Monday, October 02, 2006

On Perversions, Pedophiles, and the Homophobes of the Left

One of the great drawbacks of our “enlightened” times is that we cannot speak honestly about sexuality. There are basic truths about human sexuality that your grandparents took for granted, but which cannot now even be discussed in impolite elite society. It is the opposite of sophistication or openness--it is a willful and destructive naiveté. Make no mistake: this modern attitude has nothing to do with freedom or liberation, but falsehood and slavery. But if you speak openly about it, the dogs of political correctness will be unleashed.

Let us stipulate that there is something problematic about male sexuality. In fact, if we cannot agree that this is so, this is a fine example of how far from reality the “reality based community” is. Virtually all perverts are men. I don’t have the statistics -- nor do I need them -- but I am quite certain that nearly all violent rapists are men, as are almost all pedophiles. It is well understood that nearly all of the paraphilias -- what used to be called perversions, which is a judgmental and not nice word, so it had to be changed by the left -- apply to men.

For example, I once had an elderly patient with a shoe fetish. His entire sex life revolved around fancy high heeled shoes--wearing them, having sex with them, wearing them while having sex, etc. It’s almost unimaginable that a female patient would enjoy having sex with a sweaty old tennis shoe. When they have a shoe fetish, it involves compulsively purchasing them, not intimate companionship with them.

It is interesting to read the hysteria coming out of the left regarding the situation with Congressman Foley, who I wholeheartedly agree is a pervert. Furthermore, it is fascinating to hear the left using this normally shunned word so freely and openly. Normally, the left specializes in defining deviancy down, so they are definitely at cross purposes with themselves in this matter.

In fact, someone left a shrewd comment about Foley on La Shawn Barber’s blog, that “Twenty years from now, he will be able to marry a 16 year old boy.” Seriously, who could argue with this comment? Is this not the trend that the left has been working toward over the last 40 years? Twenty years from now this might be an epic story of forbidden love overcoming the medieval, benighted, and unprogressive attitudes of conservative sexual oppressors.

But there is a much deeper reason the left is at cross purposes with itself. They keep stridently referring to Foley as a “pervert.” While I certainly agree that he is a pervert, I am quite sure I don’t understand why they do. Is it because he is attracted to young men? If that is the case, why is he a pervert, when all normal heterosexual men are just as attracted to young female flesh? Can I get a witness? I'm hardly excusing it. "Is" is not synonymous with "ought." In fact, this is why society must have "oughts" in place that acknowledge the problematic nature of male sexuality.

On dailykos they keep calling Foley’s actions “pedophilia,” but this is amazingly deceptive. Pedophilia specifically revolves around fantasies, urges, or sexual behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child, a very different thing. Therefore, we can take the charge of pedophilia right off the table.

It is well understood that almost all true pedophiles are men. This is hardly a knock on men. Saying this does not make me an androphobe. Furthermore, the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, which is perfectly understandable, since they constitute over 98% of the male population. But let’s be honest. Let’s just look at the statistics, and see if we can draw any inferences from them aside from the truism that male sexuality is problematic for civilization--or that, for that very reason, both cultural mores and laws must be designed to guide male sexuality toward healthy, or at least pro-social, outlets. Otherwise, men will be inclined to “do what they do” in a state of nature, and be reduced to what George Gilder called the “naked nomad.”

In proportion to their numbers, homosexual males seem to be significantly more likely to engage in sex with minors. Let’s take the homosexual priest problem that afflicted the Catholic church. It is again deceptive to call this a “pedophile priest” problem, since the majority of victims were post-pubescent teenage boys. This is apparently consistent with studies indicating that “While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual... approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. Further, since male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.”

Of course, it is only anecdotal, but there is no question that the majority of homosexual patients I have seen had their first encounter with an older man when they were still adolescents. Now, I am neither a researcher nor a statistician, but let us suppose that the above statistics, which were published in reputable journals, are roughly true. That they are in the ballpark.

Let’s put it this way. I am not a member of the American Psychological Association, for the simple reason that it has been taken over by agenda-driven leftist activists, including sexual activists. In their prestigious Psychological Bulletin in 1998, the APA published a ho-hum research paper arguing that the harm from childhood sexual abuse was vastly overstated, and that even then, much of the harm was probably due to extrinsic factors such as family disapproval. In other words, it was not intrinsically harmful, much less pathological (or, needless to say, immoral). For many, it was actually a positive experience.

“Moral passion” is an interesting thing. Just like other impulses and drives, it will find a way to express itself. On dailykos, this situation is generating the kind of moral passion usually reserved for blind Bush hatred. Assuming it is genuine and not merely opportunistic, it makes me very curious. Why? Because there are many on the psychological left who would argue that what Foley did was not only not pathological but perfectly healthy, so long as the boy didn’t object, and Foley didn’t use his position of authority to exert illegitimate power over the boy. At bottom, it would be considered nothing more than an office flirtation with a willing participant.

And so, if Foley is neither a pervert nor a pedophile, what has the left so morally exercised? Is sexual corruption of minors really on their radar? If so, they had better be careful what they wish for, because they are aligning themselves with the cultural conservatives they normally despise. Can we start with MTV? Not banning it, of course, but stigmatizing it as the psychosexually toxic moral cesspool it is. And if (I said if) the above studies linked to are correct, how about addressing the more general problem of adult male homosexual seduction of underage teens? Make it a special category of "love crime," or something.

But if this is just about abuse of authority, then surely what President Clinton did was far worse, because 1) he actually acted on his urges (rather than just talking about them), and 2) felt no real remorse, unlike Foley, who immediately stepped down from his position in shame. So is it just because the left is homophobic?

(By the way, if my meaning is too ironic or oblique, you may find that some of the comments shed additional obscurity on my point.)


dicentra63 said...

Sorry to go OT on the first post, but congrats to Bob on his shoutout from Victor Davis Hanson.

But while we're at it, can you explain further why it's not as bad for a 30-year-old woman to seduce an underage teen boy as for a 30-year-old man to seduce a teenaged girl? It's not obvious to me why this is so.

Gagdad Bob said...


Because male and female sexuality are very different. Even if it weren't against the law, I doubt that there would be any more older women seducing boys than there presently is. Whereas a normal 17 year old boy wants to have sex with anything that moves... or even doesn't move, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

>>On dailykos, this situation is generating the kind of moral passion usually reserved for blind Bush hatred.<<

I have to assume that's basically what it really is, a chance to stick it to the Repubs, I also have to suppose the Dem-left charge against Foley centers on the hypocrisy attached to his conduct, though the Dem-left might be reluctant to stress it because - hypocrisy cuts two ways here. The Dem-left hardly represents traditional sexual morality, and for them to assume the pose of moral guardian is hypocrisy itself.

That said, I hope there's a special hell prepared for the likes of Foley, Swaggert, Bakker, those whose moral fakery aids the cause of the nihilists by helping to sew doubt and confusion into the minds of souls who are searching for a deeper spiritual meaning in life.

Gagdad Bob said...

Furthermore, it goes without saying that a woman cannot "rape" a man in the way that a man can rape a woman. Obviously there has to be some willingness on the part of the male. In the non-legalistic sense, only males can rape.

Gagdad Bob said...


Yes, I hope my irony hasn't obscured my message, which is that the left cannot draw out the implications of its longstanding assault on traditional sexual attitudes, or at least do so and be consistent.

Anonymous said...

Dicentra -

Females really do bear the archetype of spiritual purity in a way males certainly do not. That's why it's not really a "double standard" for sexually promiscuous women to be labeled "slut", etc., whereas sexually promiscuous men are not so derogated, and in fact, are often championed for being so.

In the case of the female, the sacred temple, so to speak, is corrupted, violated. Most people can't articulate this, for them it's just a "feeling". But it's a feeling based on a deep intuitive understanding of the difference between male and female, as well as the real existence of the sacred.

The left, of course, does not, by and large, acknowledge the sacred, thus for them, there is no difference between male and female.

Anonymous said...

Bob: Your post is quite fascinating. Bravo! I read your blog first thing in the morning and am seldom disapointed by your choice of topics.

Question: You made an allusion to "basic truths about human sexuality that our granparents took for granted, but which cannot now even be discussed..."

What are these truths? I had always thought that each generation was more prudish than the one following, as a rule. What are we covering up these days?

On the subject of a woman raping an unwilling man- it is indeed possible and does occur: an unwilling man may be raped by a female in a method called "face sitting," in which a larger, stronger female forces the man onto his back and then straddles his face; near asphyxia can result. The man's privates are then attacked or handled without his consent. This type of incident most often occurs among juveniles.
A woman might also hold a man at knife or gunpoint, bind or handcuff him, and assault him at will or force him to perform oral sex on her.

Gagdad Bob said...


Exactly. Plus it ignores the civilizing effect that uncorrupted female sexuality has on male animal sexual nature. It elevates men, which is why, as Jewish tradition maintains, the sexual unit is not male and not female, but the harmonious union of male and female, who "heal" (make whole) each other's sexual nature.

It is almost unimaginable that a leftist could see this elementary spiritual truth.

Anonymous said...

Bob, you were probably pretty clear - I have a head full of bees today, little sleep.

And yeah, pace Dicentra, the VDH linkage is very cool. The idea of a genuine mystic getting some serious airplay is sorta thrilling, even if some of your more mystical emphases might be overlooked in favor of the more "political".

Gagdad Bob said...


You've got to be kidding. I'm sure you could find a cat that enjoys a tossed green salad--who knows, maybe even Fergus.

Gagdad Bob said...

VDH can give a shout out to this omboy any day.

Anonymous said...

>>as Jewish tradition maintains, the sexual unit is not male and not female, but the harmonious union of male and female, who "heal" (make whole) each other's sexual nature.<<

Yes, the Holy Androgyne. Which of course the left, in its spiritual blindness, would most likely interpret as bi-sexuality or hermaphroditism.

BTW, Fergus would at least investigate a tossed salad. But with respect to Fergus and the topic of sexuality - it's really off his radar due to the fact that long ago, he was . . . you know . . . well, what he doesn't know, can't distress him, right? Unless PETA gets to him.

Anonymous said...

Huh? What should I be distressed by?

Anonymous said...

Nothing, Fergus. Go back to sleep.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous stands by his assertions about rape. Here's more evidence from

Myth: Adult men cannot be sexually assaulted by women.
Reality: Although the majority of perpetrators are male, (97 to 98%), women can, and do, also sexually assault men. If you include emotional blackmail as a way of giving the victim no choice, then the number greatly increases. Also don't think that if a woman rapes you that you have to penetrate her, there are such things as vibrators that she can use on you as well.

There's the veggie-munching cat for ya. Who's Fergus, BTW?

Anonymous said...

Bob: The one reason why this is getting so much airplay on the Left is that they're secretly convinced that all of us on the Right are sexual deviants; apparently your politics can't be that wrong without you being messed up in every other area of your life, including sexuality.

So why do they defend in in others but condemn it in us? Sheer hypocrisy: they would like to believe that when they do it it's not a perversion, whereas when Republicans do it it's not only a perversion, but a vicious and uncaring analogue of rape - just like everything else the Republicans do.

Gagdad Bob said...


You are definitely on to something! A Republican homosexual is a pervert, whereas a Democratic pervert is liberated.

By the way, there have been studies showing that children who are raised by same sex parents are more sexually confused and promiscuous. But--and I kid you not--the studies say that these kids are more "sexually adventurous."

So we have to retire the words "slut" or "goat." Now they're called adventurers, just like Christopher Columbus! Wait, he was a genocidal maniac....

Anonymous said...

Your assertion that a male cannot be molested by a female in the same manner that a female can be molested by a male holds no scientific water. See link for one example:

Gagdad Bob said...

You're distorting my point, bonehead. The exception proves the rule. I am sure you can also find a child who has molested an adult.

Anonymous said...

You've got it backwards, bonehead. The exception disproves the rule. When I introduce a piece of evidence incompatible with your hypothesis, you must modify or discard that hypothesis. That's elementary science, homes.

Anyway, back to doing important things. Enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Clinical researcher--

You're like someone who tries to prove that Islamic terror is not really a unique problem because a Christian somewhere once bombed an abortion clinic.

Unfortunately, you are a typical leftist psychologist (even though you're only pretending to be one).

Anonymous said...

Well, at least if exceptions disprove rules, there are no rules. Leftist utopia!

dicentra63 said...

Females really do bear the archetype of spiritual purity in a way males certainly do not. That's why it's not really a "double standard" for sexually promiscuous women to be labeled "slut," etc., whereas sexually promiscuous men are not so derogated, and in fact, are often championed for being so.

Is this championing a good thing? I say not. Not in the least. In my religious tradition, fornication is fornication, adultery is adultery, and the stain is not greater on the woman than on the man. I don't know where in scripture it states anything different.

In the case of the female, the sacred temple, so to speak, is corrupted, violated. Most people can't articulate this, for them it's just a "feeling." But it's a feeling based on a deep intuitive understanding of the difference between male and female, as well as the real existence of the sacred.

I can't help but notice (and have noticed in the past, when this subject has come up) that only males uphold this concept.

The most vulgar articulation I heard came from some Muslim males who were being interviewed about the extreme double-standard in their society, and they essentially said that only women can be sexually impure because of the mechanism of the hymen. You can't tell, physically, if a man's lost his virginity, ergo it doesn't matter.

Are you kidding me? A man seduces a woman, and because of the mechanics of penetration, the woman is made unclean while the man is not equally unclean?

Look, I understand that male and female sexuality are two different animals. I get that the mechanics are different, and that men's brains react differently to sex than women's. I get that no teenaged boy would object to being seduced by his hot hot hot teacher.

So let's alter the equation a bit: a female teacher seduces her female student, or a male teacher seduces his male student. Let's assume that the students in question don't object to the seduction and in fact had wild crushes on the teachers in question.

Are the teachers out of line in any of these occasions? Of course they are!

And, I might add, they'd be out of line if they weren't student/teacher relationships but instead neighbors. Adults flat-out shouldn't get sexually involved with teenagers. Ever. As if what the teen wants matters in such a case.

Knock it off, guys. In this case, sauce for the goose is definintely sauce for the gander. Sexual sin is sexual sin, sexual impurity is sexual impurity, and this crap about women being more sexually "holy" when they're virgins is derrogatory to men.

God didn't set up a sexual double-standard. That's a human corruption, and you know it.

Anonymous said...

"...the diagnosis could only be made if the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress to the perpetrator!"

So Let me get this straight, the perpetrator must be distressed by what he or she did in order to be clinically diagnosed? So what if the person is not distressed?

Now, I'm not psychologist, but this makes me think of the sociopath who kills a family of four and doesn't feel he has done anything wrong. Is an individual more or less mentally ill when he or she doesn't feel distressed about breaking social mores?

Gagdad Bob said...


You may also be interested to know that the activists managed to change the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, because too many of the wrong people would be considered sociopaths. They removed criterion #8 from the DSM III-R diagnosis, "failure to function as a responsible parent." Look in the DSM IV and it is just gone. Disappeared.

SC&A said...

It is my belief that left are very hungry to latch on to anything that might excoriate the GOP/conservatives.

As recent past events indicate, reality has little to do with that desire. We saw Bill Clinton escape into fantasyland for a few minutes- and that was enough to leave the left in a state of euphoria. In the end of course, Clinton's interview was forgotten- a non event- as thge left were once more, forced to ignore reality.

The same is happening now. The left, desperate for anything to latch on to, will behave not like adults, measured and thoughful, but rather, like petualnt children in the grocery store, demanding that mom throw out the veggies in the cart and make room for and buy, all the cookies in sight.

In the end, the left will once more squander what could have been a 'political opportunity,' by acting out.

There is a difference between 'irrational' and 'stupid,' you know?

Gagdad Bob said...


We will have to just agree to disagree. For one thing, I am not restricting my analysis to scripture, but to anthropology, human psychology, archetypal psychology, personal experience, and the esoteric tradition in general. To say that there is no double standard is to say that the male and female archetypes do not exist, a modern deviation to which I could never assent. If ignoring these archetypes works for your life, then I am certainly not going to argue with you about it. I rather like them, as does Mrs. Gagdad. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't want to be married to a woman who did not joyfully embrace her femininity, which is her power, not her fetter.

Also, I could never agree that all sexual sins are equal, any more than I could agree that all sins are equal. There are degrees of sin.

Surafel Tsega said...

The comments posted here have been rather confusing to say the least (as are a few statements in the blog post itself). For the most part, much of it has to do with the attacks on the left (duh).

In regards to will's comment, I agree that people see this as a "chance to stick it to the Repubs;" the same can be said of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal in the 1990s. But I'm not exactly sure as to what you're refering to in regards to the hypocrisy.

As for jacob, your comment about the left seeing the right as "sexual deviants" is ludicrous to say the least. I don't even know where to begin...

As for gagdad bob, "A Republican homosexual is a pervert, whereas a Democratic pervert is liberated" doesn't make any sense, especially when you are looking at this situation in particular. Whatever you'd like to call Foley's actions (pedophilia, etc etc) it was with a minor, and I think that's why people are calling him perverted, not because he's a Republican homosexual. The intense search for blood (seeing how high this whole thing goes, i.e. who knew what when) is based on politics. (I'd also like to know when a Democratic pervert is considered sexually liberated.)

And lastly, I'd personally like to know why you, gagdad bob, think Foley is a pervert.

- Thanks

Van Harvey said...

Way to go Gagdad!
Anonymous said...
"...women can, and do, also sexually assault men. If you include emotional blackmail as a way of giving the victim no choice, then the number greatly increases"

I'm pretty sure that when the Vikings came raiding into a village, the villagers didn't go running in terror screaming "Run for your lives! The emotional blackmailing Vikings are coming!"

For the Wally Cox's of the world (age check) who do fear the Rosie O'Donnell's of the world - they are indeed the exception.

a (wannabe) clinical research psychologist (student) said...
"That's elementary science, homes. "
er... that hoLmes, not homes. Elementary my dear Watson.

Van Harvey said...

surafel said..."I'd also like to know when a Democratic pervert is considered sexually liberated."
"I did not have sex with that women!"

Anonymous said...

Dicentra -

No, of course male promiscuity isn't a good thing. The point I was making was that it is the immature, uncivilized, un-tamed males who champion rogues.

Re the muslim view of female "purity" - this, like so many other aspects of the Islamic perspective, is a grossly materialistic interpretation of what is essentially a spiritual truth. And it indicates that a large proportion of Islamic males are indeed immature, uncivilized, and un-tamed.

The gross distortion of an essential spiritual truth in this manner actually emphasizes the actuality of that truth, it doesn't negate it. And by the way, many feminists do insist that women are innately "more spiritual" than men - in this, they are correct, but most of them haven't really digested the implications, particularly those who simultaeously insist that there is no difference between male and female. I might add that all the truly spiritually mature women I know respect, indeed, venerate their own bearing of the female "sacred archetype" and they honor the sexual responsibility that naturally goes with it. They understand and honor the power they have to tame and civilize males.

Finally, please, neither Bob and I were excusing adult/child sexual involvement, no matter what the gender equation. I think we made it clear that such a thing is the result of a warped, severely immature personal psychology.

Anonymous said...

"And lastly, I'd personally like to know why you, gagdad bob, think Foley is a pervert."

Because he fucked or tried to fuck a 16 year old boy.

Surafel Tsega said...

Thank you anonymous for speaking on behalf of gagdad bob. I asked him specifically, because I wanted to know his reasons. I was just a little confused as to what he believed, and why he seemed to doubt or at least call into question (or simply try to attack) the "Democratic" reasons for calling Foley a pervert.

And van, getting a blow job from an intern is in a completely different category than what Foley is accused of doing. To put both instances on some equal level as an example of the hypocrisy of the left is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Surafel, as I said in my post, it's hypocritical for the Dem-left to pose as traditional guardians of morality when they basically dismiss the antics of B Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, etc., etc. The Dem-left consistently challenges traditional sexual mores - wearing the garb of the sexual moralist is, for them, an obvious political convenience. And is hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

I doubt Bob will waste his time answering your idiot question.

If you don't know why it's a perversion when a middle aged man writes sexually explicit letters to teenage boys, then you're a moron.

Anonymous said...

For example, I once had an elderly patient with a shoe fetish. ...

That sounds to me like a textbook example of what you call a mind parasite. How do such tings originate? Are they malfunctions of the mind or the spirit? Can such parasites be exterminated?

(BTW: Booger wouldn't eat the salad either.)


Gagdad Bob said...


In his case, his mother died when he was around five years old, and he remembers caressing certain objects of hers for comfort, especially her shoes. Very sad, really.

And Surafel--

As to why I think Foley is a pervert, I align myself with the sentiments of anonymous. As I said, I'm just surprised that the left thinks of him as a pervert, since you rarely hear them use that word, and it was even banished from the DSM by the leftist PC brigade.

Van Harvey said...

Surafel, what you said "I'd also like to know when a Democratic pervert is considered sexually liberated." I took as a request for an example, not a comparison. And the Perv reference came more from his encounters with Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley and his cigar usage (what would Freud say? Sometimes a cigar is just a... er... never mind) with Lewinsky, rather than the new term in our slanguage "gettin' a Lewinsky"

By the way, if I were the parent of either the young girl or boy target in question, whether or not the elderly gent was a Dem or Rep, I'm be sorely tempted to let loose with a can of archetypal whup ass

Anonymous said...

So I guess I'm going to be the first one to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I find the mainstreaming of homosexuality, homosexual culture and homosexuality problematic.

I don't hate or fear homosexuals. I'm not repulsed by them.

I understand that there are complex factors that cause homosexuality and that biology and genetics do play a role.

But I don't think we should encourage homosexuality as the norm.

There's something about the traditional gender roles and male-female sexuality that just seems right.

I think a corollary to this problem is how feminized men have become. All men. Heterosexual men.

I'm all for exploring my more feminine qualities and balancing my personality.

But for God's sake, we need to draw the line somewhere.

Men should be strong and resolute. Women should show more emotion than men. There are real differences between the genders. Let's stop pretending they don't exist.

Unfortunately, many biological males have forgotten what it means to be a man. A real man.

Anonymous said...

jwm -

Ask me, I'd say it's essentially a spiritual prob that arises from a severely materialist, un-integrating vision. That is, an un-spiritualized vision can't see the "whole" (hey! who's sniggering out there?), it can only see the "parts", thus the vision fixates on a shoe or foot or whatever. Sexual energy can only be sublimated into love if its object is taken as a totality, at which point the "object" is no longer an object but a full human being.

Obviously, it's more complex than that, but I'd bet that's basically what it comes down to. All our probs are ultimately self-generated and are always the result of our lack of spiritual vision, one way or the other.

How to get rid of such a mind parasite - prayer, patience, self-understanding, self-awareness, diligence, faith, self-discipline.

Surafel Tsega said...

Hello anonymous and will!

You fail to see my point. I know why it's considered perversion. I just don't understand why gagdad bob seems to maliciously doubt those Democrats who call Foley a pervert as well (or at the very least try to back them into a corner).

And lets be honest will, you simply have a vendetta against Democrats/the left. Because they stand up and criticize Foley, you say they are trying to pose as "traditional guardians of morality"? You'll never give any credit to the Dems.

Am I wrong in thinking that implicitly you're saying that Republicans are better guardians for morality? I certainly hope that isnt what you are trying to say. Neither side can truly make the case for being the guardian of morality.

It's this kind of thinking by many people on both sides that irritates the hell out of me-- idiotic generalizations, and more importantly, arrogant stubbornness. This kind of argument picks away at whatever semblance of a meaningful debate people try to have about a number of issues.

Van Harvey said...

By the way, as some completely silly fodder for consideration, but worthy of most of the trolloments today, I wonder if anybody remember there being very differing receptions and evaluations for two older movies which came out before PC hit its stride, one being "Summer of '42" and the other "Lolita"? I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

In the archaic year of 1971, doubt there was anyone yelling pervert when 15 year old Hermie ended up comforting the newly widowed Dorothy, 7 years his senior, in the movie "Summer of '42"...

Don't think older women should be playing with young men, but there is a difference between this and the portrayal of Humbert and Lolita in Nabokov's story--and it was banned in France from 1956-59.

So while the suggested but never shown sexual game between the older man and the younger woman was considered shocking in 1956, the dipicted sexual encounter between the boy and the widow was never evaluated in the same sense...

Anonymous said...

jwm -

given the pariculars re Bob's patient, I have to retreat a bit.

I still hold to my thesis that all our probs are the result of lack of spiritual vision, but it's a good lesson (for me, in particular) to keep in mind the individual, as well as the compassion and understanding we must bring to each individual case.

Gagdad Bob said...


Yes, if my post seems a bit incoherent, it's a very big gorilla I'm trying to dance around.

One of the reasons I left the Democratic party is because it left me. That is, I am the same tolerant liberal I always was. I am tolerant of homosexuality. But since the leftist takeover of the Democratic party, we are being asked to approve of, and even CELEBRATE, homosexuality and, more importantly, the homosexual agenda.

This I cannot do for a variety of reasons, but those reasons have nothing to do with morality. Obviously there are many wonderful homosexual people. That too is utterly beside the point. My main concern has to do with maintaining an ideal that is at the basis of the possibility of civilization.

Dennis Prager wrote a very lengthy piece on this a few years ago, and I will try to dig up a link. Actually, if you just google Prager + homosexuality, you'll be able to find it. The piece contains many deep and provocative insights with which I agree entirely.

Van Harvey said...

surafel:"Am I wrong in thinking that implicitly you're saying that Republicans are better guardians for morality?"

Whether either side is capable of being better guardians of morality (leave aside the fact that we're talking about Politicians(!) being guardians of morality!?), the fact that one of them at least believes that there is such a thing as Morality, and the other believes that one should be free from any moralizing at all, says a lot.

I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dicentra63 said...

Also, I could never agree that all sexual sins are equal, any more than I could agree that all sins are equal. There are degrees of sin.

So, when two 16-year-old teenagers go up to lovers' lane and have sex, is the woman's sin greater than the man's? Did she fornicate more than he did? If the answer to that is yes, then I totally don't understand where you're coming from.

To say that there is no double standard is to say that the male and female archetypes do not exist, a modern deviation to which I could never assent. If ignoring these archetypes works for your life, then I am certainly not going to argue with you about it.

Are all archetypes representations of Truth? Or better yet, do they represent the Truth as God sees it or the truth as we see it?

Personally, I'm a viva la differànce type of person when it comes to gender issues. I don't hold that men and women are interchangable. I don't hold that they should be. I recognize that women have a taming influence on men's problematic sexuality.

However, I also don't believe that it's a good idea to baldly accept conventional wisdom as it's handed down through the generations. Humans have the tendency to institutionalize their own weaknesses, whereas God has no regard for human institutions, turning them upside down when need be.

If women are inherently more spiritual than men, and if we are the repositories of sexual virtue, then why should I trust a man's opinion about what constitutes sexual sin? Men have the capacity to screw anyone and anything without remorse. I can't respect that.

Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...


God gave men a supercharged sex drive so they would want to have sex with women. He gave women maternal instinct so that they would want to have sex with men. In this way, God made sure the human race would continue. However, you cannot build civilization on instincts and drives. If that were true, then the entire animal world would be “civilization”.

I think God intended for women to be a civilizing effect on men. In other words, someone had to be the “grownup” and that responsibility was given to women because let’s face it, if left to their own devices, men would just run amok.

If women devalue themselves by running amok sexually like men, then why would men value them? It’s like your mom said, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. A society that does not value its women is a society headed for trouble. You can see one extreme of female denigration in the Muslim world. But the other extreme is just as bad and you can see the beginnings of that in the Hip-Hop world.

Both extremes are seriously corrosive to civilization. On one hand you have a society that fears female sexuality so much they must be covered up and reduced to chattel. On the other hand, you have a society that has no respect for women so they are simply sexual objects and play things.

When women are degraded in a society, mothers and subsequently children are equally held in less than high esteem. You can send them off to be suicide bombers; you can walk away from your responsibility and let someone else (the government) raise your kids.

Women are the foundation of society and how they are treated in society will tell you a lot about the health of a society. IMHO female opinion, anyway....

Van Harvey said...

As a completely unfair-but-it-is-what-it-is reality of life, women are in the unenviable situation of being the physically weaker possessor of the sexual body, which Men hot bloodedly desire.

To maintain their mastery of themselves, it is necessary for a Woman to convince the Man, that there is far more to their body than just the flesh; and that argument is going to carry much more weight if they behave, act and dress in a manner that is higher on the civil, mannerly and spiritual scale, than that of the hot to trot mans behavior.

This is the prime case where softness, composure and grace can completely stop physicality, muscular strength and panting desire in it's tracks, shame it into reassessment, and cause the Man to seek to improve himself, to be more in her eyes than the ravening beast she may have first beheld and rebuffed.

Van Harvey said...

If she tries to compete with men on the physical scale, she will be overpowered by his shear physical size, it is only by reaching up into the Vertical, that she can hope to have an advantage over the Man, an advantage that lifts him up to her level - and as Eeevil Right Wing Nut said, it is that which civilization is probably built upon.

If we think that we can descend to drives and urges and still maintain a high civilization, I think we are greatly mistaken.

Gagdad Bob said...

Eevil right winger--

A Cosmic Raccon tail for you! In the absence of the idealization of female beauty that flourishes in the gap between desire and fulfillment, civilization deteriorates.

Anonymous said...

"This is the prime case where softness, composure and grace can completely stop physicality, muscular strength and panting desire in its tracks, shame it into reassessment, and cause the Man to seek to improve himself, to be more in her eyes than the ravening beast she may have first beheld and rebuffed."

Someone please tell every young teenage girl this. Please! And please tell the young men that her requiring more of them does NOT make her a bee-yatch.

'n God bless ye, for a gentleman, eeevil.

Van Harvey said...

Just had a thought, it may be a one too many scotches with my Father in Law thought, but a thought just the same (tsk away as needed)... along the lines of my last comment, if it is the desire of the man to attain to a level of admiration in the eyes of those he wishes approval and esteem from, which gives a spur to civilization - might it be that the type of civilization which results is going to be greatly influenced, and mightily different in results, depending on whether his striving is targeted towards the approval of Woman's softness, composure and grace - or approval of his fellow men's urging's towards physicality, muscular strength and panting desire?

Anonymous said...

Oh! Sorry, Van, I meant to attribute the quote to you!
I really shouldn't blog while cooking...

Anonymous said...

And, in response to your last query, I think it would ideally be almost Arthurian idea of men agreeing amongst themselves that the soft and civilizing influence is worthy of their best efforts and energies in preserving every thing that protects that influence. Upholding it as a part of the Sacred, real men pledge their strength of body, soul, and spirit to defend it.

Mmmmmm....nice, comfy thoughts in a scary world.

Sean Graceful said...

Hamlet was an Opheliaphile

Back in March, when the whole LaFave story was still a staple on the daily news buffet, a TV shrink said Debra LaFave is not a sexual deviant, she's just characterologically challenged. I strongly suspect that particular psychologist/psychiatrist (?) votes a straight Democratic ticket every time. No wait, maybe straight is not the best choice of adjectives I could use considering the subject. Maybe it would be more accurate to say a castrated Democratic ticket every time!

But I digress, as for Foley's foibles; I'd be willing to bet my entire radical fundamentalist discophilia collection (not to be confused with my radical fundamentalist decollation collection) that, truth be told, at least 33.3% of all politicians have sexual fetishes and/or fantasies that are so out of the mainstream that if they were ever exposed to the light of day there'd be more empty seats in Washington than at a Dixie Chicks concert in Salt Lake City!

Video sed non credo,
Sean Graceful

Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...

Funny you should mention that Van because I was thinking on my way home how the Hip-Hop subculture and the Islamic culture are polar opposites and yet they have so much in common; aside from how they look down on women. Victim mentality combined with low self esteem and the glorification of violence. I’m sure there is more.

I think it is because both operate from “below the equator”, metaphorically and cosmically.

Which brings me to Van’s observation. When Man strives for “the approval of Woman's softness, composure and grace”, Man becomes a gentleman (as opposed to a ‘girly-man’ that the left wants men to be); civilized but still able to defend hearth and home. In other words, traditional Western culture.

When Man strives for “approval of his fellow men's urging's towards physicality, muscular strength and panting desire”, Man succumbs to his baser instincts and you have something like Islamic or Hip-Hop culture.

Anonymous said...

For me, the real moral issue is whether Hastert buried these Foley perversions, allowed him to chair a committee to eliminate child porn, and be next to Bush when the legislation was signed. If that turns out to be true, the Republicans will be a minority party again. If that's true Hastert should serve jail time.

Big 'Possum said...

In the culture of my upbringing, we have a popular term, "bad ass". In the context that most American men understand the term, there is nothing we would rather be known as. When we hear it applied to some other fellow we immediately want to know what he has done to earn such a distinction and, if it be within our grasp, a great deal of our attention is devoted to looking for opportunities to qualify for the same attribution. As men, we yearn for few things more than knowledge of other men pointing to us as if to say, "there goes Johnny, what a 'bad ass'".

A rare few among us even succeed at attaining that most cherished of all characterizations, that of "TOTAL bad ass", and among those who understand themselves to be regarded as mere "bad asses", their efforts to add this "TOTAL" to their equation can be an all-consuming engagement. To breathe the "rare air" of those who have traveled with the knowledge that they be pointed out by friends, acquaintances, and even casual onlookers as a "TOTAL bad ass" is for many men as good a definition as you will find for their life's pursuit. The search for such an attribution is at the foundation of many a man's quest for high office, his own plane, a fancy vacation house, etc., and all too often a hot young babe other than his wife to carry along on said plane and to shack with in said house. And the most wonderful thing about this combination of "achievements" is the time they provide this fella, with his hot babe, on his private jet, on the way to his fancy house, to experience the actual feeling of being a "bad ass", perhaps even "totally".

Now the question. If you were to travel to and discover a "Heavenly" planet, one on which there was no suffering, social harmony seemed the norm, all children were fed and clothed and schooled, etc., what would be the first thing you would be looking to figure out? Actually, this would be among your first inquiries irrespective of the planet's condition. For the majority of human males, at least those for whom "bad assness" be within reach, the first things they would want to know is where and who the "bad asses" are. "Who do I take my cues from?", is the big question. Once answered, all further engagements with the people of the planet will be guided by attempts to determine what it takes to join the ranks of the planet's "bad a-sses" and then to pursue such ranks and company with all deliberate speed. Assuming you were indeed to stumble on a "Heavenly" planet, however, you would be disappointed to have your inquiries into the identies of the realm's "bad a-sses" met with looks of utter perplexity. "Whatever are you referring to?", these heavenly beings might say, "we have no such creatures here."

Now, and here is where the big question exists relative to man's real opportunities to spread seed in the proverbial cosmos. Assume that you and a few of your "wanna-be bad ass" friends, in your current states, were granted the opportunity to inhabit this heavenly realm. What do you think the first thing you would go about doing, perhaps even unconsciously. Would you bask in the heavenly glow of the experience of a real, beloved community? Uhhhhh, no.

Not even realizing what you were doing, you would set out to change the planet's systems to make room for positions and provisions of rewards that enable the introduction of "bad asses". Similarly, you would create games for the same purpose, to enable the ascendency of your "bad ass" selves in order to experience the highs that arise from the perverse satisafctions of the illuson of superiority. Furthermore, you would tweek the systems and the rules of the games to ensure yourselves advantages relative to opportunities to breathe the "rare air" of that planet. After all this, however, despite your successes at changing the rules of the planet's game, your "achievement" would not be complete. It would not be complete until the young inhabitants of the planet are pointing at you and the newly created "bad asses" from their own species saying, "there go Johnny and the bad asses", all the while thinking to themselves, "and I want to be one too."

Now, getting back to the description of the prevailing conditions that qualified this planet as "heavenly", and granting that the roots of our friends "Johnny and the bad asses" have taken hold, how many generations do you think it will take before things go "all to hell".

Anonymous said...

Dicentra -

You somehow have gotten it into your head that we're "excusing" sexual sin. If I point out that men are more susceptible to murderous rage than are women - which is a fact - I am not excusing the murderous rage of men. I'm simply pointing out a fact of our fallen human nature, which is that men and women are essentially different in this respect. This difference would account for people being more aghast at the occasional act of murderous rage committed by a woman than they would by murderous rage committed by a man. Yes, it is a slight double standard, but an understandable one, given the essential difference between male and female. But double standard or not, it is NOT an excusing of murderous rage.

Anonymous said...

Can't we turn a new page here?

Gagdad Bob said...


If people would just realize that you must be a man before you can be a gentleman, and a bad ass before you're entltled to be an ass, this would be a much happier planet.

Anonymous said...

I have to take issue with Will's comment that women "bear the archetype of spiritual purity in a way that males certainly do not." Within the Christian tradition there have been two major exemplars of purity for males-- Jesus Christ and St. John the Evangelist. From the early patristic period up through the sixteenth century both were (I suppose we must use Jung's tiresome term here) archetypes of male virginity. In fact St. John's traditional authorship of the Fourth Gospel--generally regarded as the most spiritual of the four--was attributed to his having earned the privilege of special closeness to Christ because he remained a virgin. (See St. Jerome's Adversus Jovinianum if you want a patristic exposition of this belief.) There was even a tradition in the Greek-speaking East that John like Mary was assumed into heaven at his death so that his body would not be corrupted, and St. Augustine discusses this tradition in his series of sermons on the Gospel of John.

Now I am aware that Christianity is not the only formative influence on Western culture, but it is an important one. And I am certainly not arguing that all persons (male or female) who have ever been members of a Christian church have always lived up to the ideals represented by various archetypes-- only that within Christianity there have been archetypes of sexual purity for the male of the species as well as the female. Since one of the other posters referred to the Arthurian tradition-- in the Arthurian cycle Sir Galahad represents a continuation of the Johannine archetype, as per Tennyson's poem "Sir Galahad":

How sweet are looks that ladies bend
On whom their favours fall!
From them I battle till the end,
To save from shame and thrall:
But all my heart is drawn above,
My knees are bow'd in crypt and shrine:
I never felt the kiss of love,
Nor maiden's hand in mine.
More bounteous aspects on me beam,
Me mightier transports move and thrill;
So keep I fair thro' faith and prayer
A virgin heart in work and will....

A maiden knight--to me is given
Such hope, I know not fear;
I yearn to breathe the airs of heaven
That often meet me here.
I muse on joy that will not cease,
Pure spaces clothed in living beams,
Pure lilies of eternal peace,
Whose odours haunt my dreams;
And, stricken by an angel's hand,
This mortal armour that I wear,
This weight and size, this heart and eyes,
Are touch'd, are turn'd to finest air.

And Sir Galahad was the only knight allowed to see the Holy Grail. So-- there is a male ideal that has little to do with being a "bad ass." In fact I would submit, given Bob's observation that male sexuality seems more susceptible to disorders of various types, that it would make eminent sense for a religious archetype of purity for men to develop within various faiths. I am not an expert on Eastern religions, but I do believe there is a tradition of male celibacy within some forms of Buddhism.

wildiris said...

Conneticut Yankee said "And Sir Galahad was the only knight allowed to see the Holy Grail. So there is a male ideal that has little to do with being a bad ass."

Actually the knight Parsifal also attained the Holy Grail and his life was hardly that of a virgin.

Van Harvey said...

Big Possum said...
"Who do I take my cues from?", is the big question." - hmmm. speaking of Hip Hop....

I would point out, now that the scotch has faded away, that for the Man to have a hope of living up to the Womans expectations, he first has to be a MAN - he has to have some grasp of that "physicality, muscular strength and panting desire", and in some abundance to catch her eye, but to impress her, he's got to master himself first (master, not devalue or supress), and rise to the level of her expectations second.

A large part of that Mastering of himself is the ability to enjoy a congenial 'bad-assery' among his friends - in modern civilized terms that might mean football at the park with friends, or [insert your favorite recreation here], but most importantly NOT looking to see who to take your cues from - I think that nothing marks you out as being just one of the boys, more than that.

The Man who has mastered himself, and will be best capable of leading other men, may look to others for advice, but he takes his cues from his own judgement, not from others. While he tries his best to live up to Ideals, he doesn't slavishly follow them.

Ok, now all together "Oh... He's a lumberjack and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day. - I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, I go to the lavatory...."

(well, the scotch has almost faded away)

Anonymous said...

wildiris-- From what I have read, there are several versions of the Percival story. There is the poem by Wolfram von Eschenbach (13th century) made famous by Wagner's opera, but there is also a later version in which Percival/Parsifal is a virgin like Galahad who also dies after seeing the Grail. It may be that some writers felt they had to reconcile the characters of the two knights in some way.

Anonymous said...

Yank -

The distinction I was trying to make is that the male/female archetypes that apply at the present are those of our *fallen* nature. The great Christian mystic Jacob Boehme stated it this way, and in perhaps a not entirely symbolic form - when humans lost their androgynous unity, they were split into two sexes, the woman taking on the "spiritual" quality so as to be a necessary objective reminder of the sacred. Thus woman remains the archetype of the sacred - until such time our spiritual wholeness is restored. Christ, St John, on the other hand, are archetypes of *restored* humanity, the holy androgyne.

felix said...

This reminds me of the case of the Boy Scout Troop leader (can't remember where) who was told he could no longer be part of the scouts because he was gay. He filed a lawsuit against the scouts to be re-admitted. While I felt sorry for the guy (he was apparently a well-respected leader in the scouts) I understood that you would not want a homosexual male scout leader going off on on campout with young boys. The same as you would not want a heterosexual male scout leader being in charge of a girl scout troup.

Anonymous said...

"The exception proves the rule" is confusing because it arose from a mistranslation of the saying from from German. The word "proves" was "probieren", which means to test ot try. The actual expression means that "the exception tests the rule"

Anonymous said...

This entire post rests on the claim that "the left is at cross purposes with itself. They keep stridently referring to Foley as a 'pervert'," followed by an elaborate argument based on the word "pervert."

The problem is that I've been reading blogs and commentary all day, and I haven't seen anyone on the left refer to Mark Foley as a "pervert." I'm sure that in the infinite reaches of the blogosphere, you can find one or two, but most people understand that it's the actions that count, not the nature of Foley's sexuality. The point is not "Are you gay?" The point is what you do -- do you mess with kids? That's a moral absolute, and you all seem to ignore it for some reason. All your elaborate "truths" about human sexuality actually seem to obscure the most basic morality: 54 year olds must not mess around with 16 year olds. No "liberals" believe otherwise. For all your self-righteousness, you're actually boxing yourself into a very relativist corner.

Anonymous said...

Van said:

"As a completely unfair-but-it-is-what-it-is reality of life, women are in the unenviable situation of being the physically weaker possessor of the sexual body, which Men hot bloodedly desire."

I don't think this is really the case, Van. Women are not all that physically weak; I don't know where you get this stuff. A healthy woman is going to draw blood if you attack her. Verily, men who smoke can be whupped by a female in good shape. Stick any woman in a survival situation and she'll walk just as far, live as long, and generally perform as well or better than a man. Sure, there are nancy-girls out there but they just want you to think they are "delicate." Don't fall for it.

#2--There are plenty of women who are as horny and sexually aggressive as men, especially after a few drinks. Hot blooded desire is not just for the men-folk. Did you not know this? Get thee to west Texas, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Gay guys have their first experience with older guys for a couple of reasons. One, there was no gay prom, no gay circles, no gay anything for the lone young gay man. So he searched elsewhere, away from his family and friends. And then he usually finds a relatively closeted man--running the range between full screwed up closet case and the mere late bloomer. They get off. Both sets of needs are taken care of. The explanation is not much more difficult. Once gay kids have their own culture and the anti-gay folks fill rows in cemeteries, then young guys will tell the older guy to beat it, get some balls, come out, and grow the hell up. And when the young guys are older, they won't have to search around for a lost youth.

More importantly, tell me: do serious people actually still use the phrase "PC"?

Finally, Foley was a congressman. Clinton was the president. You can be sure that the Republican leadership booted Foley...because the boys were young and in the charge of Congress while Monica was over the legal age and simply worked in the White House. There's the difference.

But, please, by all means, keep talking about Clinton this, Clinton that...

Van Harvey said...

Amarillo said...
Van said:

"Women are not all that physically weak; I don't know where you get this stuff. A healthy woman is going to draw blood if you attack her. "

Amarillo, I did not say weak, but weaker in relation to a Man. And yes, a woman is capable of fighting back, and if she keeps here wits about her, could drop a man (my seven year old is already a very good lightsaber fighter, and you can be sure that by the time dating age rolls around she's going to have a real good idea of how to do the dropping).

And yes a woman can be just as hot blooded as a man, having spent the '80's playing in a band I've got a very good understanding of that. Either a Man or a Woman in decent shape, could pounce on a rabbit in their front garden, twist it's neck off, rip open its belly and commence to chowing down while waving to their neighbors heading off to work. One might question whether or not that type of behavior is advisable in civil society however, and why or why not?

It is not enough to do as your physical urges might dictate, but to do as wisdom guides you. Figuring out what is wise and what is not is where we rise above what is physically possible, and seek what is Vertically sensible, and from there I'll let the rest of what I said stand as is.

amba said...

a deep intuitive understanding of the difference between male and female, as well as the real existence of the sacred.

I can't help but notice (and have noticed in the past, when this subject has come up) that only males uphold this concept.

The most vulgar articulation I heard came from some Muslim males who were being interviewed about the extreme double-standard in their society, and they essentially said that only women can be sexually impure because of the mechanism of the hymen.

My Japanese karate teacher had a more vulgar way of putting it. He referred a woman who slept around as "toilet." (Benjo in Japanese, probably.)

Although a woman and a (nondogmatic, I hope) young feminist at the time, to the extent that I was a little chary of men defining and confining me in the name of my "purity" (and I'm an old broad now but i still detect that patronizing tone from Gagdad Bob), I could get that anatomy was both real and inescapable, and had a "higher" meaning. A woman is a vessel. A vessel can be polluted. Something goes in and is left there. The spitter is cleansed, the spittoon is polluted.

I said to my karate teacher, "It's like letting just anybody come into your house with muddy boots on." He got very animated and said, "Yes!! Man don't have house!"

Stu said:

Men should be strong and resolute. Women should show more emotion than men. There are real differences between the genders.

Stu, we'd probably all agree that "men should be strong and resolute" is one of them; "women should show more emotion than men" is not -- it is culturally specific and Anglo-Saxon. Latin men, Slavic men, even Japanese men (if you're in their inner circle, and/or if they're drunk) are strong and resolute and show an enormous amount of emotion.

amba said...

God gave men a supercharged sex drive so they would want to have sex with women. He gave women maternal instinct so that they would want to have sex with men.

Holy geez, eeeevil -- you really do think women are pure as the driven snow, don't you?? You think we don't have supercharged sex drives, in our own more discriminating way? You think women don't want to have sex with men for its own sake?

Well, not quite. As a woman I'm convinced that women don't really want to have sex for sex's sake and that the young sex-and-the-city, sex-positive feminist types are forlornly faking it, trying to be as callous as guys. However, women really want to have sex, as a primary experience and expression of passionate love, and not only domesticated married love. Sometimes it's helpless love for a bad boy, or the wrong boy, but it's a kind of raw love, nonetheless.

And it's probably what Tiresias meant when he said women enjoy sex far more . . . or the Muslim tale about the "nine parts of desire."

amba said...

On the extreme Islam and hip-hop thing: I like to say both extremes are bad -- brown-bagging your women AND shrink-wrapping them.

Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...

Herzen -

It is absolutely accurate to say that the left is at cross purposes with itself if not out right hypocritical. If “anything goes” then why is having sex with children wrong?
You cannot be the party of “if it feels good do it” where “everything is relative” and maintain any consistent measure of moral absolute. It seems to me that morality on the left is judged more often by the party affiliation the perpetrator rather than any solid ideas of right vs. wrong; immoral vs. moral.

Far be it from me to defend what Foley did but consider this from Gateway Pundit:

Representative Foley did not have sex with the minor, did not have sex with the young man in the Oval office, did not put him in a high level security position he was not qualified to handle after a major terrorist attack on the country, was not married at the time, did not run a prostitution ring from his apartment, did not turn his back on Congress when he was accused of having sex with a minor, did not run and get re-elected several times in a democratic stronghold after this news broke, Representative Foley no longer sits in Congress, and the page did not disappear and end up dead after an ongoing relationship with Representative Foley…

Rep. Gerry Studds (D) did not just talk about having sex with an underage page; he actually had sex with an underage page. Not only was he not forced to resign by the Democrats, he was re-elected 5 more times. I guess if you have the USDL (US Democratic Left) stamp of approval, having sex with a minor is not to be condemned and punished to the fullest extent of the law but should be rewarded and celebrated as another example of diversity.

A little consistency in decrying certain behaviors would help avoid “boxing yourself into a very relativist corner”.

Surafel Tsega said...

Gagdad bob, your definition of the left, or at least who you refer to as the left, seems confusing at best (or at least it's too general). To point to those who banished the word pervert in the DSM and group them with those in the blogosphere or in politics who called Foley a pervert doesn't really make sense to me (unless you are only questioning the logic of those who called for the word to be banished from the DSM).

I understand your reference to the "leftist PC agenda." But I personally think that youre trying to use this as an opportunistic cheapshot on Dems, linking two groups that shouldn't necessarily be linked.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you said you were a liberal, but was disillusioned by the "leftist take-over" of the Democratic party. In this case, I think you're giving the crazy leftists a little too much credit in terms of their power in the Democratic party. On other issues, you may have a case. But here, the argument seems flimsy at best.

Anonymous said...

Gagdad bob,

I just want to ask a question because i am curious, not because i desire to be contentious. my roommate was molested by her mother since she was four years old, and to this day she has flashbacks and nightmares about it, and has been suicidal for much of her life. How would you explain an adult woman molesting a pre-pubescent girl?

Patrick (gryph) said...

Predatory behavior by men toward women is more socially acceptable than such behavior directed at other men, regardless of age. It actually expected.

I will also point out that 99.9999999% of the time people attempt to prove why homosexuality is somehow inherently bad, they point to gay men as examples, not lesbians. Lesbians always seem to get dropped from the picture.

That is one reason why I don't find those that make such arguments to be very believable.

Another reason is that often those that are trying to define homosexuality as an unnatural aberration of some kind also tend to put forward the belief that its something people should be ashamed of possessing. Why?

Homosexuality cannot in fairness be held accountable for the predatory nature of men. Who you can hold accountable is a society that teaches all its men that they are only "real men" if they are predators in some way.

Anonymous said...

The vacant eyed teacher--who is nevertheless not as vacant as Lauer--stumbled and stammered to explain how her situation was different. She couldn’t explain why. It just was.

I can explain it for her.


Anonymous said...

Here's what's truly disgraceful about the behavior of former Congressman Mark Foley:

"He acted like a Democrat from Massachusetts.

But which Democratic congressman from Massachusets? The one who molested a Congressional page? Or the one whose boyfriend ran a prostitution business out of his DC apartment? And while we're thinking about it: Which of those lawmakers, after the scandal broke, was re-elected with an ample majority? Oh, wait. Both of them. Never mind. "
Quotes from Diogenes

Anonymous said...

I believe the first example is of Studds, who didn't molest a page, but had consensual sex with him.

Debate whether or not that is right or wrong. But don't lie.

Surafel Tsega said...

Hey eevil right wing nut!

Since when is the democratic party the pary with the mantra "anything goes"? Who are you to go around tossing labels such as that?

If we're gonna play that game, then I believe Republicans tend to run under the platform of the party in line with family values. And I guess those family values includes coming on to underage children and making sure to cover up such actions.

And to everyone, please do not bring up President Clinton when discussing this topic. To try to hold up both issues on equal grounds is idiotic.

And about Studds: If you bring him up, remember that he had consensual sex. Discuss whether or not that is moral. But don't try to make it seem like what Studds did (with consent) is the same as what Foley did (coming onto an underage page, making him uncomfortable...and that's all that we know of so far... he was known for his antics, as we have learned).

jw said...

Well, not quite.

OK, I am one of the second rarest of the adult rape survivors: adult male victim - adult female offender. One thing is clear about this crime subtype: The victim seldom lives through the event. As psychologists proudly demand I cannot exist ... Well we end up with a mess. I had to learn the hard way by doing a lot of research on my own.

The most likely number for total female offender - male victim rapes is 1 in 50 men (using the same rules, as set out in Sex in America, gives total male offender - female victim rapes at 1 in 20 women (risk of one or more events in a lifetime)).

Also, on female offender child molestation: As a male is completely responsible for any child born as the result of a female offender rape there is a STRONG argument in place to say that the female offender - male victim rape is the most important of the four possible combinations.

Furthermore, it is not at all uncommon for hetero males to be uninterested in females as late as age 19. Mental puberty in the male human exists in a fairly wide set.

Also, the concept that all males will jump into sex with any available female is just plain daft. Using the standard 6-point scale of sex offences number one (coercive sex) is primarily female offender and male victim. That has always been implicate in the datasets. Women routinely coerce men into sex ... This suggests that the men-will-screw-any-female concept is wrong.

Lastly, getting males to talk about sex offence victimization is almost invariably difficult. Why this is ... well no one knows. One thing IS clear: Psychologists using VERY sexist interpretations of the data STOP males from being able to talk about victimization.

I went to five psychologists and a psychiatrist: All stated your opinion that female offender rapes do not exist or are so VERY uncommon that no one could ever expect to see a real victim.

Thankfully, the M.Ed. counsellors know better!

David S. said...

Am I the only one who's bothered by all this "Holy Androgyne" nonsense?

To a point I understand the approach, but it shows a depressingly sexualized and materialistic mentality in society to think that the distinction between men and women, as well as the ideal of both, is rooted solely in sexuality. Cmon. The Ideal Man, especially in a moral and religious sense, has nothing to do with his sexuality whatsoever. Christ is not some figure of "Holy Androgyne" simply because He and St. John have no drive to have sex. St. John mastered his impulses, which is what makes him so admirable in that respect, but his celibacy is a relatively minor aspect of the overall picture of his immense holiness (and the same can be said of Christ, to an infinitely greater degree).

Sex has its place in a society. As an old-school Catholic, I know that place to be in marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. Any deviation from that is sinful (whether they be male or female). This notion of women as a 'sexual temple' is simply vestigial notions of morality that our society once held. That standard was both for men and women, but men, being the spearheads for 'progress' that they are, managed to discard any remnant of their own moral obligation far earlier than women were able to.

In the middle ages, women were generally held to be the more sexually promiscuous and deviant. The idea that men are some sort of pathetic sexual beast that needs to be tamed is, to be honest, abhorrent. I know that it's beaten into our heads from day one in our modern, immoral culture, but it's a CULTURAL phenomenon, and not a biological one.

The ideal man does not think about sex, or worry about it. He has mastered his impulses to the point where they do not even affect his life in the slightest. No decision he makes is based on whether or not he'll 'score' (or whether or not he'll be regarded as a 'bada$$', for that matter...very high school/frat boy way of thinking.) Sex has its place in his life if he is married, for the sake of procreation and to share the bonds of love and affection with his wife. That's it.

The fact that something so simple as the separation of sexuality from the ideal man is not acknowledged anymore is truly a good sign of how far we've fallen. And the only way we even know how to address the notion, which we instinctually acknowledge, is with the concept of 'holy androgyne?''s the end of the world, and we're all gonna die! :)