You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘mental health’ category.
I haven’t seen the garbage of people who think homosexuality is normal demand answers from Milo on this: Which pedophiles did Milo expose? What are their full names? And what is the full name of the priest he says abused him? Let’s hear the stories.
Here’s betting a hundred quid, as they say over the pond, that no names will ever be produced, nothing that could identify anyone. Just totally made-up claims.
BTW, The Federalist, of all people!, actually published a good article, “good” as far as today’s sick American society standard goes, about homosexuality and child/teen abuse.
“In the gay world,” Milo said later, “some of the most important, enriching and incredibly, you know, life-affirming, important, shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.” “Provided they’re consensual,” he added, “provided they’re consensual.”
During a different interview, with Joe Rogan, Milo talked approvingly of an alleged sexual encounter he had with a priest when Milo was around 14 years old. Milo also described attending Hollywood “boat parties” and “house parties,” where he saw things that “beggar belief.” As Milo put it: “some of the boys at [these parties] were very young. Very young.” Later, he reiterated for the third time: “There were some very young boys around at that time.” In spite of Rogan’s prompting, Milo refused to name anyone at these parties.
But wait: the perversity does not stop there. In a 2006 audio clip that resurfaced in the midst of the Milo debacle, Star Trek alumnus and liberal activist George Takei, who, like Milo, is gay, spoke fondly with radio host Howard Stern (and co-host Robin Quivers) about his sexual experience as a 13-year-old boy with an “eighteen or nineteen” year-old camp counselor.
At one point Stern asked Takei: “Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?” Takei replied: “No, no…I thought he was pretty attractive.” Stern and Quivers seem captivated and delighted by the story. Quivers prompts Takei for details—“Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?”—while Stern cracks wise: “Who wants a hand job without kissing?” Takei describes the experience: “It was both wonderful and scary and kind of intimidating, and delightful.”
Reflect on that for a moment: two adults were listening to a third adult describe an instance of genuine child sexual abuse, and were both happy and jocular about it.
There are two deeply appalling aspects to these sordid interviews. The first is the possibility that, as Milo put it, sexual relationships between young boys and adult gay men occur “very often.” At the Huffington Post last week, “gay conservative” Chad Felix Greene described his own experiences in this regard, having his first sexual encounters with adult men at age 14. As Greene put it, reflecting on the negative effect such behavior has had on his life and the need to stop this “generational pattern of abuse”: “As much as the LGBT world seems to ignore [older gay men having sex with young teenage boys], it seems fairly universal and unfortunately not time-bound to a period when young gay men had fewer options.”
Nevertheless, these revelations are unnerving and profoundly troubling, and the implications of these revelations are terrible, especially combined with many years of research showing disproportionately high rates of child sexual abuse against young gay males. Should we not consider the possibility that something both brutal and endemic is going on here, and that we’re simply ignoring it?
Yet there is another, even more troubling idea at work here: the possibility that these stories have been around for a long time, that many people have known about them for a long time, yet nobody has done anything about it, or even cared.
Consider: Milo’s interview with Rogan took place in September 2015, nearly 17 months ago. His statements on the livestream occurred more than a year ago, in January 2016. Yet his remarks and beliefs did not come to wide attention or constitute a scandal until very recently, when they were publicized by a conservative group opposed to his appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
If a grown male celebrity had spoken approvingly of having sex with 13-year-old girls, including having attended a party where “very young girls” were being used for sex, the reaction would have been swift and ruthless. It would not have taken the man in question more than a year to suffer any consequences, as it did for Milo.
Takei’s own tacit approval of child sex, meanwhile, has been on record for more than a decade, and he has suffered no professional or personal fallout for it.
Author: Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.
‘I cried all the way back’: sexual harassment on public transport
How does it feel to be subject to unwanted sexual attention on your morning commute? Or on your way to school? We asked readers to tell us their stories of sexual harassment on public transport
I thought this article in the British newspaper “The Guardian” was very well written. Really, it is a model for such approaching such topics. The article was helping a campaign against sexual harassment:
Transport for London launched a hard-hitting campaign against sexual assault and harassment on its services. Accompanied by a harrowing video of a woman experiencing sexual assault on the Tube, the campaign urged anyone who experienced unwanted sexual behaviour to report it to the police. A year on since its launch, with the video boasting more than 4m views, 36% more people have reported such incidents on the London underground.
More excerpts below:
We asked our readers to tell us about their experiences. Some told us about being followed off trains. Others told us about men trying to sneak a feel of their breasts between shopping bags. Then there were those who witnessed public masturbation, or were just teenagers when they were first subject to unwanted sexual attention.
Being glad to have found a seat amidst the full carriage after a stressful day at work, I took off my coat and acknowledged the people sitting around me with a smile. I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.
I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.
Although I was wearing a buttoned up shirt, showing no cleavage whatsoever, I loosely wrapped my scarf around my neck, also covering my chest. I kept reading, and he kept staring. At the next stop a lot of people got out and even more came in. In between he quickly came over and took the newly empty seat opposite of me.
Only inches away he started grinning at me. I felt very uncomfortable, my eyes glued to the page. One stop before mine I had to get my coat on again and got up to make my way through the packed carriage.
Waiting for the train door to open I saw in the corner of my eye the man was still sitting down. I jumped out of the train and walked quickly upstairs, almost running. I still had a bad feeling, so instead of walking the rest of the way home, as I usually did, I turned the corner and went downstairs to another line to catch a different train for one more stop.
On reaching the platform, the man suddenly turned up next to me, walking along with the same, fast pace.
“Hey, wait!” he shouted at me in English. I realised ignoring him would no longer work, so I took out one of my earphones. Without stopping I said to him: “You make me feel uncomfortable. I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”
“Hey, you speak English? It’s not a bad thing. We can talk.” he said with a dirty grin.
“Sorry, but I do not want to talk to you. Please leave me alone!” I replied slowing down next to two ladies in their 50s chatting. He was stood in front of me.
“You take this train, too? What direction? We can meet some time.”. He touched my arm. I answered: “No, I do not want to meet or talk to you. Leave me alone now!”
The train came rattling in. With my heart pumping I firmly walked around the intrusive man, followed the two ladies into the carriage and sat down with them next to the window.
When the train left the station I couldn’t tell if the man was still on the platform. For a while I was afraid he might be in a different carriage. When I got out at the next stop, I stood next to a group of young punks and only then I was brave enough to wait and see if the man was still following me. He wasn’t – I was alone again. Shaky and sweaty I walked home.
The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”
I never reported it nor told anyone else about it. They made me feel like it was my fault and that I should be ashamed.
It was not my fault and I no longer feel ashamed.
=====end of excerpt=======
Good for you, Kira. Here’s the first problem – girls like Kira are brought to be polite and civilized – but they live in a violent world. You notice that Kira’s response is mostly very polite – when confronted with a harassing, potentially violent, man. Given his behavior, one can only guess at how deeply the turd goes in his head regarding sexuality. I’m sure his reading of her smile was she must be fishing for a sexual encounter with a stranger, or maybe he thought she was a prostitute. Or maybe he thought that there wasn’t anything meant by her smile, but he thought he might be able to exploit her sexually or to bully her someway into talking to him. In any case, he decided to target her.
Obviously, through no fault of her own, Kira has lived in a very sheltered world. We can see this by her reaction here:
“I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”
What?! Was this her head going into denial or did she really think an older man who is harassing and following her with a dirty grin is a “nice person who means well”? Did she think this because she had never had an experience of a threat or harassment from someone? And the fact that she is so polite!
I’m glad, albeit she was overly polite, that she repeatedly told the guy to leave her alone.
Then, not surprisingly, she tells of her co-workers’ reaction, blaming her.
“The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”
Well, it’s true, she shouldn’t have – because she was in a public place full of strangers. However, it was not her fault that she did. Had she been living in a decent society, she could have smiled without worries. But when you live in a world where people let others live “as they want”, that’s what happens. All the predators, harassers, LGBTs, and perverts live “as they want”, doing whatever they want, as long as they get away with it.
What consequences will this guy ever face over what he did? None. Especially now that such a long time has passed and whatever security video there might be of the incident has long been erased. And even if there was a video, and she denounced the man to authorities, what would they do? And if she went on national TV with her story, what retaliation could she expect later in life?
The silver lining in this case is that the newspaper offered a space and an opportunity for people like Kira to tell and therefore re-examine their harassment experiences. Now she has broken her silence and, most importantly, she was able to realize that it was not her fault. She herlself did nothing bad, starting with her innocent smile. But it’s just not something you can do.
Now, as a post-examination exercise, let’s imagine for a second that this man is bisexual and goes after young men and women. He’s a member therefore of the LGBT community who cries over and over again about how mistreated and discriminated they are in society. Really, oppressed people, are they? Let’s suppose he is heterosexual, but his perversion extends from having a dirty mind about women to also endorsing homosexuality. So he is a gay-friendly sexual harasser, potentially a rapist. A gay-friendly rapist! Were he to present himself as a candidate for a job, and mention he was gay-friendly and compete for the job against a person who was against normalizing homosexuality, most liberals would hands down give him the job. See, “equality” for sexuality turds is like that!
A few things stood out to me as I read this feature: “Carmen Carrera: Show Girl” (Condé Nast’s W Magazine) about a man with a deformed and sick psychology (euphemistically called transgender).
Let’s start with a couple of points that I’ve made before: there is no such thing as transgender, there is only a more heightened degree of drag. Given that gender is the psychological component of one’s masculine or feminine sex, there is no way a normal (non-intersex) person can transition to the other sex. An intersex person is also not transitioning to another sex, it’s trying to assign itself some definition which it biologically lacked.
Second, and very importantly, liberal ideology dictates that not only must the person claiming to be the opposite sex be encouraged to lie about who they are, society must force everyone else to lie too – or be socially punished. This includes laws enforcing the lie – as in claiming the psychologically diseased “transgenders” should have a right to use the bathroom of the sex they pretend to be – but aren’t. This is the totalitarian and conforming aspect of liberalism. Its lies are imposed and no one can question them without punishment.
Now on to this man pretending to be a woman – self-entitled “Carmen” -, I noticed how much he emphasized how he adored performing.
I went to my first drag show at a Latin club called Escuelita. The finale starred this stunningly beautiful goddess. She was obviously a transwoman, and she took my breath away. At the time I was studying photography in college, so I would take pictures of the shows, and I got to know all the girls. I also started doing makeup professionally, but surprisingly I discovered that what I really wanted to do was perform. I participated in an amateur show, and the audience loved me—I won! After that, I started touring clubs and acquired a fan base.
His entire existence is one performance, a show, a circus act, since he can never be authentic. His diseased mind cannot deal with being a man, which is what would be authentic for him, so he must constantly perform being a woman. Everything about his “womanhood” is false, it’s an illusion, it’s fake plastic surgery and unnatural chemical manipulations of his true body, biology, and self, which will always be masculine. They are now just hidden under layers of fake lies and drag.
Real women don’t put on a performance of being women, because that’s who they are. They don’t need plastic surgery to turn them into women. This man is just a grotesque “gender snake oil” salesman.
Due to his diseased mind, he even said: “Eventually, I didn’t want to act like a woman anymore—I wanted to become one.”
And because he lives in an equally diseased society, people around him told him that becoming a woman is possible, and that it is done by changing your appearance. Now there’s irony! Especially from a feminist point of view, if you get my drift – and the endless battles feminism fought against women being reduced to their looks or sexual object utility, or how feminists fought against women having to be pegged into a dainty, feminine stereotype. It’s plain to see this man continues to act, it’s just that he has now deformed his outside to better match his act.
I also glanced at another interview with this idiot and we can see how he is obsessed with people thinking of him as some kind of Hollywood celebrity. He craves this kind of attention, adulation, adoration, and sexual objectifying – and why not every kind of sleazy sexual interaction that his mind can conjure to fit the lifestyle? He obsesses with all the fake, superficial aspects of a Hollywood star like the glitter, the flashy-sexy clothes, the expensive saloon hair, the professional make-up. It’s all self adoration and this expensive, exaggerated, narcissistic diva look. It’s almost like he has a need to turn himself into his own giant Barbie doll. Notice also that there is no one around him to tell him that it would be a good idea if he went to investigate why he has so many psychological and emotional problems with masculinity.
I am willing to bet that if he had to live as a poor woman in Central America, cleaning and cooking for a family of 12 kids (obviously not his), in an ugly, faded dress, plus catering to an itinerant husband (or a string of irresponsible drop-by men), plus staying up late to sew and wash clothes of other richer folks to add a few more bucks to the family budget, the very last thing he’d want to be in the world is a “woman”. The. Very. Last.
Furthermore, you look at those men in the photos – the real ones – looking at this diseased “transgender” man as if he were a “sexy” woman and you can see that psychological disease is not contained just in the mind of this “Carmen” idiot.
It’s much more widespread. Seriously, people who think homosexuality is normal are just gross.
No matter how diseased their minds, they will stomp their foot down and claim to be “normal”. As a result, for them, anyone else who doesn’t kowtow to their diseased view of sex, gender, and sexuality is the one who is sick.
And there was another interesting clue about how dysfunctional his parents may have been. He says: “My father died of AIDS when I was 2”. AIDS? And the mother didn’t? His father was what – a bisexual or homosexual pig? And he grows up with only women. And he wants desperately to be a woman… hmm. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s not even looking at what’s below the water level…
As my very last reflection, you know what also happened when I was thinking and writing this article? I thought: just how wonderful is it that I am a woman? I simply am one. I don’t have to do anything to be a woman or to look like a woman, I don’t have to act in any way – every fiber of myself and my soul is that of a woman. And that is a beautiful thing.
Nature stands every bit against the diseased ideology of liberals. As it should.
How three liberals – one heterosexual woman and two homosexual pigs – created a disaster for a child.
One fine day, Kristine, a woman full of typical liberal beliefs, decided to concoct a baby with two of her male homosexual friends, like if they all wanted to shop for a puppy.
Excerpt from her blog:
At 38 years old, I’ve been lucky in my life. I run Red’s, a successful lobster restaurant on the Jersey Shore, with my family and spend winters surfing and teaching yoga in Costa Rica, where I have a great group of friends. By the time I was 33, I’d pretty much done everything on my to-do list — traveled, carved out a career, bought two homes, and had a lot of fun. I’d also married a controlling and demeaning man. After eight years, it became unbearable, and when I kicked him out of my house and filed for divorce four years ago, I felt empowered and free. But I wanted a family. I knew I had too much love in my heart not to have a baby, and I believed it was important that the child have a great dad. About a year after my marriage ended, I was dating a prince of a guy who wasn’t ready for a family — and the pressure he felt from me to have a baby ultimately broke us up. It was around then that I started joking with my best friend, Darren, about what great parents we’d make together.
I met Darren Greenblatt 20 years ago as a freshman in college, and it was love at first sight. We had identical, self-deprecating senses of humor and a mutual love of mischief. We scammed our way onto the lists of New York City nightclubs and went on wild shopping escapades all over town. We also shared strong notions of right and wrong and a drive to be successful in life. Darren — now a fashion industry consultant in New York City — is loyal, kind, fun, generous, talented, and smart. After all this time, he knows me better than I know myself, and he’d be the perfect boyfriend, except that he already has the perfect boyfriend. For six years he’s been with Sam, a sexy, brainy guy who teaches French and African history at a prep school.
One day in the fall of 2006, we were in a lingerie shop where Darren and Sam were helping me find some sexy underwear for a date. In a total I-love-you-guys moment, I blurted out, “You two would be the best dads! When are we going to have a baby together?” We all laughed. And then we stopped laughing. It was too crazy to consider — can you imagine us all raising a child together? But as the months went on, the idea kept coming up, and our conversations about it got serious.
We spent a good year discussing it — whether we could afford it, what would happen if I moved to Costa Rica full time, or if their jobs took them away, or if, God forbid, Sam and Darren were to break up. I’m convinced we talked about having a baby more than any regular couple ever did. Ultimately, we decided that life is unpredictable, so we’d just have to roll with whatever came up, like all parents do.
By Easter of 2007, we’d made our decision. The baby would have my egg, Darren’s sperm, and Sam’s last name. We wrote up a custody strategy with the help of some lawyer friends: I’d have the child with me in Costa Rica and the guys would visit us there, then when I was back we’d all split time between New York (where they live) and New Jersey (where I live).
Because I was past the prime baby-making years, I saw a fertility specialist, who told me everything was in order. It would cost more than 10 grand to be artificially inseminated, so we figured we’d first try to do it ourselves. Sex was out of the question (it would be like sleeping with your brother), so we tried the next best thing: the turkey baster. I bought a digital ovulation monitor, and during my first fertility window, we nailed the sequence in Sam and Darren’s apartment: Darren did his thing in their bedroom, Sam ran it into the guest room where I was waiting. After he left, I sucked up the goods into the baster, did my thing, called out “OK!”, and the guys came in and we gossiped for 20 minutes. The second month we tried it, I got pregnant.
I was selective about whom I told. Being in the service industry for so many years has made me good at reading people — I knew who could handle the full explanation and who couldn’t. Most of our friends and family are progressive, so the response was pretty positive. Darren’s parents and mine pledged their support and energy. But Sam’s mother and stepfather, devout Evangelical Christians from Little Rock, Arkansas, had a harder time with it. They believe homosexuality is a sin and spend a good deal of time praying for our souls. But they ultimately came to acknowledge our baby as their grandchild, sending gifts and loving notes — which I find admirable. I was less impressed with a few of the guys’ friends in the city, who weren’t as supportive as we thought they’d be; they said it would never work out and told Darren and Sam to “get everything in writing.”
Kristine then goes on to tell how they’re sharing the parenting, tossing the baby girl (Olive) back and forth, if you will, like a football or toy that they share. (See her blog entry for details).
She then goes on to say: “And Olive will also face the challenge of having to explain her family. People ask me presumptuous questions about the custody agreement or whether her daddies play an active role or if I just asked my gay best friend for his sperm. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Darren, Sam, Olive, and I — we’re a family. We’re the real thing. I know we’ll face challenges that a regular family wouldn’t. But while plenty of married couples make great parents, some don’t! I’m just happy that my daughter has a mommy and two daddies who all love each other, and are bananas about her.”
Well, fast-forward a few years, and what do we have? A custody lawsuit from Kristine, which she lost. The idiot says she fell in love with her neighbor in Costa Rica, Alan, where she used to spend half of her time. Alan who is divorced, with kids, wanted to move to California, and Kristine wanted to be with him – without marrying, of course, these are liberals we’re talking about. So she sues to take Olive to form a family with Alan in California. And the two homos say no, the toy is ours.
Along the way, problems develop with their little “arrangement”, as the court decision summarizes:
Though “[Doug and Shawn] have always respected [Kristine] and have cooperated in sharing parenting time with her,” Kristine has sometimes not reciprocated. “[T]he court finds instances of [Kristine]’s unwillingness to allow parenting time of [Doug and Shawn] with the child”, wanting, as her mother, to spend more time with her little girl.
The Court has sided with the homos. Clearly, the court is a bunch of grotesque liberals who thinks two perverted homosexuals are legitimate parents. Not that this case offers a better alternative with the liberal mother. But this is the situation they have created: If Kristine, the mother, wants to move to be with her new boyfriend in California, she loses her daughter – and the daughter loses the only mother she has. Now granted that a woman who decided to have a baby with two homosexual pigs is clearly not fit to be a mother for any child. Nevertheless she is still the child’s mother. If Kristine is forced to stay near the homosexual couple to be with her daughter, it will break up her new relationship with Alan. Just how much resentment and bad blood will that generate between the parties? I suppose liberals are too stupid to ask the question. But the child will surely be affected by it. In the middle of it all is an innocent child, Olive, who starts off her life being in the custody of two homosexual pigs and an equally irresponsible mother, none of which can provide to the child a loving home with a mother and father who love each other. Only a demented liberal would think this is right and, what is more aberrant, that this is progress.
Listen to Kristine’s words: “Darren, Sam, Olive, and I — we’re a family. We’re the real thing.”
No, you’re just three disgusting human beings. And now you have created a complete mess of an environment for an innocent child.
Kristine was right about this: “And Olive will also face the challenge of having to explain her family.”
Indeed, let’s see how that will go when Olive tries that: OK, I have a father who is too perverted to have a healthy relationship with a woman, so he sticks his banana in the behind of this other guy, while my mother took something from him and inserted into her, to make me, but then she wanted to have this other guy stick his banana into her, but the two homos, my father and his pig of a friend didn’t like that. So now my mom is really mad at the two pigs because they took me away to live with them during the week, and they tell my mom she shouldn’t have tried to take me California, and that I should just forget her when she isn’t there, because my dad has a homo for a friend and which little girl needs a mother all the time anyways?
See, Kristine, the “real thing”!
When homosexual pigs aren’t wailing about fake victimhood claims, this is how they behave:
‘Chemsex‘: Doctors worry about days-long, drug-fueled orgies with ‘an average of five partners’
[…] In fact, in September, former child star Danny Pintauro told Oprah Winfrey that he contracted HIV during a drug-fueled encounter with a man whose name he did not know.
“Just paint a picture for me,” Winfrey said. “You’re doing crystal meth … swinging from the chandeliers, having sex for days?”
“Something like that, yeah,” Pintauro — who said he “truly thought” he was “being safe” during the incident and is now an HIV activist — said.
When these substances combine with promiscuity and a less-than-rigorous safe-sex practices, the outcome can spell public-health disaster. One study cited in the editorial of more than 1,100 men who have sex with men found just around a fifth reported chemsex within the past five years and a 10th within the past four weeks. But, as one in eight gay men in London have HIV according to a recent study, a minority population engaging in risky behavior can put everyone in danger, particularly when getting them the information and treatment they need is difficult. The authors of the editorial criticized the lack of data about chemsex and lack of funding for programs to fight it.
“Addressing chemsex related morbidities should be a public health priority,” they wrote.
I recommend publishing to the public the name of every homosexual pig who participates in every turdy homosexual orgy. No more privacy. It would be interesting to see the result!
Saw this in a comment at TAC: “As Orwell noted, the purpose of propaganda is not to convince or persuade, but to establish a climate of thought wherein any dissent from it is seen as either insanity or criminality.”
The subject was, of course, what liberals are doing to smear and attack anyone who stands for a healthy sexuality. Any decent person is seen as either insane or criminal (hater/racist) if they oppose normalizing homosexuality.
This is how these two homosexual pigs from San Francisco, Geoffrey Benjamin and Craig Persiko, explain the Folsom Street parade of homosexual perversities, sadism, and other deformed sexuality attitudes and behaviors to their kids. The two pigs are farcically “married” and raising two kids in the heart of the Castro.
“Living in SF, our kids are used to seeing special costumes and special events,” says Persiko. “We tell them this one is for adults only, in a way that some adults like to play dress-up and pretend. I also talked about it that way when our kids asked about store displays in the Castro with mannequins in handcuffs.”
Benjamin adds that kids’ brains aren’t wired to understand the point of a man dressed in black leather. The Folsom Street Fair is about sexual titillation for adults, and for kids who haven’t gone through puberty, the costumes and nudity simply don’t make sense. “I’ll tell my kids that their bodies aren’t ready to understand those costumes,” he says.
You have to brainwash them young to think every kind of deformed and vile way to think and behave about sex is normal – ‘just like kids “playing dress-up”,’ says the pig.
No, maybe torturing people sexually is not just like a little girl dressing up as Tinker Bell or a little boy as Batman.
Notice also his phrasing about the brain being “wired” to think all of this is normal – thus the individual has no responsibility over their thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors. LGBT pigs always blaming on wiring what is a deformed psychology in need of treatment and what are deformed attitudes in need of a change of mindset. All of which they are entirely responsible for and were not born wired that way.
Far more military men are being raped by other men and experience other sexual traumas than is reported by the Pentagon because of the stigma attached to such assaults, says a new study released Tuesday by the American Psychological Association.
“Rates of military sexual trauma among men who served in the military may be as much as 15 times higher than has been previously reported, largely because of barriers associated with stigma, beliefs in myths about male rape, and feelings of helplessness,” the APA said in releasing findings published in its periodical Psychological Services.
If the survey of male combat veterans is accurate, it could mean the U.S. armed forces are dealing with an epidemic of male-on-male sex crimes.
The Rand Corp., which conducted the most recent Pentagon sexual assault survey in 2014, found that about 12,000 men reported being assaulted. Sexual assault in the military is defined as unwanted sexual contact, including rape and other assaults or the attempt to commit those acts.
Of the 12,000 male victims, 3,850 reported “penetrative” attacks — meaning they were raped. Extrapolating the study’s estimates of up to 15 times greater than the Pentagon’s count, it would mean that as many as 180,000 men are assaulted in one year and, of those, 57,750 are “penetrative” attacks.
The study said: “Data from this study, although preliminary, suggest that published rates of male MST [military sexual trauma] may substantially underestimate the true rate of the problem. Current work is underway to replicate these findings and expand the scope of this research by assessing a broader range of behaviors that comprise sexual assault.”
Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Center for Military Readiness, said male-on-male sexual assaults have been increasing since Congress repealed the gay ban in 1993 and replaced it with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which was erased by President Obama to allow openly gay service members.
Told’ya. This should come as no surprise to anyone. This is what happens in a society that promotes homosexuality as normal: violence, and more violence.
How long before people in the West admit this is the result?
From the comment section:
Do Gays commit sexual harassment ?
cubefarmer: I have yet to meet one that doesn’t.
My experience as well.
I’ve updated the section on defining and describing the homosexuality agenda, which is part of my page on why so many people have normalized homosexuality:
What is the homosexuality agenda?
The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, and objections of said homosexuality agenda. As such, the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is not only to silence dissent but to paint decent thinking as evil and to malign and slander the character of all conservatives who have a moral and healthy understanding of human sexuality. Thought crime is the goal.
The main tool of people with a homosexual agenda is propaganda, i.e., constantly spreading myths, misinformation, and downright lies, and promoting perverted and dysfunctional attitudes about sexuality. Concomitantly, they move to cover up and silence every single case and collective action of LGBTs and their supporters perpetrating harm and violence in society. Thus, within homosexual propaganda, “gays” are painted as downtrodden victims, masking the millions acts of violence and other egregious behaviors they engage in. This violence and harm include, but are not limited to: the destruction of marriage, trafficking, prostitution, promiscuity, sexual harassment, abuse, molestation, murder, assault, battering, bullying, fake hate crimes, porn, degradation of human sexuality, attack on social conservatives in all spheres of life (professional, political, personal, business), trampling on fundamental rights (speech, religion, conscience), character assassination, persecution, discrimination, spreading of STDs, S&M, violation of children’s rights to heterosexual parents, and censorship of research and debate. Most of these harmful actions are perpetrated with impunity, if not downright support from liberals and others promoting homosexuality as normal. Moreover, the violence LGBT individuals perpetrate is often blamed and projected on conservatives, i.e., the false stereotype of who does violence to “gays”. In truth, it is LGBTs themselves, by millions of cases compared to a handful of incidents by conservatives, who are violent to LGBTs.
Another part of the propaganda involves conducting irresponsible and corrupt research and academic content regarding homosexuality, used as a means to legitimize the agenda in legal, medical, and academic circles, as well as to give a false wrapping of “scientific authority” to liberal political ideology.
The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).
Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.
Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.
Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics. There is nothing normal about homosexuality and no one is born homosexual. It is perverted and dysfunctional and the best a person with a homosexual problem can do is to seek to treat the underlying reasons that produce such a perverted way of thinking and feeling about same-sex people, which for homosexuals comes accompanied by a deformed way of thinking about opposite-sex people too.
On using the words “a homosexual”
The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.
This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.
This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.
Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.