30-04-2002 09:35									#1
	'dark side' of homosexual culture Tired of ads?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=27431

quote: "The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," Reisman wrote. She said "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Hummm makes one think....

	30-04-2002 09:43									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

People who sexually assult children should be locked up for life. People who just go about their lifestyles without hurting anybody should be left alone.

	30-04-2002 10:04									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think that that's what I'd call unbiased reportage Blackice

to quote the reports author:

quote: "It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

(as an aside; no-one seems to have told this clown that the nuclear family is a fairly recent development - a hundred years ago most people in the west were living in extended families [and of course many still do])

a bit more:

quote: Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."

some more gems of wisdom:

quote: "I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

and last, but not least:

quote: Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

I'll give it 3 out of 10 on the troll scale

	30-04-2002 10:14									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Soooooooooooo the author was right, wrong? Can you be more clear as to what you believe to be the situation...

Show me your realities. Post a counter publication... do something other than "troll" Simply posting what you did has no merit at all. This person worked on this report... You spent 1 minute discounting it with no substance at all....

"Troll" thanks for the example...until you posted I was unsure what it meant... Your 1 minute example presents a perfect example of the 1 minute "troll" response... I give it -1 out of 0 as you offer nothing...

	30-04-2002 10:16									#5
	Tired of ads?

God, what a ****wit!

	30-04-2002 10:35									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: B. Abusers Fixated child abusers are overwhelmingly male. About a third of those who offend against children target boys, however non-incestuous offenders against male children have many more victims than offenders against female children. According to a study by Abel "the mean number of victims of non-incestuous offenders against female children was 19.8, which that of such offenders against male children was 150.2. (Abel 1988)

http://www.inoohr.org/sexualchildabuseandhomosexua.htm

http://www.childabuse.com/fs19.htm

Oh "Twit" offender I could go on all night. This for your information is old news... You "trolls" really need to stick to topics you have a clue about...

The facts are in you may "troll" all you like but the reality of the situation is as it is posted....Boys are abused more often then girls...

Now if they are homosexuals or not. Why is it with the stats the way they are we do not hear about it? Is male rape, abuse is ok? I mean how many of you knew this stat exsisted?
This person right or wrong in his thesis is pointing out an important fact of abuse.

His research I have yet to disect but the stats are sound...

	30-04-2002 10:48									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by blackice quote: B. Abusers Fixated child abusers are overwhelmingly male. About a third of those who offend against children target boys, however non-incestuous offenders against male children have many more victims than offenders against female children. According to a study by Abel "the mean number of victims of non-incestuous offenders against female children was 19.8, which that of such offenders against male children was 150.2. (Abel 1988) http://www.inoohr.org/sexualchildabuseandhomosexua.htm Oh "Twit" offender I could go on all night. This for your information is old news... You "trolls" really need to stick to topics you have a clue about... The facts are in you may "troll" all you like but the reality of the situation is as it is posted....Boys are abused more often then girls... Now if they are homosexuals or not. Why is it with the stats the way they are we do not hear about it? Is male rape, abuse is ok? I mean how many of you knew this stat exsisted? This person right or wrong in his thesis is pointing out an important fact of abuse. His research I have yet to disect but the stats are sound...

The problem with these statistics is the definition used of a homosexual. The author is making an erroneous assumption that any man who molests a boy is a homosexual. This is overwhelmingly not the case. The vast majority of male-boy abuse cases are performed by heterosexual men. They are usually married men and have heterosexual sexual relationships.

The reason they molest boys has nothing to do with homosexuality, it is due to being a paedophile. Being a paedophile and being a homosexual are entirely seperate thing. The first is a fetish, the second an orientation. By and large most sexual abuse, directed against children or otherwise, is a power issue, not one of sexual gratification.

The sources like the ones you cite are blatantly anti-gay and are playing statistical and word games to manipulate you into believing gays molest children. This is a vicious lie, one refuted vociferously by the AMA, the APA and all reputable, unbiased medical and psychological organizations. It is a red herring used by religious zealots to further justify persecution of gays and maintaining bigoted, exclusionary laws and policies.

	30-04-2002 10:52									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by blackice Fixated child abusers are overwhelmingly male. About a third of those who offend against children target boys.

Well this suggest that homosexuals are reponsible for one-third of child abuse while heterosexuals are reponsible for two-thirds. So most of the child abuse is committed by heterosexuals.

Somebody then plays around with the stats and comes up with the conclusion homosexuals are more like to abuse then hetrosexuals.

	30-04-2002 10:56									#9
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Well this suggest that homosexuals are reponsible for one-third of child abuse while heterosexuals are reponsible for two-thirds. So most of the child abuse is committed by heterosexuals.

The problem is that homosexuals account for 10% of the population, so if the stats were accurate then a disproportionate number of paedophiles would be homosexuals.

However, the stats are erroneous, as Boris pointed out. IIRC, the real stats show that homosexuals are actually slightly less likely to be paedophiles.

	30-04-2002 10:58									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Well this suggest that homosexuals are reponsible for one-third of child abuse while heterosexuals are reponsible for two-thirds.

Not even one-third. As I stated above, the vast majority of child abuse even against boys by men is committed by heterosexual men.

Seems weird, until one realizes: paedophilia isn't about sex as much as it is about power and control.

I strongly suspect the percentage of child abusers who are gay is the same percentage of the population at large who are gay--from 4-7 percent.

	30-04-2002 11:12									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with all of the above comments with the exception of the homosexuality factor seems to me it is simply unknown.

Bringing to light this topic was to show that in fact more boys than girls are abused? I have to wonder why then this reality is not aired? if it is true that in fact:

quote: Men are less likely to report being sexually abused. Men are more likely to be abused by people outside the family. The perpetrator is likely to be a baby-sitter, friend of the parents, or a relative. Men are abused less often then women. Men are likely to feel they are at fault for the abuse, and others are more likely to view the men as being responsible for being abuse. Men fear people will think they will turn into perpetrators, because they were abused. Male-on-male attacks are often gang related. Men and boys are more likely to be abused by men, but recently women have been found to be sexually abusing boys and men. Men might question their sexual preferences, and their sexual identity more often then women. Men are likely to report the abuse more positively if the perpetrator is a woman. Men are less likely to feel the abuse is harmful to them. Men might have sexual fantasies about children, and they might have desires to engage in sex with the children. Men are more likely to act aggressively, and they want to hurt others more then women do. Men are less likely to get help, but they are more likely to go for psychological help for other problems. Men display more psychological, physical, and behavioral problems then women who are depressed. The male survivor might think that the assault means he is gay. Boys are taught that men are not victims. Men are taught to be tough in our culture. Sometimes when the perpetrator is a woman, the boy might fear that people will ridicule him for being sexually abused by a woman. People believe that boys should be able to defend themselves against attacks by women. Some boys do not even know they are being abused. Boys are taught to be in control, and when a boy is a victim, he is not in control. Tower, 1988).

Then how are we to know what he is saying is just anti gay retoric? Seems to me more studies have to be funded in this direction...Not gay focused but over all towards male rape reality. As a society we are vigilant to female abuse, what about male abuse...

	30-04-2002 13:08									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Good article ! And don't forget that masturbation is harmfull for kitties...

	30-04-2002 15:11									#13
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by blackice Bringing to light this topic was to show that in fact more boys than girls are abused? I have to wonder why then this reality is not aired? if it is true that in fact:

But blackice, the quote you posted states: "About a third of those who offend against children target boys."

That suggests that girls are targeted by two-thirds of child abusers.

That implies that more girls are abused than boys

	30-04-2002 15:22									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It's proven that gays have more "partners" than straight.

Why homosexual pedophil molests more kids than heterosexual ones ? I have my idea :

1) Generally groups of girls aren't teached by male teacher, but by femal. So boys are far more in contact with adult men than girls. So men who prefere little girls have less "choices" than those who prefere boys.

2) Men are more often sexual offensors than women.

	30-04-2002 17:59									#15
	Put an end to popups!

Blackice, what constitutes "homosexual culture"?

	30-04-2002 18:06									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Why do we even waste our time with this fool? He's Canada's version of Wiglaf, but with the grammar and language skills of faded glory. I don't even understand what the hell he's trying to say most of the time, and I certainly don't understand what that last post was all about, or how it's relevant. Honestly, is male rape as ignored as he suggests? I certainly don't think so.

	30-04-2002 18:57									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I need to get to class today, but I will read ALL the posts on here, and then I will tell you what I think about this bullshit.


later

	30-04-2002 19:12									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Cool it MrFun. No need to get hyped over one poster's comments here. We're all pretty doubtful of this whole thing.

	30-04-2002 19:26									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt We're all pretty doubtful of this whole thing.

Exactly MrWhereItsAt. I have nothing more to say concerning this topic.

	30-04-2002 20:11									#20
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by blackice Soooooooooooo the author was right, wrong? Can you be more clear as to what you believe to be the situation... Show me your realities. Post a counter publication... do something other than "troll" Simply posting what you did has no merit at all. This person worked on this report... You spent 1 minute discounting it with no substance at all.... "Troll" thanks for the example...until you posted I was unsure what it meant... Your 1 minute example presents a perfect example of the 1 minute "troll" response... I give it -1 out of 0 as you offer nothing...

EXAMPLE: This is an example of what one does when they have been proven wrong and can't come up with a decent response except to say Troll! They lack the common intellect to give an appropriate response besides Troll.

So kiddies.......follow this example and JUST SAY NO TO THE TROLL MAN!!

	30-04-2002 20:43									#21
	Got spare money?

To steer this in a productive direction.

Actually Case, the nuclear family is at least as old as the medieval ages.
Back then people waited until they were in their late 20s to marry, primarily because the way they got a start inf life (land, tools, house, etc.) was by getting them from dead parents. So, basically everyone waited for their parents to die (if you were a peasant). It would depend on how many siblings you had and which set of parents died first in a relationship on where you ended up living. I'm taking (well, finishing) a course on the medieval ages, and this is all according to Prof. Zook.

	30-04-2002 22:09									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Prof. Zook sounds a bit of a kook to me....

Head back 1000 years and a woman who hadn't been pregnant at least 5 times would have been considered a freak. Given the levels of childhood mortality, had everyone waited to their late 20's before breeding we'd be extinct.

	30-04-2002 22:12									#23
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny Prof. Zook sounds a bit of a kook to me.... Head back 1000 years and a woman who hadn't been pregnant at least 5 times would have been considered a freak.

Except of course if she died before, which was sadly not unusual.

A woman not having there child before 18 was a freak too.

	30-04-2002 22:13									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Check it out - they may have had kids earlier - but they weren't married until late twenties. They didn't have tons of kids. Yes, you're right that they may have been pregnant, but they didn't come to term with many of them, and of those that did - whoo boy, lots of nasty stuff happened.

	30-04-2002 22:16									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Doesn't that completely arse up your notion of the nuclear family then?

	30-04-2002 22:21									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Check it out - they may have had kids earlier - but they weren't married until late twenties. They didn't have tons of kids. Yes, you're right that they may have been pregnant, but they didn't come to term with many of them, and of those that did - whoo boy, lots of nasty stuff happened.

It depends. I think men married quite late. They should have a situation. Women should have married quite young.

	30-04-2002 22:23									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I wonder if it is because there are more repressed homosexuals

(if the stat is correct)

Jon Miller

	30-04-2002 22:43									#28
	Remove this text

Nahhh, both women and men married later than teens. Women were generally a couple years younger, but they weren't in their teens.

It was actually quite similar to now.

All I know, is that the household did not consist of parents, grandparents, etc. It was just kids and their parents. So, that would not blow my theory out of the water. Most likely, if someone got pregnant the parents threw them out.

Makes sense to me, they didn't have much to live on - why would you want another mouth to feed?

	01-05-2002 00:06									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt Cool it MrFun. No need to get hyped over one poster's comments here. We're all pretty doubtful of this whole thing.

I have cooled it, and now that I have thought about this, let's follow the author's false logic towards other groups of people:

1) Some whites are racist --- thus, all whites have the tendency to be racist.

2) Some women want an abortion --- thus, all women are tempted to have an abortion.

3) Some blacks are rapists --- thus, all blacks are tempted to rape.

4) Some conservatives are homophobic --- thus, all conservatives have tendency towards homophobia.

5) Some heterosexuals are rapists --- thus, all heterosexuals are tempted to rape.

The author amazes me with the guttural-logic.

PS: I realize most Apolytoners are intelligent enough not to take the author seriously.

	01-05-2002 00:14									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It is interesting that there is a hetero-homo double standard, namely that antigay people think it's perfectly fine to judge every homosexual by the acts of a few, whether those acts even relate to homosexuality or not. But the reverse logic doesn't seem to apply, as the overwhelming majority of horrible deeds on this earth have been committed by heterosexuals. It's just a matter of numerical superiority.

I believe it is another, subtle way in which antigay people try to debase and dehumanize homosexuals. When you lump them into groups and make mass-generalizations that "they" are all "this" and do "that," it makes it easier to see gays as a monolithic "evil" rather than as what gays are--individual human beings who are just as prone to virtue and vice as anyone else.

There is no "gay culture," but there are gays in every culture.