Friday, April 15, 2005
Pro-Homos Inconsistent Standard on Questions of Sexuality
Ace wrote something Clayton and I have posted a lot before:
My comments to the post and thread:
A good majority of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal victims were adolescent boys (11 yr olds and older and not less than 10 yr old kids). Most of the abuse happened with *no* physical violence involved. Several environments of abuse included overnight stays, trips. The media reported the scandal as the Church *pedophilia* scandal, as if it were straight pedophiles going after little kids, insinuating little girls, not as homo priests abusing adolescent boys.
For scholars, a distinction is usually made between pre-pubescent children (less than 10 yrs old) and teenagers. Adults who abuse adolescents do not necessarily abuse pre-pubescent children and vice-versa. Adults who are attracted to adolescents (11 yr olds and up) are called ephebophiles. The distinction is important. Not that a person can't be both, but there are some important differences.
Another double standard, Ace, regards how much abuse male homos or bisexuals perpetrate. When a homosexual (two males) abuse case is reported, obsessed pro-homos will say, "but just because it was an adult male and a male child/adolescent, it doesn't mean the adult is homosexual. Straight adults abuse boys, because pedophiles have no adult sexuality. In fact, the majority of child abusers are straight men." while all of this can be true in certain cases, for all the gazillions of homos who abuse, it is false.
Now you take the same situation, an adult male and a female child/adolescent, and immediately, in a frothing at the mouth response, pro-homos will say, "See! He is straight !" And not " this guy isn't straight because he does not have a straight adult sexuality. So he is neither straight, nor bi, nor homo in the adult sense - just pedo"
Adults can simultaneously have an adult, an adolescent, and a pre-pubescent focus of sexual feelings and actions. Or any combination of the previous. You can have a homo that has sex with men and boys, little or adolescents. Or you can have an adult male that has not developed adult sexuality (towards any sex), and is geared towards children only.
The other imbecility regarding modern mass sexuality concepts is the "identity" question. Moronic sexuality dogmas go like this, "if a person identifies as a heterosexual, then they *are* heterosexual."
Identification here means what this person thinks they are. The reason this is very stupid (and part of the double standard issue you are addressing) is that a person can have the most unrealistic and loony self conceptions, including ones about their own sexuality. For example, we have millions of bisexuals who "identify" as heterosexual. In reality, they are bisexual, in their stupid minds, they are straight.
What happens if you do a study about how many people abuse children or adolescents and you ask your study population what they identify with, and you do not verify what they are in reality? The result is a really slanted version of the type of perpetrators. Slanted in which way? It obliterates how many non-straights are abusers, and inflates the "straight" category.
Which is one reason why pro-homo researchers adore to employ this biased form of identification for tabulating research results regarding perpetrators. And the masses of pro-homo morons in society go on repeating, like a mantra, "99% of all abusers are straight males."
Another thing that caught my eye in this discussion is the obliteration of the bisexual category. People rightfully talk about homos not being allowed to be scout masters, but not homos and bisexuals. Which regarding the abuse problem, is an equivalent danger.
Also, the erasure of lesbian abuse, as if, a) it didn't happen, or, b) because it seems it happens in less raw number of cases, it is a less important issue than if the abuse is perpetrated by a male. Really senseless and a horrendous double standard.
.
The "Progressive" Left's Inconsistent Standard on Questions of Sexuality
The best case for allowing "transgendered" (broadly defined) persons to use the restrooms of their choice is that their sexuality is not directed towards the persons they will be sharing the bathrooms with. A man who identifies as "female" is probably not aroused by women himself. (Although he may actually covet female sexual organs in a different way -- in that he wants to possess them -- which may cause a different sort of discomfort for actual women he shares a bathroom with.)
That does, I admit, make a certain amount of sense.
But the progressive left is wildly inconsistent on this point
Witness their insistence that gay men be allowed to serve as troopmasters for the Boy Scouts.
Now, if it's the case that someone who is male but female-identifying should be allowed to use women's bathrooms -- on the theory that he is simply not sexually attracted to women -- shouldn't we say that gay men ought not to be allowed to lead Boy Scout troops, because they are, in fact, attracted to males?
In the one case, it's "sexual preference decides; actual biological sexuality means nothing." In the second case, it's "actual biological sexuality controls; sexual preference means nothing."
Am I alone in feeling there's a bit of an inconsistency here?
[read more and see comments...]
My comments to the post and thread:
A good majority of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal victims were adolescent boys (11 yr olds and older and not less than 10 yr old kids). Most of the abuse happened with *no* physical violence involved. Several environments of abuse included overnight stays, trips. The media reported the scandal as the Church *pedophilia* scandal, as if it were straight pedophiles going after little kids, insinuating little girls, not as homo priests abusing adolescent boys.
For scholars, a distinction is usually made between pre-pubescent children (less than 10 yrs old) and teenagers. Adults who abuse adolescents do not necessarily abuse pre-pubescent children and vice-versa. Adults who are attracted to adolescents (11 yr olds and up) are called ephebophiles. The distinction is important. Not that a person can't be both, but there are some important differences.
Another double standard, Ace, regards how much abuse male homos or bisexuals perpetrate. When a homosexual (two males) abuse case is reported, obsessed pro-homos will say, "but just because it was an adult male and a male child/adolescent, it doesn't mean the adult is homosexual. Straight adults abuse boys, because pedophiles have no adult sexuality. In fact, the majority of child abusers are straight men." while all of this can be true in certain cases, for all the gazillions of homos who abuse, it is false.
Now you take the same situation, an adult male and a female child/adolescent, and immediately, in a frothing at the mouth response, pro-homos will say, "See! He is straight !" And not " this guy isn't straight because he does not have a straight adult sexuality. So he is neither straight, nor bi, nor homo in the adult sense - just pedo"
Adults can simultaneously have an adult, an adolescent, and a pre-pubescent focus of sexual feelings and actions. Or any combination of the previous. You can have a homo that has sex with men and boys, little or adolescents. Or you can have an adult male that has not developed adult sexuality (towards any sex), and is geared towards children only.
The other imbecility regarding modern mass sexuality concepts is the "identity" question. Moronic sexuality dogmas go like this, "if a person identifies as a heterosexual, then they *are* heterosexual."
Identification here means what this person thinks they are. The reason this is very stupid (and part of the double standard issue you are addressing) is that a person can have the most unrealistic and loony self conceptions, including ones about their own sexuality. For example, we have millions of bisexuals who "identify" as heterosexual. In reality, they are bisexual, in their stupid minds, they are straight.
What happens if you do a study about how many people abuse children or adolescents and you ask your study population what they identify with, and you do not verify what they are in reality? The result is a really slanted version of the type of perpetrators. Slanted in which way? It obliterates how many non-straights are abusers, and inflates the "straight" category.
Which is one reason why pro-homo researchers adore to employ this biased form of identification for tabulating research results regarding perpetrators. And the masses of pro-homo morons in society go on repeating, like a mantra, "99% of all abusers are straight males."
Another thing that caught my eye in this discussion is the obliteration of the bisexual category. People rightfully talk about homos not being allowed to be scout masters, but not homos and bisexuals. Which regarding the abuse problem, is an equivalent danger.
Also, the erasure of lesbian abuse, as if, a) it didn't happen, or, b) because it seems it happens in less raw number of cases, it is a less important issue than if the abuse is perpetrated by a male. Really senseless and a horrendous double standard.
.
