Dalai llama ask a child to suck his tongue

[Mooshamoo]

Has anyone seen the new video of the Dalai Llama asking a child to suck his tongue. Yes. It sounds bizarre. But it is in the news right now. The video is out there. And the dalai llama is apologising on social media now

Im devastated! I went to see the Dalai Llama in India. He gave a speech on accepting and loving everyone, and that it didn't matter what religion we are. I always told people that it was one of the highlights of my life.

I went through life thinking he was a good person, that he was one of the good ones. To see this today, makes me think oh no is he yet another abuser.

Some people have remarked about this video that sticking your tongue out at someone is a greeting in Tibet.

However - the Dalai Llama kisses the child on the lips in the video, and asks the child to suck his tongue. It does not look right at all.

He has apologised on twitter now.

What do you all think?

Yes, I searched the darkest recesses of the web just to confirm that there was nothing pre-April 2023. I reiterate my point about Silicon Valley chiefs being in the DLs pocket so I expect that they may be able to plant some misdated results if it becomes necessary.

Do not worry, we cannot bring down the cult but we see you.

Can you find the burble burble game documented please? It's a variation of the raspberry blowing game, where you make a baby giggle by blowing raspberries on her tummy. I remember it being mentioned by the Nanny in 'Nanny knows best' who wrote a book on baby rearing around the 1990s. She was saying that it's very undignified and we shouldn't do it. I think most families do, though.

What about the nose disappearing game? I've seen it in films, I'm not sure about books.

I think western culture is pretty widely documented in comparison with Tibetan, so it should be fairly widely referenced, and in English too!

Based on previous discursive technique on this thread, I'm going to suggest Sudeko is an agent of the Chinese government, or perhaps a Chinese bot, designed to inflame opinion and destabilise Tibet.

So my natural counterpart as the devout Buddhist cultist I am!

You are wrong on both counts. It can't feel very satisfying to suppress the truth via unfair means. It speaks volumes about the value of your truth.
Blowing raspberries on a baby's tummy is very different to sucking an older child's tongue when you have never met him before.

Yet that is not what the game involves, apparently. It's a joke akin to 'Another biscuit? I'll be broke at this rate! You'll be eating me out of house and home!'

Anyway, you accuse me of being a Buddhist cultist and a pedophile apologist, neither of which I am, and I'll accuse you of being a chinese plant or bot on similar evidence- disagreeing!

We'll just have to watch and wait for all the accusations of abuse to pour out.

In an ideal world, if only.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/un-report-calls-sexual-activity-decriminalized/

I was all ready to be revolted and horrified, and of some bits I am.

Am I reading this wrong, though? Doesn't it just say that kids choosing to have sex with each other shouldn't be criminalised? And that sex offender laws should be applied equally to men and women?
That sounds fair enough, I guess it doesn't protect a 15 yr old being coerced by someone the same age, given how hard coercion is to police anyway.

"With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees."

🙄Big eye roll.

If it's decriminalising sex between kids and adults, then it's disgusting, shocking, abhorrent.

If it's supposed to stop kids having sex with each other being prosecuted then it's fine. I'd prefer we tried to avoid sexualising kids so early, and if we found our way back to kids being over 16 before they have sex it would be great, but I'd doubt they'd manage it.

I can't tell from reading it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4785742-new-un-report-says-children-can-consent-to-sex-with-adults?page=2&reply=125462769

There is a push via many ideologies for the same outcome.

That’s how I read it too.
“With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.”
This is highlighting the fact that in some countries girls can consent to marriage at age 12, well below the age of consent for sex in the same country. It’s a know loophole used by adult men to get to underage girls, because they see marriage as a waiver of the consent to sex age.

The whole second part only applies to “Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent..” So it would only apply if everyone doing the sexual conduct were below the minimum age of consent. This part doesn’t decriminalise sexual conduct where one participant is at or above the minimum age of consent.

What were there bits that were horrific?

I don’t see anywhere where the UN report is decriminalising sexual conduct between adults and children.
https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf

I think I see what Liveaction has done. Instead of reading it as written “sexual conduct involving persons below the ….minimum age of consent” which as written excludes anyone at or above the minimum age of consent. Liveaction has read it as if it was written “sexual conduct involving persons below and persons at or above the…minimum age of consent….” Theyve put in what wasn’t there.

I know this is an old thread, but I'm struck by this post about 'planting people with a political agenda in the church'. Do you mean they planted gay men and this was the political agenda? Or some other political agenda? What do you mean?

I'm not wholly convinced by that. Several of the worst abusers (Marcial Maciel for one) were old men ordained before the 1960s,. Were they also ordained as part of a political agenda?

Do you think gay men are more likely to abuse than straight men?

Are you saying the Anglican church is from the left and therefore bad?

Are you implying that Jesuits have covered up the most abuse? They have high rates of coverup. The Brothers of John, Salesians and Marists have even higher rates of cover up.

Or are you implying that Jesuits have more gay men and are therefore more likely to abuse and cover up?

Well plenty of religions have corrupt followers in high places. Plenty of Popes even have been corrupt: that doesn't discredit the religion itself if the corrupt followers are not actually following its teachings.

I don't know, I think fundamentalists of any type can be extremely arrogant and pushy. Muslim fundamentalists are the most common but all religions have a few, generally a small lot though.