You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2006.

Another topic that the media did us a dis-favor in not exploring is the question of sexual age of consent.

I would like to know more about the age of consent issue in Washington DC. Why is it 16? Since when has it been so? Who pushed it to be 16?

From ace, one more discussion about the causes for sexual desire – which is actually a better word and concept than the ridiculous term “orientation.” I’ve slightly touched upon some of the problems with the concept of “orientation” in other posts (see a comment I post here at the end), but I really need to sit down and do a whole post on it. But I digress, here is my understanding as to why the two dominant explanations to human desire are both ignorant and detrimental to our progress in understanding human beings and our complex psychology.

I think some people *are* born gay

Right, and some people are born pedophiles (children orientation), some are born pederasts (homo adolescent orientation), and others podophiles (feet sexual orientation), and still others diaperphiles (guess what orientation that is)- and the latter being pro-homos’ case.

You look at a baby’s face and you just know it: there’s a pedophile right there! Completely sexually diseased right from the start. Because nothing impacts the brain of a human being from the time they are born until they reach puberty or adulthood with whatever sexual/emotional dysfunction they develop.


Isn’t the depth and the breadth of the genetic explanation to everything mind-blowing?

Posted by alessandra at October 26, 2006 01:44 PM

But Allesandra, if people aren’t genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?

Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing. But the way I felt when I met my wife, for example, was extremely powerful. Not just mentally, but in my gut, too. I won’t say it was “irresistable,” because we remained chaste through a very long courtship. But it was much more than a fleeting thought or an idea.

I don’t know what it is like to be gay, but some people say that they have the same sort of total feeling of attraction and that it is not something that they can ignore (And I am talking about gay people who have chosen celibacy). These people feel no attraction to members of the opposite sex, but for the sake of their religious beliefs have chosen to live without romantic companionship.

I think you shouldn’t just pretend that these people are imagining their orientation. I mean, how many people do you know who will sacrifice the hope of romantic love for the love of God? There aren’t many people like that. They are more courageous than I am. And I would be reluctant to just say they are the same as a pedophile or something.

Posted by Well at October 26, 2006 02:53 PM

I don’t know genetics, but how many people were surprised when the little boy from “Who’s the Boss” came out of the closet a year or so ago? Did that little nancy-boy choose to be gay when he was 6? That used to depress me, here he is, in his formative, should be a horny little bugger and he’s growing up around Alisa Milano and he’s fricking gay! Instead of a horny little bugger, he was a little buggerer. That’s why, if there is a God, He has a sense of humor I can appreciate.

My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10. He actually tried to be straight, he was married at 18 and a grandpa at 40, but he’s been exclusively with men since he was about 22 or so.

I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
“Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence.”

Posted by Veeshir at October 27, 2006 06:40 AM

But Allesandra, if people aren’t genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
I guess you assumed (incorrectly) that there are only two ways we can theorize or understand human desire. Either we, humans, are like reptiles, ants, and other creatures that have their entire brain controlled by instinct (which is really what the “genes causes homosexuality” people say) or we, humans, choose every psychological dynamics that happens in our brains before it happens. (it’s all a choice). I don’t think any of these explanations is either useful, or true.

Both of these explanation attempts do not take into account how extremely complex the human brain and our psychology is. Also, they do not take into account the most fundamental fact about humans, and that is that humans develop(including dysfunctionally). Humans change tremendously since the time they are born, and so does the human psycho-emotional structure, including all the dynamics therein. 15 years of experiences since a baby is born will have profound impact on the functioning of that person’s brain, on that person’s psychology.

So, when you say feeling desire for diapers is a choice, you are wrong, because the desire comes first, and then the person has the choice of what to do with it. A person does not intellectually think “I want to feel desire for a diaper at 3 o’clock” and then it happens. That’s not how desire works.

At the same time, we all receive millions of messages, emotional and mind shaping, that affect how we desire, what we desire, and the choices and attitudes and decisions we make about our desires. That is cultural.

Similarly, our culture does not encourage your average Joe to be a diaperphilic, neither a pedophilic, but people end up that way.

I think homosexuality is dysfunctional, it is a dysfunction of a healthy heterosexuality, just as you have dozens of other dysfunctions that can be found in heterosexuals regarding human sexuality. Therefore the very idea that homosexuality equals heterosexuality is invalid.

Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:08 AM

Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing.

Why is liking diapers or whatever obviously a wacky cultural thing when other things aren’t? You think they CHOSE to get get turned on by diapers?

Whatever the cause of it, I don’t see how you so simply distinguish “liking diapers or whatever” from any other latent sexual impulse. It seems to me you’ve made a knee-jerk, arbitrary judgement here.

Posted by Entropy at October 27, 2006 11:25 AM

My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10.
Well, there you go. I hadn’t yet heard that genes determined a person’s orientation towards baking cookies. Is there something particularly sexual about baking cookies that I missed? or does it have more to do with gender roles? with differences between femininity and masculinity? with how attached a child may feel to one of their primary caretakers? with feelings of emotional safety? or with a thousand other psycho-emotional-cultural factors?

I don’t think I have the link anymore, maybe I do, I need to look for it. But there is a really interesting testimony of this guy who used to be homosexual that wrote at length about how many psycho-emotional problems he had with masculinity, which is something that goes to the depth of our psychology structure and development. And as he was able to work out these complex things, his “orientation” changed. Just as some pedophiles who actually worked out a lot of their immensely profound psycho-emotional problems began to have a more adult sexual orientation.

What was happening with your brother’s entire psycho-social structure when he was a child? do you know? maybe it is more complex than you assume.

Posted by at October 27, 2006 11:27 AM

I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
“Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence.”
Posted by Veeshir at
As a group, non-heterosexuals are very violent (just like straights) and they are not being prosecuted, just like the majority of heterosexuals exploiters, harassers, and abusers.

So, your little LGBT clique does a lot more harm to society than any comparison to any anti-homosexual crime.

The day you denounce a single crime perpetrated by non-heterosexuals, you will be in a better moral position to cry “wolf” about how much violence homosexuals suffer.

Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:32 AM

I found a past comment of mine regarding some of the problems with the concept of “orientation:”

I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of “sexual orientation.” Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.

One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal (“sexual orientation”).

I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this “sexual orientation” label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.

Response to

Howard Goodman: Naked confessions of Foley’s priest are hard to stomach – Now, that’s a relief: It was only saunas and massages in the nude, skinny-dipping and fondling.”
Sunday Oct 22 | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

There are many important things that came out of the Catholic Church scandal, including:
– a greater awareness of how much sexual abuse is entrenched in every corner of society, even in the ones deemed the holiest;
– the first and only chance for many of the victims to put forth a lawsuit regarding their ordeal;
– the punishment for men who destroyed the well-being and lives of many vulnerable kids.

However, there are other aspects of the media coverage of the Catholic Church scandal that have been detrimental regarding the problem of sexual exploitation in society.

A recently released study has shown that 81% of the priest abusers exploited male adolescents, and not small (prepubescent) children – or girls. In the great majority of cases there was no physical violence involved, it was expressly a homosexual case of exploitation or abuse, not “pedophile” abuse (pedo as in children).

The media, which for the most part is obsessed with pro-homosexuality, insistently hid this fact from the public. Why is this a grave problem? Because awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals exploit minors is essential for action to be taken in every case where it occurs, just as awareness that priests abuse kids was necessary to break through the cloud of denial that often hanged in a Church cover-up. The same can be said regarding society’s denial of women abusing children.

When many of the boys in the Catholic Church scandal tried to tell someone about their abuse, the reaction was often one of extreme denial. The Church and others would also attack the victim for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a priest. The Church’s powerful lawyers often informally (and sometimes formally) bullied the victims into silence. In a set of attitudes and behaviors that profoundly mimics the Catholic Church hierarchy, pro-homosexuals often insist that homosexuals do not abuse minors, period. This is as monstrous a lie as saying that priests do not abuse minors, or that women don’t either. What this creates is an environment of denial that makes it virtually impossible for other victims to come foward and seek justice.

Read this letter to the editors of Beaver County Times regarding the ACLU – written by Dan Reeping – Oct. 12, 2006:

” The writer [of Thursday’s editorial “Blind Eye” ] does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.

If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.

The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.

By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn’t the way it should be, but that’s the law. “

You have pointed to how sickening Foley’s mind is. What I find sickening is how much the media and society likes to narrow their attention to priest abusers. Are they joking to themselves that the only sexual exploiters of minors in the US are confined to the priesthood?

Pro-homosexuals also insist that the majority of abusers are heterosexual males. Although the assertion is disputable depending on the way the measurement is taken, or the population studied, the numbers game is besides the point. A case of abuse is not life-damaging because it produces one statistical number or another. Take the case of gender. A minor that is sexually abused by a woman does not suffer less than one abused by a man, even though women have a lower statistical total of perpetrators than males. The focus of attention should be on investigating perpetrators who are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, priests, rabbis, lay teachers, counselors, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, coaches, that is, everyone. One category is not more special or more innocent than another. Even if the majority of perpetrators are male, does that mean, for example, that the victims of female perpetrators should be relegated to invisibility, silence, trivialization, and consequently, lack of justice?

Every time a pro-homosexual says homosexuals don’t abuse minors, or that the majority of abusers are heterosexuals, what they are really doing is creating a climate of denial about the countless real cases that exist where the perpetrators are homosexuals and impeding preventive action. Similarly, compared to the millions of estimated abuse cases, only a tiny minority of sexual abusers are priests. Should we then divert attention from all the real cases where the perpetrators are priests and focus only on the big total of “lay men?” Are the victims less important because of the statistical total of their perpetrator category? Should we systematically erase the fact that such abusers are priests, just like the media has done with the homosexual factor in the Catholic Church and other cases?

This brings us to the tawdry PR excuse that this Republican leadership put forth. Let us not forget that most of these Republican leaders are libertarians, not social conservatives, which means they are quite pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography, and possibly pro-prostitution – as long as it’s not publicly stated so. One of the Foley excuses put forth by the Republican leadership was saying that had they acted on the first ambiguous but non-sexually explicit Foley emails, the media would have tarred and feathered them as “homophobic.” The latter part of the excuse is totally true, but responsible people do not go along with a cowardly media obsessed with pro-homosexuality – they fight it. Responsible people do not fail to investigate homosexual exploitation of minors because they are afraid of being slandered as “homophobic.” Responsible people investigate both the possible homosexual exploitation and they denounce the dishonest manipulations of a pro-homosexual media that silence awareness regarding homosexual abuse.

I have no doubt the Republican leadership knew about Foley’s sick homosexual mind and behavior, and, like the Catholic Church, preferred to turn a blind eye instead of taking firm and responsible measures. Now they want to find someone to blame, so it’s all the liberal homosexuality-obsessed media’s fault. It is not.

However, let us imagine that they had gone to the media with the first set of emails and made Foley resign. Can you imagine the “Gay Witch Hunt,” “Republican Homophobia Hysteria,” headlines that our dominant pro-homosexual media would have screamed? “Tar and feather” is an euphemism to what the media would have done to such Republicans. The media reaction would be one of extreme attack on the Republicans for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a homosexual. Because, just like Foley and the Catholic Church, the media may make all kinds of speeches blasting the exploitation of minors, but, like Foley, many of their actions or inactions are one of the cornerstones of the current system of sexual violence that exists in society. And this also includes the media’s pro-homosexual attitudes which destroy awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals are, like other categories, abusers and exploiters. The media, by creating a climate of denial and silence, is profoundly failing the countless victims of harassment, exploitation, or abuse where the perpetrators are non-heterosexuals.

And this is just as sickening as what Foley has done.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

Characteristics of Perpetrators

Most States define perpetrators of child abuse and neglect as parents and other caretakers (such as relatives, babysitters, and foster parents) who have harmed a child in their care. It is important to note that States define the term “caretaker” differently. Harm caused to a child by others (such as acquaintances or strangers) may not be considered child abuse but rather may be considered a criminal matter. [So, in order to get a fuller picture, one would need to add up the two type of stats – has anyone done that? I wonder if that changes the gender proportion of perpetrators]

According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System’s most current report, Child Maltreatment 2004, of the approximately 872,000 child abuse and neglect victims in 2004, the largest percentage of perpetrators (78.5 percent) were parents. Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.5 percent, residential facility staff for 0.2 percent, and childcare providers for 0.7 percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 4.1 percent of perpetrators, while legal guardians accounted for 0.2 percent and foster parents accounted for 0.4 percent.

In 2004, 57.8 percent of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were females and 42.2 percent were males. For the most part, female perpetrators were younger than male perpetrators; of the women who were perpetrators, 44.4 percent of females were younger than 30 years of age, compared to 34.1 percent of males.

More than one-half (57.9%) of all perpetrators were found to have neglected one or more children in 2004. Slightly more than 10 percent (10.3%) of perpetrators physically abused children, and 6.9 percent sexually abused children. Fifteen percent (15.5%) of all perpetrators were associated with more than one type of maltreatment.

There were variations in these overall patterns when the relationship of perpetrator to the child victim was considered. Of the parents who maltreated children in 2004, 2.6 percent committed sexual abuse, while 62.9 percent committed neglect. Of the perpetrators who were friends or neighbors, nearly three-quarters committed sexual abuse while 9.9 percent committed neglect.

Washblade – April 2-2004:

Foley is a co-sponsor of separate bills that would ban employment discrimination against gays and give the federal government authority to prosecute anti-gay hate crimes.

Foley later dropped out of the Senate race. His withdrawal came several months after an alternative newspaper in West Palm Beach reported that Foley is gay.

Shortly after the Washington Blade reported the allegations in the West Palm paper, Foley held a press conference with mainstream Florida newspapers announcing that he would not answer questions regarding his sexual orientation. He has denounced stories about his alleged homosexuality as the “revolting and unforgivable” work of “rumor mongers.”

But when Foley dropped out of the race, he cited his father’s illness, rather than the gay issue, as his reason for withdrawing from the race. At the time of his withdrawal, Foley had a substantial fund-raising lead over his opponents.

Broward LCR lobbies Foley
A lobbying effort by members of the Broward Log Cabin Republicans may have helped to persuade Foley to come out against the proposed amendment.

“You can be sure that Log Cabin has not been sitting on its hands about this,” said Andy Eddy, Broward LCR board chair and director of communications. “Everyone in Log Cabin has been approaching him and talking to him about this.”

Eddy said he thinks the personal appeals may have persuaded Foley to come down off the fence on the constitutional amendment issue. “A lot of people have to think this out, especially around election time,” Eddy said.

Michael Albetta, president of the Dolphin Democrats, a South Florida gay Democratic club, compared Foley’s earlier silence on the marriage amendment to “prominent Jews in the United States who remained silent during the Holocaust.” He thinks the recent flurry of Republicans coming out against the amendment convinced Foley that it was safe to oppose it.

“I think he goes with the wind,” Albetta said.

Foley’s district, which once included gay neighborhoods in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, was changed in a Florida redistricting plan approved by a Republican-controlled state legislature. A district map on Foley’s office Web site shows he no longer represents any part of Broward County, where Fort Lauderdale is located, and his district’s portion of the city of West Palm Beach was reduced to a tiny section.

The newly carved district snakes along the state’s east coast from Royal Palm Beach, traveling north to Fort Pierce, and around Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to Port Charlotte, which is located on the Gulf of Mexico.

Ditto said he wasn’t sure if the makeup of the new district included a more conservative-leaning constituency that would be more supportive of an anti-gay constitutional amendment than Foley’s old district.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) now represents the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach areas that were once part of Foley’s district. Hastings has said he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and will vote against it if it reaches the House floor.

Phil LaPadula contributed to this report.

And the Homo Cabin Republicans had never heard even a tiny bit about Foley’s pederastic behavior? All the pages knew it, but the Homo Cabin Republicans did not? Right.

Or maybe, just like it happened to Foley, if an investigation were conducted, we would discover Foley isn’t the only active pederast in Congress? Isn’t the purpose of screaming “how revolting and unforgivable it is to expose certain truths about sexuality attitudes and behaviors,” exactly to stimy and cover up those truths which are the most ugly? And which encompass the greatest hypocrisy and lack of character?

Meanwhile, noting that the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans quickly erased a photo of Mark Foley from their website,” LaBarbera said. “Too bad Foley’s teenaged victims and their parents won’t be able to erase the effects of his twisted behavior from their minds so easily.”

And do the Log Cabin Republicans think everyone else is as stupid to think they didn’t know what Foley was like in his pederastic homosexuality ? How long have the Homo Cabin Republicans been sitting on this bit of knowledge about Mark Foley? My guess is at least a decade, nothing shorter than five years.

(And I had missed this!) A pearl of a satire so very wonderfully written that it surpasses the truth:

Mark Foley Enters Alcoholism Rehab; Gambling Rehab Next
By Phil Maggitti
Oct 3, 2006, 07:27

LAPLAND, Fla. – Mark Foley (R-FL) quietly slipped into a rehab facility for alcoholism treatment last weekend. In a statement read by his attorney, Mr. Foley said, “I strongly believe I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and other behavioral problems.”

Mr. Foley, a 52-year-old bachelor who co-chaired the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, abruptly quit the House of Representatives last Friday after reports had surfaced that he had sent lewd e-mail messages containing sexually explicit emoticons to boys working as pages.

Mr. Foley’s attorney, David Roth, would not identify the facility that Mr. Foley had entered, nor would he say how long Mr. Foley would be there. Mr. Roth did say, however, that his client would “most likely” enter a rehab facility for compulsive gambling after “successfully concluding” his alcoholism treatment.

“Mark is committed to getting to the bottom of his problem, no matter how painful that process might be,” said Mr. Roth. “If, god forbid, alcoholism and gambling treatments are not effective, Mark is prepared to undergo rehabilitation for compulsive shopping, binge eating, and any other addiction that might help him get to the root cause of his online behavior.”

In related news, a spokesperson for the Log Cabin Republicans , a national gay and lesbian Republican grassroots organization, denied that the words log or cabin have sexual connotations.

In other related news, President Bush challenged Democrats in Congress to support the passage of the Gay Pages Amendment, which would prohibit “knowingly homosexual teenagers” from serving as pages in Congress.

Oct 22, 2006 — I was disappointed to see that Todd Platts’ response to the Foley scandal is that “we might need to rethink the congressional page program.” (“Platts: Fix Page Program,” Oct. 8).

Fix the page program? Is he serious? The only thing wrong with the page program is that it places young men and women in close proximity to Congress – a Congress whose members allegedly include pedophiles, and whose leadership is more interested in retaining power than in protecting young people.

The answer is to fix Congress. The time has come to expect more from our elected officials. A good starting point would be to demand that every congressman demonstrate morals that are better than those of the average inmate in the state prison system. Voters should hold the Republican leadership accountable for looking the other way for at least a year. Republicans win elections claiming that their “family values” are important. Maybe the Republicans deserve to lose an election when they let us all down.


So here I was sitting near a building that has a wi-fi connection and a place for people to sit down with their computers and because of this, it attracts a lot of students. I see a young blind buy with a walking stick start to come down the path that kind of goes by this side of the building. He seemed to be counting his steps and not really know the area. At first I wasn’t sure if he was learning the terrain on a calm Saturday afternoon, if he was exploring the area or what. I kept looking up to see if he seemed lost, feeling unsure if I should get up and go ask him if he needed help. But then I wondered if that would bother him, if it would convey some helplessness prejudice, so I decided to wait and see if he would yield more clues as to what he was doing. He came across the end of the path and hit the road, having passed the building. He did a ninety degree turn, now starting to go around the front of the building but he seemed not to be finding his way. Just then two students passed near him and he asked for their help. Then they helped him come and sit down near the side of the building – which was what he had been looking for. He took out his laptop from his backpack, put on earphones, and proceeded to surf the Internet. Very cool.

Click to find out! (too funny)

Plus, great comment on Madonna at same link.

Dumb Ox News really does a great job with adding images to his commentary. One of the best use of images on blogs commenting current issues that I’ve seen so far.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: