Not impressed with the Boy Scouts of America.

It’s been rolling around the internet that the Boy Scouts of America are ending their ban on homosexuals participating in the scouts.  While that’s true, I’m not that impressed.

Boy Scouts of America is considering ending a longstanding national ban on gay youth and adult members and leaving policies on sexual orientation to its local organizations, a spokesman said on Monday.

Lifting the ban would mark a dramatic reversal for the 103-year-old organization, which only last summer reaffirmed its policy amid heavy criticism from gay rights groups and some parents of scouts.

The organization’s national executive board is expected to discuss lifting the ban on gay members at its regularly scheduled board meeting next week in Texas.

Ok, that’s a step.  In terms of equality, you’re edging closer to the 21st century (which, itself, is starting to pick up steam even further into progressive land).  But remember, you should be trying to play catch up, not just trying to keep pace.

Here’s what bugs me.

“The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue,” spokesman Deron Smith said in an email to Reuters.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United Methodist Church and the Catholic Church have the largest youth membership in the Boy Scouts among faith-based organizations.

The organization, which had more than 2.6 million youth members and more than 1 million adult members at the end of 2012, “would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents,” Smith said.

Look, you clearly have no problem with dictating a position.  That’s exactly what you’ve been doing the last 103 years by saying no gays would be allowed.  This means that if local chapters of scouts choose to discriminate, you’re ok with it.  And, since the scouts are contaminate with Christianity, you can bet that the love of Jesus will manifest itself in exactly the type of discrimination that the scouts have supported this entire time.

It’s time to dictate a position, and that position needs to be that gays are welcome, and that there is no reason to keep them out, not “we support the local chapters if they choose to discriminate.”  Just as you dictated a position to parents that if their kid was gay, they’d have to stay at home to learn the value of equality, you need to make another decree to parents: that if they want their child to learn that normal Americans are second class citizens because of who they love, they’ll need to learn those values at home.  As it stands, the national office of the scouts is saying it’s ok if discrimination happens at the local level, but now they can wash their hands of it because it’s not them dictating it.  Presumably, they can then also wash their hands of all the criticism they’ve been receiving for it for the last few years.

Well, you can’t wash your hands of it.  Turning your head to injustice isn’t good enough.  If you’re allowing discrimination to happen with your consent, you’re not looking out for LGBT kids, you’re looking out for your image – and doing a crappy job of it at that.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • iknklast

    They also aren’t moving a bit on their policy against atheists. They say that duty to God is one of their core principles, so you still have to profess a belief in an appropriate deity.

  • Glodson

    I think it is accurate to say that this is a step in the right direction but still not enough. It will spell problems for a number of people in the organization. It means that if a family with a gay Scout move into an area that doesn’t allow for gay Scouts, he’ll be left out. Or if the Scout has gay parents who used to take part in a more accepting area.

    And that isn’t even talking about the gay Scouts who can’t come out for fear of missing out on Scouting, because of bronze age morality. Or the parents who want to take part in that part of their child’s life but can’t because of who they love. It is a move to save face that will allow for more gay people, both children and gay parents, to take part. For that, it is good. But it has too many problems. And it will lead to other problems at gatherings as backwards people still teach exclusion will be confronted with the gay people they are discriminating against. It might be a chance for bigots to see homosexuality humanized directly. But I wouldn’t count on that.

    This a reason I’m glad I have a little girl. The Girl Scouts are years ahead of the Boy Scouts.

  • invivoMark

    Things will change. It’s unrealistic to expect a complete about-face on something they’ve been so very adamant about. Give it time. I’d say no more than 5 years before they change their policy again.

    I mean, consider: more and more states are allowing gays to tie the knot, which means more and more gays are going to want to earn a knot tying badge!

    • penn

      What do you even mean by “Give it time”? Do you mean we shouldn’t criticize their policy because they obviously need to promote bigotry for a least a few more years to save face? How long should we be patient while children are discriminated against for who they or their parents are? Sorry for all the questions, but I just don’t see how criticism of a clearly unjust and immoral policy should be put on hold so these people can save face. That criticism is the only thing that will pressure them to change.

      • invivoMark

        Of course not.

        Respect BSA for their policy decision. Let them know that it was the correct move, because it WAS the correct move. And then keep up the pressure and keep refusing to support them until they change their policy again.

        This is an unambiguous victory, and we should be impressed with BSA. That doesn’t mean we have to give up on moving any further. It isn’t an either-or proposition.

  • Brad1990

    “Presumably, they can then also wash their hands of all the criticism they’ve been receiving for it for the last few years.”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head there, since that’s quite clearly the point of this. This isn’t a declaration that they’ve thought long and hard and decided it’s wrong to discriminate… this is them trusting their local troops to continue the discrimination in such a way that the BSA as an organisation can’t catch any flack for it. *spits*

    • Anonymous

      I agree. The change in policy is purely superficial, to appease the businesses and organizations which have threatened to stop supporting the BSA if it didn’t change its policy. So what do they do? They change it from a top-level-down “No gays” policy, to a “We don’t discriminate, at the top level, but don’t have a problem with discrimination, or discourage it in any way, if our members want to continue to discriminate at the regional or local level” policy. The end result, in most of the country, is that this is purely PR, a change in name, but not in practice.

  • http://www.tw1tt3r.com Anthony Magnabosco

    Very well-written, JT. You are correct: the BSA should clearly state that ALL chapters should allow homosexuals to join. While they are at, they should also include atheists. You can actually call the BSA and weigh in on their policy vote by calling 972-580-2000. When I urged them to also include atheists, they said the poll was about this one issue (the man I spoke with did not even say the word ‘gay’), but I reiterated that they should also consider non-believers.

  • Al DelG

    From Glodson: “This a reason I’m glad I have a little girl. The Girl Scouts are years ahead of the Boy Scouts”

    Actually the Girl Scouts position is that they take no stand on issues of gender identity or sexuality. They have not adopted a “no discrimination” policy.

    Official GSA Statement: “As a private organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. respects the values and beliefs of each of its members and does not intrude into personal matters. Therefore, there are no membership policies on sexual preference. However, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has firm standards relating to the appropriate conduct of adult volunteers and staff. The Girl Scout organization does not condone or permit sexual displays of any sort by its members during Girl Scout activities, nor does it permit the advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual preference. These are private matters for girls and their families to address”.

    GSUSA upholds a “don’t ask, don’t evangelize” policy on sexuality. Since I fail to see how this is effectively different from the position BSA is considering adopting, its difficult to understand why GSA is not being criticized the same way.

    • Glodson

      Considering that the Boy Scouts outright ban any gay people, as Scouts or volunteers, and actively force religion down the throats of people, I would say there’s a stark difference. I know that a Girl Scout troop admitted a transgender child last year.(I made a mistake earlier, I could have sworn the child was older, but well, that’s the mistake.)

      “The Girl Scout organization does not condone or permit sexual displays of any sort by its members during Girl Scout activities, nor does it permit the advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual preference. These are private matters for girls and their families to address.”

      This seems to be a good standard for any group involving teens. This is a hard time in their lives, even for a heterosexual teen, there’s feelings emerging. The point of any activity is to just enjoy your time with peers as you learn some stuff. This just sets that out, as such, if a girl sneaks off with a boy(or girl), this is just grounds for some discipline. Seems more like an issue of liability. The second part, well, what lifestyle do you believe would be promoted? Homosexuality or heterosexuality? We know that a certain number of religions push the idea that one of those two is horrible and sinful. This sounds more like an effort to prevent people form shaming a gay scout and to keep the sex out of the scouting sphere.

      Just look at this. I found this while looking up stuff on this. Madeline got one of their highest honors for promoting LGBT issues. In 2007.

      For some humor, there’s this. Ah, it is so sad I have to laugh. Can’t say how accurate it is, but still, worth a look just to see who the Girl Scouts piss off.

      Here’s the article for the transgender child admitted, which kicked off a shitstorm of stupidity.

      And I got this quote from here: “The GSA, on the other hand, allows girls to pledge “to serve God” or Buddha or Allah or no one at all. Though the official Scout oath includes the word God, a Girl Scout can substitute another word that fits her spiritual beliefs.”

      By having a policy that doesn’t allow discrimination by sexuality or religion on a national level, and being open to allowing a transgender girl from taking part, the Girl Scouts are substantively different in the policy they are seeking to adopt. I don’t ask that groups promote homosexuality. They should accept homosexuals as equals, and let them be free to be themselves in a space that is not filled with pressure to conform by a volunteer taking a stance on sexuality. This is an issue for the children, in the end. They should be free to be who they are. The Boy Scout proposal, and remember they are only considering this change, is a dodge in a manner. They are leaving it up to the local groups to set their policy.

      And how many do you think will be inclusive? I have little hope. And they still won’t let a Boy Scout be openly atheist. This is not minor difference.

      • Andrew Kohler

        Those 100 questions for the Girl Scouts organization are priceless. I like all the “Do parents know this” questions, especially as they precede things which could be found out pretty easily if the parents cared enough about the matter. I also love the question about whether the gay director who’s a LGBT rights activists shapes the organization’s LGBT policies. Hmmmm, I wonder! And perhaps even better: “Does GSUSA have anyone in their leadership who is prominent in promoting marriage between a man and a woman?” Yes, because heterosexual marriage must be promoted; it’s not like it’s deeply entrenched in society and that it’s still considered the norm by most people, and that even many progressives still enter into it.

        “Why did a Catholic Bishop write a letter warning parents about the Girl Scouts association with ‘pro-choice, pro-contraception and reproductive freedom groups?’”

        Because he’s a twerp.

        “When establishing GSUSA’s new policy that instructs Girl Scout councils to allow boys who are presented by their families as girls to become Girl Scouts, did GSUSA consider the impact this may have on Girl Scouts who may be uncomfortable being required to pretend that a boy is a girl?”
        “Is GSUSA unaware that many health professionals believe that affirming a child as the opposite gender…can prevent children from getting needed treatment for a recognized psychological disorder called “Gender Identity Disorder?”

        Okay, these are just no longer humorous and just offensive. If a family just decided to present a child as a member of the opposite gender without the child having any say, it wouldn’t go over much better with progressives as it would with conservatives (only it would be for the right reasons with progressives). Note the refusal to admit that a transgender person can be anything other than the gender of his/her biological sex. Some people get so weird about gender; I just don’t get it.

    • Glodson

      Oh, and I want to apologize for missing this comment earlier. I zeroed in on the bigoted stupidity below and just missed this. It was a worthwhile post, one I am happy to respond to. Sorry for that delay.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        people like yourself denying and trivializing abuse, harassment, and exploitation by homosexuals and bisexuals in the BSA are very stupid bigots.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    What people need to realize is that liberals have normalized a variety of harmful views, concepts, and attitudes about sexuality, including homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, and spreading diseases with impunity, all of which have a disastrous effect on both young people and adults.

    Sexual assault, manipulation, and exploitation of young people are real problems in society, and there are a variety of homosexual and bisexual perpetrators of all ages, who would greatly welcome the opportunity to be in an organization where it would be easy for them to act out their predatory or exploitative sexual feelings.

    Liberals are gleefully throwing under the bus all the youths who will be sexually assaulted and molested by homosexuals in this future BSA. And there will be cover-ups, just like in the Catholic Church, and just like at Penn State, or just like in the cases of the myriad of homosexual/bisexual coaches and teachers who exploited or abused boys that have come to light, because society hasn’t changed much in this respect. Witness the comments around the net about the BSA. It’s all about the “gays” and not about the kids.

    What will happen when someone with a homosexuality agenda is told of a supposed incident involving a homosexual teen? They will say it’s all lies, all prejudice, it’s the people who make the accusations who are bad… And that, in the case the boy victim is courageous enough and supported enough to make accusations. Since people who sexually exploit and harass others usually target their victims based on vulnerability, many of the victims will not be in a position to fight back, especially from a psychological standpoint. Furthermore, in case it’s not obvious, that is letting a boy be abused by a homosexual to then say, “oh, how terrible” – but it’s the adults who set up the system to let it happen in the first place.

    It turns my stomach that this is what people with a homosexuality agenda want to inflict on innocent boys. At the same time, they would never let young men be the leaders for girls – and the reason is very simple: it’s a measure of protection for the girls.

    Can any person in society identify who the people who are currently abusing children are (hetero or not)? Can anyone identify who the homosexuals and bisexuals abusing children are? You can’t – they are closeted. And yet, you want to shove a number of these closeted homosexual abusers onto boys – including letting them have a lot of access to vulnerable boys. The people with a homosexuality agenda will gleefully play the part of Joe Paterno in the BSA. Deny that there is a problem of sexual harassment and abuse in society, deny that homosexuals and bisexuals of all ages do harm and violence in society.

    It’s not just the most serious kind of sexual assault that I’m talking about either. How about if a homosexual teen forces a kiss on another boy? “Oh, that’s just part of adolescence,” liberals will say. I’ve seen that happen when a homosexual man forced him onto a 18 yr old. “That’s just gays being gays – my son shouldn’t have gotten mad at the gay man who shoved his mouth on my boy” I was told by the mother of the 18 yr old. Or how about the real case of a homosexual scout leader who constantly said he and the boys needed to practice mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Is anyone going to police what’s happening with every single individual in the BSA? No. If society is incapable of preventing the most abhorrent abuses by homosexuals today (James Rennie, Frank Lombard, plus all the other victims who have tried to commit suicide) – what’s going to happen in the BSA? And as I said, it will then be too late. You cannot turn back the clock and prevent the boys in question from being molested, assaulted, and violated. But what do liberals care? They must force homosexuals and homosexuality as normal and if, among homosexuals, there are many who are perverse, tough luck. For the boys, that is. Because the people shoving the dysfunctional homosexuals onto the boys are very safe and very privileged.

    Juveniles account for more than one third of those known to police to have committed sex offenses to minors. It turns my stomach that a large swath of society are oblivious to the fact and will not protect boys. A homosexual agenda is a very destructive ideology indeed.

    • Brian Westley

      I’m surprised they have computers in the century you’re living in.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        In centuries past, child abuse was even more covered up than today. The only reason there has been some progress is because of people like me. If the world depended on liberals like you, there would be no awareness and no progress. Obviously, assault and harassment of boys is not something that bothers people without a conscience, like yourself.

        • Azkyroth

          Liberals have consistently been the ones fighting to outlaw child abuse and enforce the laws made against it. Remove head from sphincter, then post.

          • Glodson

            Check the blog attached to the name. You’re going to need the jaws of life to remove that head from the sphincter.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Liberals have been consistently abusing children, including homosexuals sexually torturing babies and toddlers -like James Rennie and Frank Lombard. Remove head from sphincter, then post.
            You’re just a pile of abuse enablers – and now you want to have boy scouts abused with impunity.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Glodson, only a pile of turd says “You’re going to need the jaws of life to remove that head from the sphincter.” You’re incapable of saying anything worthwhile on here, thus the insult.

          • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

            Alessandra, you’re wrong. Oh, so fractally wrong. Communication requires a basic framework for understanding that we call “language”, in which words are units of meaning with an agreed-upon definition. To you, “liberal” means “abuse enabler” and “homosexual” means “molester”. How can we have meaningful dialog if you are using different definitions of the terms you are talking about? Looked in a dictionary lately? It’s not “Liberal: (noun) – A mustache-twirling cartoon villain”.

            You make about as much sense as someone who thinks all ice-cream sellers are Nazis, because otherwise they wouldn’t be called ice-cream sellers, would they? Because ice-cream seller means Nazi! And when those ice-cream sellers tell you they’re not Nazis, they’re obviously lying which is just more proof of their evil ice-cream seller Nazi ways!

            Anyway, have fun tilting at your liberal windmills. You’re not so much setting up a straw man argument as speaking an entire straw language.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Zinc – To you, “liberal” means “abuse enabler” and “homosexual” means “molester”
            ===============
            Liberals (including the bulk of LGBT people) are setting up vulnerable boys to be sexually exploited and abused in the boy scouts. So, yes, they are enabling this to happen.
            And, no, homosexual to me does not mean molester. I’m just not lying about the fact that the majority of sexual abuse and exploitation that happens to tweens and adolescent boys is perpetrated by homosexuals and bisexuals. Can you see how you distorted my views or is that asking you to display a level of honesty that you do not posses?

          • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

            This is not a matter of honesty, this is a matter of communication and frankly you’ve made a lot of quite disgusting claims and accusations which I’m pretty sure most here consider to be factually wrong.

            And I’m not lying about the fact that 80% of ice-cream sellers are Nazis. Of course, I don’t have any citations or literature or anything but a few anecdotes to back up my claim, so I don’t blame you if you don’t believe my claim. However I find your claim equally hard to believe if you’re not going to bother backing up your claim with, you know, facts.

            How about this one? Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

            “Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.”

            Which is to say, homosexuals who are not pedophiles… Aren’t pedophiles. Just like heterosexuals who are not pedophiles are not pedophiles. The two categories can overlap, but they are not the same. Non-pedophiles are no risk to boy scouts. Nobody wants to give pedophiles unfettered access to little boys. That’s the straw man you’re tilting at, and it doesn’t resemble any position I’ve seen advanced here by either our host, his contributors, or regular commenters.

            If you wish to continue this discussion, address my citation and/or provide one of your own which supports your viewpoint.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Zinc – How about this one? Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117. “Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.”
            ========================
            What’s the age of these men? How many men were queried? How many are bisexual? How do they know who is what? What kind of “response” are they talking about? How many of these men have done something harmful in terms of sexuality to a tween or boy? Can you identify what it is? What’s the proof?
            ======================
            “Nobody wants to give pedophiles unfettered access to little boys. ”
            It’s exactly what you are doing. more of your disgusting lying and denials. You can’t identify who has a perverted sexuality, you have normalized a host of dysfunctional sexual attitudes and behaviors, including homosexuality, and you want to shove this harm on vulnerable boys. Just because you are not the one going to be assaulted. Disgusting.

          • Joe

            “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”

            Prove it. Do you have statistics showing that people with liberal tendencies tend to be more likely to abuse children? Or examples of legislation proposed by liberal polititians that make it easier to abuse children? Because if you don’t, you are just talking out of your arse.

          • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

            And now we get to the meat of the matter. You consider homosexuality to be a perversion, and you consider it to be a dysfunctional sexual attitude. And all “perversions” are the same to you, right? That means you lump it in with pedophilia.

            And once more, we reach the point where I point out that you’re using the term “homosexual” to include “pedophile”. Which is like using the term “ice-cream seller” to include “Nazi”. Some homosexuals are pedophiles, and they should not be allowed access to little boys. Some heterosexuals are pedophiles and should not be allowed access to little girls. Some ice-cream sellers are Nazis, and they should probably not talk about their political views as long as they serve fresh, tasty ice-cream to anyone who wants to buy it. Mmm, ice-cream.

            But I digress (ice-cream has that effect on me). There were 278 subjects, a mix of self-declared hetero- and homosexual orientations. There were none explicitly identified as bisexual in the study. There was also a cohort of 80 known (convicted) child sex offenders. They measured physiological arousal on being shown pictures of various people, including underage children. The results were that the homosexual cohort was no more aroused by children than the heterosexual cohort were, whereas the child sex offenders were aroused.

            “Yeah? Well nuh-uh they are too pedophiles!” isn’t a rebuttal. You can chime in any time with citations that support your claims. In the mean time, I’m going to get some ice cream. You can stew in your irrational hatred while I enjoy some salted caramel truffle ice cream fresh from the freezer.

          • Joe

            “What’s the age of these men? How many men were queried? How many are bisexual? How do they know who is what? What kind of “response” are they talking about? How many of these men have done something harmful in terms of sexuality to a tween or boy? Can you identify what it is? What’s the proof?”

            Here’s a crazy idea: you could try reading the thing. It does actually answer many of these questions (it’s midnight here, so I’ve only skimmed the paper, but it certainly gives mean ages, numbers of participants, describes the response used, etc)

            “It’s exactly what you are doing. more of your disgusting lying and denials. You can’t identify who has a perverted sexuality, you have normalized a host of dysfunctional sexual attitudes and behaviors, including homosexuality, and you want to shove this harm on vulnerable boys. Just because you are not the one going to be assaulted. Disgusting.”

            No, we aren’t. You’re making an entirely unjustified (and refuted by evidence – see Zinc Avengers’ reference) claim. The APA hasn’t identified homosexuality as a mental disorder for quite a long time, stating that “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.” They also argue against the claim that homosexual people tend to be pedophiles (“Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances,” from the same website). Unless you can support your claim that homosexuality is a dysfunctional sexual attitude and that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts will increase the rate of sexual abuse, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”
            Prove it. Do you have statistics showing that people with liberal tendencies tend to be more likely to abuse children?
            ======================
            1) “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”
            2) Liberals are more likely to abuse children

            1 is different than 2. I said 1; you said 2. Learn to read first.

            Now back to the Boy Scouts. Homosexuals and bisexuals are the majority of abuse, harassment, and trafficking perpetrators of tweens and adolescent boys – and since most of them are liberals, regarding tween and male adolescents, yes, it’s likely that the majority of perpetrators are liberals.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            The APA hasn’t identified homosexuality as a mental disorder for quite a long time, stating that “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”
            =================
            The APA is probably the most ignorant organization regarding homosexuality. They are incapable of explaining its causes, they are incapable of treating people with a homosexuality problem. Other professionals and organizations are not ( like NARTH). Are you aware that the APA tried to normalize pedophilia? It was NARTH that stopped them. No wonder you have blind faith in everything they say.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            And now we get to the meat of the matter. You consider homosexuality to be a perversion, and you consider it to be a dysfunctional sexual attitude. And all “perversions” are the same to you, right? That means you lump it in with pedophilia.
            ====================
            Homosexuality is dysfunctional, disoriented, and perverted. But not all perversions are the same to me. So wrong. It does not mean I equate everything to pedophilia. Now we got to the heart of your strawman.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            There were 278 subjects, a mix of self-declared hetero- and homosexual orientations. There were none explicitly identified as bisexual in the study. There was also a cohort of 80 known (convicted) child sex offenders.
            ======================
            (So does this mean there are no bisexuals in reality or that this study is not representative of reality?) A cohort of 80 offenders – who had abused whom exactly? Why did they abuse? If they had been in the Boy Scouts, would they have abused their victims? I would think your study ties in to what I am saying. Are you trying to say that this study proves that homosexuals and bisexuals don’t ever abuse, exploit, harass, and traffic adolescent boys? You failed on all counts. Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual offenders aren’t even charged, much less convicted? Can you tell me which homosexuals or bisexuals are going to abuse or harass any boys tomorrow or on Monday or on Tuesday? You can’t. Can you tell me who is engaging a cover-up of abuse? You can’t. That’s who you are going to shove in the Boy Scouts, along with dysfunctional adults. And after a bunch of boys are molested and exploited and violated by homosexuals and bisexuals, you are going to turn around and say, “but heterosexuals abuse girls, so it’s OK if homosexuals abuse boys – they are just like heterosexuals, see, homosexuals are so normal.” Your homosexual agenda is one trash of an ideology.

          • Joe

            1) “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”
            2) Liberals are more likely to abuse children

            1 is different than 2. I said 1; you said 2. Learn to read first.

            Well, then what are you saying? Because 1 reads like you are claiming that liberals have been systematically working to abuse children. If that is what you are claiming, then you really ned to provide evidence to back it up.

            Homosexuality is dysfunctional, disoriented, and perverted.

            The mainstream scientific consensus disagrees with you. Once again, I ask you to provide evidence to support your views.

            Are you trying to say that this study proves that homosexuals and bisexuals don’t ever abuse, exploit, harass, and traffic adolescent boys?

            I’m pretty sure that no-one is trying to argue that.

            “but heterosexuals abuse girls, so it’s OK if homosexuals abuse boys – they are just like heterosexuals, see, homosexuals are so normal.”

            Nobody is arguing that, either. Have you not seen the outrage at the Catholic church sexual assaults here? We are very much against child abuse.

          • Andrew Kohler

            Oh dear, Joe, you’re asking for evidence. That doesn’t go over very well with her way of thinking (namely, that it’s not the people making claims to adduce their evidence; it’s the audience’s to go find it themselves).

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “Liberals have consistently been the ones fighting to outlaw child abuse and enforce the laws made against it.”

            Alessandra replied: “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”

            Joe asked: Well, then what are you saying? Because 1 reads like you are claiming that liberals have been systematically working to abuse children.
            ====================
            Liberals have been systematically abusing children, both male and female, at the same time that some liberals (joined by some social conservatives) passed laws to outlaw child abuse and tried to better enforce the laws. Given that liberals are a pretty large group of people, they include millions who abuse, harass, rape, exploit, pimp, and murder and, at the same time, some of them pass laws. Passing these laws does not change a lot of violence that happens in society.
            And that also means that the group of liberals who is effectively abusing or violating kids does “work to abuse kids.” These are the people who are going to have power in the BSA against boys.
            There are millions of liberals that have a homosexuality agenda that batter, assault, sexually harass and exploit, they spread serious STD epidemics, they promote the dehumanization and degradation of sex, etc.

        • Loqi

          I didn’t realize the Catholic Church was so full of liberals.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            80% of the abusers in the CC scandal were men with a homosexual problem. It’s hard to say which ones were the most vile, but certainly Paul Shanley was one – and he certainly thought and promoted homosexuality, promiscuity, and abuse of vulnerable boys as normal. See? priest homosexual activist and abuser. In the hierarchy, it was a mix of homosexuals and heterosexuals doing the cover ups. Now you know.

          • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

            Selection bias. The Catholic Church is a known pedophile enabler institution that only admits men to the clergy. The Catholic clergy is in no way a representative sample of any demographic.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Zinc said: “Selection bias. The Catholic Church is a known pedophile enabler institution that only admits men to the clergy. The Catholic clergy is in no way a representative sample of any demographic.”
            They are representative of an all male institution crawling with homosexuals. Which is what you want to turn the Boy Scouts into. They are very representative of how corrupt institutions where homosexuals have power are like.

          • Kodie

            The Catholic Church priesthood only admits men who are required not to engage in sexual relations with anyone. For the anti-homosexual bigotry you possess, you seem to consider the priests’ homosexuality and not their perverse suppression of human sexuality altogether as the culprit. It is in no way a good comparison to Boy Scouts or any other group. Men who are not restrained from having sex with another adult of their choosing are not under the same conditions. Voluntary asexuality, which is what bigots require of homosexuals (or to closet themselves as heterosexuals) – well what do you want it to be? Do you want them to have gay sex with other men as they naturally would, hurting nobody, or do you want to suppress their sexuality to join your club. You can’t keep trapping yourself like this, nobody is that stupid.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            The Catholic Church priesthood only admits men who are required not to engage in sexual relations with anyone. For the anti-homosexual bigotry you possess, you seem to consider the priests’ homosexuality and not their perverse suppression of human sexuality altogether as the culprit.
            ==================
            Yeah, I don’t think the suppression is the culprit for sexual abuse of adolescent males by priests with a homosexual problem. Take Father Paul Shanley, homosexual activist priest and sexual abuser. The more he “liberated himself” and claimed there was nothing wrong with his homosexuality, the more he abused. That’s what we see happening is society today. Liberals are normalizing everything that degrades sexuality and relationships.
            I don’t endorse the CC’s celibacy model. It does attracts a lot of perverted homosexuals and other hypocrites- who are not celibate- although I don’t think every priest has a deformed sexual psychology. People with a homosexual problem need to investigate why they developed the problem and resolve it.
            Everyone is born heterosexual, so you have an empty claim there that there is anything in-born about homosexuality. What homosexuals are doing is simply acting out their dysfunctional sexuality, which may even feel “natural” to them. By that measure, acting out pedophilia for a pedophile feels “natural” to them, etc. What feels natural for a person with a mountain of psychological problems is their dysfunction. That doesn’t mean it is natural.

          • Kodie

            You keep saying the same thing as if that will make it true. You’re a fear-monger and nothing else. For one, you assert that liberals WANT children to be sexually abused. So it’s ok for you to be a liar but not ok for anyone to call you out?

    • Glodson

      Normally, I try to engage people and all that.

      But I’m not feeling so charitable today. You are a fucking moron.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Only a pile of turd calls other people a “fucking moron” in a forum. You’re incapable of saying anything worthwhile on here, thus the insult.

        • Glodson

          Yea, that’s it. Good call, bigot.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Yea, it was a good call, bigot.

    • Andrew Kohler

      1. Please demonstrate that homosexuality is linked with perpetrating sex crimes any more than heterosexuality; this is your implication throughout.
      2. Please explain why your post is concerned exclusively with abuse perpetrated by males against other males: what about males against females? Or females against males, or females against females?
      3. Please provide a citation for your claim that over one third of sex criminals are juveniles.
      4. Your claim about closeted people infiltrating the organization is wholly irrelevant to this question of policy. Successfully closeted people can infiltrate an organization *regardless* of whether or not they are allowed, because they are concealing the characteristic in question. The policy is concerned with allowing people who are OPENLY gay or bisexual.
      5. It is hard for me to believe that anyone said “Gays will be gays,” but if that is the case then that person has a deplorable lack of respect for gay people, and horribly misplaced priorities. If a man/teenage boy forces a kiss on another man/teenage boy, that’s sexual assault. It should not be tolerated, whether it’s male-male, male-female, female-male, or female-female. I have not heard any gay rights activist claim that sexual harassment and sexual assault should be tolerated. Such a person would be shunned within the LGBT movement, and rightly so.
      6. “…they would never let young men be the leaders for girls – and the reason is very simple: it’s a measure of protection for the girls.” I partially take back what I said in #2: apparently you also think that heterosexual men are incapable of self-control.
      7. Since when was it liberals who covered up the sexual assault of children in the Catholic Church or at Penn State? The Catholic Church is not exactly known for liberalism. I never heard anything about the political positions of the people involved in the Penn State atrocities, nor do I think it is relevant. And I think you’ll find most liberal atheists are calling for the Vatican to be held accountable for its horrendous and disgraceful cover ups.
      8. “Sexual assault, manipulation, and exploitation of young people are real problems in society….” Who ever said these aren’t real problems?
      9. “…there are a variety of homosexual and bisexual perpetrators of all ages…” No one has denied that criminals come in all different sexual orientations (aside from those who seem to think that heterosexuals never commit such crimes). And yes, they come in many different ages, but not quite *all* (I’ve not heard of a four-year-old rapist).
      10. “Is anyone going to police what’s happening with every single individual in the BSA?” Such a thing is not possible. But, there are precautions: background checks, having at least two adults present at all functions, et cetera. And it’s not like kids will be in any greater danger with the new policy, aside from the danger of being less inclined to grow up ignorant and intolerant.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        “1. Please demonstrate that homosexuality is linked with perpetrating sex crimes any more than heterosexuality; this is your implication throughout.”
        No, that’s your red herring. What has been demonstrated by studies is that tweens and adolescent males victims of sexual abuse, exploitation, and trafficking have a majority of homosexual and bisexual abusers. These are the people you want to have access to vulnerable boys in the boys scouts. Women with a homosexual problem do not abuse adolescent males in the same numbers as men with a homosexual problem do. Heterosexual men do not abuse adolescent males in the same numbers as men with a homosexual problem do. The greatest sexual offenders, abusers, and exploiters of adolescent males are juveniles or men with a homosexual or bisexual problem. The type of men who mostly sexually abuse adolescent boys in trafficking are homosexuals or bisexuals.

        2. “Please explain why your post is concerned exclusively with abuse perpetrated by males against other males: what about males against females? ”
        It is the BOY scouts we’re talking about here. Did you know that there is a difference between boys and girls?
        3. Citations are looked up. Post all the information you can find on the issue here if you aren’t in kindergarten.
        4. “Your claim about closeted people infiltrating the organization is wholly irrelevant to this question of policy. Successfully closeted people can infiltrate an organization *regardless* of whether or not they are allowed, because they are concealing the characteristic in question. The policy is concerned with allowing people who are OPENLY gay or bisexual.”
        It’s much harder to infiltrate an organization that practices a moral view of sexuality if you have a dysfunctional and perverted homosexual problem. And you are not allowed to have power over boys.
        People who normalize homosexuality normalize a host of destructive attitudes and behaviors about sex, including dismissing and covering up a variety of abusive behaviors. That’s what’s going to happen in the Boy Scouts from now on.
        5. “Such a person would be shunned within the LGBT movement, and rightly so.”
        You’re quite wrong because I know the woman and her line is how much she loves the “gays” and she hasn’t been shunned anywhere. These people are welcomed by liberals and by the LGBT community. It’s the people who highlight how much abuse and violence that homosexuals do in the world that liberals shun.
        6. “…they would never let young men be the leaders for girls – and the reason is very simple: it’s a measure of protection for the girls.” I partially take back what I said in #2: apparently you also think that heterosexual men are incapable of self-control.
        “Apparently” because I’m not lying about the number of victims of sexual abuse, exploitation, and trafficking like you are so fond of doing – especially if the perpetrator is a homosexual or bisexual. Almost half of all sexual assault victims are under 18 yrs old. That’s the age range of the boy scouts. Approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted – thanks to people trivializing the issue like you do. Abusers do not lack self control, they have a perverted attitude and psychology, which they act on, and they know that people like you will help them with your lies and denials.
        7. Since when was it liberals who covered up the sexual assault of children in the Catholic Church or at Penn State?
        Penn State: it was a mix – the individuals closer to Sandusky were outwardly conservative, the university president was liberal, several of the police, university board, etc. we don’t know. The Catholic Church: 80% of abusers were men with a homosexual problem – and in the hierarchy there were both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals doing the cover up. In the public school system and sports system, many of the abusers and offenders of tweens and boys are liberal and have a homosexuality problem.
        Liberals like to lie about abuse of boys by homosexuals and bisexuals just like Joe Paterno did about Sandusky.
        8. “Sexual assault, manipulation, and exploitation of young people are real problems in society….” Who ever said these aren’t real problems?
        The people shoving homosexuals and bisexuals as normal in the boy scouts.
        9. “…there are a variety of homosexual and bisexual perpetrators of all ages…” No one has denied that criminals come in all different sexual orientations (aside from those who seem to think that heterosexuals never commit such crimes).
        A lot of people do. The most common lie today is that homosexuality has nothing to do with “pedophilia,” that homosexuals never abuse, etc. Yet the majority of sexual perpetrators of tweens and adolescents are men with a homosexual or bisexual problem. I’ve never met a person who thinks heterosexuals don’t abuse. The only people who go around saying homosexuals are never pedophiles are those who think homosexuality is normal.
        10. “Is anyone going to police what’s happening with every single individual in the BSA?” Such a thing is not possible. But, there are precautions: background checks, having at least two adults present at all functions, et cetera. And it’s not like kids will be in any greater danger with the new policy, aside from the danger of being less inclined to grow up ignorant and intolerant.

        Adults are not present in many moments in many functions- another of your lies. Did having a background check stop any of the abuse in schools, by coaches, etc.? No, it didn’t. You’re just lying about reality of abusive situations.
        Who’s setting up the system so that boys are abused? People like you are – by saying there is safety in situations where it has been proven that abuse occurs.
        Between shoving harmful males with a homosexual problem onto vulnerable boys and adolescents and protecting these boys – which option do liberals choose? To have boys abused.
        What boys need to be taught is that they need to take up responsibility for any psychological problem they develop regarding sexuality, like homosexuality. They need to investigate it and they need to resolve it. It’s the only way they would grow up less ignorant, less dysfunctional, and less harmful.

        • Andrew Kohler

          Re: #1–The most you have proven is that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women; you have not proven that gay and bisexual men are any worse than their heterosexual counterparts. It seems to me that the solution, according to your line of reasoning, that the Boy Scouts should only allow lesbians to fill any adult positions.

          #2: Yes, I know that we are talking about abuse against boys because the potential victims here are all male. You must understand, however, that when you make claims about gay men being child rapists—a very old and pernicious canard–that people will ask you why you are singling out gay (and bisexual, btw nice of you to be inclusive) men.

          Re: #3–”Citations are looked up. Post all the information you can find on the issue here if you aren’t in kindergarten.”

          What the hell does that mean?! If you are making an argument, the onus is on you to provide the citations. I am writing a dissertation at present: how do you think my committee would like it if I included no footnotes and told them to look it up themselves? As it is, you are making some incredibly incendiary claims, and you should be able to back it up with more than your own word. Do not expect people to accept your claims with no more than your assurance, especially when what you are claiming runs contrary to actual studies. I refer you to Zinc Avenger’s citation, given above. As of this writing, you have not responded to his challenge.

          Re: #4–”It’s much harder to infiltrate an organization that practices a moral view of sexuality if you have a dysfunctional and perverted homosexual problem. ”

          What total nonsense. Then how do you explain the Catholic Church? That completely vitiates your claim. Actually, I take that back: the profoundly unhealthy attitude of the Vatican toward human sexuality (including its bigoted position on homosexuality) was certainly a factor in attracting repressed and sexually dysfunctional individuals (who, by the way, had plenty of female victims as well as male victims). Fortunately, I know many Catholic people who reject these teachings.

          Re #5: So, you’ve found a moron whom liberals and the LGBT community has not chastised (demonstrating that either she doesn’t say it all that often or she hangs around people who are not the most perspicacious). I perhaps wasn’t clear: I meant find a community leader who would make such a statement and still be embraced by the entire community.

          Re #6: I make the concession that abusers, for the most part, do not simply lack self control. But I still would find it absurd to say that men can never be put in charge of a group of girls, as you originally suggested.

          “In the public school system and sports system, many of the abusers and offenders of tweens and boys are liberal and have a homosexuality problem.”

          WHERE are you getting that sex offenders are more likely to be liberal? What POSSIBLE evidence can you have that political views have any correlation with likeliness to commit an act of sexual assault!?!? This is not evidence, it is an outlandish assertion and, once again, you can’t possibly expect people to take your word for it. At least tell us what we should Google (“sex offender political views” and “sex offender liberal” didn’t yield much, aside from some moron making the same claim on Yahoo Answers and being duly condemned for it).

          Re: #8. The people shoving homosexuals and bisexuals as normal in the boy scouts. [i.e. are saying sexual assault isn't a problem in the world]

          Okay, you are REALLY going to need to provide some citations now for who says that gay people are *incapable* of committing sex crimes, or how gay rights activists trivialize sexual assault. Seriously. And again, provide us please with more than anecdotes: if this is as pervasive a problem as you suggest, you should be able to find statements by Barney Frank or the Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD, etc.

          “Adults are not present in many moments in many functions- another of your lies. Did having a background check stop any of the abuse in schools, by coaches, etc.? No, it didn’t. You’re just lying about reality of abusive situations.”

          Read what I said–I did NOT claim that adults were present all the time, I proposed having at least two adults at all times as a possible solution!!! And I’ll add here that I concede that even this is not guaranteed to work, sadly. And I never said that background checks are a guarantee, either, but rather one tool in keeping out dangerous people. And, might I add, a far better one than having a “no gays” policy (which you seem to think is a magic bullet). Your gratuitous accusations of lying betray paranoia.

          Now, moving on from all these specific complaints: How DARE you accuse me, others on this forum, liberals on the whole, and the LGBT community of enabling sexual abuse!?!? It is you who are trivializing the very serious and horrific problem of sexual victimization of children (or, for that matter, sexual assault against anyone of any age) by acting like the problem is with the gays. Instead of looking for a serious solution to a serious problem, you have found a scapegoat. And then, when we tell you that you are dressing up your bigotry as concern for children, and that your completely inaccurate portrayal of the situation and your risible redefinition of words —you tell US that we don’t care about victims of sexual assault! WHAT have I said that justifies this vile accusation!? Just look up what we secular liberals have to say about people like Cardinal Bernard Law and others who have enabled serial child rapists. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have been particularly, and rightly, scathing. (That was a citation.)

          To continue with Zinc Avenger’s analogy, what’s happened here is the following: You’ve said 80% of ice-cream sellers are Nazis. We’ve said, how dare you make such a calumnious remark? You then say we are enabling Nazis. We are doing nothing of the kind: you are letting the real Nazi problem go unattended while you persecute a group of people who are largely innocent, all the while accusing people who call you out for your bigotry Nazi enablers. Sure, you’ll catch some guilty ones as well through such a method, but not as many as if you took a serious approach.

          So in short, instead of advocating for the children who desperately need our help, you use them as a vehicle for your hatred, paranoia, and bigotry. You then accuse others of not caring about victims of sexual assault, whom you actually have done nothing to help, because we’re not willing to suspend our rationality, compassion, and fairness just because somewhat shouts child abuse, not least because we actually take child abuse seriously, unlike you.

          You are also operating under the vile assumption that homosexuality is a disorder; the American Psychological Association rejected this deleterious idea forty years ago (embarrassingly late, actually) and has only a few kooks have been challenging it in the meantime. Your statement that young men need take responsibility for their homosexuality or homosexual attraction (I’ve read your blog and know about your absurd distinction) seems to me an endorsement of egregiously harmful practices like reparative therapy. If you want to make people dysfunctional, by all means encourage things like this!

          So yes, we do deny that homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality have anything to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is wholly separate from sexual orientation, and a pedophile can have a homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual orientation. I actually disbelieve your claim that people deny that a gay man is capable of abusing child: I have worked in the field of gay rights and never heard such a thing, and I repeat my claim that anyone who actually made such a fatuous remark would be chided (probably not shunned right away, but if the problem persisted then maybe). The claim I make, and have heard others make, is that there is no causal link between being gay and being a pedophile, as you impute. (See Penn and Teller’s Bullshit episode on the BSA, for example–see? That’s also a citation!) This is exactly analogous to when we respond to racist claims that black men are all criminals: no one is saying that there are no black criminals, but rather saying that being a black man does not equal being a criminal, and that treating all black men as criminals will result both in persecution of innocent people AND in distracting from the actual problems of crime. And yet in that situation, someone from your school of thought (that is, the way in which you think; I have no idea what your views are on racial issues) would say that we are being soft on crime by calling out racism.

          I have looked at two of your blog posts and find them filled with even more dramatic examples of bigotry and venom than you have displayed here. To echo Matt Dillahunty: I am not taking all this time to respond to you because I think I have a change of changing your mind (you’re far too far gone, sadly), but in the hopes that other people may find this and know to distrust the false linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality. And, because statements such as yours simply cannot be let to stand.

          • Andrew Kohler

            P.S. I see you have responded to Zinc now. But, the response is wholly inadequate, and just more of your assertions that homosexuality is intrinsically harmful. So, it does not change the substance of anything I have said.

          • Andrew Kohler

            P.P.S. I should not have used the phrase “because someone shouts child abuse,” which implies that someone has made a false accusation. What I meant, and should have said: Here we have someone screaming about child abuse, assuming that the very mention of this evil will make everyone afraid to challenge anything she says and that it has given her a trump card for the moral high ground. As best as I can tell. We are not fooled by this: just professing you are on the side of child victims does not mean that you really are.

            Also, caught a damn abortive sentence, which should be: “… and that your completely inaccurate portrayal of the situation and your risible redefinition of words by no means constitute a real argument…”

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Andrew Kohler says: Re: #1–The most you have proven is that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women; you have not proven that gay and bisexual men are any worse than their heterosexual counterparts. It seems to me that the solution, according to your line of reasoning, that the Boy Scouts should only allow lesbians to fill any adult positions.
            ====================
            Why should women who are too psychologically dysfunctional to establish a healthy relationship with men be in the Boy Scouts?
            ” you have not proven that gay and bisexual men are any worse than their heterosexual counterparts.”
            Wrong. They are worse when it comes to victimizing tween and adolescent boys. You can lie to yourself all you want, it won’t change reality. Heterosexual men are worse in victimizing girls, and homosexual and bisexual males are worse in victimizing boys. It’s not the same.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Re: #3–”Citations are looked up. Post all the information you can find on the issue here if you aren’t in kindergarten.”

            What the hell does that mean?! If you are making an argument, the onus is on you to provide the citations.
            ===============
            This means that if you are still in kindergarten you won’t look the issue up and sit there crying like a baby. This is a forum frequented by disingenuous liberals who refuse to educate themselves on these topics. I have no onus here. You’re too narrow-minded to read information, the onus is on you to go read. If you don’t know what percentage of offenders are juveniles, the onus is on you to be less ignorant about the subject. If you are ever capable of anything but ignorance, post what you can find about juvenile offenders here. Right now, all you display is ignorance.
            ===============
            4) Then how do you explain the Catholic Church? That completely vitiates your claim. Actually, I take that back: the profoundly unhealthy attitude of the Vatican toward human sexuality (including its bigoted position on homosexuality) was certainly a factor in attracting repressed and sexually dysfunctional individuals (who, by the way, had plenty of female victims as well as male victims).
            ===============
            80% homosexual abusers is a lot more than 20% heterosexual abusers. The Vatican did a tremendous cover-up and that’s what you want to do. The church was an institution where perverted homosexuals could get plenty of access to vulnerable boys, and they could get away with what they did, because everybody would deny it. It’s what’s going to happen in the Boy Scouts. The church has a good position on homosexuality, but they are an institution of cover-ups. And the Boys Scouts already had similar issues in the past. The overwhelming majority of people who do anything wrong regarding sexuality are going to try to cover it up. And you will help them.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Re #5: So, you’ve found a moron whom liberals and the LGBT community has not chastised (demonstrating that either she doesn’t say it all that often or she hangs around people who are not the most perspicacious). I perhaps wasn’t clear: I meant find a community leader who would make such a statement and still be embraced by the entire community.
            ====================
            Oh really, because what would that prove? You mean if the Catholic Church and their leaders say they are against child abuse, there are no problems in the Church?
            Is it news to you that people always make pretty declarations in public, even when they are committing the grossest abuse? What I’d like to see is the LGBT community start exposing how much violence, abuse, and harassment they do in the world.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “But I still would find it absurd to say that men can never be put in charge of a group of girls, as you originally suggested.”

            I never said that men can never be put in charge of a group of girls. I said the reason that men are not allowed as leaders of the Girl Scouts is to protect girls from sexual abuse and exploitation. Learn the difference.
            ======================
            “In the public school system and sports system, many of the abusers and offenders of tweens and boys are liberal and have a homosexuality problem.”

            WHERE are you getting that sex offenders are more likely to be liberal? What POSSIBLE evidence can you have that political views have any correlation with likeliness to commit an act of sexual assault!?!?

            Because a lot of males who sexually exploit or abuse other males have normalized homosexuality, porn, and sex outside marriage. Who is more likely to force a kiss onto an adolescent male, a heterosexual who understands that homosexuality is dysfunctional or a homosexual male who thinks homosexuality is normal? Who is more likely to show homosexual porn to a boy – a heterosexual who understands that homosexuality is dysfunctional or a homosexual male who thinks homosexuality is normal? Who is more likely to groom a 15 yr old boy to perform oral sex on him – a heterosexual who understands that homosexuality is dysfunctional or a homosexual male who thinks homosexuality is normal?

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          How DARE you accuse me, others on this forum, liberals on the whole, and the LGBT community of enabling sexual abuse!?!?
          ===============
          That’s what you are doing and that’s what you are accountable for. How dare you spill a lot of ink full of your disgusting venom and stupidity, since your only objective is to destroy any protection from abuse and exploitation that vulnerable boys may have?

          “And, might I add, a far better one than having a “no gays” policy (which you seem to think is a magic bullet).”
          A “no gays” policy is the best thing there is. It’s not a magic bullet, but it deters a lot more abuse, harassment, and exploitation than a “shove the gays” policy.

          “It is you who are trivializing the very serious and horrific problem of sexual victimization of children (or, for that matter, sexual assault against anyone of any age) by acting like the problem is with the gays. ”
          homosexuals and bisexuals are a huge part of the problem of victimization of adolescent boys. I’m not trivializing anything, you are. You just keep accusing me of all your faults; but you’re the one who wants denial of abusive situations – and you are the one shamelessly trivializing the abuse of boys by homosexuals and bisexuals. I’m not doing any trivialization at all.

    • Nox

      When I see arguments as bad as Alessandra’s. I’d usually tell the person making them they are discrediting their own cause. Since the main causes Alessandra is fighting for (blind bigotry and not knowing what words mean) have already flushed their own credibility I can’t really say that here. Still, it’s kind of embarrassing to be the same species as someone who could write such a ridiculous string of non sequitors.

      “Homosexual”, “pedophile” and “liberal” are words that already exist. Those words already have meanings. They do not all mean the same thing. Your use of them suggests you don’t understand this.

      The homosexual agenda is for homosexual people to be able to simply live their lives without being punished for not adhering to the “standards” commanded by religious institutions (many of which are rampant abusers of children who seek to blame their own child abuse on homosexuals). That’s it. The entire homosexual agenda is equality. To have the same rights as everyone else. To have the same chance at a normal life. And to be free from having their neighbors throw rocks at them. How sinister.

      What you’re saying here has been said before. Those arguments have never been good. They have never held up to the slightest scrutiny. And we’re well aware of what their intended purpose is. You aren’t fooling anyone. These claims are still being made, not because there has ever been any reason to think they are true, but because christians will repeat any bullshit they hear without checking whether it’s true.

      For hundreds of years these people have had to deal with the same ignorant bullshit you are spewing here. Dishonest people who have no shame about making up things to accuse others of with no basis, have happily conflated consensual sex with child abuse, as part of a larger trend of dehumanizing gay people. Dishonest people like you made up the trope of gay people as sexual predators so you could feel justified in your inhuman treatment of them.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Dishonest people like you made up the trope of gay people as sexual predators so you could feel justified in your inhuman treatment of them.
        ===================
        Dishonest people like like to cover up and trivialize every single incident where a homosexual or bisexual abuses, harasses, or violates others – just so you can feel justified in your collusion with all the perpetrators, and allow them to have impunity, as well as promoting your destructive sexual ideology.

        The greatest number of violent acts against your little LGBT community, by a margin of millions, is perpetrated by LGBT people themselves, who call social conservatives “inhuman.” You’re just a pack of lies. Dishonest people like you want a cover-up for all the harm and destruction that liberals do in society. You want to do harm with total impunity.

        • Nox

          That isn’t something anyone here is defending. That is something you made up so you could claim the moral high ground while endorsing and demonstrating the most repugnant form of morality.

          A strawman only works on people who don’t know the difference. It is incredibly foolish of you to attempt to strawman people right to their face. Making up an obviously fictional caricature of liberals might seem convincing to you. It might even be convincing to an entirely conservative audience in church. But you are trying to convince people who actually know what “liberal” means that liberals are trying to promote child abuse. How can you possibly expect such a tactic to work. We already know the things you are saying aren’t true. We already knew that before you got here.

          Telling the people you are talking to that they are trying to defend child abuse (especially when no one here has) is not going to convince them they are trying to defend child abuse. It is just going to convince them that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and that you are willing to hurl accusations without any basis. Considering that the only justification you’ve provided for your main point is that we should take your willingness to hurl accusations as a credible source, I can’t see how you could possibly think this is helping your case.

          • Andrew Kohler

            “It is just going to convince them that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and that you are willing to hurl accusations without any basis.”

            Indeed; I am so convinced. I would be most interested to hear the evidence for this massive harm that the “little LGBT community” inflicts upon its own members. I also would be most interested to know about the liberal conspiracy to cover up bad things done by LGBT criminals. But, I know better than to ask.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I would be most interested to hear the evidence for this massive harm that the “little LGBT community” inflicts upon its own members.
            =================
            Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis in society, by a huge proportion of cases, because they have such deformed minds and think there is nothing wrong with it. They cause billions of health care costs to society, depriving others of much needed resources, like abused children, for example, aside from their criminal behavior for which liberals want total impunity.
            I see that you’re completely ignorant about interpersonal violence as well!
            Let’s clarify something. Homosexuals and bisexuals are the greatest perpetrators of intimate violence, including assault and battering, for the LGBT community. The numbers of violent LGBT people are staggering.

            Susan B. Sorenson & Kristie A. Thomas, The Evelyn Jacobs Ortner Center on Family Violence at the University of Pennsylvania – July 2009-

            IPV is more common among younger persons (under 40 years of age).
            The percentage of women who experience IPV in their lifetime is either equal to or higher for lesbian women than for heterosexual women.
            Rates of physical partner violence victimization are either equal to or higher among gay men than heterosexual men.

            Furthermore, other studies on relationship violence rates reported amongst lesbian and gay couples from 17% to 52%

            See for example, Waldner-Haugrud, Vaden Gratch &Magruder, 1997; Stahly &Lie, 1995; Lockhart, White, Causby &Isaac, 1994; Lie &Gentlewarrier, 1991).

            If you take a conservative estimate of the homosexual and bisexual population of the US, and you calculate just how many violent acts they commit against homosexuals and bisexuals, it’s in the millions. And that’s not including all the violence, harassment, and unwanted sexual advances that is perpetrated against heterosexuals, including minors.

            Christians, btw, commit just a handful of “hate” crimes against people with a homosexuality problem – although FBI sexual orientation “hate” stats don’t cover all violent acts, the number they report is tiny – less than 2000- and this number is total for all religions, political ideologies, etc.

            Who is the group full of violent individuals perpetrating millions of violent acts against homosexuals and bisexuals? The very LGBT group with its homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality. The very group that calls social conservatives “haters”. The very group that shamelessly calls the BSA “bigoted.” The very group that now wants to promote homosexuality as normal in the BSA, along with all the sexual offenses they will perpetrate against vulnerable boys.
            What junk of people.

    • Drakk

      Oh, fuck people like you.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Only a pile of turd says “Oh, fuck people like you.” – while promoting and endorsing the sexual abuse and exploitation of boys by homosexuals and bisexuals.

        • Drakk

          Okay, now I’m intrigued – are you some kind of rudimentary “Internet moron” program? Because your replies are basically just a cut and paste into a template, or so it seems.

          You’re not really a person, are you? You’re just a particularly badly coded chat bot.

  • Pingback: Comment roundup 2/1 part II.

    • Beutelratti

      You are so fucked up in the head that I hope you’re posting this from a mental institution.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Only a pile of turd would say “You are so fucked up in the head that I hope you’re posting this from a mental institution.” – while promoting and endorsing the sexual abuse and exploitation of boys by homosexuals and bisexuals.

        • Beutelratti

          I’m not endorsing or promoting anything other than that you are so fucked up in the head that you need help.

        • Kodie

          Who hurt you, Alessandra?

        • McFidget

          How many times have you used that “Only a pile of turd …” line? It didn’t seem witty or clever the first time so it’s not doing you any favors now. I’d say that it’s making you look bad but I’ve read too much of what you have written to think something so juvenile could could possibly make your reputation more abysmal than it already is. Oh, and by the way I’ve never heard a pile of turd say anything, on the other hand I have frequently heard intelligent people refer to a spade as a spade.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            We have several examples of little piles of turd right here on this comment section – and that’s calling a spade as a spade is. You want to argue something, you don’t descend into incivility and insults. If you do, we’ll be happy to point it out what a pile of turd you are being.

          • Andrew Kohler

            Since your first comment, your posts here have been insult after insult and accusation after accusation; please spare us the lecture on incivility.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Anything that questions your homosexuality agenda is an “insult” to you – simply because it questions it. You can’t debate issues because your position is a fraud. And others here, although not you, andrew, simply spew out insults. But you don’t complain about incivility then. The only thing people here show is how much of a sham they are in terms of progress and health.

          • Kodie

            You’re not questioning anything, you’re swallowing what you want to believe and vomiting it up all over this thread. Without foundation in fact or truth, you assert many false things that beg the question – some boys are abused, therefore it is bad to be gay. Your math is unimpressive and wrong, and when challenged, you ignore it. You only have one note and you keep asserting that liberals condone the sexual abuse of boys. You have no consideration for the overwhelming amount of girls who are sexually abused. OVERWHELMINGLY MORE THAN BOYS ACCORDING TO -YOU-, according to statistics you stated. But that’s the gays’ fault too?

            You have a scapegoat problem, you have difficulty with the definitions of words, and a cement block for a brain. There is no point talking to you any other way than to call you a shithead because you are not discussing, you are lecturing. You are lecturing liberals on their support and encouragement (?????) of sexual abuse in your limited world view because you swallow propaganda and outdated studies that begin with the premises you hold dear. You are not questioning anything. You’ve already been told where you go wrong. Besides that, you’re arrogant as fuck about what an impenetrable brain you have in order to justify your bigotry. Scapegoating is really all you have going on.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Only a pile of turd would spend time writing all these insults and the rest of the nonsense you can’t argue.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    So in short, instead of advocating for the children who desperately need our help, you use them as a vehicle for your hatred, paranoia, and bigotry.
    ==================
    Boys need to be protected from sexual exploitation, abuse, and a dysfunctional ideology on sexuality. In short, they need to be protected from your destructive and harmful ideology about sexuality and the real harm that liberals do in practice in their lives, destroying and harming so many young people – in the name of progress. Sexually exploiting vulnerable boys in the name of liberation. Could anything be more foul?
    You’re just spewing more of your stupid name-calling of social conservatives (“hatred, paranoia, and bigotry”), because they don’t want liberals to do harm with impunity, something liberals are so fond of.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    ” The claim I make, and have heard others make, is that there is no causal link between being gay and being a pedophile, as you impute.”

    Since you can’t give any causal explanation to homosexuality, pedophilia, or homosexual pedophilia, the last thing you are able to do is discuss the subject. People who have investigated the psychology of homosexuals, pedophiles, and homosexual pedophiles have found a mountain of underlying psychological problems that produce all kinds of dysfunctional, disoriented, and perverted sexual dynamics in these individuals, i.e., their inability to establish a healthy and wholesome relationship with the opposite sex and/or adults.

    • Andrew Kohler

      Good grief, this is getting exhausting. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself about the falsity of yours claims that liberal attitudes toward sex are unhealthy, the destructive ignorance of your views on homosexuality, the fatuity of thinking that a no gays policy is a good idea, et cetera. But I’d like to rebut some specific points (including in response to what you said to Zinc above):

      First, as to claiming that a no gays policy is best: is it really better to attract closeted men whose sexuality has been damaged by guilt and repression, which worked SO well for the Catholic Church, or openly gay men who are more likely (though alas by no means guaranteed) to have a healthy attitude about their sexual orientation? I’ll take the latter.

      I am stunned at your hostility to providing sources for your claims. Yes, we can do Google searches ourselves, but it’s frankly rather inconsiderate to send people off on wild goose chases to see if your claims can be validated. Once again: in any scholarly community, this would be grounds for a person to be ignored (and why do you think Wikipedia has those “citation needed” things?) The onus is on ALL of us to read and learn and investigate, but when you make a claim the onus is on YOU to tell us how you arrived there, and tell us your sources so we can then examine them ourselves (as is our duty). As it is, there are outlandish and hysterical claims, and when we ask for proof you respond with nasty invective.

      If by any chance Paul Cameron is your source for your information on homosexuality, be advised that he has been completely discredited by the medical community and his organization has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I repeat: in 1973, the American Pscyhological Homosexuality declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The people who claim otherwise, like Cameron and Exodus International, are condemned by responsible medical professionals.

      Some links to check out:
      http://www.nacac.org/policy/positions.html#Gay [North American Council on Adoptable Children policy statement from 2005]

      Also, scroll to the bottom of this page for several links to the American Psychological Association statements. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics (which recently released a reprehensible statement on circumcision) managed to get this one right:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#cite_note-65

      Oh wait, you have no respect for the APA. Well, I’m not a fan of arguments from authority (as I just revealed re: the AAP). But, you’d think that NARTH and organizations like it would have at least a bit more respectability in the medical establishment somewhere in the world if there were anything to them. And how do you explain happy gay people who are in wonderful relationships and don’t abuse children? A Google search of the APA pedophilia controversy reveals that many of the people reporting on it are right-wing hysterics. But even if you can discredit the APA, they are but one of many organizations who call your position destructive and wrong.

      NARTH co-founder Charles Socarides had a gay son, by the way.

      * And after a bunch of boys are molested and exploited and violated by homosexuals and bisexuals, you are going to turn around and say, “but heterosexuals abuse girls, so it’s OK if homosexuals abuse boys – they are just like heterosexuals, see, homosexuals are so normal.”

      We would only say that because so many people have scapegoated gay people for child abuse. But, yes, homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals, which means that most are good people, but there are some who do unspeakably dreadful things. The key is to find ways to protect children from ALL people who would abuse them, and while I can’t say that I have an answer for how to do this, I can say that the answer does not lie in persecuting gay people. And by all means, when anyone commits sexual assault, that person needs to be punished and we need to take precautions against letting that person hurt anyone else.

      “Why should women who are too psychologically dysfunctional to establish a healthy relationship with men be in the Boy Scouts?”

      All I can do here is a massive face-palm, accompanied by a loud, prolonged groan. Most gay people are just fine at establishing relationships with people of the opposite gender; they just don’t want to have sex with or marry them. Being a happy and healthy person is not contingent on having heterosexual romantic relationships.

      “Heterosexual men are worse in victimizing girls, and homosexual and bisexual males are worse in victimizing boys. It’s not the same.”

      Bisexual males are worse at victimizing boys than girls? One would think that could go either way. Other than that, however, your statement is actually reasonably accurate, I guess. Although, I’m not sure that pedophilia really operates under the usual rubric of sexual orientation. But in any case, I’m not going to rehash why, even the above statement is true, your idea of a gay ban in the BSA is still harmful and ineffective at accomplishing your stated goal of protecting children.

      “You mean if the Catholic Church and their leaders say they are against child abuse, there are no problems in the Church? Is it news to you that people always make pretty declarations in public, even when they are committing the grossest abuse?”

      A true statement. But, there actually is abuse in the Catholic Church. You have not demonstrated anything comparable in the LGBT movement, but rather shouted insults at us when we’ve told you that you have the burden of proof. Speaking of the Catholic Church, this brings me to: “The church has a good position on homosexuality, but they are an institution of cover-ups. And the Boys Scouts already had similar issues in the past.”

      *** Well, the problem is clearly institutional cover-ups, which you’ve just proven can go on even with a “good [read: hateful and destructive] position on homosexuality.” If the BSA has problems with the gay ban in place, then clearly the gay ban is not the best solution, now is it!?!?***

      “Since you can’t give any causal explanation to homosexuality, pedophilia, or homosexual pedophilia, the last thing you are able to do is discuss the subject.”

      The last thing I am able to do? Behind turning into an eagle and growing asparagus out of my elbows? My goodness. Well, I suppose you are the one giving a causal relationship here; it just happens not to be accurate. I do think accuracy counts for something. Please don’t take credit for adducing a causality that doesn’t exist.

      “Because a lot of males who sexually exploit or abuse other males have normalized homosexuality, porn, and sex outside marriage….”

      You’re still drawing a false connection between being liberal and being sexually dysfunctional (very Ann Coulteresque, actually), but you’re just going to keep insisting this so I’ll just point out it’s nonsense and move on. Re: “Who is more likely to show homosexual porn to a boy – a heterosexual who understands that homosexuality is dysfunctional or a homosexual male who thinks homosexuality is normal?” A gay man is more likely to show gay porn to someone because he’s more likely to be turned on by it than a straight man. Yes, gay men are more likely to groom a male for sex than straight men. But straight men might do the same thing to girls. So, maybe what we need to do is teach all children what to do if a skeevy, creepy adult does something skeevy and creepy, and encourage them not to be aware that there is danger in the world and teach them how to be careful, but without crippling them with anxiety and paranoia. And, of course, couple this with strict punishment for offenders and working out preventive measures. Just a thought. It will work better than only letting boys ever be around straight men and girls ever be around straight women.

      By the way, this whole “homosexuals/bisexuals are more likely to molest boys AND to be liberal, therefore liberals are more likely to be sex criminals” is faulty logic. In addition, the reason that gay people are more often (but not always) liberal is that liberals aren’t as nasty to them as conservatives. And if you’re not around people who are nasty to you, you will be better adjusted, and LESS likely to be damaged and dysfunctional. Therefore, if environmental factors even contribute at all to a person being a pedophile or ephebophile (I am not convinced on that point, by the way), more likely it would be repressive societies rather than liberal ones.

      “Boys need to be protected from sexual exploitation, abuse, and a dysfunctional ideology on sexuality.”

      Well said! Hear, hear! We’re totally in agreement! Only your idea of what constitutes a “dysfunctional ideology on sexuality” is completely wrong.

      “You’re just spewing more of your stupid name-calling of social conservatives (“hatred, paranoia, and bigotry”), because they don’t want liberals to do harm with impunity, something liberals are so fond of.”

      No. I’m “spewing” these words because they are correct descriptors in this case. And I am not a fan of doing harm with impunity, but you refuse to believe that, so there’s no point in persuading you.

      “Are you trying to say that this study proves that homosexuals and bisexuals don’t ever abuse, exploit, harass, and traffic adolescent boys?”

      I’m pretty sure he wasn’t saying that. Can you guarantee that no heterosexual man would EVER abuse boys in any way? For example, he could participate in sexual trafficking with boys even if he doesn’t want to have sex with them himself.

      I really have invested too much time here. As Barney Frank once said to someone at a town hall meeting holding an Obama-as-Hitler picture, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”

      • Andrew Kohler

        Addendum: Over on another thread, does a superb job of explaining why sexual orientation should not be a factor in discussing sexual assault (the comment beginning “Oh fun times, I needed something to raise my blood pressure today”):

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/02/15150/#comments

        And corrigendum: That was definitely suppose to read “…encourage them to be aware…” I must have changed this from some negative exhortation and unfortunately left in the “not” (the presence or absence of which is a detail of no small importance).

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        First, as to claiming that a no gays policy is best: is it really better to attract closeted men whose sexuality has been damaged by guilt and repression, which worked SO well for the Catholic Church, or openly gay men who are more likely (though alas by no means guaranteed) to have a healthy attitude about their sexual orientation? I’ll take the latter.
        =============
        “Openly gay men” and” healthy attitude about sexual orientation” is an oxymoron.
        Is it better to attract sexually deformed and dysfunctional boys and men, who think there is nothing wrong with them, and put them into positions of power over vulnerable boys? You see how that worked so well for Frank Lombard and the sexual abuse of his adopted sons? You know why you will take the “openly gay men” option, because whoever they abuse, molest, exploit, and harass is not going to be you, but some unfortunate vulnerable boy out there. That’s why you’re so comfy with the idea. What do you care but spinning all your lies that homosexuals never abuse or exploit, and, if they do, well, not your problem?
        What society and boys need is for people with psychological problems related to sexuality to take responsibility for them and resolve them, and if they can’t resolve their homosexuality, pedophilic homosexuality, pedophilia, etc., they just can’t be in the Boy Scouts – or any other healthy youth organization. That’s not your option and that’s not the CC’s option. Form an organization for people who are sexually dysfunctional, disoriented, and perverted. Oh, I guess, every liberal organization is that already. No need to form them, just leave the BSA alone then.
        =====================
        “I am stunned at your hostility to providing sources for your claims. Yes, we can do Google searches ourselves, but it’s frankly rather inconsiderate to send people off on wild goose chases to see if your claims can be validated.”
        Hostility? No, disdain at talking to kindergarteners. I’m not stopping you from posting anything you think invalidates my claims. Let’s see it.
        ====================
        “I repeat: in 1973, the American Pscyhological Homosexuality declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The people who claim otherwise, like Cameron and Exodus International, are condemned by responsible medical professionals.”

        And the APA also declared that pedophilia was not a mental disorder. Making stupid declarations about what is a disorder is the APA’s specialty.
        And there are plenty of professionals, like Nicolosi’s work, for example, who have investigated the reasons why men develop a homosexuality problem and has found a mountain of psychological, social, experiential, and cultural problems. No one in the APA directorate has even minimal knowledge about what causes a homosexual problem in people. They aren’t simply irresponsible, they are plainly ignorant.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        “Heterosexual men are worse in victimizing girls, and homosexual and bisexual males are worse in victimizing boys. It’s not the same.”

        Bisexual males are worse at victimizing boys than girls? One would think that could go either way.
        =================
        You misunderstood. My focus was on the profile of who abuses boys. I think bisexual males could abuse either way. The comparison was about who abuses more boys: heterosexuals, bisexuals, or homosexuals? Homosexuals and bisexuals – not heterosexuals.

    • Kodie

      Their inability to establish – healthy and wholesome? Wholesome? – relationships with the opposite sex is because they are gay.

      Your ignorant judgmental rant doesn’t seem to allow for that, you close-minded asshole.

      • Beutelratti

        Only a pile of turd would say “Your ignorant judgmental rant doesn’t seem to allow for that, you close-minded asshole.” Hurrhurrdurr

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          Now, I could say ‘these men therefore have a homosexual problem’ but the problem with that statement is it’s confusing an act done out of sexual desire from one that is driven by a desire to dominate and degrade other people where the gender or anything else about the victim is of little importance..
          =================
          Wrong, because no one is talking about these heterosexual men in prison. So you are bringing in another subject, and another context, and saying that my term is confusing. Not for the context at hand it isn’t.
          “Having a homosexuality problem” is a very good term to use in a society that is now pretending that homosexuality isn’t a problem. That’s what is being highlighted by “problem” and, if you will read the reactions, no one had trouble understanding that’s what it referred to. So the language is fine.

          “the current understanding about sexual abuse and exploitation and what drives it.”

          I don’t see you having any understanding about sexual abuse of boys, their exploitation, and what drives it.

          ” The terms you use like ‘perverted’ haven’t been used in mental health circles for a very long time. ”

          Is that because people like you like to believe nothing is sexually perverted? Have you normalized every perverted and perverse attitude and behavior related to sexuality? Or is it because you prefer not to face that sexual perversions exist? What term do you use for depicting what is sexually perverted?
          =====================

          “Also, Sandusky, last I checked, was a married man in a what appeared to be a long-term heterosexual relationship. If I recall anything surprising it was that many sex offenders were the same, so the old notion that child sex offenders have a pattern of being unable to form (seemingly) healthy opposite sex relationships ”

          But what is in Sandusky’s mind, have you been inside it to know? And you think Sandusky is capable of healthy relationships? Seriously? Sorry, but your psychology course was a sham.
          =====================
          And if you want to debate percentage of juveniles offenders, please look up the subject and post all the citations you want. You want citations, provide them. Show less ignorance – and laziness too.

  • smrnda

    Alessandra, you seem to not be very well informed about issues involving sexual orientation or sexual abuse. Allow me to present something you probably already know:

    The most sex abuse of males by other males occurs in prison, and the men doing the abusing do not think of themselves as’ homosexual’ because what they are doing has *NOTHING TO DO* with sexual desire; it’s about power over another person. Men who rape men in prison do not think of themselves as homosexual, because they are motivated by power, not sexual desire. Men who rape women are not doing so because of out of control sexual desire – strong evidence against that is the level of planning many rapists engage in in order to commit a rape; they could have consensual sex for as much if not less trouble. Men rape women because of power. The same men sometimes rape other men. Now, I could say ‘these men therefore have a homosexual problem’ but the problem with that statement is it’s confusing an act done out of sexual desire from one that is driven by a desire to dominate and degrade other people where the gender or anything else about the victim is of little importance.. A homosexual looking for a lover is in the first category – a prisoner who wants to rape new prisoners would be the second. Putting the same label on both is using one term for things that are just too different.

    You’ve used a lot of poorly defined terms like ‘men with a homosexuality problem’ I could label men in prison with that, but it’s certainly not a very descriptive label and it doesn’t fit in with the current understanding about sexual abuse and exploitation and what drives it. The terms you use like ‘perverted’ haven’t been used in mental health circles for a very long time. I recently studied psychology as I was going to go into the field of social work so I”d read a bit on the issue, but I will try to find the books and provide citations.

    And on citations, if you make claims, please provide citations. I know that I haven’t and after I get out to the library I will come back and point out what books I”m using.

    Also, Sandusky, last I checked, was a married man in a what appeared to be a long-term heterosexual relationship. If I recall anything surprising it was that many sex offenders were the same, so the old notion that child sex offenders have a pattern of being unable to form (seemingly) healthy opposite sex relationships appears contradicted by the latest reads on the subject I’ve made. Again, the reason is that it’s not about sexual desire but about power and control. The idea of the child sex offender who can’t have relationships with adults and who is therefore seeking out kids is an outmoded stereotype. Ever hear the term ‘social offender?’ The idea is that the person who wants to commit sex crimes, (or murders) tries to have an upstanding life so that they will not be suspected.

    Again, I’ll try to dig up the book I read after making a trip to a nearby college. I’d hate to post things and not provide citations.

    Please also keep in mind that I”ve responded to your points without any insults, just by stating that 1. I’ve studied these issues within the last 4 or so years and 2. that what I read didn’t seem to agree with your assessments and 3. That I will try to provide citations so you know where to go look.

    Now, 4. You haven’t given me any sources to respond to. I could find some that would back your claims like say, NARTH is one example, but these would be organizations without a lot of credibility in the field. The problem when you don’t provide citations is if I said “the things you said came from a NARTH pamphlet and the claims are discredited by study X” you could then say “I didn’t use NARTH as a source.” Without telling me what sources you’re using, if I provide evidence to the contrary you can always allege that I haven’t addressed your position. I’m hoping that explains why it’s important to name sources. It may take me a few days, but I’ll get my sources up here when I can.

    • Andrew Kohler

      Thanks for the excellent explanation of why citations matter (among many other reasons). The trip to the library may be worth it for further debates, and I’m sure the rest of us would appreciate knowing what you used, but indeed there is no reason to provide information to someone who won’t accept it.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        If citations are important, where are your citations on juvenile offenders? If you were so interested in the subject of juvenile offenders, the first thing you would do is actually google the subject. If you want to play kindergartener, you won’t google the subject and sit there complaining. Thank you for proving my point. What I said is right, and I don’t need to add citations. Because anyone who wants to check the stats can find them with a search. If you find something different, post it. With all the citations you want.
        That’s the level of stupidity of your “normalize homosexuality” agenda.

        • Andrew Kohler

          Frankly, I lost interest in the juvenile offenders question, since this discussion/debate/whatever it is is far more about whether or not homosexuality is pathological. Really, whether you’re claiming the perpetrators are adults, teenagers, or a combination is somewhat beside the point. Bu,t a preliminary Google search did reveal one source saying: “National studies found that juveniles account for 20 to 30 percent of the suspects in sexual child abuse cases.” If you were just talking about sexual abuse of *children* and not all sexual abuse, then I missed that; it certainly makes more sense (than, say, an epidemic of teenagers assaulting adults a la Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange).

          http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/10/expert_weighs_in_on_juvenile_s.html

          I wasn’t aware of this phenomenon before, and will give you due credit for bringing it to my attention (although it would have been nice if you’d just provided a link rather than insult me repeatedly).

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            (although it would have been nice if you’d just provided a link rather than insult me repeatedly).
            ==================
            In my experience when people ask for citations, they just want to act like two year olds, so I didn’t take your request seriously, especially since there is quite a bit of citations on the subject readily available. And it is best if you look the subject up yourself. But I jumped the gun with being hostile to your request- it was due to how uncivil and lacking in seriousness people generally are online with such requests in these ideological bouts. Plus what you see repeatedly in terms of language on this thread – although that does not apply you.

  • smrnda

    Error. I realize that Zinc Avenger up there linked to one of the studies I wanted to mention. Given the reaction, I don’t think I”ll bother making my trip to the library.

  • smrnda

    I think I’d like to add one more thing – among other things, I was supposed to review proposals for psychology experiments and studies, so the best response to someone quoting an article is to just go out and read the article, because I can assure you it will go into all the details you asked for and more than you want to read.

    On homosexuality itself. I had missed the comment mentioning NARTH, who, according to *one commenter here* actually ‘gets’ homosexuality rather than the vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. I’ve read some NARTH stuff, so I thought I would add something to that.

    NARTH uses a psychoanalytic model to explain homosexuality. Freud used psychoanalytic models to explain adult problems, his idea being that certain problems *had* to be linked to certain earlier trauma. In the case that nobody remembered a trauma, then the memory had simply been repressed. There’s also the idea that a person has an ‘unconscious mind’ that has a will of its own and which represents the truer, more authentic person.

    Now, that’s an oversimplification of Freud, and I don’t want to disparage him too much since he was a very early pioneer, but I want to explain that psychoanalytic theories have a problem in that they are unfalsifiable, and typically find ways of ‘explaining’ things that don’t seem to fit the theory to make sure that they do. They also cause us to interpret what we see in light of the theory, rather than take evidence and then try to make the theory later.

    So if a heterosexual man molests a boy, I, relying on what I learned, interpret this to be about opportunism, power and control. Why? Because that’s what the research says. They looked at cases of men who abused boys and tried to study them.

    Now, I’m sure someone can say “Well, Sandusky only seemed straight, but he molested boys because he was fighting homosexual urges that existed because of a deficient father-relationship – he had not resolved the issues of his masculine self, so homosexual desires remained, and because he was angry at them, he singled out victims who were young and vulnerable.” It’s taking a psychoanalytic explanation which (for some reason) someone is SURE is correct, and finding a way to assert that it must be correct and that it must explain each and every such instance perfectly. Yeah, someone can claim this, but on the basis of what? And what evidence would persuade them otherwise? Once you start working with theories that came out of somebody’s head first, how do you determine if they actually work, or if they just offer an explanation for what you see that fits the story, so you buy it, even as explanations shift with each new twist and turn?

    So the problem? It’s unfalsifiable. The psychoanalytic models for homosexuality were mostly dropped because if they were correct, then therapies based on those models should have worked. In actuality, they almost never did and never do, and claims that they ‘worked’ aren’t usually so persuasive.

    I mean, Nicolosi and other therapists at NARTH break typical practice with believing that, rather than maintaining professional distance, they need to be more emotionally invested in their clients, more ‘surrogate father figures.’ Now, they have found some clients they say they helped, but given their unconventional (and by some standards, unprofessional) approach, they are likely getting a pretty self-selecting group to begin with. If I were to get my MSW and I offered some unconventional therapy, it would be wrong for me to generalize from my clients to the general population.

    Might get those books after all, but that’s all for tonight.

    • Andrew Kohler

      Unfalsifiable claims, shifting the burden of proof, loudly insistence that one’s claims are correct but offering assertion rather than evidence…hmm, sounds like a lot of things that tend to come up on this blog, no?

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      “Well, Sandusky only seemed straight, but he molested boys because he was fighting homosexual urges that existed because of a deficient father-relationship – he had not resolved the issues of his masculine self, so homosexual desires remained, and because he was angry at them, he singled out victims who were young and vulnerable.” It’s taking a psychoanalytic explanation which (for some reason) someone is SURE is correct, and finding a way to assert that it must be correct and that it must explain each and every such instance perfectly.
      =============
      You did the same thing, btw. You said that the majority of male assault cases had nothing to do with sexual desire or that sexual dynamics weren’t the primary factor or one of the primary factors for sexual assault committed by males (and that includes homosexuals and bisexuals). You just took an explanation, which you are SURE is correct, and you assert that is must be correct, and state that it must explain each and every instance (or the majority of such instances) of all male sexual assault perfectly. I don’t think you have talked to many homosexual and bisexual males who sexually assault other males. Isn’t this correct? I would guess you have never investigated a single case. But it’s a guess.

      In other words, you do the very same thing you accuse others of doing (like Nicolosi). What you are ignoring is the work Nicolosi has been doing, talking to hundreds of men about why they have a homosexuality problem, investigating their issues. This by itself does not mean that anything he states is correct, but you can’t say he has not investigated it. You, as far as I can tell, have never done it. And yet you want to dismiss any and everything he has written, without even reading it, I suppose. And then you tell me why didn’t read some article posted here. Well, why don’t you read the books Nicolosi has published?

      Second, while anybody could come up with theories about why Sandusky assaulted boys, in order to verify these theories, you would need to talk to him (and have him talk to you). And do it well.
      What’s your problem with other people theorizing and investigating someone else’s psychology? Do you think that you are the only one who can come up with theories and hypotheses? When you don’t even know what the word “unconscious” means? When you deny that perverted sexual gratification is a primary factor for motivation of sexual assault? Seriously?

      “Allow me to ask a question or two, since I need to figure out if I’m dealing with someone competent. ”
      Allow me to suggest that if you don’t even know what the word “unconscious” means and what is its importance in human psychology, you are not in any position to determine anyone else’s level of competency.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    “And how do you explain happy gay people who are in wonderful relationships and don’t abuse children? ”

    Because there are many psychologically and morally dysfunctional people that are happy. Is that news to you? How do you think Hitler was happiest? How do you think that the majority of people exploiting others or acting out their abusive sexualities are happiest? How do you think promiscuous people are happiest? How do you think people spreading STDs with impunity are happiest? How do you think that people who degrade others through porn are happiest? How is a pimp happiest? Is it by facing they have a dehumanized and dysfunctional sexual psychology, and trying to resolve it, or is it by simply acting out any dysfunctional thought or emotion that pops up in their minds? What makes a good number of dysfunctional people unhappy is having to face the fact that they are dysfunctional.

    • Beutelratti

      Comparing homosexuality with Hitler? Good call. Now we know indeed that you are absolutey insane. I could go on and argue how that is wrong on so many levels, but I think that would be completely lost on you.

      The difference is obvious though and should be even for limited minds like your own: Happy gay people that are in functional relationships and don’t abuse children are not hurting anyone but your limited views of them.

      To be honest,with all your rambling and false “proof” and utter inability to see the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality the only thing that you have proven to us is that you are the one that must have something dysfunctional going. I wonder now: What has happened to you that made you so bitter and hateful? The only thing that you have proven to me is that you need help, a lot of it, professional help preferably.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        The subject is the fact that there are many psychologically and morally dysfunctional people that are happy.
        ======================
        Hitler was one of them. Are you saying Hitler wasn’t happy with his dysfunctions? Of course, he was. You don’t want to face that? More of your stupid denial. I gave a bunch of examples of how dysfunctional people can be quite happy with their dysfunctions. Is it news to you that we can compare anybody to anybody? Look up the verb compare – obviously you don’t know what it means.

        • Beutelratti

          You really make me laugh. Laugh at your imbecile attempts at convincing me of your insanity, laugh at your silly attempts at insulting me but more over laugh at you for your utter stupidity.

          People like you are the 21st century’s Hitlers.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            more of your little insults – clearly, you are a little pile of turd if that’s the only thing you can write on here.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        What has happened to you that made you so bitter and hateful? The only thing that you have proven to me is that you need help, a lot of it, professional help preferably.
        ===================
        Project much?

        • Beutelratti

          Nah, just observing. :3

    • Andrew Kohler

      Ah finally, a Hitler analogy. And it’s an epic fail.

      You really think that Hitler was happy in his dysfunction!?!? Do you think that he enjoyed feeling like the Jews were out to get him and ruining the world? Even if you think he was happy living in his dark, sick, miserable little world, there were the ramifications of his delusion. Do you think he *enjoyed* leading his country and the rest of the world into a hell that was previously unimaginable? Do you think he enjoyed the bombing campaigns and the assassination attempt against him? If it all worked out so well for him, then why did he commit suicide on April 30, 1945? HOW is this POSSIBLY comparable to stable, happy gay couples?

      Hitler started a war that killed well over 50,000,000 people. I’ve yet to see a consensual (which obviously means adult) gay relationship have this effect, and I think we’d have noticed by now.

      People who spread STDs…have STDs. Having AIDS and syphilis doesn’t sound very fun to me. Presumably they enjoyed the sex, but the long term consequences, not so much. The long term consequences of marrying a person of the same gender are quite different (they could be good or bad, just as with marrying a person of the opposite gender).

      As to people degrading and exploiting others, I concede they may be happiest doing that, just as thieves and rapists may be happiest thieving and raping. They are undeniably harming others, and they deserve to be locked up. I’m not going to start thinking that all the gay people I know are just tick timing bombs of misery and destruction just because you say so, when I have evidence to the contrary.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        You really think that Hitler was happy in his dysfunction!?!?
        ===============
        Definitely. Thrilled in fact. The more dysfunctional he got, the more power he got out of it, the more it validated his entirely dysfunctional view of the world, the more he was admired, the more he was followed, the more people obeyed him.
        That gave him enormous, enormous satisfaction, pride, and whatever kind of happiness all of this meant to him.

        Or you think his little mind was like, “oh I’m so dysfunctional, boo hoo, I have so many problems in the way I view things, I’m so ignorant, I know nothing, I must see a therapist asap, oh my dysfunctional feelings” – you think so? You really think so?

        • Andrew Kohler

          I think you are creating a false dichotomy. I’m not denying the thrill he got from masses of people shouting “Sieg Heil!” and he clearly glorified in his power. And I should add that my understanding of the matter is that he was so maniacally obsessed with his vision of a pure Germany that he would rather have seen the country destroyed than to survive in a non-Nazi/non-Aryan state. But the fact is that he still suffered from the destruction that he brought on himself and, to devastating effect, the rest of the world.

          You seem to be equating happiness with lack of self-awareness in this case. Hitler was hardly aware of how screwed up he was in the head. Of course I don’t think he thought he needed a therapist, and never said so. But, being obsessed with hatred and paranoia does not make a person happy–that’s my point. Even the thrill of power can’t change this.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “But, being obsessed with hatred and paranoia does not make a person happy–that’s my point.”

            Sure, I don’t think the way he experienced happiness was a healthy one. But it all depends on how you define happiness, doesn’t it? And it depends who defines what happiness is for whom. If Hitler thought happiness was being the Fuhrer, who knows if being hateful bothered him much? What was he conscious of? I don’t think he was conscious of much in respect to the Final Solution. He had to be so extremist that I wonder if any of it ever bothered him. There is no doubt that he was happy being the Fuhrer, that his enormous rise to power and idolatry were just thrilling and made him happy, no doubt about that. I think it made him very happy to think he was right about the way he thought. Why would his hatred bother him? When it all came tumbling down by 1944, then he wasn’t happy, but that’s a different situation.

            But in fact, that is a parallel to the APA’s position on normalizing homosexuality and pedophilia – they basically stated that anything was only a problem IF it bothered the subject. The APA line is like: if Hitler is happy with himself, that’s all that matters, that means he is “functional.” That’s no valid criteria either for happiness or for what is wholesome or healthy.

            “But the fact is that he still suffered from the destruction that he brought on himself ”
            But he didn’t seem to suffer much from the destruction he brought on other people. Isn’t that a lot of what we see in the world? And if you will recall – that is exactly my criticism to liberals who want to normalize homosexuality and homosexuals in the BSA. And not only in the Boy Scouts.

          • Andrew Kohler

            On one thing we do agree: it is hard to tell what was going through a mind as warped as Hitler’s, and very difficult to sort out. This is why I tend to avoid comparison to such extreme examples.

        • Andrew Kohler

          Another composite response, but first, thank you for conceding you jumped the gun on your response to my request for a citation; I appreciate that.

          This seems to be a good source for people who care about the serious problem of the sexual abuse and assault of children: http://www.stopitnow.org/parent

          I did a site search for “homosexuality” and found this:
          http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          Perhaps the most important part of this article is the following: “The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.”

          Moving on:

          “I don’t endorse the CC’s celibacy model. It does attracts a lot of perverted homosexuals and other hypocrites- who are not celibate- although I don’t think every priest has a deformed sexual psychology.”

          I agree that not all priests are sexually dysfunctional, and certainly it’s a small percentage who are dangerous. (Just wanted to make sure the record reflects that.)

          “Everyone is born heterosexual, so you have an empty claim there that there is anything in-born about homosexuality.”
          “‘Openly gay men’ and ‘healthy attitude about sexual orientation’ is an oxymoron.”

          I’m afraid that all I have is face palms here.

          ” What homosexuals are doing is simply acting out their dysfunctional sexuality, which may even feel “natural” to them. By that measure, acting out pedophilia for a pedophile feels “natural” to them, etc. ”

          If it’s consenting adults and they feel fulfilled and happy, then there’s no problem regardless of what you may think. Pedophilia, on the other hand, causes harm when acted upon. This is not a small difference. Bringing me to: “But in fact, that is a parallel to the APA’s position on normalizing homosexuality and pedophilia – they basically stated that anything was only a problem IF it bothered the subject.” Obviously, such a position needs to include “OR if it results in harm to others.” I just found something on the subject from 2000:

          http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=174135

          Note that this person is very careful to say that sexual contact with children should not be tolerated. A site-search of “pedophilia” on the APA’s website suggests that the organization does not deny the harm of sexual assault of children. I’ve not time at the moment to review these in great detail, but check out:
          http://search.apa.org/search?query=pedophilia&facet=&offset=1&sort=

          In particular:
          http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx [from p. 3 "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."]
          http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx
          http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/stogner.aspx
          http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/bourke.aspx
          http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/child-abuse.aspx

          Still no convincing evidence to bolster your claim that liberals are a child molesting group on the whole, or that child molesters are for the most part liberal.

          The reason that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in America started with men who have sex with men was because of a lack of awareness about safe sex. I’ve heard of some HIV positive gay men saying that you’re better off just having fun and getting infected, but I *assure* you that I’ve worked in the field of gay rights and know many gay men, and can’t think of a single time I’ve heard anyone say that from anyone I’ve actually met. It’s a fringe group within the LGBT community about which I’ve heard maybe once or twice, and I would say those people DO have a problem. (This is different from those who say that two men who are *already* infected don’t need to use protection, by the way, which I also think is a bad idea since there are other diseases out there.) Oh, and at present, HIV/AIDS in Africa is prevalent among heterosexuals.

          “Homosexuals and bisexuals are the greatest perpetrators of intimate violence…for the LGBT community.” You mean, gay people who are victims of date rape or domestic violence are more likely to be abused by other gay people? Because they would be on dates without other gay people or in domestic situations with other gay people, one assumes. Let me guess: straight people are the greatest perpetrators of intimate violence in the heterosexual community, too. I’ve found an article on the subject, following your citations (as expected, citations prove to aid the discussion):

          http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/lgbtqviolence/lgbtqviolence.html

          This subject is obviously very serious and important, but I’m not equipped to take it on at present. I will, however, note that the tone of this article is not condemnatory toward LGBTQ people on the whole; quite the opposite, in fact, is true. Two notable quotations:

          “Even though there have been many gains made in human rights and visibility for lgbtq issues, rural communities are areas in which many people conceal their sexual identity or their identity as transgender for fear of negative repercussions such as violence or discrimination. Several studies have suggested that lgbtq people in small rural communities may be particularly vulnerable to violence because of increased isolation, lack of services and supports, and even the increased presence of firearms. (ACON, 2004; Mahoney, Williams &West, 2001).”

          “…men living with male intimate partners, reported more violence than men who lived with female intimate partners [15% versus 7.7%]….When looking at overall patterns the report concludes that ‘intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates. Thus, strategies for preventing intimate partner violence should focus on risks posed by men.’ (p. v). ”

          As I’ve said before countless times, the LGBT community is neither any better nor any worse than the heterosexual community. Which brings me to: “What do you care but spinning all your lies that homosexuals never abuse or exploit…”

          SEVERAL people here, including me, have REPEATEDLY said that we do not claim any such thing, so please stop saying that we do. And likewise with “Are you trying to say that no homosexual has ever raped another male in prison?” — smrnda said no such thing.

          “I’m not stopping you from posting anything that invalidates my claims. Let’s see it.”

          I refer you to smrnda’s deconstruction of NARTH, but then again you refused to accept its validity and continue to adduce the work of NARTH as authoritative evidence. By the way, if someone claims the earth is flat or that babies come from the stork, do you think they too should be considered correct until proven wrong, and free from the burden of proof? Frequenters of this blog tend to be skeptic types (I include myself in this description), and therefore place the burden of proof on the claimant.

          smrnda wrote “(seemingly) healthy opposite sex relationship.” I hardly think (s)he [can't remember if there's been anything to confirm his/her gender] was imputing healthy *anything* to that criminal; in context, I took this to mean that child rapists are capable of appearing to be “normal” heterosexuals: therefore, a gay ban is hardly would have prevented Sandusky’s atrocities. You derided JT for suggesting background checks because they won’t catch everyone, and ironically you adduced Sandusky’s case. The terrible fact we have to face is that we simply cannot prevent all crimes, and to assume any one method is foolproof is naive (and I doubt JT was making that claim about background checks). I refer you again to the link at the top of this post; that group seems to be taking the issue seriously, and I think that identifying the warning signs and making children aware of them (without ruining their childhoods by instilling paranoia) is one of the most important things. When Penn and Teller did their Bullshit episode “Stranger Danger” (Season 6 Episode 8, which you may find on YouTube), they interviewed a woman named Erin Runnion, whose daughter Samantha was, devastatingly, sexually assaulted and murdered. She now has a foundation in honor of Samantha:

          http://www.thejoyfulchild.org/

          In her interview with P&T, she stressed both the importance of vigilance and the importance of letting your child enjoy a happy childhood; it’s for the parents to be paranoid. P&T praised her for maintaining her rationality in the face of the unthinkable, and I do too. [Warning: visiting this website may cause crying; it is for me.]

          A relevant quotation from an article by Ms. Runnion, as it echoes smrnda above: “Most of them are perfectly capable of a seemingly normal relationship, but their appetite for power-based sexual deviance is a separate, but compulsive part of their personality.”
          http://letters.ocregister.com/2011/11/16/erin-runnion-it-is-everyones-mandate-to-report-sex-crimes-against-children/

          Alright, that’s all (for now at least….)

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx [from p. 3 "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."]
            ===========================
            But you do see that they are talking about children – and not adolescents? There is a difference actually, and the difference, in respect to the Boy Scouts, is huge.
            If you think this means that homosexuals abuse 2-yr old girls in the same numbers that they abuse 15 male teens, your are totally wrong.
            ……………………………
            “If it’s consenting adults and they feel fulfilled and happy, then there’s no problem regardless of what you may think. Pedophilia, on the other hand, causes harm when acted upon. This is not a small difference.”
            I don’t think that consent is sacrosanct, you can’t dismiss harm.
            ………………………………..
            “Still no convincing evidence to bolster your claim that liberals are a child molesting group on the whole, or that child molesters are for the most part liberal.”

            What do you mean by “on the whole”? Is your new strawman claiming that I said all liberals abuse?

            “or that child molesters are for the most part liberal.”
            So you made that up too. I see that you can’t address what I wrote, so you are going to make up nonsense. Time to read again what I wrote because it’s not what you claimed above.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            As I’ve said before countless times, the LGBT community is neither any better nor any worse than the heterosexual community.
            =====================
            that’s not true if you mean that everything is always the same. As we can see in many studies and topics, the two groups are not equal, just as men and women are not equal, countries are not equal, people in different age groups are not equal, etc. Homosexual men are not just as bad as heterosexual men when it comes to abusing girls. And homosexual and bisexual men/juveniles are a lot worse regarding the abuse and exploitation of boys and spreading of HIV and syphilis compared to heterosexual men in the US. The IPV studies show a greater prevalence of violence in homosexual and bisexual populations compared to heterosexuals.

          • Andrew Kohler

            “What do you mean by “on the whole”? Is your new strawman claiming that I said all liberals abuse?”

            What I was responding to was the fact that you have been accusing liberals on the whole not necessarily perpetrating abuse, but of enabling. I should have been more clear on this point. You’ve been treating abuse and enabling it as equally damnable, and on that we are agreed (hence why I didn’t differentiate, although I should have). And thinking back I realize you didn’t say that all people who abuse and assault children are liberal, but I hope I can be excused for this error given your generally sweeping accusations of liberals and liberal thought.

            “I don’t think that consent is sacrosanct, you can’t dismiss harm.”

            I agree that just because people participate in something consensually does not mean that it causes no harm. Consensual sex acts have the potential to be harmful, for example if they’re part of an unhealthy relationship, for example. I know you think that any same-sex relationship (or casual encounter) is intrinsically harmful, but I reject this idea.

            “If you think this means that homosexuals abuse 2-yr old girls in the same numbers that they abuse 15 male teens, your are totally wrong.”

            Indeed I do not think that. I even agree that there is a difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia, although both are equally destructive when acted upon. It is true that the sentence I quoted talked about abusing “children,” but elsewhere that same pamphlet makes clear it is talking about children and adolescents. Had they really found that there is no difference with children but there is a difference with adolescents, I think they would have clarified that; rather, I think that they were just using “children” to mean “people under the age of consent” in that sentence so that they wouldn’t have to keep writing out both words.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Had they really found that there is no difference with children but there is a difference with adolescents, I think they would have clarified that; rather, I think that they were just using “children” to mean “people under the age of consent” in that sentence so that they wouldn’t have to keep writing out both words.
            ==================
            Since they had already made the distinction, there is no reason to confound what they are talking about by not sticking to their distinction. So, you just made an assumption which is wrong, because it’s what you want to believe.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        I’m not going to start thinking that all the gay people I know are just tick timing bombs of misery and destruction just because you say so, when I have evidence to the contrary.
        ================
        Andrew, I didn’t say all of them were like that – “dysfunctional” covers wide territory.

    • Andrew Kohler

      One more thing about Hitler: under his rule, tens of thousands of homosexuals (primarily gay men) were persecuted and killed:

      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/steakley-nazis.asp

      http://www.hardenet.com/homocaust/index1.htm
      [The pun in the title of the latter is unacceptable, but the information is good.]

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    Andrew said: A true statement. But, there actually is abuse in the Catholic Church. You have not demonstrated anything comparable in the LGBT movement, but rather shouted insults at us when we’ve told you that you have the burden of proof.
    ================
    What are you trying to say – that the majority of homosexual abuse, exploitation, harassment, trafficking in society is and was perpetrated by priests – and not by people who normalize homosexuality and have your homosexuality agenda? Is that the lie you like to live by?
    With your level of lying and denials, any time we state the truth about the abuse and harm perpetrated by LGBT people, you call it an insult.
    ======================
    Andrew said:*** Well, the problem is clearly institutional cover-ups, which you’ve just proven can go on even with a “good [read: hateful and destructive] position on homosexuality.” If the BSA has problems with the gay ban in place, then clearly the gay ban is not the best solution, now is it!?!?***

    No, because the problem wasn’t the gay ban, it was the fact that homosexuals and others were exploiting and harming boys, violating the ban on homosexuals, among others. Society has laws that forbid abuse, but it still happens – are you saying we should delete all the laws then because it’s not the best solution?

    • Andrew Kohler

      “Society has laws that forbid abuse, but it still happens – are you saying we should delete all the laws then because it’s not the best solution?”

      Certainly not. When things are against the law, it’s understood that this will not prevent them from happening, but rather ensure that there will be consequences for the offenders. And, what I’m saying is that we should have laws that are good, fair, and as effective as possible.

      “What are you trying to say – that the majority of homosexual abuse, exploitation, harassment, trafficking in society is and was perpetrated by priests – and not by people who normalize homosexuality and have your homosexuality agenda? Is that the lie you like to live by?”

      In the case of the Catholic Church, the abuse was perpetrated by priests and other men of the cloth, the majority of whom were hardly trying to normalize homosexuality. In the case of society at large, no, priests are not the only culprits, not by far. But as far as “normalizing” homosexuality leading to abuse–nope, not buyin’ it. Not least because I’ve not heard about any correlation between a rise in gay sex offenders in the years following Stonewall, not even from people who espouse your way of thinking.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        I don’t know if it’s possible to count abuse that precisely in a short time, but sexual harassment and aggressive, unwanted sexual advances by LGBT people, certainly – the rise is clear. Not that people like you know anything about it.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ M

          I’ve been sexually harassed by (presumably straight, possibly bisexual) men. I’ve never been sexually harassed by lesbians, bisexual women, or gay men. I’m female.

          Studies and polls show my experience is not unique. In fact, it’s the norm for women in the US- practically every woman has a story of being harassed by a (presumably straight) man, but sexual harassment by LGB people is much rarer. Does it happen? Sure, because people are people and some people are assholes. But it’s not a large problem and certainly a much smaller problem than hetero sexual harassment.

          • Glodson

            I would imagine that this is a by-product of our culture, in that male privilege leads many heterosexual men to believe that they are entitled to your sexual attention. As such, many have a hazy notion of what consent even is, and boundaries in general. Worse, these attitudes are normalized to a point that some women buy into the notion, further reinforcing the attitude. This creates a culture where men who are more predatory can take take advantage of people with little consequence.

            At least, that’s been my understanding of this dynamic. Gay men, and women in general, have a tendency to better understand boundaries, and those who are given to predatory behavior find a space that is less forgiving for them to exist in.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ M

            Indeed, Glodson. (Yeah, my nerd is showing. Shush)

            I wanted to make the point to Alessandra (if ze is listening) that sexual harassment by GLBT people is not a serious societal problem and NOT a reason to oppress or denigrate anyone. I’m pretty sure going into feminist understandings of patriarchy and masculinity is a bit much at this stage in the conversation with hir, but it also never hurts to put it out there either.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I’ve been sexually harassed by (presumably straight, possibly bisexual) men. I’ve never been sexually harassed by lesbians, bisexual women, or gay men. I’m female.

            Studies and polls show my experience is not unique.
            ===========================
            No one said that LGBT sexually harassed every person on the planet. Reality shows that there has been a huge increase of sexual harassment and aggressive, unwanted sexual advances by people who are LGBT and who believe that homosexuality is normal. And these are the people who are going to be in the Boy Scouts doing the sexual harassment.
            Furthermore, how do you decide if a problem is a serious problem or a large problem? Only if it happens to you? For example, have you been sexually abused by a homosexual priest? Were you one of their victims? So, if you weren’t, then all sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not a large problem, it’s not a serious problem, it’s not a societal problem?
            I don’t think you have any clue about how much or how often LGBT sexually harass others or engage in aggressive, unwanted sexual advances. I know of dozens of cases and the studies I’ve seen show you are wrong. For example, sexual harassment by LGBT people in universities is a problem. The more you talk to people, the more cases you find out about from people from all walks of life, in all kinds of situations and environments.
            And people who think homosexuality is normal often collude with LGBT sexual harassers. or they simply go in denial that LGBT individuals sexually harass, or they minimize the harassment, or the problem of harassment, such as you are doing above. That’s the people who are going to be enabling sexual harassment by homosexuals and bisexuals in the boy scouts. And when boys are sexually harassed by homosexuals in the BSA, obviously, it’s not going to be you, so, again, what do you care?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ M

            “Reality shows that there has been a huge increase of sexual harassment and aggressive, unwanted sexual advances by people who are LGBT and who believe that homosexuality is normal. And these are the people who are going to be in the Boy Scouts doing the sexual harassment.”
            [citation needed]
            “I don’t think you have any clue about how much or how often LGBT sexually harass others or engage in aggressive, unwanted sexual advances. I know of dozens of cases and the studies I’ve seen show you are wrong. For example, sexual harassment by LGBT people in universities is a problem. The more you talk to people, the more cases you find out about from people from all walks of life, in all kinds of situations and environments.”
            [citation needed]
            “And people who think homosexuality is normal often collude with LGBT sexual harassers. or they simply go in denial that LGBT individuals sexually harass, or they minimize the harassment, or the problem of harassment, such as you are doing above. That’s the people who are going to be enabling sexual harassment by homosexuals and bisexuals in the boy scouts. And when boys are sexually harassed by homosexuals in the BSA, obviously, it’s not going to be you, so, again, what do you care?”
            [citation needed]

            All sexual harassment is bad. LBGTQQIAA people are less likely to harass others because it can be very dangerous for them to come out in public (well, and aces are by definition asexual). Why are you minimizing hetero male-on-female sexual harassment, when it’s by far the dominant form? Are you one of the wrong people who thinks that’s “normal” and women just have to suck it up and deal with it? How do you like me making accusatory and inflammatory statements about you with no real evidence to back them up?

            TL;DR: [citation needed]

          • Glodson

            @M

            I just wanted to make for a better discussion, somehow. True, I could have accomplished that by making farting noises at my computer than the one we are all currently entrenched it, but that seemed hardly fitting. And never apologize for your nerd showing.

            Which reminds me, I really should comment on your blog posting about rogues.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    By the way, this whole “homosexuals/bisexuals are more likely to molest boys AND to be liberal, therefore liberals are more likely to be sex criminals” is faulty logic. In addition, the reason that gay people are more often (but not always) liberal is that liberals aren’t as nasty to them as conservatives. And if you’re not around people who are nasty to you, you will be better adjusted, and LESS likely to be damaged and dysfunctional. Therefore, if environmental factors even contribute at all to a person being a pedophile or ephebophile (I am not convinced on that point, by the way), more likely it would be repressive societies rather than liberal ones.
    =================
    A society that tells people they need to investigate and resolve their psychological problems is not repressive. This is an ethical and responsible society. A liberal society, which tells people that people with huge ethical and psychological problems related to sexuality and relationships are normal, is a society full of violence and harm, including STD epidemics.
    A repressive society that doesn’t allow people to treat their dysfunctional sexualities won’t be very good. The best society is one where all the dysfunctional and perverted ways to experience sexuality that liberals are normalizing are called into question, people are held accountable, they have to face their psychological and social problems, and they have to resolve them. Normalizing homosexuality is part of a destructive movement of society.
    And environment does contribute to the deformation of person’s psychology related to sexuality, in every which way, in fact. The more psychological problems an individual develops, the more it will impact their sexual sphere.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    The most sex abuse of males by other males occurs in prison, and the men doing the abusing do not think of themselves as’ homosexual’ because what they are doing has *NOTHING TO DO* with sexual desire; it’s about power over another person.
    ===================
    First, we are not talking about the prison population here. So what does it matter if men abuse men in prison, if the question is the BSA? What we need to see is who abuses, who corrupts, who exploits boys out of prison. A large number of these perpetrators have your homosexuality agenda, and many have a homosexuality problem.
    If men just had a power problem over other men, they wouldn’t *sexually* assault, can you understand that? You need to have a sexually perverted mind to sexually assault someone, otherwise you just physically assault them. I think you’re clearly wrong.

    “Men who rape men in prison do not think of themselves as homosexual, because they are motivated by power, not sexual desire.”
    Are you trying to say that no homosexual has ever raped another male in prison? Whaaaat? Or are you trying to say homosexuals just rape males out of prison? Whaaaat? I’m not saying that a person couldn’t sexually abuse someone without that being their sexual orientation, but you’re trying to paint all male abuse in prison as heterosexual and that’s wrong.
    What people think of themselves and what they are is not always the same, now is it? By the way, didn’t your psychology course tell you about “temporary homosexuality or bisexuality”?

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    smrnda says: I think I’d like to add one more thing – among other things, I was supposed to review proposals for psychology experiments and studies, so the best response to someone quoting an article is to just go out and read the article, because I can assure you it will go into all the details you asked for and more than you want to read.
    ================
    I think asking questions about an article is a very valid thing to do. I’d like to see your answers. I asked a bunch of questions and the people who mentioned the article didn’t answer the majority of them. It would be nice if someone answered my questions.

    • smrnda

      This:

      What we need to see is who abuses, who corrupts, who exploits boys out of prison. A large number of these perpetrators have your homosexuality agenda, and many have a homosexuality problem.
      If men just had a power problem over other men, they wouldn’t *sexually* assault, can you understand that? You need to have a sexually perverted mind to sexually assault someone, otherwise you just physically assault them. I think you’re clearly wrong.

      “If men just had a power problem over other men, they wouldn’t *sexually* assault, can you understand that?”

      First, the term ‘power problem’ is meaningless drivel. If you want power over someone, you degrade them in the way that they want done the least. Would most men think it’s worse to be raped, or beaten up? The prison rapist does what he does since he knows that the victim would prefer to be beaten up instead of raped. And the phrase ‘sexually perverted’ isn’t a meaningful clinical term.

      You have clearly never studied the issues of sexual violence, instead, you’re relied on your intuitive ‘feelings’ on the issue. People who want to degrade others want to do what would degrade them the most – obviously sexual assault is more violent and degrading and traumatic than just beating someone up. Seriously, ask a straight man ‘would you rather get beat up or raped by another man?’ So the prison rapist, who perhaps even finds sex acts with other men somewhat repulsive, rapes the man anyway since it’s the worst weapon he has. Males who rape other males in prison often will say things like ‘I’m no faggot, and I hate gay people.’ They put themselves outside of whatever ‘homosexual agenda’ you think exists a a well-defined and meaningful thing. Given that I spent a few years studying these issues, I’m not going to ditch what I’ve seen backed by numerous studies and lots of research with what you happen to say. You can think I’m clearly wrong, but I will on Monday go out and post as many links and book and studies on sexual assault I can find.

      You can think I’m wrong, but given that you are not an expert in the field, I’d consider your opinions on the topic as not worth looking into. I am not a rocket scientist, nor do I know much about any related area, so NASA should tell me they don’t care about my opinions, unless I can back them up.

      And this:

      “Of course it falsifiable. If you start investigating a person’s psychology and you find other dynamics than what you first imagined, you’ve just falsified you’re first conception of the problem and you need to elaborate and adjust a new conception.”

      Um, you seem to not understand what is meant by ‘unfalsifiable.’ Unfalsifiable means “I believe homosexuality can be explained through some sort of deficit in gender identity.” How could one disprove this statement? When you say ‘well, my initial explanation was wrong, there must be other dynamics’ you are still relying on the original, unfalsifiable psychoanalytic theory of sexual development.

      “Making up theories while not knowing how people’s minds actually works in practice isn’t very useful, I agree. But investigating how a person feels, what their attitudes are, how they function psychologically, how their unconscious works in practice is not the same thing. Investigations are possible, and in-depth investigations are very possible.”

      Psychoanalytic therapy has been pretty much consigned to the dust-bin of history since every psychoanalytic practitioner basically finds exactly what they want to find and never anything else. This is again what is meant by ‘unfalsifiable’ – the analyst comes up with an ‘explanation’ based on their ‘deep understanding’ which is more like a Tarot reading.

      Also, when I was studying to be an MSW, we discussed the fact that issues like high risk sexual behaviors can be a problem, but that these are problems that both heterosexuals and homosexuals have.

      The reason I used (before you said it) the NARTH example is that I can’t convince you you’re wrong unless I know where you got your facts. Do you understand how an academic debate works? How papers are peer reviewed?

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        “If you want power over someone, you degrade them in the way that they want done the least. ”
        ===================
        No, you don’t, not necessarily. There are many ways to have power over people where they aren’t degraded in the worst possible way. The government has power over you, does it not? And it’s not coming to rape you every night. Power is set up in so many different ways.
        And people beat up others all the time in order to have power over them. that’s what battering is. If battering wasn’t a question of having power over people, as you claim, then there would be no battering, only rapes – because batterers do want to have power over people. So, you’re wrong. Doing violence to others involve issues of power – rape is not in any way exclusive or special in that respect.

        And the type of rape that you are describing, if it is one that does not involve a perverted sexual desire, is certainly not the normal or most common type of rape. Take “date rape” for example. A young man and woman drink, get reasonable drunk, start foreplay, he wants to have sex, because of desire, she doesn’t. He forces her. You would claim there was no desire in this situation? That’s ridiculous. Sure, there’s a question of power, but there is also a question of sexual desire. Then, another example, a bisexual who feels a sexually perverted desire to molest boys. He doesn’t need power over them, because he has that already. It’s his perverse sexual desire that drives him. You’re wrong to claim that humans can’t have all kinds of sexually perverted desires and that wanting to get a perverse sexual satisfaction drives them to commit all kinds of assaults, molestation, sexual harassment, etc.

        “And the phrase ‘sexually perverted’ isn’t a meaningful clinical term.”

        It is very meaningful to describe reality. So I ask again – what term do you use to describe sexual perversion, or sexually perverted desire – or do you just lie to yourself that they don’t exist?
        =======================
        “You have clearly never studied the issues of sexual violence, instead, you’re relied on your intuitive ‘feelings’ on the issue.”
        I’m sorry, but just repeating what you are told without being able to think about it is not studying. Clearly you relied on imitating authority, without thinking much. And you have no idea what I rely on.

        • smrnda

          I was specifically making a case that the largest case of male on male sexual violence is predicated on power and not on sexual desire. I did this because it would be more proper to view cases like Sandusky as similar to this rather than to the date-rape analogy you pointed out in which sexual desire could be considered more of a factor.

          You also agreed that battering is an expression of power, and that rape is a more extreme expression of power. In the same way, shoplifting is a form of theft, and armed robbery is another form of theft. Some people engage in more extreme behaviors than others. If people would never batter because they could rape, then people would never shoplift because they could rob a bank, or engage in white collar crime and clean up even better. I don’t see the connection there.

          “Perverted sexual desire” is a vague, imprecise term that, even if I tried to use it, would lump together too many behaviors which are not similar enough to warrant having the same label. I prefer the more precise terms which have emerged and which are currently used by legitimate psychologists, psychiatrists and sexologists. “Perverted desire” is the psycho-sexual equivalent of a medical statement like ‘bad humors’ – we have ceased to use it because it was not useful.

          I mean, yes, adults have ‘power’ over children but not in the sense of ‘coercive control’ – I apologize for using an ambiguous word. There is a ‘power’ which neutral (like the government) an another which is linked with the desire for coercive control and domination. In the latter, the person will probably do whatever degrades their victims the most, and the main driving force is that.

          Also, why are you so averse to citing the sources that you have used to draw your conclusions? Every time I post anything you say “You have no idea what source I’ve used.” Well, please enlighten me so that I can head to the library tomorrow and look up the journal articles and publications you rely on for information so I can compare them with the sources that I encountered in the past. You do understand why this is a necessary step, right?

          Given that you have not mentioned any sources you have used to gain information, I cannot decide whether or not you are informed, or whether or not you’re simply stating your opinions and saying “It’s common sense!” I mean, ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? That poorly informed people over-estimate their ability to draw original conclusions and are unable to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information? And yes, I’ve accepted what I learned in school – accepted it based on the fact that the conclusions were derived from studies and experiments done with proper methodology, not a person’s ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ understanding of things. If that was enough, there would be no need or systematic study. Plus, there is a reason why we do rely on certain authorities – because of the peer review process, we can figure out which conclusions are better substantiated than others.

          I mean, I studied social psychology, and I would not pretend to be able to discuss cognitive psychology effectively since it’s outside of my area of expertise. I would have to take a lot longer to understand a study in that field since it doesn’t deal with the same things I’m used to and would likely use unfamiliar terminology.

          I will respond if and only if you name sources. I will get mine tomorrow and hopefully post them Monday night or Tuesday morning, but if I don’t get some sources, for all I know you’re simply stating opinions that come from your own head.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I was specifically making a case that the largest case of male on male sexual violence is predicated on power and not on sexual desire. I did this because it would be more proper to view cases like Sandusky as similar to this rather than to the date-rape analogy you pointed out in which sexual desire could be considered more of a factor.
            ==================
            But the fact is that you have no case that the largest number of male on male sexual violence is predicated on power and not on sexual desire. No case at all. You made a declaration with no basis on reality – that’s not “making a case.”
            You have not provided any data showing what kind of sexual desire any male feels when he perpetrates any kind of violence, especially in the context of sexual assault, nor have you provided any data about how much of a motivation or causal factor this is. Not even for your prison cases.
            And you were the person who said: ” it would be wrong for me to generalize from my clients to the general population.”
            You are just making a blank generalization from one specific case to all or to the majority. With no supporting evidence. You say that simply because in a very special context – prison – a certain kind of rape may involve no desire or some desire (a heterosexual man raping another), that this is true for all kinds of rape, or most, even when it’s clear that in many rape cases, a perverted desire is the main motivation for the aggression. What you are denying is that there is a huge problem of perverted sexualities and desires in society. People with perverted desire commit sexual offenses every day, and they are motivated by them. Much fewer cases are predicated on a desire to perpetrate on someone the most extreme form of humiliation they can think of ( your prison example).

            Moreover, the Boy Scouts are NOT in prison. The kinds of sexual abuse that they will suffer are more like date rape than your prison example – or this kind of seduction abuse:
            Familiar Pattern of Molestation in BSA Files
            http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/familiar-pattern-of-molestation-in-bsa-files/

            Your little “prison rape” propaganda and the denial of real abuse by homosexuals and of the ways they are sexually perverted is responsible for a lot of cover up of real cases of homosexuals and bisexuals abusing juveniles.

            “I did this because it would be more proper to view cases like Sandusky as similar to this rather than to the date-rape analogy you pointed out ”

            Why? you have not established any reason why it would be more proper, given that a man like Sandusky already has power over boys. And there are plenty of men who also have power over boys, but do not have Sandusky’s perverted sexual desire, and they have no motivation to sexually molest boys. What’s the difference between the two types of men?
            And if you look at many of the types of molestation that Sandusky perpetrated, there is a lot worse that he could have done if his objective was, like you contend, to think of the most humiliating experience possible. No, what he wanted was a variety of perverted sexual gratifications. Even though all his acts were violations, several were certainly not the worst kinds of humiliating experiences a perverse and grown man could think of doing to a boy. As a grown and perverse man, he could have thought and he certainly knows of much more humiliating and gruesome forms of assault than some of the acts he did. However, everything I read he did involved a high content of perverted sexual desire. Why do you ignore that?

            You’re sticking to a blanket theory that does not fit reality. I would think because simply that’s what you were told to believe.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            also, a clarification – rape is only one very specific type of assault. Sexual assault and molestation and harassment involve much more types of assault and violations. And perverted sexual desires are a key motivation in many incidents. It’s important to highlight that rape is certainly not the only kind of sexual assault there is, especially for males.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        The reason I used (before you said it) the NARTH example is that I can’t convince you you’re wrong unless I know where you got your facts. Do you understand how an academic debate works? How papers are peer reviewed?
        ===================
        Indeed I do. Should I point out how many atrocious peer reviewed papers have been published in the history of psychiatry? (and the rest of the social sciences?)
        And if my facts are wrong, you should be able to show that. That is, if you have facts yourself. I’m not exactly sure what are the main points you are debating.

    • smrnda

      They gave you the name of the article and the author. If you’re too lazy to google it yourself, then you don’t care about reading anything that doesn’t already agree with you. I have already posted authors from NARTH (whom I do not agree with) and that I have read them. Why would you want someone to summarize an article for you rather than reading it yourself?

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        I wouldn’t be against taking a look at an article. This one is not freely available though. And I didn’t ask them to summarize the article, I asked them questions about the article -it’s different – because if you will read the article and my questions, you will see that some questions are not answered by the article. But my questions point to problems in the claims the poster was making. That’s why I was asking them. And the other reason is that most people who quote articles on these forums have never read them. Have you read it?

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          “Perverted sexual desire” is a vague, imprecise term that, even if I tried to use it, would lump together ****too many behaviors**** which are not similar enough to warrant having the same label. I prefer the more precise terms which have emerged and which are currently used by legitimate psychologists, psychiatrists and sexologists.
          ==============
          Like what? Which terms do you use? And now desire is a behavior?

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    Yeah, someone can claim this, but on the basis of what? And what evidence would persuade them otherwise? Once you start working with theories that came out of somebody’s head first, how do you determine if they actually work, or if they just offer an explanation for what you see that fits the story, so you buy it, even as explanations shift with each new twist and turn?

    So the problem? It’s unfalsifiable. The psychoanalytic models for homosexuality were mostly dropped because if they were correct, then therapies based on those models should have worked. In actuality, they almost never did and never do, and claims that they ‘worked’ aren’t usually so persuasive.
    ====================
    Making up theories while not knowing how people’s minds actually works in practice isn’t very useful, I agree. But investigating how a person feels, what their attitudes are, how they function psychologically, how their unconscious works in practice is not the same thing. Investigations are possible, and in-depth investigations are very possible.

    “So the problem? It’s unfalsifiable. ”
    Of course it falsifiable. If you start investigating a person’s psychology and you find other dynamics than what you first imagined, you’ve just falsified you’re first conception of the problem and you need to elaborate and adjust a new conception.

    “then therapies based on those models should have worked”
    Why “should have?” It’s not because you understand a problem that you are able to devise a therapy that will resolve it. Have people now decided to stop doing therapy to couples just because so many couples failed at therapy? or rapists? or pedophiles? Treating someone is a very complicated affair, especially if the problems run deep. I hope that was explained in your course. Furthermore, and since you have studied psychology, the first thing you should have learned is that most people don’t want to resolve their dysfunctions. And they don’t even like recognizing they have any.
    But none of these problems invalidate that psychological problems are treatable, and that goes for homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    The problem when you don’t provide citations is if I said “the things you said came from a NARTH pamphlet and the claims are discredited by study X” you could then say “I didn’t use NARTH as a source.” Without telling me what sources you’re using, if I provide evidence to the contrary you can always allege that I haven’t addressed your position.
    =================
    I think it would be best that you didn’t put words in my mouth that I haven’t said.
    Instead of imagining a soap opera of replies, which haven’t happened, you could just debate using whatever sources you have.

  • smrnda

    “Making up theories while not knowing how people’s minds actually works in practice isn’t very useful, I agree. But investigating how a person feels, what their attitudes are, how they function psychologically, how their unconscious works in practice is not the same thing. Investigations are possible, and in-depth investigations are very possible.”

    Both of these approaches involves speculating about ‘why someone is they way they are’ based on subjective perceptions and a lot of guesswork. Ancient psychologists came up with psychoanalytic theories based on generalizing from the people they had seen, but all of the theories are equally unfalsifiable. If I interview someone and I say ‘well, he didn’t fit my previous theories, but I got a new one that explains this guy’ I am still just making it up as I go along, and whenever my psychoanalytic theories fail. I”d just be making up a new one as I went along. That’s why this methodology has been ditched.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      “If I interview someone and I say ‘well, he didn’t fit my previous theories, but I got a new one that explains this guy’ I am still just making it up as I go along, and whenever my psychoanalytic theories fail. I”d just be making up a new one as I went along. That’s why this methodology has been ditched.”
      ==============
      You’ve just described the scientific method, in case you are not aware of it. Science is about conceiving theories to explain and fit what you are observing. If an older theory does not fit some phenomenon you are observing or trying to understand, you need to try to figure out why and what is happening. I don’t see how you can disagree. What do you do when you have a theory and it doesn’t fit? Do you continue insisting on your theory even though it’s clear that it’s not applicable to reality?
      I don’t think you even understand what you are saying. The scientific method has not been ditched, because science continues to evolve as always.
      …………………………..
      “Um, you seem to not understand what is meant by ‘unfalsifiable.’ Unfalsifiable means “I believe homosexuality can be explained through some sort of deficit in gender identity.” How could one disprove this statement? ”

      Because, obviously, a person who says that needs to explain why. What is homosexuality, what is gender identity, what is this deficit, how is it produced, how are the two related, what are the links, how does one impact another, etc? And if the explanation is not correct, if you can point out problems with it, then you have proven that the claim is wrong. Where is the problem?
      I don’t understand what you mean that this is unfalsifiable. Are you saying that no one can ever know anything correctly about what goes on the mind of any person? Really?

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    “Making up theories while not knowing how people’s minds actually works in practice isn’t very useful, I agree. But investigating how a person feels, what their attitudes are, how they function psychologically, how their unconscious works in practice is not the same thing. Investigations are possible, and in-depth investigations are very possible.”
    ===============
    Psychoanalytic therapy has been pretty much consigned to the dust-bin of history since every psychoanalytic practitioner basically finds exactly what they want to find and never anything else.
    ===============
    I’m not sure you even know what I am talking about. I don’t know much about what the majority of psychoanalysts find or don’t find, so to me the issue is not important at all. Independently of the method, what is important is a finding that matches reality.
    Investigating how a person feels, what their attitudes are, how they function psychologically, how their unconscious works in practice is possible, and in-depth investigations are very possible.
    Maybe, they are so clueless in your school, that they told you can never know anything about a person’s feelings, attitudes, their psychological functioning, and their unconscious. If they did, sorry, but they conned you. It is possible, even though it can be very hard, and the more complicated the case, the more talent and knowledge and expertise one needs.
    In short, psychological investigations are possible. Maybe you didn’t learn anything about them, how to do them, or the fact that other people can do them very well (only the better therapists, I would say). But all of this doesn’t change the fact that we can very well investigate psychological dynamics of the mind. It doesn’t mean that anyone who tries it is going to succeed. But that also doesn’t mean that it’s never possible.
    So your claim that we can’t know anything about any person’s psychological functioning is total nonsense.
    Even people who aren’t professionals can sometimes know a lot about their own psychology. That’s knowledge too that you claim is not possible.

    • smrnda

      Given that you use the word ‘unconscious’ which hasn’t been treated as a meaningful entity for more than perhaps 70 years, it’s clear your conception of psychology and mental health is out of date. It’s a term from an era where ‘psychoanalysis’ was closer to a Tarot reading than something based on systematic inquiry and evidence based practice. The therapist says “I know I can explain why you are X” and then, whenever they meet a new client who doesn’t fit their existing theory, they just invent an new theory. The reason this fails the falsifiability criterion is that if they have an explanation for homosexuality and they encounter a client who doesn’t fit that explanation, they just invent a new one, but then they don’t discard the old one. In science, once your hypothesis no longer holds, you discard it. You could say that ‘well, it’s different for everyone” but then we’re outside of the realm of actual theories that explain things systematically.

      Allow me to ask a question or two, since I need to figure out if I’m dealing with someone competent. What is the cause of schizophrenia, as best as you understand it? What was it originally suspected of being? What is cognitive behavior therapy, and what is it used for? Do bipolar disorder and schizo-affective disorder reflect different etiologies? If you can’t answer these questions, then you don’t know enough to make assessments in this area. Sorry, but it’s true for all of us – I’m not an auto mechanic and I’m not a chemist.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        In science, once your hypothesis no longer holds, you discard it.
        =================
        And you said any time a therapist did this, any time they changed their theory or explanation, they were wrong to do so.

        So, are you saying the scientific method is all wrong? Can you make up your mind if you endorse or attack the scientific method?

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        smrnda says: Given that you use the word ‘unconscious’ which hasn’t been treated as a meaningful entity for more than perhaps 70 years, it’s clear your conception of psychology and mental health is out of date.
        ================
        Try this – go to Google scholar and look up “unconscious feelings violence”

        I get 175,000 results of publications, many of which were published quite recently dealing with topics in psychology and unconscious dynamics. I don’t think you have any clue of what a meaningful entity in psychology is.
        It’s clear you notions of psychology and mental health are lacking in their most basic respects.
        And, if you repeat the search with all kinds of combinations of keywords with “unconscious” – you will get many thousands more of articles and books. You see, contrary to what you apparently were told, our unconscious is a primal entity in our minds – and it has a fundamental influence on how people relate and feel about others. How sad that you could be given a degree in anything even remotely related to psychology and have no idea of what anyone is talking about when then say “unconscious.”

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        The reason this fails the falsifiability criterion is that if they have an explanation for homosexuality and they encounter a client who doesn’t fit that explanation, they just invent a new one, but then they don’t discard the old one. In science, once your hypothesis no longer holds, you discard it. You could say that ‘well, it’s different for everyone” but then we’re outside of the realm of actual theories that explain things systematically.
        =================
        You mean like this: I see a murderer and I come up with a theory of why he committed murder. Then I see a second murderer who clearly had a different motivation for murder and so I discard my first hypothesis for this person and come up with another hypothesis that actually fits the second case. But I don’t discard the first hypothesis for the first murderer. I am now outside the “realm of actual theories that explain things systematically” because not every person is a clone? And since not every murderer is the same – have you noticed? – I cannot explain the feelings, motivations, thoughts of any murderer?

        You clearly do not know what science is.

  • smrnda

    Allesandra, I wanted to add a bit about my education.

    I was taught that, in the past, psychoanalysts believed that, for any person with any issues, they had the power to explain the real cause of these problems by applying psychoanalytic theories or through psychotherapy – they viewed every patient as a lock that would open if they could just find the right key.

    Today, psychiatrists have less confidence that they are privy to such a high level of understanding of other people’s motives, thoughts and feelings. The belief in ‘repressed conflicts’ – that the real reason for a person’s anxiety or depression was something hidden from their conscious mind, but that which could be unlocked through therapy, is no longer believed to be true. The therapist does their best to work with a client and does not pretend to be capable of a full and total understanding of another person. In the past, the idea was that the therapist would unlock all the sources of conflicts and once that was done, the problem would be resolved. Therapists now admit that this is not possible, and that is no reason to believe that there exist hidden keys to solve people’s problems. One reason is that the old approaches did not yield results, and newer approaches did. You seem to want to believe that trained mental health professionals are almost on the level of real psychics. They aren’t.

    Okay, now given that information, what relevance does this have to eating disorders, OCD disorders, and cognitive behavior therapy?

    • smrnda

      To respond to myself about unfalsifiable theories, there’s a ‘theory’ that homosexuality is caused by poor father/son relationships. Here is the problem:

      Poor father/son relationships are far more common than homosexuality.
      There exist homosexuals who had positive father/son relationships.

      So in other words, this correlation doesn’t seem to have much predictive validity (if poor father/son relationships caused homosexuality, it would be more common.)

      Now, let’s say a therapist says ‘Well, this guy had a positive relationship with his father, but he turned out gay. Therefore, there’s a different explanation for that.” This isn’t a systematic evaluation of a hypothesis, it’s a case by case, make it up as you go along “everybody has a different explanation for why.” That’s not a theory, because a new case that does not validate the current theory does not falsify the existing theory.

      Someone could point to statistics about father/son relationships and homosexuality, but the results are not conclusive. Current research into homosexuality hasn’t provided any real clear cues as to why – there’s some evidence for prenatal factors, but I’m not sure how strong that is. Homosexuality occurs in animals, but it’s not even clear if this has any bearing for understanding human sexuality.

      The old psychoanalytic theories were believed to be total, universal explanations – they were overly ambitious because at the time, less was known so it was easier to overstate our ability to explain things. Older theories were often based on traditional sources of folk wisdom, astrology, myths, all sorts of things that no longer form the foundation for psychology.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      I was taught that, in the past, psychoanalysts believed that, for any person with any issues, they had the power to explain the real cause of these problems by applying psychoanalytic theories or through psychotherapy – they viewed every patient as a lock that would open if they could just find the right key.

      Today, psychiatrists have less confidence that they are privy to such a high level of understanding of other people’s motives, thoughts and feelings.
      ================
      I disagree. I think psychiatrists and other therapists can have a great deal of confidence in achieving a high level of understanding of other people’s motives, thought, and feelings, in a variety of specific cases. If I understood you, you are saying no one can have any high confidence in any explanation for any phenomenon related to any person at any time. Just simply nonsense. The reverse absolute is also not true. People cannot have a great deal of confidence in a high level of understanding all the time, in every case, etc. And therapists make wrong assumptions all the time, with a lot of confidence – that’s true too.
      =====================
      “The belief in ‘repressed conflicts’ – that the real reason for a person’s anxiety or depression was something hidden from their conscious mind, but that which could be unlocked through therapy, is no longer believed to be true. ”
      Obviously if something is unconscious, it is hidden. And there are a lot of conflicts and other complicated emotions and dynamics that can be present in a person’s unconscious, even take over control of their conscious abilities at times, for example. And through investigation, people can sometimes find out what these unconscious elements are and how they impact a person’s psychology. If you are saying by “unlocked” that they would be all resolved simply by being revealed, most of the time, that would not resolve them. Discovering what goes on inside the unconscious of a person most of the time doesn’t change their unconscious dynamics nor what produces it. However, becoming conscious of previously unconscious dynamics can be empowering for a person in certain situations, and can add to their understanding of their psychology, which, in a larger therapeutic method, can be very helpful. And it can give you clues to understanding and explaining many of their problems.
      But I suppose you can’t understand any of this, because you don’t even know what “unconscious” means.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      One reason is that the old approaches did not yield results, and newer approaches did. You seem to want to believe that trained mental health professionals are almost on the level of real psychics. They aren’t.
      ==================
      You don’t seem to understand the most simple things I write on here, so I don’t think you are in a position to say what “I want to believe in.” And that doesn’t bode well for anyone who is pretending to be in psychology.

      We disagree that real knowledge of many aspects of a person’s mind is possible. That’s not being a “psychic.” Perhaps since you are never capable of having any knowledge at all, or any profound or complex knowledge, you believe that no one is ever capable either. However, having solid knowledge of many aspects of an individual’s mind is possible. Real knowledge is not being “psychic.” Apparently you don’t know the difference.

      • smrnda

        I notice that you did not bother to answer the basic psychology 101 questions that I asked. Since you have not done so, I am assuming that you must know nothing of psychology, since anyone who had any basic understanding could have answered them, so I will only assume that you are not knowledgeable about the field to be worth talking to. With this, I will end this discussion.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          And I noticed that you were incapable of sustaining your positions regarding many of the issues above. Knowledge about psychology to you means repeating what you repeat without thinking as well.
          It’s no wonder that someone who questions what you believe, especially when your belief does not correspond to reality, is then a person without “knowledge” to you.

  • Jimmy Mac

    “Liberals have been consistently abusing children”

    Hell, conservatives consistently abuse truth, especially when they make nonsensical statements as the one I just quoted.

  • smrnda

    Dunning Kruger effect people. Allesandra did not answer my very basic questions about psychology, which must mean that she does not know the answers. Since Allesandra has done nothing to demonstrate competence in the field, there is no purpose in further discussion.

    • smrnda

      An easy google search, or looking up the DSM-IV could have answered most of them within seconds. Heck, cutting and pasting from wikipedia would have worked for some of them.

  • Pingback: Debate with pro-homosexuality agenda commenter “smrnda” at Patheos – example of a person being completely irrational and prejudist | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    The “no gay” policy is only 22 years old. For the first 81 years of BSA there was no ban on gays as Scouts or leaders.

    Which is how we came to have so many Eagles who are also gay. Good people, almost all of them — the sorts of men you’d be proud to have your son model after, regardless their orientation.

    For the first 81 years, Scouting did very well allowing gays, thank you. Since the anti-gay policy went into effect, Scouting has lost about 50% of its membership.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X