Jerry Sandusky is a sexual predator. The evidence would also suggest that he is a homosexual. The meddia, of course (including the unfair and unbalanced network) is virtually CONCELAING this fact. Have you noticed that there is no longer hardly any reference to the victims of Jerry Sandusky as "boys". Rather, the refernces are all to "children", and "child". That is because the media is general is all about AGENDA, and not facts.
Yes, I know that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile, and that not all homosexuals are pedophiles. However, I will make this flat statement: Pedophiles wo limit their predation to BOYS are generally homosexuals in "sexual orientation", even if you correctly regard their main "perversion" as being pedophilia. Similarly, pedophiles who prey on young girls (male pedophiles, that is) can be generaly regarded as HEREOSEXUAL in "orientation"--with, of curse, that special perversion. Now there are probably SOME sexual predators who prey on CHILDREN (both boys and girls). Now, by definitioin, sexual predators (male) who prey on SEXUALLY MATURE (after puberty) boys are homosexual (100%). You can "argue' (unconvincingly, in my view) that "children" are sexless, and therefore a pedophile is not either m=homoseuxal or heterosexual--merely a pedophile. That is abssolutely absurd for pedophiles who prey on sexually mature children. It has some surface plausibility for pedophiles who prey on chhildren who have not attained puberty, and it may well be true of some. However, how do you then explain predators who concentrate solely on boys or solely on girls (ot to mention that the media makes this distinction between sexuall mature children, and non-sexually mature children, only when it wants to make it--and then only implicitly). No, of course you cannot look to "science" to answer any of these questions, because the whole goal of "science" these days is to "prove' taht homosexuality is o`no different than heterosexuality. For today's "scientist", who knows where his or her bread is buttered, this means no HONEST evaluation of homosexual predationi (for fear that it willbe "used' to attack homosexuals generally).
You hear allof this media bleating about the "culture" of Penn State, and making sure this does not happen again. But all I can see is that threre was a sexual predator (probably--he has not been convicted) at Penn State (probably a homosexual sexual predator who is also a pedophile), which could happen ANYWHERE. It can also happen tomorrow, and there is almost NOTHHING we can do about it. Sure, you can try to make sure that you actually DO SOMETHING abut a known sexual predator, but therein lies a tale: the real subject of this article.
Is what happened in Penn State part of our deveoping NATIONAL CULUTRE that homosexuals have a "right" to "sexual expression", and maybe even that they can do no wrong (unless they are Republican). Are homosexual predators, even more than hetwrosexual predators, being sent a message that they are "entitled" to satisfy their sexaul urges--if for no other reason that they are "victims" of our society's "persecutiion" of them?
Let us go back to children. Should a homosexual male couple be allowed to ADOPT a teenage boy? An 11 year old boy? Are you INSANE? Of course not. It would be my positon that a homosexual "couple' should not be allowed to adopt children at all. But some things are just absurd. For example, would you allow a single man to adopt a pre-teen or teen girl? Again (absent special cirucstances, and really EXTREME evaluatioin), are you INSANE? You should be able to see how ur NATIONAL CULTURE, and POLITICAL positions, can put CHILDREN at risk.
Should there be male scoutmasters? The left has attacked the Boy Scouts over this. Have I told lyou that the left is generally INSANE? It is absurd to suggest that there should be homosexual scoutmasters. Am I saying that there should not be MALE "scoutmasters" (whatever they are called) for the girl scouts? Yep. That is eXACTLY what I am suggesting, in the absence of any alternative. I actually don't know whehter males are allowed to be "scoutmasters" in the Girl Scouts. If they are, I would hope that the Girl Scouts are extremely careful about that--to the point of paranoia. Again, I would have a policy (which, may, in fact, exist) that a male ordinarily cannot be a scoutmaster for the Girl Scouts. I would, in fact, be extremely reluctant for a male to be involved as a "scoutmaster" at the Cub Scout level for GIRLS, or a mix of girls and boys. Although I was once in the Boy Scouts, ou can tell that I do not know how this all works. but I wuold hope that an effort is being made to keep sexual predators from haiving access to children. Yep. I would regard it as an essential part of that effort not to allow homosexuals (men or women) contorl over ch;ildren of the same sex as their "sexual orientation"--with the exception that I have no problem with heterosexual "den mothers". At some point, you have to recognize relity. Despite the recent nuber of female tgeachers involved with teenage boys, I regard the "danger" of normal women sexually mlesting young boy children as extremely remote. If I had not been forced out of the closet a a closet feminist, I would have to admit here that I am a sexist. Male sexual predators are by far the greater danger. It also has something to do with anatomy.
So what should Penn State, and ANY university or school do? I think part of it is relatively obvious. You should have a POLICY thaqt appplies EQUALLY to homosexuals and heterosexuals (assuming that you are going to allow homosexuals a job dealing with children at all, which is now generally the case). What does that mean? It means that the official policy should make clear that your rules on "sexual harrrassment", and the APPERANCE of "improper" sexual behavior apply to homosexuals with regard to MLES (for male homosexuals-the converse being true for females) that male HETEROSEXUALS must follow with regard to females. That means that homosexual males should not upt themselves into a positioin to see other males naked, on the same basis as a male hetwerosexual with regard to females. Touching? Verbal "approaches"? You should get the idea by now. As far as homosexuals are concerned, they should have the very SAME standard of conduct toward their sAME SEX as applies to hetwrosexual members of the opposite sex. How can you even argue abut this? The way homosexual "activists", and the media, "argue" against it is simply not to even talk about it? Talk about DISHONESTRY!!! Talk about COWARDICE? Yep. You guessed it. Here, I am also talking aoubt "establishment" Repubicans, who will not touch this "issue" with a ten foot pooe.
What about the military? Same thing. Of course it is true that there is no way to tell if a person is homosexual if the person does not TELL you (or make it very clear in other ways). That is why I find all of tis "scitivism" about "discriminnatioin" against homosexuals so absurd. But if you are gong to be OPEN aoubt your preferred object of sexual desire (very undesirable in the militray, for any sane point of view), then you MUST apply the "rules' to oopen homosexuals the same way as to heterosexual males dealing with females. Avoid trying to see the same sex naked. Avoid "toudhing'. Avoid all of the things that are "offesneive" when a heterosexual male does thme to a female. Ype. this should be EXPLICIT. It should actually be in the written policy that homosexuals should act the same way toward members of their own sex as heterosexuals are expected to act toward members of the opposite sex. How can anyone argue against this? Try it and see.
Is this part of the explanation of what happened at Penn State? Was it "political correctness" rn amok? I don't know. Worse, there is no way for either YOU or ME to know. Why is that? It is because the media are too COWARDLY to even look into the matter. Look at the military. I actually saw a really stupid "journalist", or maybe politician, ask (derisively) what people who opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" were afraid of: "that homoseuxal males will make passes at other males"? In a word, "yes". This is not to say that is the main problem, but ook at the situation we have created. How HARD is it going to be to complain about unwanted HOMOSEXUAL advances in the military? It seems to me that it is going to be damned hard. Homosexuals how perceive that they are "protected". Any homosexual who faces discipline for this kind of thing can "go public" saying that he is beig persecuted because he is a homoseual.
I know that we appear to be talking about pre-teen boys at Penn State. And I don't even know for sure that Jerry Sandusky was exclusively a pedophile of boys. However, that certainly appears to be the true of the "incidents" that have made the "news'. Did this evolving CULTURE "protecting" homosexuals enter into the failure to take aggressive actin against Sandusky? I realize that SHOULD NOT have been a factor when "children" were involved. However, human beings are human beings. They are reluctant to get into "controversy". Is it not likely that the Penn State officils jsut wanted to avoid the university and the football program being involved in "scandal"? Oh, it is entirely plausible that was the main, or even sole, reason no action was taken against Sandusky. But he did, and does, have "rights". Is there not a RELUCTANCE out there--in the media, and everywhhere else--to really lower the boom on HOMOSEUAL CONDUCT (even when it would be condemned if it were hetere heterosexual conduct)? I hink you are being extraordinarily naive if you don't think that is true. As I say, the media is NOT going to really look had at this at Penn State. So we will never know, most likely, to what extent this may have played a role in the strange inaction there.
But if we are talking about "culture", shoudl we not be talking aoubtt how we are fast developing a CULTURE that "portects" sexual predators? I think so. This is, of course, ture of both homosexual and hetweroseuxal seuxal predators. I still remember when "Picket Fences" (the TV show) RIDICULED the idea of statutory rape with a 19 (or so) year old boy and a 15 or 16 year old girl. Then there was Roman Polanski (separate article planned). This blog has rpreviously CONDMENTED the evolving idea in our society that "statutory rape" is not really a serious crime.
Look at the media on Jerry Sandusky. They keep referring to "rape" of a "child"--instead of sex with a young boy. Now it may well have been FORCIBLE rape. However, that is the point. It does ot matter if there was alleged "consent". a pre-teen boy CANNOT consent. But neither can a 14 year old boy or girl (with a older partner). "Consent" is ireelevant. It is not possible. But the media is glossing right over this point, because they--unlike other cases of statutory rape--are simply saying that this is "rape". It is, of course, but the media is not so firm aoubt his in othe cases (where "consent" is often broujght up). And this may well have been forcible rape, but who knows? And it does not matter. What matters whough, is the total unrealizability of a media UNINTERESTED in the "facts", but only in a "story line". I am not talking here aobut the "fact" of whether there was "consent", which the media SHOULD ignore (as should we all). I am talkng here abut the inability of the media to even bring itself to say "boy" in connection with Sandusky's victims, and the gneral disitnerest of the media in examing all of the relevant factgs, wherever they may lead (incuding this "culture" of homosexual entitlement that seems to be developing moong the "elite' in our society). "Consent" is NOT a "relevant fact" here, bt neither is it generally a relevant fact in STATUTORY RAPE.
This blog is willing to talk about these things explicitly. Most others are not. That is why I say we are conducting a social experiment on our children, and that our children will be lucky to survive it. The "children" involved in the Penn State "scandal" will certainly be lucky to survive it (whole). If we are actually gong to be "open" abut these things, then we need to actually be "debating" these "issues". We are not. Rather, we are pushing "homosexual activism", whle at the same time tryin gto IGNORE homosexual conduct involved in tahings like the Penn State scandal. "Children"? "Rape?" It is like we must DELIBERATELY "cover up" facts, jsut like Penn State, in orde to avoid the 'political correctness plice". As you can tgell, this blog refuses to go along with that kind of "cover up".
By the way, are there "more' homosexual predators than heterosexual predators? Obviously, there are more absolute numbers of heterosexual predators, because there are vastly more HETEROSEXUALS. HOwever, what aoubt on a percentage basis? Who knows. I have no way of knowing. YOU have no way of knowing. That is because no one is really interested in fiding out. And if anyone does try to "find out", it will usally be a "study" DESIGNED to "show' that homosexuals are no worse (probably better) than heterosexuals in terms of lpredation. Think of the ATTACK that will be made n anyone who asserts that homosexuals are more likely to engage in harmful sexual perversion than heterosexuals!!!! The thought bogle s the mind. It is basically a matter of RELIGIOUS FAITH that there is nothing wrong with homosexual conduct. What this blog article is suggesting is that such religious faith is in danger of CREATING a climate where homosexual sexual predation flourishes. It is impossible to koinw whether Penn State is an example of this, but the DANGER clearly (to those wo see clearly) exists.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment