Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

Boy Scout article- SA allegations pour in

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not extrapolate, Prof Bergin did, using Bell & Weinberg as his source. 

Bergin stated; "I referred to a study just published which indicated that 50% of white male homosexuals surveyed in San Francisco had had at least 500 sexual partners, 28% had 1000 partners, and 25% of them had had relationships with boys under the age of sixteen" He didn't extrapolate.... he just didn't speak to the survey methodology or mention the authors comments about the study not being representative. You  did the same as him,  but further extrapolated by stating that; "fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of sixteen". 

This was among the 'facts' you presented to counter Calm's statement that "Same sex pedophilia is not the same thing as homosexuality.  It is best to be careful to use clear terminology to avoid confusing them." Even if the statistics you presented were factual,  I fail to see how they counter her statement. 

 

Edited by cacheman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think our boys know any other way of extinguishing a fire either ...

Did you ever hear about Churchill and the joint chiefs crossing the Rhine?  Churchill taught them something about marking conquered territory.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2019 at 9:04 PM, Calm said:

You are assuming pedophiles are a different species when they are mostly sheep since the vast majority of them innocent of abusing others.  If innocent, if by their actions they have not changed to wolves/coyotes, should they not be protected too?

You are one of those iirc who speak against people dropping men in general into the predator category, but you appear to be doing this for pedophiles. How is this fair?

How so?  Did you read the whole thing including the studies analysis?  The studies are old, but do you have newer ones that have contrary evidence.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days.  Yes I read.  Yes I'm skeptical of the newer stuff.  Here's why:

The Harvard study from a few years back showed that <20% of adult victims of sex abuse report it.  How many incidents per abuser per abuse occur before we even reach the <20%?  The number is unknowable, as far as I can tell, but is frighteningly high.  You (and it speaks well of your charity) are satisfied with the too low numbers wishing not to have people get hysterical.  I cannot share your caution.  My caution must tend towards assessing danger.

Then there's this:  We've seen the reports coming out of the RCC, demonstrating that as between abuse of prepubescents and youth, the latter, mostly boys and young men, are the victims of choice.  Yet the press calls all of it pedophilia, using the term "pedophile priest" as a rallying cry.  Ages 12-19 are the target ages for most of the predators' predation.  The younger children, 11 and under, get a lot of grooming, but not so much hands-on abuse.  Now, I don't know if you yourself use the inapt "pedophile priest" argument, sweeping all abusers into the same category, but most do. 

Using this as our touchstone, why should we use any greater care in defining and categorizing homosexual abusers of prepubescents and youth?  Why is the hairsplitting taxonomy so very interesting, when it's plainly a homosexual phenomenon that we're looking at?  Is it because we're not talking about a convenient target of our disdain like "pedophile priests?"  Is it because we're talking about media darlings and victim-group-of-the-month?

The press and the political left have hated the BSA, just as they hate the RCC and, oh goody, us, for decades and over a century.  But G-d forbid we should draw any lines between the imposed open acceptance of homosexual scouts and homosexual scoutmasters as having anything to do with the homosexual abuse of prepubescents and youth by older homosexual youth and homosexual scoutmasters.

Chasing the "cherry" of the youth has long been the subject of homosexual literature:  seduce that cheerleader; score that quarterback; bag that tapdancer.  Are we to cover up this history and pretend it's not the dream?  I cannot trust that the dream suddenly becomes uninteresting just because someone is openly declared to be an adult homosexual.  I am happily openly declared to be heterosexual, yet the form of female youth and adult women all is attractive to me.  Am I to trust that your hypothetical non-pedophile adult homosexual is uninterested in youth?  I cannot suspend my disbelief that far.  I have blushing genes that prohibit me from doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, cacheman said:

................................. 

This was among the 'facts' you presented to counter Calm's statement that "Same sex pedophilia is not the same thing as homosexuality.  It is best to be careful to use clear terminology to avoid confusing them." Even if the statistics you presented were factual,  I fail to see how they counter her statement. 

I was speaking to the politically correct myth that homosexuality and male pedophilia are not causally related.  Reminds me of the current myth that biological gender doesn't exist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

I am interested in why you posted this.  Are you trying to indicate that sex outside of marriage doesn't happen in the straight world.  Or that given the amount pf sex going on in high school, that a high percentage of straight people would respond that they never had sex with a minor?  Do you remember the AshleyMadison scandle that outed thousnads of straight people looking to cheat on their wives and husbands including a number of emails with byu.ed?  Do you not think that there is a lot of straight guys that try to hook up with as many women as possible?  If you went to a bar in any major city, on any given night, do you think there would be a chance that at least one couple would leave the bar with the intent of having sex?  Or every night straight men are cruising the streets looking for prostitutes?

So let me ask exactly why you wanted to post this

1. to vilify gay people?

2. To point out that while straight people are often immoral, gay people are worse so they deserve our scorn.

3. Lets remember to paint all gay people with the same broad brush because if you are gay, you must also fit into the statistics your presented

4. If there was a disease that killed straight people for having sex with multiple partners and there was no cure for it, not all that many straight people would die?

Edit to add.  You do realize that some of the data you are using is 35 years old and the most recent you site is 20 years old.  Does that say anything about grasping for anything you can throw out in hopes to paint the worse possible picture about gays?  Look, I get that gay men probably do have more sex than straight men.  But they are two men.  And in general, men are way more willing to have sex than women.  Is this some kind of insightful information you have come up with?  Isn't there something about glass houses and throwing rocks when straight people start to vilify gays as having more sex than straight people?  And just where would you suggest someone who was gay 35 years ago find another gay person, when going to some underground bar could get you thrown into jail just for dancing with someone?  

One more edit.  Have you ever considered the role religion played in these statistics from 35 years ago.  This is when Spencer W Kimball was telling church members that just being gay was an abomination.  When religion in geneeral was telling every gay person they were going to hell.  Just being who you are was immoral.  If you are going to hell anyway, is there really any reason why you should not have sex with anyone you wanted?  A lot of the gay patterns we see today can be directly connected with the way "followers of Christ" treated gays in the past.  God may very well judge gays for acts of immorality.  But I think some may be surprised at how harsly they msy be judged for their behavior.  You posting 35 year old data isn't exactly helping to change those attitudes.  

I plead guilty to having done the heavy research on this many years ago, but dredging it up was in direct reply to some politically correct nonsense placed in this thread by others.  And you are correct to suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around, and that people from all walks of life have their own special, personal problems. All of us have burdens to bear, and it would be nice if we all recognized that and shared our burdens -- or at least were kinder and more considerate to one another.  Still, that doesn't justify claiming total innocence for this or that group, whether accepting wild and irresponsible behavior, or demanding that everyone practice some form of strict religious observance.  This is, after all, a free country, and pluralism with tolerance is the true hallmark of America -- even if honored in the breach.

Now, if we could just get the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle to recognize the clear and present danger of having tens of thousands of homeless constantly doing drugs, urinating and defecating on downtown sidewalks, with an uncontrolled rat population, and talk of Bubonic Plague in the air.  Why must we go from one crisis to the next with no sense of propriety?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm grateful that my husband went on nearly all of my sons boy scout trips, he was a leader in the YM's. But there was this time that another leader handled things badly and that is when after the campout, he went over to the fire and pee'd on it to put it out while they were all in their vehicles waiting and the YM saw the whole thing. Pretty minor I guess, and maybe a guy thing, but my husband didn't approve at all. 

 

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There's another way of putting a fire out? I have a feeling your husband wouldn't approve of me at all ...

 

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think our boys know any other way of extinguishing a fire either ...

 

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Did you ever hear about Churchill and the joint chiefs crossing the Rhine?  Churchill taught them something about marking conquered territory.

Have you read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? It has in it literally the best footnote ever. Freud theorizes on how civilization began and posits that it must have been the taming and control of fire. He also explains that women are the domestic protectors of the hearth due to their anatomical differences with males.

For those of you who enjoy urinating (or, the even better word used in this translation, micturating) on fires to extinguish them, I offer you Freud's analysis, that you are an engaged in a homosexual competition, a sexual act with other males. In other words, you are all latent homosexuals. Read, and enjoy ;) 

Quote

*[Psycho-analytic material, incomplete as it is and not susceptible to clear interpretation, nevertheless admits of a conjecture — a fantastic-sounding one — about the origin of this human feat. It is as though primal man had the habit, when he came in contact with fire, of satisfying an infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine. The legends that we possess leave no doubt about the originally phallic view taken of tongues of flame as they shoot, upwards. Putting out fire by micturating — a theme to which modern giants, Gulliver in Lilliput and Rabelais’ Gargantua, still hark back — was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition. The first person to renounce this desire and spare the fire was able to carry it off with him and subdue it to his own use. By damping down the fire of his own sexual excitation, he had tamed the natural force of fire. This great cultural conquest was thus the reward for his renunciation of instinct. Further, it is as though woman had been appointed guardian of the fire which was held captive on the domestic hearth, because her anatomy made it impossible for her to yield to the temptation of this desire. It is remarkable, too, how regularly analytic experience testifies to the connection between ambition, fire and urethral erotism.]

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Have you read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? It has in it literally the best footnote ever. Freud theorizes on how civilization began and posits that it must have been the taming and control of fire. He also explains that women are the domestic protectors of the hearth due to their anatomical differences with males.

For those of you who enjoy urinating (or, the even better word used in this translation, micturating) on fires to extinguish them, I offer you Freud's analysis, that you are an engaged in a homosexual competition, a sexual act with other males. In other words, you are all latent homosexuals. Read, and enjoy ;) 

We're not worthy!

We're not worthy!

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

 

 

Have you read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? It has in it literally the best footnote ever. Freud theorizes on how civilization began and posits that it must have been the taming and control of fire. He also explains that women are the domestic protectors of the hearth due to their anatomical differences with males.

For those of you who enjoy urinating (or, the even better word used in this translation, micturating) on fires to extinguish them, I offer you Freud's analysis, that you are an engaged in a homosexual competition, a sexual act with other males. In other words, you are all latent homosexuals. Read, and enjoy ;) 

 

I'll be sure to let my previous neighbor know this, lol! ;) Thanks for sharing, very interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We're not worthy!

We're not worthy!

It's probably the most ridiculous hilarious thing uttered by Freud...

But wait, it's Freud, so probably not ;) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's probably the most ridiculous hilarious thing uttered by Freud...

But wait, it's Freud, so probably not ;) 

Why am I thinking about cigars?  I don't even smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/3/2019 at 1:38 PM, Calm said:

Only among those actually using the term "latent". (Which according to the search function is you and USU)

Actually that is how the courts use it, how I've always used it and others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Actually that is how the courts use it, how I've always used it and others.

Yes, but the rest of us (from what I can tell by those who have said stuff or given me points) are using "potential", not "latent".  If I was using "latent", that is what I would mean, but since I don't mean that, .I use a word that means something different..."potential".

I don't see what is so difficult to follow here.  I am not disagreeing with Scott because .I think he is defining "latent" wrong, but because "latent" isn't what I mean or any other woman that I know who practices a "every man a potential predator" policy.  Substituting "latent" changes the meaning and takes the discussion somewhere irrelevant to what I am talking about.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential

"existing in possibility"

I don't take security cautions when I encounter men I don't know well because I think one day they will rape someone or even that one day they may rape someone.  I take precautions because I know there are rapists out there and that man I meet might be a rapist, if not in deed yet, than in intent.  I also know thankfully the chance of a specific man being a rapist is low.  The problem is there are enough out there, rape happens to a lot of women in very different situations, so it is wise not to ignore even the low probability.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, but the rest of us (from what I can tell by those who have said stuff or given me points) are using "potential", not "latent".  If I was using "latent", that is what I would mean, but since I don't mean that, .I use a word that means something different..."potential".

I don't see what is so difficult to follow here.

I agree, it is not difficult to follow. I think you are right and Scott is right also, i.e. potential is something that can reach fruition in the future and latent is hidden until it isn't. Both can be used similarly and both can be used differently.

love the both of you

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

love the both of you

:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I plead guilty to having done the heavy research on this many years ago, but dredging it up was in direct reply to some politically correct nonsense placed in this thread by others.  And you are correct to suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around, and that people from all walks of life have their own special, personal problems. All of us have burdens to bear, and it would be nice if we all recognized that and shared our burdens -- or at least were kinder and more considerate to one another.  Still, that doesn't justify claiming total innocence for this or that group, whether accepting wild and irresponsible behavior, or demanding that everyone practice some form of strict religious observance.  This is, after all, a free country, and pluralism with tolerance is the true hallmark of America -- even if honored in the breach.

Now, if we could just get the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle to recognize the clear and present danger of having tens of thousands of homeless constantly doing drugs, urinating and defecating on downtown sidewalks, with an uncontrolled rat population, and talk of Bubonic Plague in the air.  Why must we go from one crisis to the next with no sense of propriety?

I don't think anyone would claim that gays don't have sex.  But once again, data as old as you are quoting is so out of date, that in and of itself becomes a joke.  Gays don't cruise parks or bathrooms.  They use an app and the internet just like the straight people.  

I know this is a completely different issue.  And not sure why you brought it  up in this thread.  And I think you have overexagerated the homeless problem at least in San Francisco.  I will tell you what has already been done in San Francisco at least.  It is already against the law to even sit on the sidewalks.  It is illegal to set up a tent on the sidewalks.  The Department of Public Works routinely gives these people 3 days noticee and then takes everything and tosses it in the dump.  There are food kitchens that provide basic food.  There are navigation centers that provide counseling and training available.   There are a lot of shelter facilities, but it never seems to be enough.  Can you give me a post about how you would fix the homeless problem?  There are a lot of people trying to figure out how to solve this problem.  It still keeps happening.  So like I said, I would love to hear your solution.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Gays don't cruise parks or bathrooms.

My personal experience would challenge this assertion. The humanities building at the American university where I studied for my master's degree had a sign on the door of every male toilet assuring me that I had a right to use the facility 'free from interference' and that I could ring campus police if any problems arose. Interference??? In my naivety, I had no clue what these signs were warning me of, nor did I understand at first why some men had seeminly used penknives to drill a hole in the wall of every toilet cubicle in the entire seven-story building. When I finally did learn firsthand what the signs meant, I had to completely stop using the male toilets in the humanities building -- which was where half of my classes were held. Ringing campus police after the fact was pointless.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ringing campus police after the fact was pointless.

Hamba, how long ago was this?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hamba, how long ago was this?

Around 2000.

I've had a number of other experiences since that time that would also challenge California Boy's assertion, but nowhere else has the issue been as pervasive or as casually acknowledged and tolerated. (The signs were engraved plastic.) But I was studying in a city that prided itself on its 'progressiveness'.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the additional context.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think anyone would claim that gays don't have sex.  But once again, data as old as you are quoting is so out of date, that in and of itself becomes a joke.  Gays don't cruise parks or bathrooms.  They use an app and the internet just like the straight people.  

Which I pointed out in my posts.  However, the continuing problem is that the gay community engages in that two to three times as much as so-called straight people (not even sure what that means).  Perhaps over time the stats will go down as the gay community is mainstreamed.

Quote

I know this is a completely different issue.  And not sure why you brought it  up in this thread.  And I think you have overexagerated the homeless problem at least in San Francisco.  I will tell you what has already been done in San Francisco at least.  It is already against the law to even sit on the sidewalks.  It is illegal to set up a tent on the sidewalks.  The Department of Public Works routinely gives these people 3 days noticee and then takes everything and tosses it in the dump.  There are food kitchens that provide basic food.  There are navigation centers that provide counseling and training available.   There are a lot of shelter facilities, but it never seems to be enough.  Can you give me a post about how you would fix the homeless problem?  There are a lot of people trying to figure out how to solve this problem.  It still keeps happening.  So like I said, I would love to hear your solution.

Good to hear how San Francisco is dealing with the problem.  My solution is to compare how different cities deal with the problem, some successfully, some not, and go from there.  We actually have stats on the nature of the problem in different cities.  The problem of homelessness is interwoven with high crime rates, drug use, mental illness, and disease.  One has to address those problems simultaneously.  Ignoring one simply makes progress elsewhere nearly impossible.  Then too, many of the homeless are veterans who are ignored by the Veterans Admin.

One huge step would be to legalize (or decriminalize) drugs and regulate them like any other pharmaceuticals.  Oakland just decriminalized hallucogenic mushrooms, for example.  Years ago, when the arch-conservative Bill Buckley came out in favor of legalization of drugs, he was treated like a pariah.  We need to address our problems in practical rather than ideological ways.

ETA:  Here is the latest on SF dealing with mentally ill drug users, https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-francisco-may-force-treatment-185329921.html .

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My personal experience would challenge this assertion. The humanities building at the American university where I studied for my master's degree had a sign on the door of every male toilet assuring me that I had a right to use the facility 'free from interference' and that I could ring campus police if any problems arose. Interference??? In my naivety, I had no clue what these signs were warning me of, nor did I understand at first why some men had seeminly used penknives to drill a hole in the wall of every toilet cubicle in the entire seven-story building. When I finally did learn firsthand what the signs meant, I had to completely stop using the male toilets in the humanities building -- which was where half of my classes were held. Ringing campus police after the fact was pointless.

You're absolutely right to share this with us. Thanks for debunking the "single file Indians" assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2019 at 1:11 PM, Maidservant said:

You know, between the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, teachers at school, the COJOLDS, family abuse . . . I am thinking that we have a staggering problem of a significant number of men, at all anywhere, who are pedophiles; and for the number who are acting on it, there must be 3 times as many who experience the sensations but don't act.  What is going on?  I have deep compassion for this actually--not to allow it, obviously, but we need a new way of approaching this so that men and boys can heal.  It is obviously NOT an anomaly any more and we can't anomalize it act like we can just handle a case here or there punitively and there, we did it.  Something is going ON.

I dont think statements that the world is groping in darkness are just rhetoric. We do need to do something more 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

You're absolutely right to share this with us. Thanks for debunking the "single file Indians" assertion.

I think your pointing the finger at the wrong group. The homosexuals may be looking for love, even the wrong kind, in bathrooms or elsewhere, but your putting them in the category of being pedophiles instead of just being interested in an adult to have sex with. Or correct me if wrong. 

And to save posts I'll add that I don't think it's this group that is the problem. I've seen more abuse happening amongst the heterosexuals in a religious setting or background, honestly.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which I pointed out in my posts.  However, the continuing problem is that the gay community engages in that two to three times as much as so-called straight people (not even sure what that means).  Perhaps over time the stats will go down as the gay community is mainstreamed.

Good to hear how San Francisco is dealing with the problem.  My solution is to compare how different cities deal with the problem, some successfully, some not, and go from there.  We actually have stats on the nature of the problem in different cities.  The problem of homelessness is interwoven with high crime rates, drug use, mental illness, and disease.  One has to address those problems simultaneously.  Ignoring one simply makes progress elsewhere nearly impossible.  Then too, many of the homeless are veterans who are ignored by the Veterans Admin.

One huge step would be to legalize (or decriminalize) drugs and regulate them like any other pharmaceuticals.  Oakland just decriminalized hallucogenic mushrooms, for example.  Years ago, when the arch-conservative Bill Buckley came out in favor of legalization of drugs, he was treated like a pariah.  We need to address our problems in practical rather than ideological ways.

ETA:  Here is the latest on SF dealing with mentally ill drug users, https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-francisco-may-force-treatment-185329921.html .

Having lived in Seattle and returned in February of this year, I can tell you that they have not begun to handle the homeless problem. The more services provided the more they come. The more alleys passed reek of urine, the more individuals put up a tent where they choose and until the area is completely infested with rats and other vermin to the point that the homeless move of their own choice, nothing happens. 

Seattle has legalized personal use of pot. I tend to favor the legalization of all drugs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think your pointing the finger at the wrong group. The homosexuals may be looking for love, even the wrong kind, in bathrooms or elsewhere, but your putting them in the category of being pedophiles instead of just being interested in an adult to have sex with. Or correct me if wrong. 

And to save posts I'll add that I don't think it's this group that is the problem. I've seen more abuse happening amongst the heterosexuals in a religious setting or background, honestly.

I know you do, and that's sad.  Your experiences and mine must have happened on different planets.

That said, I'm not sure I understand what point you're making.  I was making the point that ca could only speak to his own experiences.  He asserts not having seen such things in his experience.  While I'm skeptical because of my own experiences (from the abuse I myself suffered as a tweener, from my years of being the only straight guy in the room, from my paying attention to what people said and say, and etc), there is no way to prove he is not being honest.  But he can, once again I must stress, he can only speak to his own experiences.

To claim there is no bathroom trolling going on is to claim Indians walk in single file because you saw one doing it once.

Perhaps you impute honest motives to self-declared homosexuals  ...  but dishonest motives to heterosexual men?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...