknowledge the yare already out in the open
Smerel well put.
My only quibble is I think in theory an official “club” is a good idea. In practice I agree I don’t think this is that. I don’t think many will join, this is not what those suing want. , and the administration knows that. I suspect thhis is a ploy to have a “club” on paper to help YU legally
Sorry smerel, due to the repulsive nature of this sin, it is not the same as a machsom lefi group. It will normalize that which is supposed to be reviled. It will also open paths to forming relationships and coming to groups as “couples” who struggle together etc.
It’s been over 6 months. Are the modern people still pretending that the meeting club for gay people is somehow supposed to discourage gayness, or are they finally admitting that YU just straight up condoned one of the most serious issurim because their liberalism is more important to them than Torah?
Lol aderaba
Are the wrong people still pretending that this club is going to lead to more gayness?
Hows the club doingubiq: Even if it doesn’t lead to more people practicing toeiva, condoning, supporting, normalizing and legitimizing those who already practice toeiva is disgusting and kneged haTorah.
Ubiq:
In other words yes, you guys are still pretending it’s a good thing.
Has there been any organized recognition of the fact that this is likely worse than anything the Open Orthodoxy ever did? If there’s no condemnation of this, it can only mean one of two things:
1) The only reason the Open Orthodoxy was criticized was because it changed its name. Had they kept identifying as MO, they would have flown under the radar forever. I think this theory is likely given that the main people condemning them were MO institutions, while the chareidi stance was “not my monkey, not my circus.”2) Alternatively, the MO has lost so much respect that their institutions can completely endorse violations of halachah without anyone batting an eye because everyone has just given up on pretending to legitimize them at this point.
ujm
lol your’e wrong take was wrong then it remains wrong today.
NC
“Has there been any organized recognition of the fact that this is likely worse than anything the Open Orthodoxy ever did? ”
Nopenot sure why you limit it to 2 things neither of which is correct
The correct thing is it simply is not an condoning any issurim. You can say it again and again it won’t suddenly become trueubiq: Do you, similarly, believe it would be a good idea for “Yeshiva” University to establish, in addition to its current mishkav zochor club, an eishes ish club? The latter, as you surely know, has many more men with that taaiva, than the former.
ujm
That taiva has an outlet (chulin 109b)
ubiq: So they don’t need support? Many men have difficulty with it despite that outlet. In fact many more men have difficulty with eishes ish, despite its outlet, than men who have difficulty with mishkav zochor.
ujm
I doubt thats true (wouldn’t be the first tiem you made something up in this thread alone)
but ok, I’m convinced if they do they do start the clububiq: You really think more men sin with mishkav zochor than sin with eishes ish?
The club doesn’t exist and has held no meetings, it was an attempt from YU to avoid losing money and doing what the NY governments want them to do.
MTUGT
yes that was obvious from the start
UJM
among (otherwise) frum men? Yes I think so. nobody has an inborn inherent yetzer harah for specifically eishes ish, even if there are a few such people definitely less than for mishkav zachar.ubiq: Let me inform you otherwise. You likely exaggerate the mishkov zochor frequency and you might underestimate the eishes ish instances. (Speak to Rabbonim in the parsha and they can sadly inform you what’s going on.) Most otherwise frum men with SSA do not engage in mishkov zochor. And, likewise, most otherwise frum men with a taaiva for eishes ish do not engage in that.
According to current secular scientific surveys, 2% of men are exclusively homosexual. (I’d very strongly argue for several very good reasons that stat is a gross exaggeration, but for purposes of our discussion we’ll go with this figure.) Assuming 2% of frum men have exclusive SSA, we can also count on that most of those frum men refrain from mishkav zochor, given the terrible sin it is. Same with eishes ish. But eishes ish is a taaiva of the other 98% of men. So it is approximately 50 men with eishes ish taaivos to every 1 man with exclusive homosexual taaivos. (Again, approximately. Don’t get hung up whether it’s 50 to 1 or if it is 47 to 1 or whatever.) Even if you assume more men with exclusive SSA sin than other men, given such a huge disparity in comparative starting populations, the larger percentage of SSA sinners will still be a vastly smaller number of actual persons than the smaller percentage of non-SSA (exclusive) sinners.
P.S. Chazal say that a special taaiva for eishes ish (rather than for other single women) is definitely a thing that exists, and is not a negligible taaiva. But this Chazal isn’t even necessary to consider to accept my preceding points. It’s just another cherry on the top.
Neville Chaim Berlin, the difference between this and open orthodoxy is that their are talmidei chachomim behind ensuring that this club is something that is from a frum hashgofo, the fact that it got Rav Herschel Schachters approval, an adam gadol, is telling. If you can find quotes of gedolei yisroel lambasting yu’s decision to have such a club I would love to see such quotes. There still is a criticism of Yu, not that they are making such a club, but that they need such a club. That they are financially dependent on the ny state government, that they attracted students that wanted a pride club. Sure they have a greater demographic of bochrim in the beis medrash learning each day than to people who would join such a club, but the fact that people would sue their own yeshiva is in of itself reflective of that yeshiva.
“Speak to Rabbonim in the parsha and they can sadly inform you what’s going on.”
I have, thats why I’m convinced such a support system is necessary.
“Most otherwise frum men with SSA do not engage in mishkov zochor. And, likewise, most otherwise frum men with a taaiva for eishes ish do not engage in that.”
Exactly! nailed it
thats why the two aren’t comparable. The former struggle/have issues whether they engage or not
the latter not so much.“But this Chazal isn’t even necessary to consider to accept my preceding points.”
Ive already accepted your point
“but ok, I’m convinced if they do they do start the club”
No need to convince me further.If you think its needed go for it. Start it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.