You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2013.

See: Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence




(The American Conservative -Dreher- What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?): Another case of a bisexual woman engaging in sexual misconduct

I’ve decided to post on this blog some of my censored comments that I try to post in other blogs from other authors, that I was organizing separately in my “Censored” blog.


Censored (The American Conservative -Dreher-What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?):

I recently came to know of another case of sexual misconduct, which I think highlights how egregious liberal attitudes about sex and sexuality are.

A white woman, who is married, is one of the spouses of a missionary couple. Now these are the kinds of missionary who raise money to go abroad (to very posh places) on an “evangelizing” mission, and basically get a paid vacation to do very little real work – something I am getting quite fed up with how often it happens.

Now this couple sets up a Bible study group once a week and it’s basically all the “work” they do on their vacation disguised as mission. They are professedly a member of a conservative denomination, against gay marriage, adultery, etc.

The missionary woman then proceeds to make sexual advances to one of the women in the Bible study group. Now, this isn’t any monstrously aggressive behavior. But that’s the problem. It’s not because it’s not extreme that it doesn’t do real harm.

The misconduct included a few instances of touching arms and shoulder, a couple more forcefully, under the guise of friendliness. This was accompanied by some weird insinuations, which then were complemented by looking the woman’s body up and down, and lasciviously staring at her chest a few times in her face, ignoring that the targeted woman was by this time angrily staring back at the harasser.

I would like to highlight first of all, how disingenuous liberals are when they say that LGBT people are a minority and are equivalent to other victimized groups in society.

There is nothing about this woman that makes her a victim in any way. She is piece of bisexual crap who goes around sexually harassing other women. This is exactly the profile of so many LGBT individuals: privileged and doing harm with impunity. She is a self-called Christian, white, well-educated, and belongs to the comfortable middle-class.  She is part of so many majorities we lose count. Yet, liberals call her a sexual “minority” – a minority, as in oppressed, disadvantaged, or ex-member of slavery – it’s ridiculous. And if we consider that a majority of individuals in society either do harm or are negligent about harm in the area of sexuality, then she is also part of this sexual majority. Also, the liberal claim that this bisexual woman was born with a perverted mind and can’t help it nor be accountable for anything is also hogwash.

Regarding the violations, the bisexual woman violates the relationship with the targeted woman. The targeted woman would have never wanted to have any contact with this woman had she known what she was like, because she was looking for a real Bible study. Neither would she have consented to any form of touching. So there is also the violation in respect to grabbing the other women’s body with a perverted goal in mind, and without the consent of the other woman, in order words, complete sexual objectification. This kind of touching  is a sort  of symbolic rape because of the level of humiliation  and appropriation by deceit. It concerns how she attacks the dignity of the targeted woman. But from a liberal perspective, people do not have a right to their dignity.

Then there is the violation in respect to her marriage and her husband- which liberals don’t care about either. And last, but not least, there is the violation in respect to  what she professes to be doing (teaching the word of God) and what her perverted mind is actually perpetrating. But it is too late.

Today, people are subjected to pernicious and humiliating experiences by LGBT people constantly, and many liberals think what this bisexual woman did is normal and everybody should put up with this. Just like Cardinal O’Briens’ behavior, which also mirrors the disgusting homosexual character in Downton Abbey, who the Lord jumped to protect while minimizing the sexual harassment he had engaged in. “He’s just like us,” was the disgusting line.

I have counseled the targeted woman not to take formal action, given how many ugly experiences I know of when people do make formal complaints for this level of misconduct. The sexual harasser has no qualms about what they did and they will do everything to deny the wrong-doing and protect their reputation. The religious organization the missionary couple is mildly linked to does not inspire any confidence, and I imagine for them, the institution comes first. It would be very hard for the facts to be believed. It’s the victim making the accusation who can be easily maligned in the fight – being harmed twice in the end, and obtaining no redress.


“You asserted that nobody is born homosexual and I just wondered what support you had for that. I might like to read it.”

Indeed! Well, I certainly owe you a book!! And hopefully it will be published in the future. I would like to co-author one, but it’s not going to happen too quickly.

So, for the time being, here is a quick take on it.

I asked why you thought that might not be the case in order to better explain certain points, depending where you are coming from.

I believe one of the main problems refers to the false opposition between inborn versus “free” choice. The problem with this false opposition is that it eliminates from consideration a very large and significant part of the mind that is neither inborn, nor chosen. There is a very important third sphere that is being left out and which is very real and which complements the other two.

A person is born with a developmental matrix, including to develop into a heterosexual adult that has healthy, adult relationships with the opposite sex. However, this matrix is not finished and it will change (including being deformed) in a variety of directions. Therefore, the mind has a deep plasticity; regarding many characteristics, it’s not hard-wired. Although you began to feel certain feelings about boys early on, if you had been abused or had had other deforming experiences, they could impact how your mind functioned regarding sexuality and the opposite sex.

So, a key point is that any person’s mind will develop conscious and unconscious mechanisms and dynamics that can deeply affect it later in life, which were not present when this individual was born.

This is why people are not born pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles, etc. Although there are different levels of choices regarding sexuality and one’s behaviors, no one with a particular sexuality dysfunction deliberately chooses all of its dynamics – and *especially* not the unconscious ones. Since when do you choose what goes on in your unconscious? However, this doesn’t mean we are helpless, little creatures with no free will.

So, human beings are born heterosexual, but they aren’t finished as infants. That means that a person’s mind will change and develop or degenerate in infinite ways. Homosexuality is similar to any other psycho-sexual dysfunction – in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from individual to individual.

You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, sociological issues producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual. It’s not a question of changing the blueprint, it’s a question of solving underlying issues that are preventing the person from relating to the opposite sex, or which are disorienting the person towards the same sex.

I will add something about biology in another comment.


I also recommend this article:

Same-Sex Science
The social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality.
Stanton L. Jones

Note that there is an expanded version of the article also available.


There is nothing that consists in a sound argument of why a person would be born deformed as a homosexual.

Because a person with a homosexual problem is not the same as an intersex person. That an intersex person could be disoriented towards the same sex is understandable, because of their lack of correct sexual definition – which is biological. But these people are not whom we are referring to when we say “homosexual.”

What we call a homosexual is a person who is biologically heterosexual, but only psychologically has problems with heterosexuality. There is no reason why anyone would be born this way, just as there is no reason why anyone would be born a pedophile, a necrophile, etc.


Lyn Calerdine said: “Even if not enforced, these laws made all gay people potential criminals, effectively making them second class citizens.”

Out of their own deliberate choice. I don’t know the details of all these laws but the few I know about don’t apply just to two men. They are applied to anybody who engages in certain kinds of behavior.

But the point is: people with a homosexuality problem who normalize it, do it deliberately. They refuse to take responsibility for their psycho-sexual problems and resolve them.

Orson Scott Card is actually saying that the shaming principle (See “The Positive Power of Shame”) should be applied to push them in the direction of taking responsibility for their problems.

But no, modern liberal society is sustained by the belief that  no one has any psychological problem regarding homosexuality, therefore no one needs to take responsibility for anything, people should just act out their dysfunctional psychologies incessantly – the APA said so, that’s Science, and Science is NEVER wrong. And anybody who questions this is a bigot, aka KKK member, Holocaust denier, spreader of calumnies, and ignorant. The wise reader will note just how sophisticated modern liberal thought is.

Modern liberal society believes that  people are born psychologically and sexually dysfunctional, perverse, and perverted in basically any area of sexuality. Modern liberal society largely believes that an inexistent gene causes homosexuality, even though their precious Science That Is Never Wrong has never found such a gene and every attempt has been shown to be – uh – wrong.

Given that modern liberal society, in reality, largely sustains its beliefs based on what feels good, that is, emotion, and not Science, they believe that people who have a homosexuality problem are poor, helpless little creatures who can do nothing but pursue any kind of sexual garbage that pops up in their minds. No matter how disoriented, perverse or perverted, they just can’t help it and they can never be responsible for anything. Therefore, it’s only right that everybody should bow down to accept everything they claim and do – otherwise, they are being treated as “second-class citizens.” Moreover, they are the absolute authorities on sexuality, because according to liberals, the more dysfunctional a person is, the more of an authority they are – and anyone who disagrees can only be, as you know by now, a KKK member, Holocaust denier, spreader of calumnies, and ignorant.

Orson Scott Card is simply not buying this nonsense.  In his view, people are accountable for their choices, their ideology, their attitudes, and their behaviors. I would add that people are responsible for investigating and resolving their psycho-sexual-relational problems.

And society shouldn’t play Joe Paterno when it comes to covering any kind of harm done by LGBT people or by people pushing a homosexuality agenda. That is, society has a role to play in demanding a wholesome set of attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality and relationships, and in certain cases, there may be laws that help to guide people in this direction.

I’d be curious to know what OSC thinks of the new laws in Russia.

Although I normally loathe the Washington Post, I thought Jason Horowitz’ article from yesterday on Vatileaks  was excellent. Cmon, it’s just like Watergate at times. And Nuzzi’s book on the scandal looks very interesting.

“Seeing evil and corruption everywhere in the church, I finally reached a point of degeneration, a point of no return, and could no longer control myself,” Paolo Gabriele – the butler – explained to Vatican investigators. A shock, “perhaps through the media,” Gabriele continued, could “bring the church back on the right track.”

Good for you, Gabriele.

Overeating is a very complicated matter because people can overeat due to so many reasons. While it would be probably beneficial to use a bit of shame to try to impact a “normal” someone to eat in a more healthy way or take more care of their health, that isn’t always true.

Take, for example, a child or adolescent who is being abused and overeats  to soothe the pain, the stress, the rejection, etc. and becomes very fat. If you come and simply shame that child about their fatness without dealing with the main trauma causing them to overeat and be fat, you’re just emotionally assaulting the child, and you are effectively doing harm to them. That’s not what they need. Overeating to them is a coping mechanism and an *essential* one. You would need to help them develop more healthy eating habits through supportive actions.  Even a normal child who is just being brought up wrong about their diet could probably benefit more from positive reinforcement, guidelines and support, instead of the shaming and scolding.
So, it’s very important to understand the context of unhealthy eating and the emotional factors. Sure, when there isn’t anything more grave going on in the life of the person, shaming could be an alternative.

A comment to Rod Dreher, when he facetiously “rebelled” that they killed one of his favorite characters in the Downton Abbey series, so he said if the author killed any more, he’d stop watching…

(The comment wasn’t allowed, but I didn’t put it in my “censored” blog, because it was probably just a question of thread detournement….)

Well, look at it on the bright side!

You can now switch to watching Girls (recommended accessory: airsick bag at your side). This show puts on display how the “evolved” of our times think about sexuality and relationships.

In other words, it’s a display of one garbage of an attitude after another. What’s sad is that for so many young people, that is what is Normal. They know nothing else than garbage when it comes to sexuality and relationships. And sex for them is defined by one word only, the F one. I’ve watched the first few episodes, plus read a couples reviews. It’s often like soft porn in content (dysfunctional and dehumanized as cool), except the very explicit sexual details are cut off.

Needless to say these girls have normalized homosexuality, promiscuity, porn, STD spreading, adultery, and kink as from the day they were born – this is what is promoted as “cool” and as the norm for “evolved” young adults. Yet the “evolution” these girls have gone through is pornographying themselves; and they have no alternative, competing model.

What is plain to see is that liberals have no awareness of how much they lack quality. It’s clear that the first thing that goes in a “tolerant,” “anything goes” society is quality. The more they go down their “lack of quality” hole, the more they claim to be progressing.

This is why there is no dialog between the two camps. Either you destroy relationships and sexuality claiming that you are normal and cool or you refute the trash.

“Our entire culture is built around the apotheosis of the Self, of the self’s will, the self’s desires, the self’s autonomy. “

But the issue is much worse than a question of mere opposition between Self and Self-less. The Self that you refer to is no neutral Self. Liberal culture is about normalizing just about any perverse, perverted, and dysfunctional Self – in the name of progress and liberation, of course, and more recently, Civil Rights. When you speak of the self’s desires, these are not merely benign desires, they include a vast array of dysfunctional and unhealthy desires. So it’s not only a quest to fulfill neutral or benign desires, the quest includes the full spectrum – the distinction between healthy and unhealthy desires has been lost, and therefore, all are now valid.

U.S. CEO to France: ‘How Stupid Do You Think We Are?’

Mr. Montebourg apparently reached out to Titan in January to see if it might be interested in taking over a troubled tire factory in France; let’s just say Mr. Taylor isn’t keen on the idea.

In fact, “Titan is going to buy a Chinese tire company or an Indian one, pay less than one Euro per hour and ship all the tires France needs,”

Who holds the cards has the chutzpah.

Read/listen at NPR.

So what the National Labor Relations Board says is that when you use Facebook, Twitter and say something that upsets your employer, your employer can’t necessarily fire you. There are limits on what an employer can and cannot restrict you from saying.

Interesting in terms of new media and its impacts on traditional ways of communicating and the law.


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

%d bloggers like this: