Real Evil

This is an uncomfortable post to write. It will be even more difficult to illustrate. But some things are simply evil, and we need to be clear about that.

I try not to put images in my mind that are too ugly for replay. I didn’t watch Passion of the Christ, because I anticipated that the violence would be too much for me. In that case, I was glad the movie was made, for other people to visualize the suffering of our Lord and Savior; but, for me, seeing it depicted was more than I wanted to watch happen, even knowing it was just a portrayal.

I generally avoid violent movies. I manage the blockbusters, the Avengers and so forth, but it’s stylized and pretend and therefore not too upsetting. But I really prefer something quieter, with more storytelling. It’s a taste thing.

But the thing with violence is, no one is really killed or stabbed in the making of the movie. Real bullets don’t hit the actors. Real knives don’t stab real people. It’s all a simulation. It’s by counting on that safety for all involved that allows us to watch it at all.

Some studies show it’s nevertheless harmful—particularly to young people—because our subconscious doesn’t actually separate out simulation from real when we view it. And getting used to the simulation can inure you to the real thing. You can start thinking gunplay is normal. That’s a risk you take when you watch it.

Still, it’s not real; no one is being harmed, and we know that.

In the sheltered world I grew up in, I thought the same safe assumption should apply to nudity; if something was shown that implied nudity, I had the expectation that the person really was covered during the filming, and it was a trick of camera angles or something that implied nudity. And then, once I saw a showing of the movie The Bible, and the backsides of Adam and Eve were shown, and I was stunned. How could that be? That was real. Right in front of us children.

It wasn’t, I recognize now with my adult mind, a depiction intended for prurient purposes. Nevertheless, to a little girl who was taught the importance of modesty, it was incomprehensible.

The thing about nudity in media is—it’s real. A real person uncovered their body and allowed a camera to photograph them, usually for money.

Purpose and intent may make some difference. Private photos of childbirth, for example. But that does tell us something about the times when uncovering our body is appropriate: in intimate, personal, private circumstances.

Uncovering our body for the world to see is not empowering; it is degrading. We call it sin in my religion.

So, let that be a prelude to our discussion today.

There’s a French movie, being shown on Netflix (for the time being) that is about the sexualization of 11-year-olds. Just the “poster” advertising it caused such a stir that Netflix had to change it. But reports are, that was one of the least offensive images of the movie. (Here’s one of the reports, passed along from a family therapist, on Facebook.)

I’m purposely not mentioning the title. It’s not something a civilized person should seek out. But we can discuss what we know of it and apply principles.

Legally, if it is declared to be child porn, the laws against producing it don’t apply here in the US; it was made in France. But distribution laws would apply. And that would mean Netflix would be found guilty of distributing child porn. Everyone who watched it would be guilty as a consumer, but probably not prosecuted. However, those who passed along images on social media, or those who downloaded the movie to their computer would be prosecutable.

I listened to the Sunday livestream of the law guys Viva and Barnes. They discussed the law aspects. Neither was willing to watch the film. The images available in stories about it were disturbing enough. Reading descriptions, they are of the opinion that, probably if it were filmed in the US, and certainly in Canada, where Viva (David Frei) is located, it would be child porn and prosecutable as such. Child exploitation laws would also apply. But because it was made in France, and because it was already on Netflix, labeling it now as child porn is probably not going to happen. Barnes speculates that Netflix got clearance before putting it on their service. Still, pressure could very well cause them to take it down within a week, just to avoid a total boycott by a large portion of their customers.

The film skates close to a rather fuzzy line. There is nudity, but, according to descriptions, actual nudity is adult only, not of the children. But near nudity is certainly there. Sexting of a crotch is portrayed. Self-stimulation is portrayed. That qualifies as porn even if it is portrayal only, without the actual act being performed.

Ben Shapiro braved through it, to be able to comment, last Friday, based on what is actually in the film, rather than what is known about it. It was disgusting, as everyone says. However, he notes, as do a few others, that the portrayal isn’t in favor of sexualizing children; it shows it as horrifying and bad.

Does that redeem the film? Not in the least. As I’ve heard passed along from multiple commentaries, it’s like showing how bad animal cruelty is by actually beating animals on film for an hour and a half. Do people see that animal cruelty is bad? Yes, but you harmed actual animals to make the message—which means saying a message is more important to you than actually preventing cruelty to animals.

The Babylon Bee (parody news) illustrated for us in a story earlier today (and provides me a relatively safe illustration for this post):

from this Babylon Bee story

And in this case, actually hypersexualizing young girls is being done—there are, indeed, actual young girls in the film being hypersexualized. Are we supposed to be convinced that saying the message is worth sacrificing real lives?

Meanwhile, in California, the legislature just passed a law decriminalizing sex with children. Not entirely, yet. What they claim to be addressing is the problem you have when high school kids, with a possible upper limit of 19 and a lower limit around 14, date each other. And, of course, it’s not the dating that’s at issue, but the sexual act, but they’re making the assumption that it’s a “wholesome” love relationship between young people within a certain age range. However, they made it a ten-year age difference. That means they’re OK with a 25-year-old and a 15-year-old, or a 23-year-old with a 14-year-old. That’s the very type of relationship that can entrap a young person. The older person has adulthood credit, and seems to offer status—but at a cost of innocence, because adults are allowed to expect sex in a relationship that a child, by law up until now, has not been able to legally consent to.

The Babylon Bee had another accidentally true headline:

 

from this Babylon Bee story

California has been leading the nation in sexualizing children. Why? Not for the good of the children. Rather, it’s to accommodate the LGBT agenda. If you looked at what they’re doing in so-called comprehensive sex education and what predators do to groom children, you might not see any difference. Maybe that’s because the culture they’re supporting is grooming children, sexualizing them early, getting them used to things that would otherwise be repugnant to them.

Reread what Rebecca Friedrichs has revealed about sex ed in California (and other US) schools.

And reread what Kelly Litvak tells us, from experience with her daughter, about how the groomers patiently work to entrap.

In a brief moment of good news, last week we watched as the Texas State Board of Education met to discuss new health education standards. We were worried—because there had been heavy lobbying—that the board might weaken and give in to demands to sexualize our young school children. I’m happy to say they held strong, mostly on votes of 9-6. I’m uncertain how that affects local schools, such as in Austin, where they have already adopted those standards, however. Parents need to be ever vigilant.

As Betsy DeVos said, on Glenn Beck on August 28, 

[Parents] are paying property taxes. Grandparents are paying property taxes. Businesses are paying property taxes. And they should be able to say, “We want something different. We want something better for our kids.”

The odds appear to be against us parents and grandparents and taxpayers.

There’s this headline about what’s new at the UN, from September 4, 2020: 

Advocate for legalized teen prostitution takes influential UN post

'The idea of purchasing intimacy and paying for the services can be affirming for many people,' insisted Tlaleng Mofokeng, formerly an abortionist and now a U.N. special rapporteur.

 

Add this one, from August 25, 2020, with a paragraph from the story: 

Sexualized toys created for children: A disturbing trend, not a coincidence

Not mentioned on the packaging is a second button or sensor in the female doll’s genital area that, when pressed, causes the doll to gasp and make sounds like “Whee!” and “Oh!”

 

Hasbro has since pulled the doll from store shelves, but the placement of the button is disturbingly similar to grooming tactics used by child predators to normalize and desensitize kids to inappropriate touching.

 

The results of these cultural trends show up in stories of harm to children, some rescued, some not.

This is from The Blaze, September 1, 2020: 

Registered repeat sex offender allegedly chases down naked teen boy, executes him in the street

'He was pleading for his life'

 

Think about the grooming that victim probably went through before finding himself in the predicament that ended in his death. And we may not ever know what went into the luring of this girl who ended up in a tractor-trailer being shipped out of the country, rescued August 31, 2020: 

Border Patrol agents find missing Texas girl inside tractor-trailer at checkpoint

Sometimes a child is taken in a snatch-and-grab kidnapping, but more often it’s after grooming, frequently through social media like Tik-Tok. It’s shocking how often we see stories like this next one from August 27, 2020, and hard to stomach that the rescues are the rare ones: 

U.S. Marshalls recover 39 missing children in Georgia operation

If there were no market for sexualized children, there would be no slavery of them. That may be what shocks me the most. My life is sheltered enough that I have a difficult time imagining the depravity required for a person to choose to purchase sex, let alone with a child.And yet even I am subjected to images in media that are so sinful that I can hardly comprehend.

We can’t afford to tolerate these things. They do not represent open-mindedness, or tolerance of different viewpoints. They do not represent empowerment, or freedom. They represent, as they always have, depraved debauchery.

And enslavement. Every pornographic image represents a person enslaved in a way that coerces them to uncover their body and allow a camera to photograph them, sometimes doing things that should never be viewed by others, usually for money, possibly for drugs to feed an addiction, possibly just to be allowed to live another day—in a world where life is used up, literally, in about 5 to 7 years.

Porn is not innocent. It is not consented to as a real free person could consent. It is not harmless—not for the viewer, and certainly not for the victim in the portrayal.

If we are in a world where this evil is normalized for children—may God quickly come to our rescue!

It's Called Grooming

A few weeks ago I shared some information for parents to protect their children. The issue was human sex trafficking. We were made aware of warning signs that a child is being groomed, to be led into the hands of the traffickers. There are steps in recruitment, what we could call grooming:

1.       Befriend—to get the target to see the groomer as someone to trust.

2.       Intoxicate—to cause inability to think clearly combined with causing friction at home.

3.       Alienate—to drive a wedge between target and family and their core values.

4.       Isolate—to separate the target from old friends who held their original core values.

5.       Desensitize—to confuse the target’s moral compass, making the previously unthinkable seem common or even normal.

6.       Capitalize—to take the target into control by the groomer, and subject to sex slavery.

Image from here
link from this story

As a follow-up, here’s a piece warning parents of the apps the predators are using. 

This is a scary scenario, and pretty horrifying for a parent. I think we do need to be vigilant. But I think the danger is larger than recruitment into human trafficking, which, while unbelievably too common, is still comparatively rare.

I don’t mean to diminish the meaning. But I believe the methodology—grooming—is being used in a broader attempt to recruit a generation into an alternate reality, with an alternate morality and behaviors.

These things are so serious, it helps to be able to keep a sense of humor. So let’s start with yesterday’s Andrew Klavan Show intro. He begins each episode with a monologue in the form of a news report parody, like this:

Leftist scientists working around the clock have developed powerful new tools for altering reality. In a speech to the Society for the Promulgation of Irrational Hysteria, left-wing physicist Dr. Geraldo Von Zippity-Noodle told the gathering of empty chairs he can now confirm that writing a statement five times over in all capital letters and posting it on Twitter transforms that statement, no matter how absurd, into the truth.

In an experiment that has been reduplicated in multiple peer-reviewed imaginations, scientists posted the words “TRANS-WOMEN ARE WOMEN” five times in all caps on their Twitter feeds, and discovered from that time forth men who wore dresses not only became real women, but were actually able to conceive and bear children, if no one looked too closely.

In a transcript of the speech, released through UCLA’s office of Collecting Undeserved Paychecks by Repeatedly Using the Word Diversity, Dr. Von Zippety-Noodle said, “The key to changing reality through repetitive Twitter capitalization, or RTC, is to ensure that no one damages the results by demanding proof or using such phrases as ‘nonsense’ or ‘applesauce’ or uttering ‘complete horse manure of the purest ray serene.’[i] If people using such words can be banned from Twitter, or silenced through intimidation, then the proper reality change can take place undisturbed. Or, if not, who is there to say?”

Andrew Klavan,
screenshot from episode 710

That's somewhere around step 5, desensitizing. Disorienting. Claiming an alternate truth so often and so firmly that sensible people begin to question their long-held grasp on reality.

This disorienting comes easier if there’s already been some unmooring from the family and the core beliefs inculcated within (step 3, alienating), and from friends who went along with those core values (step 4, isolating).

This step has been underway for quite a while. Things that seemed unthinkable in 1950 or 1960 were mainstreamed—in media, academia, and then in politics, which is downstream from culture.

Consider a few recent stories.

In this one, a British priest/teacher at a school in Essex was castigated for considering the feelings of any child but the boy/girl with gender dysphoria: “Priest Resigned Post Over Children Being ‘Sacrificed on the Altar of Trans-Ideology’”  

The school in Essex, which has not been named in reports to protect the privacy of the children and families, had a pupil who, at just eight years old, was looking to transition from a boy to a girl, British newspaper the Mail on Sunday reported. Reverend Parker said he supported the child’s transition but wanted to inform parents of other pupils in order to ensure the safety of everyone at the school and to address any concerns about the child using the girls’ toilets.

It was not enough that he supported the transitioning child; he had to also dismiss any concerns surrounding the situation. The school’s governor and church leaders told him to shut up. So he left.

In Brazil—as attempted in the US with the recent Equality Act, which passed in the House—disagreeing with the LGBT agenda is being made a crime: “Brazil's supreme court votes to make homophobia and transphobia crimes.”  

Racism was made a crime in Brazil in 1989 with prison sentences of up to five years. The court's judges ruled that homophobia should be framed within the racism law until the country's congress approves legislation specifically covering LGBT discrimination.

Brazil's Senate is dealing with a bill to criminalize discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender with sentences of up to five years.

Meanwhile, as women and girls express their fears—not necessarily of transgenders, but of predators using the opportunity to victimize—actual cases continue appearing: “Man who says he’s ‘female’ enters women’s bathroom, sexually assaults 10-year-old girl.” The story offers this commentary:

Decades after feminism swept the West, transgender rights have now formally replaced women’s rights as the emerging ideology of gender fluidity wipes out any formal conception of what a “woman” is to begin with.

Women and girls who feel unsafe when biological males enter spaces once reserved for females only are being essentially told that they are transphobic and that they should shut up.

And this:

Any discomfort expressed by women themselves is condemned as bigotry. And this system is impervious to questioning: It is not only transphobic to ask whether some spaces should be limited to biological females for the purposes of safety, it is also transphobic to ask any follow-up questions about this. The transgender community, apparently, is a uniformly perfect group, utterly without sin and lacking any nefarious members whatsoever. I suppose if you can believe a woman has a penis, you can believe anything.

If you’re recruiting, why not start young? It’s hard to know whether this next story is about a really, really stupid teacher or a purposeful groomer: “'He Feels Confused': Parents Sue After Teacher Repeatedly Asks 8-Year-Old if He's Trans.” In this case, an 8-year-old had digestive problems, which were accommodated by allowing him to use a different restroom (I think I read in a related story was the teachers’). His teacher, instead of asking why this arrangement had been made, surmised that he had gender dysphoria, and singled him out multiple times to ask him if he thought he was really a girl, and gave him books to read that would lead to that conclusion. The books in his backpack were how the parents found out. The boy was very confused, and required some to deal with the trauma the teacher caused him. The family sued, rightfully.

Note here that the boy wasn’t confused before the teacher repeatedly and somewhat forcefully implanted the idea of gender dysphoria. In other words, the pressure to put this information in early grades, supposedly to get kids used to the existence of people with gender dysphoria so that there will be greater understanding and acceptance, is really recruiting, or grooming: separating the child from the parents’ core values, making shocking abnormalities seem normal, claiming a lie loudly and boldly enough that sane people begin to question reality. It’s a horrible thing to do to vulnerable children.

There was a story a few months ago, from here in Houston, about drag queens reading to small children in Houston city libraries. Here's additional commentary on that story: “DragQueen Who Read to Kids at Houston Library Is Convicted Pedophile.” Eventually, a second sexual predator was found reading to kids. The library said, “Sorry,” but not really sorry. After all, it was for the greater good of indoctrinating kids to be more tolerant and accepting. Chris Sevier, of MassResistance, the parent group that did their own research, leading to the discoveries, when the city refused to, said, 

“It’s not about acceptance, love and tolerance. It’s really about indoctrinating children to the ideals of secular humanism.”

A week ago, Jordan Peterson, on his weekly podcast, interviewed provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. I didn’t know much about Yiannopoulos before. I remember a couple of years ago he was invited to speak at C-PAC. But I don’t give a lot of heed to people who say something anti-leftist and are suddenly given a platform as a conservative. Let time settle any questions.

Milo Yiannopoulos,
screenshot from Jordan Peterson podcast

It was an interesting interview. He’s unpleasantly in-your-face accusatory at times, and overly certain of his own brilliance and talent. OK. Anyway, I knew so little about him that I didn’t know he was gay or that he had suffered a media downfall because of a comment he made about younger gay males being brought in by older gay males; that had happened to him, but he said it was consensual, which he said he believed it often is. What he realizes now, slightly older, is that for him at his age to do the same to a young teen male would be predatory and wrong. It happens; everyone in the gay community knows it and recognizes it. But he only now, with a little more maturity, sees that he had been preyed upon. He was punished for saying what he said, but I think a sensible onlooker would have looked at the scenario and thought, “Oh, he doesn’t yet realize what happened to him.”

Another piece I came upon makes the pedophile/homosexuality connection: "Pedophilia and homosexuality–an undeniable connection." This is an opinion piece, originally written in Croatian, I believe, so there are syntax issues. But I’ve done the math before and gotten similar results. The author (I can’t find an author or date on the piece) posits that many gay men prey upon boys who were the age of their own first encounter.

The LGBT agenda isn’t the whole story. But it’s a good example of grooming. Review this piece on the Yogyakarta Principles: “Ten Years of International Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Laws: Lessons Learned,” by Daniel Moody.

You can add abortion to the list of disorienting realities being called good. We need to end with something a little light-hearted, to give us strength. Thanks again to The Babylon Bee, for their “news” story: “DisneyCEO: 'To Avoid Filming Among Depraved, Immoral People, We Are Moving All OurGeorgia Operations Back To Hollywood.'” Because Georgia passed anti-abortion laws:

"To avoid filming among depraved, immoral people, we are moving all our Georgia operations back to Hollywood," [Disney CEO Bob Iger] said in a press conference, wagging his finger sternly. "The people of Georgia can't pass immoral, unjust laws like this and expect us righteous elites in Hollywood to stand by and let it happen. Morality is very important to us in the film industry. That's why we film a lot of our stuff here in Hollywood, where we can rest easy knowing that the money from our production is going to support moral, upright people."

"It's the right thing to do," he added.

Iger also pointed out that California's lax abortion laws come in handy in Hollywood quite often.

Questions I have at this point are, who is doing the grooming, and what is their goal?

In a religious context, the simplest answer is that Satan is grooming as many people as possible—and concentrating on the young—to accept as “real” and “good” things that are false and evil, so that he can ruin as many lives as he can. Science and natural law are on the side of real and good. That’s why the “groomers” make sure the real and good are shouted down—in all caps. With claims of being “for tolerance and against bigotry,” while being intolerant and bigoted—adding force of law whenever possible.

Keep your children close. Don’t trust them to schools, entertainments, academia, or anyone who has already fallen prey to the false and evil; those people are patiently doing their work as groomers.

---

[i] I looked this up so you don’t have to. It’s from stanza 14 of Thomas Gray’s poem “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.”

Normalizing Has Already Crossed a Line, Part II: Heteromorphism

In Monday’s post we talked about the attempt to normalize pedophilia, along with other sexual deviancies that have been normalized. There’s still so much, I don’t know if I’ll get it all in today’s post.

We’ll start with a little personal experience.

Last week we had our granddaughter, Little Political Sphere 1, visiting us for a sort of staycation. One of my favorite parts is getting to do story reading at bedtime. She was really slow getting ready for bed, though, because she was distracted by her tablet. So I confiscated it until she got her teeth brushed.

The tablet is a sturdy thing designed for kids, and only has access to things that are meant for kids. There are games, some of them interactive with other kids, and there’s some live-streaming that seems pretty silly to me, but she enjoys it. And there’s music.

I don't know if this is the brand,
but it looks about like this.
Image from Amazon

Anyway, while I was waiting for her, she set me up to watch a music video she thought I might like. When that was done, I went on to another that was suggested in the right margin. I recognized the name Taylor Swift and mostly enjoy her music, so I clicked on that one (not a song name I remember). The video that came up with it was an animated story.

Remember, this is aimed at young children. LPS1 is almost 9. We’re talking mid-elementary school-age, not middle school or higher. The animation was of children that looked her age.

There was a young boy who sees someone he knows along the sidewalk. His heart starts beating out beyond his chest, throbbing visibly. He’s embarrassed about how obvious it is, so he climbs a tree and takes a look from there. The other child he’s watching is reading a book while walking and tossing an apple up and down. Boy-in-tree’s heart bursts out of his chest and goes and replaces the apple. He must go get it back. So he sneaks up, reaches for it, accidentally gets the attention of the apple-tossing child. He’s awkwardly close, and even more embarrassed. But then their eyes lock, and suddenly his love is reciprocated.

If you’re assuming the apple-tossing child is a girl, you should still see how ridiculous this is. Boys this age think girls have cooties, and girls know this about boys too. This is years before they’re interested in falling in love with someone. So the story is a lie. Cute? Maybe, but a lie. A girl who is suddenly confronted by a boy who invades her personal space, whether or not she recognizes his crush on her, is going to go “Eww! Get away!”

But the apple-tossing child, who is the target of the tree-climbing boy’s heart throb, is a very cool looking boy. The kind who does well in sports and wears casually cool clothes, and is just cool without even thinking about it. This other boy, who was perfectly comfortable in his nine-year-old world, is not going to suddenly feel romantic love for this odd boy who has just invaded his space.

First, only 2% of the adult population is attracted to the same sex. Among nine-year-olds next to 0% are. They’re not romantically attracted to anyone at that age. Boys are, however, attracted to boys in another way at this age. They want to be around the boys they like, that they admire, that they share interests with. It’s about learning to develop friendships. Any hint that this attraction is sexual is a lie, and it’s harmful. Another harmful lie is that, if you’re this age and not interested in girls, and you prefer to be with boys, you ought to start worrying that you might be gay.

Media and societal lies of this sort don’t do what they purport to intend: they do not get people over their supposed prejudices. These lies don’t get to truth. They have nothing to do with truth.

I have a word for this type of lie: heteromorphism. Look at the word anthropomorphism, which means attributing characteristics of humans (Anthropos) to animals, to make them (morph) human-like. So heteromorphism means attributing characteristics of heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Are homosexuals and their relationships the same as heterosexuals and their relationships with just the gender substitution? That’s is becoming a common belief. And it’s tempting to believe.

I don’t have a wide range of acquaintance with homosexuals in my life. I’ve had my share of teachers and co-workers. But because most of my circle consists of working at home, going to church, relating to other families with growing or grown children, I don’t frequently interact with that 2% of the population. But there are friends of friends, and I’m sympathetic. There’s a tendency among us to assume that these are people pretty much like us. They find someone they are attracted to and want to spend their life with, and if we just get out of their way and let them live the way they want, isn’t that the decent thing to do?

If you read Monday’s post, I think you’ll see that’s the view of Roaming Millennial. That’s why she so clearly separated pedophiles from LGBTs. Because LGBTs are just like us except for some harmless quirky differences, but pedophiles are nothing like us.

Screen shot from Roaming Millennial's video blog

If that’s true, it will hold up to scrutiny.

Here’s some data:

·         A majority of male homosexuals (according to the CDC in 1997) have over 500 sexual partners in their lifetime. Among the first several hundred AIDS patients, their average was 1100.[i]

·         Homosexual males average 22 sexual partners per year (almost two new partners per month).

·         Married homosexual males average 8 sexual partners per year.[ii]

·         Lesbians average 50 male sexual partners in their lifetime (compared to an average of 12 for women who only have sex with men).[iii]

·         Most “committed” homosexual relationships end within three years.[iv]

·         Nearly all (possibly all—studies ended when none could be found) long-term “committed” homosexual relationships accommodate infidelity as acceptable.[v]

·         Self-identified homosexual teens (not questioning or bisexual) have pregnancy rates two to seven times greater than heterosexuals in their demographic. 10% of males who consider themselves homosexual or questioning have had enough sex with females to have caused a pregnancy.[vi]

·         Homosexual teens are twice as likely to be sexually active as heterosexual teens.

·         Adult male homosexuals have a life expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male population; those with AIDS have even less time.[vii]

·         Homosexuals are statistically more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society—as much as 6 times higher.[viii]

·         Almost 50% of male homosexuals and 55% of females have suffered abuse requiring hospitalization caused by a sexual partner. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of females have been abused by a partner.[ix]

·         17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood, more than 86% by homosexual men. Mathematically, this means that a child molester is statistically 10 to 20 times more likely to be a homosexual than a heterosexual.[x]  

·         73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.[xi]

·         Homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.[xii]

·         Though homosexuals make up just two percent of the U.S. population, homosexuals commit 33 percent of the pedophilia crimes.

·         About 40 percent of homosexuals have been victims of childhood sexual abuse or adult sexual violence.

We could also mention that homosexual couples do not engage in the sexual act that heterosexual couples engage in. It may be that there’s a lack of oxytocin or other hormone, which bonds heterosexual couples, and that explains why most homosexual couples are neither committed nor exclusive. They don’t get the satisfaction that committed heterosexual couples get, so they keep searching and not finding.

There’s more bad news, but I think we’ve brought up enough questions for today.

I know I tend to think that the friends of friends I know who are in homosexual relationships must be the rare committed cases. But social science data shows the likelihood of that to be low. I’m probably more accurate if I don’t heteromorphize, even though my sympathies make me want to.

Another day we’ll have to talk about which is kinder: pretending there’s no difference and encouraging their behavior, or offering an alternative?

What is most distressing from the data is the strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Roaming Millennial was so clear that there’s a total separation. But she didn’t know the data that I did, even though it’s been around a long time.[xiii] And she hasn’t been aware of the normalizing she’d been subjected to her whole lifetime.

But she is right: normalizing has crossed a line.

There’s more normalizing of the LGBT agenda to cover. I’ll get to that in a Part III.

---

[i] G. Rotell, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York, Dutton, 1997).

[ii] Xiridou, Maria, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003.

[iii] Fethers, Katherine, et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000): 348.

[iv] Kronemeyer, Robert. Overcoming Homosexuality, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1980, p. 32.

[v] McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple:  How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3. They reported that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only 7 couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. No “monogamous” relationship among men longer than the ones set out in this book have been documented.

[vi] I wrote about this, including links to the original stories, August 10, 2017. 

[vii] Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”

[viii] Homosexual conduct has consequences for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders:  Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)  While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”  J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91.  (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.)  Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle:  Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council “The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”

[ix] Susan C. Turnell, “A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000) (finding that 44% of gay men report having experienced physical violence in their relationships, including 14% reporting sexual violence, with 83% reporting emotional abuse. Among lesbians:  55% acknowledge having experienced physical violence, 14% report sexual abuse and 84% report emotional abuse); See also, U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine (January 2000) (reporting that the U.S. Justice Study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals: an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. By contrast, the most recent numbers—1999—for “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation totaled a relatively low 1,558 victims). See also New York Times article “Alleged Murder Is Further Proof of Domestic Violence as Major Health Risk of Homosexuals, Traditional Values Group Says,” available at http://www.afaanwpa.org, quoting Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania: “The truth is that acts of outside aggression against individuals involved in homosexual behavior, while always highly publicized, are rare. The far greater threat of violence to individuals involved in homosexual relationships—a staggering 50,000 percent higher risk, according to research by homosexual activists themselves—is the epidemic of domestic violence such individuals commit against each other.”  See also David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, p. 14, “The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple…we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.”

[x] See Baldwin, Steve, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” and associated notes. “Homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male (citing W. D. Erickson et al, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1, 83 (1988), supra note 1 at 83). …It should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.”  See also K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979) (This study by homosexual activists and researchers revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger); Eugene Abel et al., “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3,5 (19877) “Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets were males”; R. Blanchard et al, “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” 29 Archives Sexual Behav. 464 (2000); K. Freund & R I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children:  An Exploratory Study,” 18 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 34, 34-43 (1992).

[xi] K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979).

[xii] K. Freund & R. I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Sex & Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34-43

[xiii] See my Defense of Marriage Collection.