I stayed away from this thread and just watched it grow, didnít even read it until tonight. And only got to top third of page 5 before I had to stop. Itís now 2 freaking thirty in the morning! So Iíll post this and see what happens, if anything.
My first thought was how on earth did Larry find out about Bernardís birds? Maybe someone spoke of this in another thread I donít know. At least we now know that Jim Bryan also talks to birds. For the record I talk to my cats and believe me they understand what Iím saying, most of the time.
It seems among human beings, and I think it starts rather early too, among children who some have suggested may be tolerant but may not be as tolerant as civilized educated adults with more knowledge of the world and its many facets, there is a sort of mind game thatís played out. It takes the form of bullying by those who can, until theyíre prevented in some way. Those who get bullied are terrified but there is also something symbiotic going on. They like it too. Itís thrilling to be scared and bullied.
Wilhelm Reich called one side sadism the other masochism as two poles of mutual attraction in his theory of character formation. It is seemingly of almost primal origin. Strip away all the education and refinement and underneath you will uncover one or the other of these two basic types. Unless of course you can get one or the other to move out of these poles into a more advanced character type. There are even theories that trace these poles to brain formation, linking them with the so called primitive brain below the cerebrum.
Of course Reich knew that sexuality was also a primal drive and fought a heroic fight to uncover a way out of the morass of sadomasochistic relationships between people to weld the sexual drive with higher compassion. If he could have found a way out he was certain heíd be on the way to developing a newer better happier human being.
Was this social engineering? It didnít have the chance to be. Reich was chased from country to country until they got him on charges of defrauding the public and threw him in jail where he died, a broken man, a failure.
Reich was one of my late wifeís heroes.
Whether we recognize it or not we have witnessed on this thread a kind of play here between the weak and the strong. The strong always like to toy with the weak, thatís part of the sadistic urge. ďoh come on I was only playing,Ē while deriving immense pleasure from seeing the weak squirm. (This was eerily and dramatically brought out in The Passion by the way) Meanwhile the weak wants something from the strong; to be accepted, loved, protected.
And sometimes there is another reaction; the weak wants eventually to overpower the strong and make him feel real pain and agony. This too is all too human.
I was born an albino with limited vision. The school playgrounds occasionally were hell for me. But then I somehow learned to defuse situations by standing up to bullies, by taking the superior role, with quite a crisp hard edge, by occasionally grabbing one of them and showing them my own strength. By the time I was an adolescent I was through with physical reactions. I used the power of my voice and my mind and none bothered me again. I wasnít a social outcast. I was just apart. People left me alone which was usually fine with me. Those who wanted to know me got to know me.
I can understand something of what a homosexual must feel even though Iíll never be one of them. But to suggest that some of them never try to recruit is not true. I know from personal experience. I also know that just as it is a mistake to say that all straight people are alike, so it is with homosexuals. I have seen all kinds from very tough street smart punks to the most urbane cultured gentlemen. Cross dressers? Iíve heard tales of them in both San Francisco and New York but Iíve never seen one. Nevertheless, look or do anything thatís the slightest bit different and youíre going to be noticed and not always in a positive way.
Usually there are natural societies that form and levels of common sharing that emerge, particularly in typical suburban American high schools with the various cliques devoted to this or that fad.
Obviously there usually arenít enough homosexuals to form a clique so they probably feel much as I did, separated, left out, alone.
OK, letís admit that this is a problem. Are the social engineering methods employed by plays like ďCootie ShotsĒ going to do the trick? No theyíre not, in fact theyíll backfire as all social engineering does because none of it takes into consideration the basic fabric of human nature particularly the natural relationship between the strong and the weak.
Some people by this time have already begun yawning and saying, ďGod, what is Burton rambling on about this time?Ē Iím not as gifted a writer asÖ
Originally posted by apple:
Children are only young for a short while
They should be taught to be tolerant
They should be taught we are equal
They shouldn't be taught at too young an age
some of the things that burden adults
that they will experience all too soon. [/b]
I know, itís hard when you have so much to say and canít get it into thirty five words. But itís leading up to thisÖ
Originally posted by Ariel:
Pedophilia is predatory and abnormal whichever sexual orientation it is emanating from. To associate homosexuality with pedophilia is dangerous, inaccurate and unfair. Would we be right in concluding that we should blame all heterosexual males for pedophilia aimed at underage females? That's the commonest kind of pedophilia. Sickness is sickness. Child molesting is child molesting. Fair is fair. [/b]
Many thanks Ariel !
Most would never believe me if I told them that there is real organized pedophilia out there operating in high places among people youíd never suspect of it who DO have an agenda and have had it since at least the end of the World War II. It started in Amsterdam, still the kiddy porn capital of the world. They decided that if they could gain public acceptance of homosexuality including same sex marriage and child rearing, then they could force their agenda on the rest of society; open target on children anywhere and everywhere. The political end of the homosexual community is being duped into thinking theyíll gain social acceptance, whereas they are in truth being used by far more deviant people who have no great need of or concern for them accept to further their own nefarious agenda. Yes my friends, the insidious weak vs. the strong again in its darkest form.
ďone obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.Ē By this definition many of us are bigots. If all the world is somehow bigoted the word ceases to carry much meaning.
We all need to get so beyond this to figure out who has driven these policies, WHO IS BEHIND IT, and unmask them and stop it. Do it before there is a real civil war, and donít think it canít happen.
Anyway, think about what Iím saying. Do I need to make it plain? Parents should go find out who is responsible for sponsoring this play and stuff like it, find the real people behind it, then watch them like hawks!
No, pedophilia, I prefer calling it pederasty or child molesting, is not homosexuality and Iím not sure theyíre related. And they do NOT share the same profile. A pederast is a predator who masks himself or herself as a normal socially integrated person who just happens to like employment near lots of children; schools, churches, pageants, playgrounds, amusement parks, etc.
Originally posted by CrashTest:
Its funny how parents talk about their kids like they are property! Well, maybe they are, as our society functions in a way that makes it seem so. [/b]
Seem so? It is so in law and fact. Iíve done my research into family law coast to coast covering over 50 child abuse cases and believe you me, underneath most real sexual child abuse is the pederast parent or guardian who gets the courts to accept THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTÖ. Donít get me started. Hand me a handgun mister!
Pederasts are on the bottom of my list as far as human depravity goes. The lowest rung of hell would not be bad enough for them. Every person they touch is scarred for life. Many never recover. These are the ďsick bastardsĒ not people like Bernard.
Iíve told you guys to go easy on him and I mean it! LOL.
You see my own reactions canít help fit the pattern. Very interesting how the subject turned to guns too. Very. I donít own a gun. Donít care whether others own them or not. Iím not ashamed to admit that though Iím blinder than blind, Iíd certainly like the thrill of shooting a big handgun some day. But thatís off the topic, merely symbolic, shooting off our energies, being manly men, etc.
Iíd really like Bernard to think over his idea that acquainting young children with prejudices against homosexuals is really going to work. (Kenny too.) He thinks it will teach tolerance of diversity. (Kenny thinks it will further his idea of equality) Actually it may backfire. Rvaga knows.
I have a kid, a sixteen year old girl, who Iím sorry to say is very deeply prejudiced against people she knows very little about, and she certainly didnít get it from me. She got it from her friends at school? Or maybe she had it as something innate. Her mother would be shocked. I hope she grows out of it. Nobody likes to think the unthinkable but if we grant as Bernard does that being truly homosexual is innate, Iím afraid weíre going to have to accept the possibility that certain other prejudices and predispositions are just as innate.
Political libs have trouble with this. It rankles their notions about equality. Well for the thousandth time I shout EQUALITY DOES NOT EXIST AND NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL. THE WORLD IS UNFAIR, GET USED TO IT.
I certainly had to learn to accept it.
Iíll never be a Tom K or a Larry much as I might like to. On the other hand neither will ever be able to be me.
This was a real gem of a post:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I have concerns about how children are introduced to sex-role identification. Kids are conservative. Life introduces them to enough surprises, and they're expected to swallow them. You never heard the one about the kid who is told "the facts" when he asks where his baby sister came from? He laughs hysterically, then working down finally to hiccups and wiping his eyes, says, "OK, OK [snort] Now tell me the TRUTH!"*
You think storks are less plausible? Then you DON'T remember being a kid!
Things have to be kept basic before exceptions are introduced. This is a totally different subject from that of their own innate sexual preferences. And is also from different from intolerance and ridicule.
Before early puberty, kids as a rule (unless they've been abused) are pre-sexual, just as they're pre-orgasmic (except in a psychodynamic sense).
Seems to be more the sticks and and snails and puppy dog tails aspect of sex-role sterotyping.
I'd like to see that loosened up a good bit (and it's VERY different from culture to culture - just pick up some old Malinowski or Margaret Mead, flawed as their methodology was). Especially when it comes to educating about opportunity and human potential - like until recently, girls were told to think of nursing school only if they were keen on medicine.
But in early childhood - as in up to Junior High -I think things should be kept as simple as possible. Yes, kids CAN get confused. Life's confusing enough. Why not keep the boy babies dressed in blue and the girl babies in pink? Gay teachers are fine with me - as long as they're good teachers. But no, save the drag queens for later: in the classroom, on TV and in Disney World. And the whole issue of cross dressing (and walking dead dogs, for that matter too - as gryphon pointed out). And this is not a pro-stereotyping recommendation; it's a recommendation that kids not be exposed to variations on sexuality which I think are NOT the product of individual idiosyncrasy, but of social pathology. The pathology being a society which is contemptuous of and shame-inducing about difference - and not just sexual ones. That means it's pretty much impossible to see what "normal homosexuality" (think about it!) might look like. But it doesn't look like Rupaul. And to present that variation as a healthy option at an early age isn't doing ANYBODY any good, not gays or hets. (Equally important - it doesn't look like nine-year old female tartlets either!) I think gender-identity confusion is a real risk and has nothing to do with sexual preference
. And I've been there in spades as a single mother of sons, believe you me. [/b]