pageok
pageok
pageok
Interesting Tidbit About the Ohio State (Mansfield) Controversy:

It turns out that Scott Savage, the librarian who is charged with sexual orientation harassment because he had recommended that the school assign to freshmen an apparently anti-gay book, is a conservative Quaker who has given up many modern things, including conventional schooling — his wife home-schools (or at least home-schooled) their five children — and cars; he takes a horse and buggy to work.

This has little to do with the specific legal and academic freedom issues raised by the complaint against him, but I just thought the juxtaposition of Scott Savage's e-mail-born controversy and his horse and buggy was interesting. And perhaps there is also a broader connection to the persistent talk about "diversity" on campus. I suspect that Scott Savage's presence and participation adds more to the cultural diversity of the campus than does the presence and participation of most other faculty, students, and staff. But of course one aspect of cultural diversity is that people who belong to some cultures might not share the dominant university culture's view on some aspects, such as sexual behavior, and might even say things that some see as offensive. What a surprise.

Nobody Special:
Come on, EV, you've spent enough years now on university campuses to know that "diversity" doesn't really mean "diversity."
4.17.2006 3:29pm
BobH (mail):
How can you tell if an Amish* teenager has gone bad?

1. He wears his big back hat backwards.
2. He puts 20" chrome wheels on the buggy.
3. He says "f*** thee" to his father.


*I know, I know. Mr. Savage is a conservative Quaker, not an Amishman. But it REMINDED me.
4.17.2006 3:34pm
TomHynes (mail):
What goes clop,clop, bang, bang, clop, clop?

An Amish driveby shooting.

I'm sorry, is this the Amish joke thread?
4.17.2006 4:00pm
Arthur (mail):
Burying the lead again. The real story here is how the campus parking authority decides where he can leave his horse and buggy, and how they tow it away when it takes up too many spaces.
4.17.2006 4:09pm
JohnAnnArbor:
The real story here is how the campus parking authority decides where he can leave his horse and buggy, and how they tow it away when it takes up too many spaces.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Ann Arbor police would look askance at an unregistered vehicle taking up two parking spots, not to mention the method of locomotion and what it leaves behind.....
4.17.2006 4:17pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
I'm an OSU (main campus) student, and spent the last few years of high school in the area most OSU-Mansfield students live in (most of the community activities I participated in took place in Mansfield) and really, this is one of the last places you'd expect a controversy like this to develop. I would have been sure it'd happen on main campus first. Although, moreso than at main campus, the weird higher ed diversity-diversity-diversity chants feel like they're imposed from above; I'm not surprised that it's a faculty-led complaint (the city of Mansfield has almost exactly the same number of residents that the main campus of the Ohio State University has students: 50,557 Mansfield residents, 50,504 OSU students on main campus.) Most of the kids I knew in Mansfield, would have an initial reaction of "ummm, huh?" to most diversity initiatives. And they all used "gay" as a common insult ("that outfit's gay," "that car is gay," "this homework assignment is so gay.") I grew up in Los Angeles and that really freaked me out when I first moved out here.

Anyway, for Mansfield, openly gay professors (or professors that write about gay themes and talk/teach about them) are probably at least slightly more unusual than a simple living advocate; even if he wears a wide brimmed hat and black overalls to work (that might make him fit in better -- most everyone out there sees Amish/Mennonite folks pretty regularly, and already has a good idea of what they're about.) I mean, even on main campus, if students were generally aware that their English professor was an author of the sorts of things that Professor Buckley has written, I think they'd be a lot more surprised than by anything Mr. Savage wrote. My first quarter English teacher freaked out our honors class by swearing at us and talking about sex in the classroom at all, and only about half of us were even from Ohio.


I'm also wondering if, at least in the case of Professor Buckley, this is more of a "search for something to fight" than actual shock at the inclusion of the book; his three most recent conference panels were:

"Collaborative Teacher-Inquiry as a Context for Research on Socially Just Teaching: Teachers Learning to Combat Homophobia and Heterosexism." NCTE Assembly for Research. Allegro Hotel. Chicago. 25 February 2006. Presented by Mollie V. Blackburn.

"(Re)Mapping Classroom Spaces With the Queer Curriculum." American Educational Research Association 2006 Annual Meeting. Moscone Center West, San Francisco. 9 April 2006. Presented by Mollie V. Blackburn.

and

"Tactical Sexuality as Strategic Pedagogy." National Council of Teachers of English Conference. David L. Lawrence Convention Center. Pittsburg. 18 November 2005.


(Mollie V. Blackburn is described thus by Penn's GSE website: "Mollie V. Blackburn is an assistant professor in language, literacy, and culture at The Ohio State University's College of Education. Her research is critical and activist in nature and works to explore the ways in which youth engage in literacy performances to assert their agency and work for social change. She is particularly interested in the ways queer urban youth work to disrupt oppression. ")

It just seems a little convenient. For what it's worth, Professor Jones's minimalist faculty website doesn't really say much about his publications or interests, beyond that "His forthcoming book is entitled Gay &Lesbian Historical Fiction: Sexual Mystery and Post-Secular Writing."

(for the record, I am hiding from the mess on the first post's comment page by posting in here instead.)


As to the question of parking a buggy? No one seems to mind parking beside or near the buggies that are parked outside of grocery stores, and I've never seen a buggy cited for parking in a parking spot in Mansfield, Galion, or anywhere else that I've seen buggies parking at all. In any case, with appropriate persmissions, it wouldn't be hard to put the buggy (and the horse) on the grass next to the library; OSU-Mansfield is a "wooded" area, and there's a huge amount of space between buildings. If Mr. Savage does park on campus, he probably gets to park a little closer to the library than anyone else, since it's a short walk from the library to the nearest parking lot.
4.17.2006 4:28pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
has given up many modern things, including conventional schooling — his wife home-schools

Isn't POMO home schooling newer than conventional schooling? Conventional schooling (in America) was invented in 1933 with the Progressive Ed takeover. Modern home schooling is circa 26 years old (dated from the 1980 publication of Holt's Teach Your Own).
4.17.2006 4:37pm
Raider (mail):
Being that Scott Savage is likely a pacifist (based on what we know about him to this point), it just adds to the comedy of the thinly-skinned hysterical professoriate claiming to feel "threatened" and "harassed" by the mere suggestion of a *gasp* book. Savage has an equal claim in this case of we appraoch the illogic logically -- if Kupelian's ideas "harass" a homosexual, Dawkins' ideas can certainly be said to "harass" Savage.

Threatened by a horse and buggy riding pacifist..HA!
4.17.2006 4:41pm
Tony (mail):
I spent a lot of time reading comments to the previous posting, and reading the first chapter of the book. Here's a telling quote:

To the person who's already been "converted" and is acting out the homosexual "lifestyle," it's deeply satisfying -- far beyond mere sexual pleasure -- to "initiate" an innocent person. Doing so serves to anesthetize his own conscience and assuage his inner conflict by destroying the innocence of another person, since that innocence tends to make him aware of his own corruption.

This is not a legitimate "alternative viewpoint" on homosexuality. This is blood libel. It is outrageous.

Do you have any idea of what it's like to live with this kind of accusation hanging over your head? To be perceived as some kind of vampire that preys upon children? To be honest, I've become, to some degree, afraid of children, and tend to avoid even incidental contact with them, because this kind of libel (and the not so veiled threat of retribution) is so frightening. I'm fortunate to live in a very well educated and understanding neighborhood, where my neighbors are, if anything, slightly dismayed that I'm not warmer and friendlier with their children. But I can't, it's just too nervewracking.

I agree that this OSU thing is a bit of a tempest in a teapot in that the debate is only about the suggestion of including this book in the freshman curriculum. But you know, lots of minorities are a little bit jumpy when it comes to things like this. Jews are jumpy about swastikas, blacks are jumpy about burning crosses, even if neither of these symbols directly infrignes on their rights. So I'm jumpy about books that describe me as a sex vampire. What a surprise. I do think that perhaps everyone should be a little less reactive when it comes to dealing with bigotry, and I include myself in that, but it's hard not to be hypervigilant when it comes to very real threats to one's personal safety.

I agree that current notions about accepting homosexuality are new. So is the idea that black people have souls, and that Jews aren't actually posessed by the devil. It's called social progress, and it comes about through better knowledge, better education, and the gradual rolling back of ignorance. This book is so clearly a step in the wrong direction that it amazes me that it would be taken seriously by any intelligent conservative.
4.17.2006 5:08pm
Cornellian (mail):
I wonder how he squares being a Quaker and rejecting modern technology (taking horse and buggy to work etc.) with being a law librarian. Wouldn't he have to use Lexis and Westlaw? That's a lot more modern than driving a car.

And on a semi-related point, what's so special about a horse and buggy? Why select the technology of 1850 over the technology of today, or of 1450, or 850 or 300 BC? Was there something particularly significant about 1850?

By the way the quote from the book is pretty awful, directly analogous to accusations that Jews secretly drink the blood of Christian children, or that black men all secretly yearn to rape white women. Putting anything by Jimmy Carter on the first year reading curriculum is a bad idea because it's going to be worthless, but I suspect whatever it is, it falls well short of the actively malicious, sinister libel of the book Mr. Savage is "recommending." I put "recommending" in quotation marks as it's not clear from the story whether he's really recommending that book or whether it's a sort of pseudo-recommendation on his part to register his objection to including something by Jimmy Carter.
4.17.2006 5:39pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
And on a semi-related point, what's so special about a horse and buggy? Why select the technology of 1850 over the technology of today, or of 1450, or 850 or 300 BC? Was there something particularly significant about 1850?

Well, people have been using the labor of beasts as transportation for thousands of years, for starters -- horses were first domesticated and used for transport in what, 2000 BC? Meanwhile, there are people alive today who remember when automobiles were new; my grandfather's memoirs talk about his excitement as a child to see a single car in the streets of New York City. And by the time he was 15, his older brother (who's still alive) was a taxicab driver.
4.17.2006 5:44pm
Federal Dog:
"So is the idea that black people have souls, and that Jews aren't actually posessed by the devil. It's called social progress, and it comes about through better knowledge, better education, and the gradual rolling back of ignorance."


Yeah, except for all that "Israel Lobby" libel coming out of the "top" universities of the nation. Good "progress" there.


Gays are very far from the only recipients of criticism and they, unlike Jews and Christians, for example, are actually extremely carefully protected from any suggestion of criticism, as this whole farce has demonstrated nicely. If they didn't like the reading, they should have made their argument, like adults, and not put on such a spectacle of public hysteria.
4.17.2006 6:00pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Oh brother. He's the ultimate "Crunchy Con."
4.17.2006 6:08pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Tony writes:

I spent a lot of time reading comments to the previous posting, and reading the first chapter of the book. Here's a telling quote:


To the person who's already been "converted" and is acting out the homosexual "lifestyle," it's deeply satisfying -- far beyond mere sexual pleasure -- to "initiate" an innocent person. Doing so serves to anesthetize his own conscience and assuage his inner conflict by destroying the innocence of another person, since that innocence tends to make him aware of his own corruption.



This is not a legitimate "alternative viewpoint" on homosexuality. This is blood libel. It is outrageous.
That was my view--until I saw the North American Man-Boy Love Association marching in the San Francisco gay pride parade, and was told by gay activists that the gay community was "split" about adults having sex with children, and saw a gay activist describe how the organizational meeting for the No On 9 campaign in Oregon spent two hours trying to come up with a solution to the problem of "Do we exclude NAMBLA affiliates or not"? More recently, I found out that excluding NAMBLA and other pedophile organizations largely destroyed the ILGA as a working gay rights organization.

Tony, I'm sure that you and most other gay men aren't interested in molesting little boys, and share my disgust. But don't pretend that there isn't a subculture in your community--one that until recently was regarded as perfectly legitimate by the activists--to molest little boys.

By the way, Tony, I understand that there is a sizeable body of "gay man seduces straight man" and "gay man rapes straight man" pornography out there. (At least, I get spam in my email inbox for it far more often than I would like.) Pornography is fantasy, and I would not assume that it is any more indicative of how the average gay man lives than straight porn is indicative of how I live. But there is obviously some market for this trash, so it must fulfill fantasies for someone.
4.17.2006 6:12pm
Stephen Quist (mail):
Hey Nobody Special, remember, the place is Ohio State UNIversity not Ohio State DIversity!
4.17.2006 6:16pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I agree that current notions about accepting homosexuality are new. So is the idea that black people have souls, and that Jews aren't actually posessed by the devil.
When do you think the idea that "black people have souls" was not accepted? That has never been in dispute in the United States, and I would startled to find that it was ever disputed in Europe. Maryland went ahead and defined slavery as a status not dependent on one's religion at the close of the 17th century precisely because some slave owners were reluctant to allow evangelists to preach to slaves for fear that they would become free. (See Archives of Maryland, 13:505.) No one argued that slaves lacked souls, and evangelists preaching the gospel to them shows that they were recognized as having souls.

It would help a bit, Tony, if you actually knew some history of the things about which you speak.
4.17.2006 6:24pm
Cornellian (mail):
Well, people have been using the labor of beasts as transportation for thousands of years, for starters -- horses were first domesticated and used for transport in what, 2000 BC? Meanwhile, there are people alive today who remember when automobiles were new; my grandfather's memoirs talk about his excitement as a child to see a single car in the streets of New York City. And by the time he was 15, his older brother (who's still alive) was a taxicab driver.

Yeah but people didn't always have the horse/buggy combo to ride in. If you go back far enough they didn't even have wheeled vehicles. I don't understand the logic behind picking a seemingly arbitrary point in time and deciding that the technology available at that moment is "traditional" and therefore the only technology you can use forever, no matter what other new stuff comes along.
4.17.2006 6:30pm
Cornellian (mail):
Tony, I'm sure that you and most other gay men aren't interested in molesting little boys, and share my disgust. But don't pretend that there isn't a subculture in your community--one that until recently was regarded as perfectly legitimate by the activists--to molest little boys.

Whereas there is, of course, absolutely no subculture of straight men who think it's ok to have sex with underage girls.

Ever Google the word "Lolita?"
4.17.2006 6:32pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Yeah but people didn't always have the horse/buggy combo to ride in. If you go back far enough they didn't even have wheeled vehicles. I don't understand the logic behind picking a seemingly arbitrary point in time and deciding that the technology available at that moment is "traditional" and therefore the only technology you can use forever, no matter what other new stuff comes along.
I'm not planning to replace the Corvette with a horse--but horses do have a few tremendous advantages over cars:

1. If I put two cars in the garage, they will always be two cars. If I put two horses (opposite sex, of course!) I will likely get another horse.

2. Horses can eat all sorts of food; cars a bit more finicky.

I agree that there is something a little bizarre about picking a particular style of dress or technology as "okay" but refusing to use newer technologies. Of course, someone may be riding a horse and buggy for reasons like #1 and #2 above. Somehow, I can't picture a Quaker with a sign that says, "No blood for hay!"
4.17.2006 6:34pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Why select the technology of 1850 over the technology of today, or of 1450, or 850 or 300 BC? Was there something particularly significant about 1850?

I've heard that Amish people use rollerblades in some places, because they use only simple machines (the wheels). The fact that the materials and construction of the boots are all based on late 20th-century technology is irrelevant, I guess.

But, no buttons. Weird.
4.17.2006 6:35pm
Kendall:
I'm sure that you and most other gay men aren't interested in molesting little boys, and share my disgust. But don't pretend that there isn't a subculture in your community--one that until recently was regarded as perfectly legitimate by the activists--to molest little boys.


I'm curious (and without conceeding any of Professor Cramer's points) if the professor recognizes that there is additionally a signifignat subculture in the straight community who views the molestation of teenagers by older female teachers as not the molestation that it is but merely a rite of passage in a boy's life. Certainly the gay community I think it can be said has thoroughly distanced itself from disgraceful organizations such as NAMBLA but Debra Lafave is still permitted to walk the streets without a word of criticism from the professor. Easier to find faults in others I suppose.
4.17.2006 6:36pm
Kendall:
I'm sorry, I correct myself. She's under 3 years of house arrest and 7 years probation. No jail time, no prison time, its little more than a slap on the wrist still, but its more than "walking the streets" I suppose and additional counts for her crimes WERE dropped with very little to stop her from reoffending much like Mary Kay Letourneau.
4.17.2006 6:40pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):


Tony, I'm sure that you and most other gay men aren't interested in molesting little boys, and share my disgust. But don't pretend that there isn't a subculture in your community--one that until recently was regarded as perfectly legitimate by the activists--to molest little boys.



Whereas there is, of course, absolutely no subculture of straight men who think it's ok to have sex with underage girls.

Ever Google the word "Lolita?"
How often do straight child molestation advocacy groups march in straight parades? Please identify a group that lost its UN observer status because they included such groups in their membership.

Yes, there are groups that are beginning to emerge from the sewers to argue that they have a right to have sex with underage little girls--and they are using the same arguments that homosexuals used to justify why the laws against this were unfair. Here's an example.

After nearly three decades of failed relationships and emotional discontent, Lindsay Ashford has finally found himself.

Since he was a child, Ashford has always had a deep attraction to young girls but never acted on his urges or knew they had a name.

It wasn't until five years ago, at the age of 30, that Ashford realized why his brief marriage and his countless flings across the United States and Europe always ended the same.

Ashford is a pedophile.

For most of his life, he has buried his emotions and masked his long-secreted attraction. It wasn't until recently that Ashford decided to throw off the shackles of pedophilia and shed light on what he says is a misunderstood "sexual orientation." Last year, he became perhaps one of the first pedophiles in the world to put his name and face on a Web site to publicly profess his love for children.

"I am tired of being forced into the shadows by society," Ashford said recently in an e-mail interview. "I have committed no crime, therefore there is no good reason that I should have to hide myself. As long as pedophiles continue to hide, there is no chance of them ever being accepted."

Ashford, an American expatriate living in the south of France, believes it is time the public learned pedophiles are different from child molesters in that they enjoy a romantic and emotional, but not always sexual, connection with children. He also believes it is time for a child rights movement that will give kids more say in how to live their lives.

Ashford, 35, an unemployed business consultant, is part of a pioneering group of pedophiles from around the world who also believe pedophilia is not a sexual disorder that can be cured by medication and psychotherapy. He believes, rather, that it is a sexual orientation with which he was born, and therefore, cannot deny.
Of course, the ACLU has taken up the cause, arguing that minors enjoy a "due process liberty interest" in having sex with adults. They acknowledge that the government may still regulate this right--but they draw the analogy to the government's right to regulate abortion. We know where the ACLU stands on that. And of course, they advanced this argument in a case where a 14 year old told an adult, "No."
4.17.2006 6:41pm
davod (mail):
Cornellian:

Presumably you would reject any books that suggest there is a sub-culture of straights who molest underage girls
4.17.2006 6:45pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I'm sorry, I correct myself. She's under 3 years of house arrest and 7 years probation. No jail time, no prison time, its little more than a slap on the wrist still, but its more than "walking the streets" I suppose and additional counts for her crimes WERE dropped with very little to stop her from reoffending much like Mary Kay Letourneau.
I would prefer considerably stiffer sentences than this, but at least it is still a criminal offense--and you won't find anyone defending her actions. (Watch Fox News, by the way--there's no shortage of anger about this in straight America.) Nor will you find advocacy groups for legalizing child molestation marching in straight parades.
4.17.2006 6:46pm
Bulgaroktonos (mail):
The characterization of the Amish as picking an arbitrary point of technology is inaccurate. They're highly selective about which technology they choose to use, but allow plenty of technology if they don't think it will threaten either their relationship with God or their community.

The button thing is based in the fact that once upon a time they were associated with the military. Still, some communities do allow buttons.
4.17.2006 6:47pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I'm curious (and without conceeding any of Professor Cramer's points) if the professor recognizes that there is additionally a signifignat subculture in the straight community who views the molestation of teenagers by older female teachers as not the molestation that it is but merely a rite of passage in a boy's life.
I've talked to men who were prepared to make that argument. Oddly enough, they tend to agree with you about why homosexuality isn't a bad thing. Hmmmm.

Look, I can remember being 15, and I suppose that if one of my female school teachers had come on to me, I might well have been flattered and quite prepared to follow through on it. (Wait! I'm thinking back to the female teachers I had--maybe not.) But that's true of a number of "adult" activities--teenagers often lack the good sense to recognize that these are age-inappropriate actions. (Alcohol, cigarettes, for example.)

But I've talked to young men who were that age, and had adult women pursue them for sex--and they agree that it was a damaging experience. It may not have been quite as destructive as it is for girls that age who are exploited by adult men, but those that I have talked to recognize that they were emotionally injured by it.
4.17.2006 6:53pm
Randy R. (mail):
I thought the reason that the Amish use hooks and not buttons are because buttons are considered 'fancy' whereas hooks are not. And supposedly, they reject anything fancy, and embrace all that is plain.

Also, the reason the Amish stop their technology from the late 18th century, not 19th as is commonly believed, is because the founding of their religion dates to that point. At least that's my understanding -- I could be wrong about it.

It would sorta be like any one who is a Christian must continue to wear sandals and togas.
4.17.2006 7:15pm
Steve in CA (mail):
Mr. Cramer, I'm sort of glad you're back. On the previous thread, I wondered why you think there's something wrong, and/or something "gay," (in the homosexual sense) about S&M, or bondage or whatever. I know it's off-topic for this thread, but I'm still curious. If I spank my wife, does it make me gay, or just disordered in some vague way?
4.17.2006 7:15pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'm curious (and without conceeding any of Professor Cramer's points) if the professor recognizes that there is additionally a signifignat subculture in the straight community who views the molestation of teenagers by older female teachers as not the molestation that it is but merely a rite of passage in a boy's life.

Having seen some of the pictures of the latest couple of female teachers to get charged with having sex with male teenage students, I have to admit my reaction wasn't exactly "throw away the key" so much as "if women who looked like they do had come on to me when I was 14 I would have considered myself the luckiest guy in the country." I suspect a huge percentage of guys feel that way. That doesn't automatically make it OK or necessarily entail that a male teacher and female teenage student situation has to be treated the same way, but if a huge percentage of guys feel that way, I think it's foolish to just completely ignore that in formulating public policy on the issue.
4.17.2006 7:18pm
Cornellian (mail):
I know it's off-topic for this thread, but I'm still curious. If I spank my wife, does it make me gay, or just disordered in some vague way?

I predict Mr. Cramer will say that if you spank your wife, that's ok but if she spanks you, then you're at least subconsciously gay.
4.17.2006 7:20pm
Cornellian (mail):
Cornellian:
Presumably you would reject any books that suggest there is a sub-culture of straights who molest underage girls


In a first year college course, yes I would reject such a book. If it's an upper class course in criminology or some such thing, then by all means, read all about pedophilia if that's the subject of the course, though even though I'd be prescribing actual scholarly works on the subject, not a paranoid screed by the nutcase who wrote "The Marketing of Evil."
4.17.2006 7:24pm
Cornellian (mail):
How often do straight child molestation advocacy groups march in straight parades? Please identify a group that lost its UN observer status because they included such groups in their membership.

Umm, do you think the lack of participation in "straight parades" might have something to do with the fact that there is no such thing as a "straight parade?"

As for any group losing its UN observer status over that, I'm not aware of any such group, straight, gay or otherwise. I try to pay as little attention as possible to the UN and attach no credence to anything it does. It's the last place I'd look for moral standards on anything.
4.17.2006 7:27pm
Bulgaroktonos (mail):
Randy, trying to say what "Amish" do and why is a tricky proposition, since various Amish communities embrace a wide variety of technology.

That said, in most if not all cases, I think it's wrong to say they "stop their technology." The leaders of each Amish community make an analysis of new technology, to determine whether or not it should be allowed. Thus, it is possible to live in an Amish community that allows electricity and many do. Strict rules on how that electricity can be used, however, are generally enforced.

For example, many Amish use twelve volt batteries they charge themselves for something like welding. The logic being that the twelve volt battery can not power more worldy items like TVs or radios, and by charging it yourself you are not introducing dependence on the outside world. I'm also of the understanding that some Amish use appliances powered by natural gas, to eliminate the need for electricity.
4.17.2006 7:28pm
Cornellian (mail):
Speaking of Mary Kay Letourneau (yeah we're drifting off topic, so sue me), I recall that the guy she was sleeping with is now and adult and still wants to be with her and marry her (or maybe they're already married). Should one attach any legal significance to that fact? What about if there's a child of the relationship? Does the child "have a right to a mother and a father?" (to borrow a lately popular phrase).
4.17.2006 7:31pm
Cornellian (mail):
This is going even further off topic, but in my defense, I've been unfairly deprived of the open Sunday thread so I feel semi-justified in putting it here.

I have in mind the case of Mr. Kevin Underwood. He's the guy charged with kidnapping a 10 year old girl and murdering her as part of some bizarre plan to eat her corpse.

He apparently has absolutely no prior criminal record though he posted something on a web page about having "dangerous fantasies" and said that he'd be locked up if people knew the kinds of things he fantasized about (I'm going from news reports, I have no direct knowledge of any of this).

I think it's pretty clear that in a free society, once an adult sets out to murder a child there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop that short of 24/7 surveillance of all adults and keeping all children under lock and key. Or in other words, not having a free society at all. We all just live from day to day with the risk that the person we're walking past on the street isn't someone who has decided to murder us because we know that the risk is incredibly low.

So what I'm wondering about is what, if anything could have been done to stop this particular event from happening. Assume the person who did it has no criminal record of any kind, no history of confinement for mental illness, but has said the things Mr. Underwood is reported as saying. Absent that strange behavior, I don't think there's anything that could have been done to prevent it. On the other hand, can you really lock someone up for life because of the sort of comments he's reported to have made? Does that mean nothing can be done?
4.17.2006 7:43pm
Elais:
Cornellian,

I think Mary Kay and that boy were married late last year, when she got out and he turned 18. She already has two children by him.

Clayton,

Still flying your anti-gay freak flag?
4.17.2006 7:50pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

On the previous thread, I wondered why you think there's something wrong, and/or something "gay," (in the homosexual sense) about S&M, or bondage or whatever. I know it's off-topic for this thread, but I'm still curious. If I spank my wife, does it make me gay, or just disordered in some vague way?
I'm a little mystified why someone would find violence and pain to be sexually stimulating. There are certainly straight people that enjoy that sort of thing. If that's what you and your wife want to do, it isn't the government's job to tell you otherwise. But I will object if you insist that the government grant you some special status because you or your wife get off on pain or humiliation.
4.17.2006 8:07pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

This is not a legitimate "alternative viewpoint" on homosexuality. This is blood libel. It is outrageous.
No, it isn't. Your analogy fails because the "blood libel" was the claim that Jews murdered Gentile children to make Passover matzoh--a claim that has absolutely no basis in fact.

On the other hand, there are groups that identify themselves as homosexual, until recently participated regularly in gay pride parades with NO opposition or disapproval, who believe that little boys under 10 are perfectly acceptable sexual partners for adult men. To claim that all or most homosexual men approve of this would be inaccurate--but to claim that there is a significant subculture of gay men that doesn't have a problem with it is fact.
4.17.2006 8:10pm
josh:
the real silliness of this post is the comparison of a demand for diversity that brings people of different backgrounds to an academic environment, and one that brings "diverse" people to academia whose sole purpose is to attack the existence of others.

When calls for diversity involve bringing different races or sexual orientations to campus, those different races and sexual orientations aren't premised on the attack of the non-diverse group. When this boob in the cart and buggy becomes part of the "diversity", the only goal, really, is to attack.
4.17.2006 8:19pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):


How often do straight child molestation advocacy groups march in straight parades? Please identify a group that lost its UN observer status because they included such groups in their membership.



Umm, do you think the lack of participation in "straight parades" might have something to do with the fact that there is no such thing as a "straight parade?"
There are plenty of parades which are mainstream, or identified with groups that are distinctly NOT gay. For example, the St. Patrick's Day Parades. Where are the straight pedophile groups marching in those?

By the way, since some of you think the negative comments in the book mentioned above is the equivalent of "blood libel," I have a question for you. Imagine if there was a Jewish parade of some sort--and one of the groups marching in the parade was the Gentile Children Matzoh Baking Company. Now imagine that they marched for a number of years in this parade with no noticeable opposition--and then, suddenly, they started getting booed by parade watchers. Would you not find this more than a little bizarre?

And yet that's EXACTLY what NAMBLA's accepted presence for many years in the San Francisco gay pride parade was--a group that was promoting behavior that would be properly considered an offensive stereotype of homosexuals as child molesters.

There is one difference: no one seriously thinks that there are Jews running around murdering Gentile children to make matzohs. We know that there are self-identified gay men (at least a few) who molest and rape children. Like this case.
And this one--an openly gay man and former Scoutmaster who admitted downloading child pornography and molesting boys.
4.17.2006 8:26pm
Cornellian (mail):
That was my view--until I saw the North American Man-Boy Love Association marching in the San Francisco gay pride parade, and was told by gay activists that the gay community was "split" about adults having sex with children

I don't know who these "activists" might be but does anyone else find it incredibly weird that Mr. Cramer drives to San Francisco to watch gay pride parades, then hangs around afterwards to talk to the participants?
4.17.2006 8:31pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Ashford, 35, an unemployed business consultant, is part of a pioneering group of pedophiles from around the world who also believe pedophilia is not a sexual disorder that can be cured by medication and psychotherapy. He believes, rather, that it is a sexual orientation with which he was born, and therefore, cannot deny.

People like that need to be placed in adults-only, closed towns. No children can visit. Child molestors, upon finishing their terms, would reside there. They could live a normal life in the confines of the township, and adults would be allowed to visit the town.

However, if the molestor/pedophile leaves the town, they are executed. Border guards shoot to kill. And perhaps the boundary should be mined.

If these people can't get through their heads that they need to stay away from our kids, what else can we do?
4.17.2006 8:41pm
Federal Dog:
"one that brings "diverse" people to academia whose sole purpose is to attack the existence of others."


What about Quakers makes you think their "sole purpose is to attack the existence of others?"
4.17.2006 8:42pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Cornellian,

Maybe he lived there at the time or was on a trip at the time? And, why should we care if he does?
4.17.2006 8:42pm
Steve in CA (mail):
Jesus, man. How does pointing to anecdotes of gay men abusing children prove anything? As I'm sure you're aware, and as Penn &Teller pointed out recently on "Bullshit" (no cite ready, I'll post one when I find it), gay men are no more likely than straight men to sexually abuse children. Of course, they're more likely to abuse boys, but just as obviously, straight men are more likely to abuse girls. You're right, they don't march in the St. Patrick's Day parade, but why does that matter?

Thanks for answering my question, though. I'm still curious as to what makes you think gays are more likely to get off on "pain or humiliation," as you put it. See any straight porn lately? The average straight person who's into such things might be quieter about it than the guys in the gay pride parade, but that's probably because they aren't in parades that revolve around their sexuality. They're already considered "respectable citizens," so why advertise their perversions? I think you'd be very surprised to learn how kinky our fellow straight people are behind closed doors, though.
4.17.2006 8:42pm
Cornellian (mail):
Cornellian,

Maybe he lived there at the time or was on a trip at the time? And, why should we care if he does?


I gather from his previous posts that he's never actually lived in San Francisco and while I don't care if he or anyone else watches gay pride parades, I find it weird (to put it mildly) that someone who regularly rants against gay people on this blog spends his time traveling to San Francisco to watch gay pride parades. How many straight guys do you know who do that, let alone hard core homophobes?
4.17.2006 8:47pm
Kendall:
Cornellian -
Having seen some of the pictures of the latest couple of female teachers to get charged with having sex with male teenage students, I have to admit my reaction wasn't exactly "throw away the key" so much as "if women who looked like they do had come on to me when I was 14 I would have considered myself the luckiest guy in the country." I suspect a huge percentage of guys feel that way. That doesn't automatically make it OK or necessarily entail that a male teacher and female teenage student situation has to be treated the same way, but if a huge percentage of guys feel that way, I think it's foolish to just completely ignore that in formulating public policy on the issue.


I admit I find your view (and other commenters in this thread's perspective on this topic) fascinating. If you wouldn't mind going off on this tangent just a little more, would you please tell me how the rape of a child who is under the law incapable of consenting to sexual relations with an adult such as Vili Fualaau who was 13 when he started having sex with Mrs. Letourneau (now Mrs. Fualaau) should be recognized as ANY different because the child enjoys the sexual experience and even approves of it? Surely the long recognized issue of consent is more important. WIthout consent there is rape.

The only alternative to that view I can see would be to drastically lower the age of consent for boys. What should it be?
4.17.2006 8:51pm
JohnAnnArbor:
I'm still curious as to what makes you think gays are more likely to get off on "pain or humiliation," as you put it.

Your reading comprehension needs work.
4.17.2006 8:51pm
OSU Grad Student:
Ohio State University officials on Friday cleared Scott Savage, a librarian at the Mansfield campus, of harassment charges filed against him based on his recommendation of an anti-gay book for a freshman reading assignment. A conservative group had threatened to sue the university if the charges were not dropped. They were dropped the same day that the group went public with its complaints about the way the librarian was being treated.

From InsideHigherEd.
4.17.2006 9:04pm
Steve in CA (mail):
John,

How so? In the last thread on this topic, Mr. Cramer went on at great length about the S&M thing as evidence of some of his theories about gays. He seemed to assume that such behavior is more commong among gays. And to assume that it's "weird," but he's answered that.

I just want to know if my perversions are going to make me catch The Gay.
4.17.2006 9:09pm
Kendall:
Btw, a question for Mr. Cramer - How was an openly Scoutmaster openly gay? I think what you meant was an extremely closetted, self loathing man with a homosexual orientation. What's the difference? The difference is that a man who isn't afraid of his feelings might have expressed them in a more civilized fashion than resorting to pornography.

And before you say "live-in partner!!!" I'd refer you to this joke my only point being that having a "live in partner" does not make a person openly gay. Afterall, lots of people who have roommates of the same gender happen to be straight.
4.17.2006 9:12pm
Cornellian (mail):
I admit I find your view (and other commenters in this thread's perspective on this topic) fascinating. If you wouldn't mind going off on this tangent just a little more, would you please tell me how the rape of a child who is under the law incapable of consenting to sexual relations with an adult such as Vili Fualaau who was 13 when he started having sex with Mrs. Letourneau (now Mrs. Fualaau) should be recognized as ANY different because the child enjoys the sexual experience and even approves of it? Surely the long recognized issue of consent is more important. WIthout consent there is rape.

The only alternative to that view I can see would be to drastically lower the age of consent for boys. What should it be?


Sentencing always reflects the specifics of the crime. A rapist who also stabs his victim 14 times gets a higher sentence than a rapist who doesn't. Although what Letourneau did was illegal (and should be) it's certainly not the worst scenario imaginable. In my earlier post I said I as a 14 year old would have been thrilled to have a good looking 30 year old woman come on to me (I actually had in mind a couple of more recent cases, not Letourneau, though she's not bad looking either). My point was not that this should make it ok or legal, but rather I was skeptical that there is always going to be trauma where the teacher is a female and the teenager is male. Lack of trauma isn't a reason to make it legal, but treating it as the more typical violent assault isn't justified. In the case of Mr. Fualaau he's now an adult and married Ms. Letourneau and they have two children. Is that not of some significance? Would it really be a better outcome for him to be raising their children alone because she's in prison for 20 years?
4.17.2006 9:14pm
mf24 (mail):
Do teen girls never consider themselves lucky to have the 'amorous' attention of male teacher?
4.17.2006 9:23pm
Kendall:
In the case of Mr. Fualaau he's now an adult and married Ms. Letourneau and they have two children. Is that not of some significance? Would it really be a better outcome for him to be raising their children alone because she's in prison for 20 years?


I would argue yes, it would be better for him to either raise the children alone or have them taken into state custody for their own sake.

I would say that it is damaging for the children to be part and party to a relationship based on a felonious meeting. I mean, when the kids get older surely they will be curious how "mommy and daddy met" and what will the response be? That the mother seduced and raped their then 13 year old father. Frankly I'm shocked that's even in question. there's no way those kids are going to grow up emotionally healthy because there is no way their parents are emotionally normal.
4.17.2006 9:49pm
Cornellian (mail):
Ashford, 35, an unemployed business consultant, is part of a pioneering group of pedophiles from around the world who also believe pedophilia is not a sexual disorder that can be cured by medication and psychotherapy. He believes, rather, that it is a sexual orientation with which he was born, and therefore, cannot deny.

Well I agree with him in part in that pedophilia, so far as I am aware, is not something that can be "cured" by anything and calling it an "orientation" or something else isn't going to change that. The misfortune for the pedophile is that the only sexual partners he is interested in are not capable of consenting to sexual activity with him. That's part of why I would consider pedophiles who actually act on their attraction to be in a different category from many other types of criminals - it's not something you can pay your debt to society and start a new life, like robbing a convenience store. I think that merits different treatment, something that permanently removes their ability to be a threat to children, since a prison sentence alone isn't going to do that once he's out.
4.17.2006 9:54pm
Randy R. (mail):
When Cramer says that "until recently" gay prides parades have featured NAMBLA floats, he redefines recently. I know of none that have had any of their presense for at least ten years or more. I know in the early days, like the 70s, they were there, and they were there for some pride parades throughout the 80s, but since the 90s? Nope. Unless you think 1985 qualifies as "recently," Mr. Cramer is off the mark.

But of course, the larger point is that Mr. Cramer merely wants everyone to hate gays. For some reason, he is absolutely fascinated by the sexual activities of a small minority of gay men, all the while ignoring the exact same sexual activies of straight people. No matter how much evidence we summon to say that most gay men have no interest in boys, it makes no tracks with him: Nope, in Cramerworld, all gay men are secretely lusting for boys. And apparently, we are not therefore deserving of any rights in our society.
4.17.2006 9:58pm
Cornellian (mail):
Do teen girls never consider themselves lucky to have the 'amorous' attention of male teacher?

They consider themselves lucky to sit in the front row of English class with the handsome, well dressed young English teacher fresh out of college who speaks passionately about Jane Austen and really seems to care about his students. He's everything their crude, unkempt, inarticulate and boorish male classmates are not. That's worlds apart from actually wanting to have sex with the guy.
4.17.2006 9:59pm
Cornellian (mail):
I would argue yes, it would be better for him to either raise the children alone or have them taken into state custody for their own sake.

I would say that it is damaging for the children to be part and party to a relationship based on a felonious meeting. I mean, when the kids get older surely they will be curious how "mommy and daddy met" and what will the response be? That the mother seduced and raped their then 13 year old father. Frankly I'm shocked that's even in question.


So it would be an improvement to lie to the kids and say Mommy died in the war? Would it be an improvement for the kids to have to visit Mommy in prison on the weekends and know that she's in prison because of a relationship that resulted in their birth? Yeah, the kids are going to have challenges to overcome, but putting their mother in prison for 20 years is not, to me, an intuitively obvious way of improving the situation where the father, once an adult, marries her and still wants to be with her.
4.17.2006 10:03pm
Kendall:
They consider themselves lucky to sit in the front row of English class with the handsome, well dressed young English teacher fresh out of college who speaks passionately about Jane Austen and really seems to care about his students. He's everything their crude, unkempt, inarticulate and boorish male classmates are not. That's worlds apart from actually wanting to have sex with the guy.


What if the relationship IS in fact sexual? Is it wrong because its with an older man and a young girl? Even though she apparently consents just as much as a young boy does? where's the difference? (yes, I know the story is in Britain, it certainly does happen in the US however)
4.17.2006 10:14pm
Cornellian (mail):
My point that I made in an early post is I doubt I would have been traumatized had a good looking older woman come on to me when I was 14 and I suspect the vast majority of guys feel the same way. Hence I'm not sure it makes sense to treat that the same as the situation where the genders are reversed where trauma might be much more likely. That's an empirical assertion and I don't have statistics to quote, but I suspect far fewer adult women would consider it a good thing to have had sex at 14 with a 28 year old man compared to the percentage of guys who, looking back would consider it to have been a good thing to have sex at 14 with a 28 year old woman.

I'd also distinguish between situations where the older person is 1) your own teacher 2) another teacher in the same institution 3) another teacher in some other institution or 4) an adult who isn't a teacher. Obviously the first situation is worse than the fourth in terms of the degree of misconduct by the adult and possibly also in terms of risk of harm.
4.17.2006 10:26pm
Kendall:
That's an empirical assertion and I don't have statistics to quote, but I suspect far fewer adult women would consider it a good thing to have had sex at 14 with a 28 year old man compared to the percentage of guys who, looking back would consider it to have been a good thing to have sex at 14 with a 28 year old woman.


Or, Nambla would argue, a 14 year old boy having sex with a 28 year old man. And then the question becomes why the boy's spoken consent is given more weight than the girl's even though neither is capable of consent. It seems a clear double standard that you wish to impose. That a boy can sometimes consent to sex with an adult so the adult should be given a lower sentence but that a girl underaged can never given spoken consent because of a perceived "risk of trauma" even if she ISN'T traumatized.
4.17.2006 10:38pm
Tony (mail):
I wrote: This is not a legitimate "alternative viewpoint" on homosexuality. This is blood libel. It is outrageous.

Clayton Cramer wrote:No, it isn't. Your analogy fails because the "blood libel" was the claim that Jews murdered Gentile children to make Passover matzoh--a claim that has absolutely no basis in fact.

Similarly, there is no factual basis for the claims of "conversion", "recruitment", or "initiation" into homosexuality that this book makes. I have never, not even once, met ANYONE who claimed that they were "converted" by any sort of initiation experience, nor have I ever seen an account of this in writing. I have never known a gay man to seriously think he could "convert" a straight man either, although it is certainly the subject of many a jest.

I'm sure you could find some self-hating nutcase that would fabricate stories along those lines. But I haven't even seen that. Every single credible account I've ever heard, read, or seen of any person dealing with their sexuality confirms the idea that it is an innate tendency that emerges, on its own, in just the same way as heterosexuality does, save for the denial and confusion caused by societal disapproval.

I have, indeed, known a few gay men who were molested in their youth. Generally, this interferes with their discovery of their sexuality, and often delays their "coming out" by many years, because the awfulness of the experience leads them to think that a happy gay relationship is impossible. If there were a correlation between being gay and having been molested, it would almost certainly be because pedophiles recognize the emerging sexuality of gay children and see them as easier targets. This is precisely the opposite causality of the "recruitment" model.

(Personally, I believe this because of my own attitudes as a child. I was starting to get pretty hot for older men by age 9 or 10, and although I didn't know exactly what I was hot for, I'd surely have been easier to "groom" than a straight boy. Just as a boy who was molested by an adult female is sometimes cast as the "luckiest kid in the world", I was already fantasizing about such things, and might have rather enjoyed it at the time, although I think it would have ended in a total train wreck. And I suppose if it had happened, Clayton would written it up as a "cause" of my sexual orientation. But he'd have been wrong.)
4.17.2006 10:54pm
gus3 (www):
Only on the Internet would an article about Free Academic Inquiry and Quakers be turned into Homosexuality and Pedophilia and Amish.

It's enough to make me glad I have a low-traffic blog.
4.17.2006 11:07pm
Tom Tildrum:
Regarding LeTourneau, one question that perhaps ought to be evaluated in considering whether to release her to allow her to raise her family is: will she in fact commit to that young man and those children as a family, or will she decide instead to pursue another 14-year-old boy? Certainly this would be a serious issue for a male pedophile, but maybe the psychology of a female pedophile is different.
4.17.2006 11:20pm
dk35 (mail):
Well, if I were going to add an irrelevant tidbit to this story, I would have picked that fact that Ohio now expressly treats gay people as second class citizens in its own Constitution. But, alas, it's not my blog.
4.17.2006 11:35pm
Cornellian (mail):
Well, if I were going to add an irrelevant tidbit to this story, I would have picked that fact that Ohio now expressly treats gay people as second class citizens in its own Constitution. But, alas, it's not my blog.

Actually, how's that working out? I read recently that a couple of Ohio courts had declared certain demestic violence legislation unconstitutional under the new "defense of marriage" amendment, since protecting the unmarried victim was recognizing a status analogous to marriage. One of the decisions expressly declined to express any opinion on the wisdom of enacting the particular amendment.

Personally I wonder what's going to happen when the heirs of a deceased man realize they can use that constitutional amendment to challenge the law that gives the woman he lived with for 35 years but never married a claim on the estate analogous to that of a wife. That would seem another likely target for this amendment.
4.17.2006 11:59pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'm sure you could find some self-hating nutcase that would fabricate stories along those lines. But I haven't even seen that. Every single credible account I've ever heard, read, or seen of any person dealing with their sexuality confirms the idea that it is an innate tendency that emerges, on its own, in just the same way as heterosexuality does, save for the denial and confusion caused by societal disapproval.

It is also the position of the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuality is innate and not caused by childhood experiences.
4.18.2006 12:01am
Cornellian (mail):
And then the question becomes why the boy's spoken consent is given more weight than the girl's even though neither is capable of consent.

For the same reason that sex with a 17 year old isn't as morally culpable as sex with a 10 year old, even if neither is legally capable of consent. If it is true as an empirical proposition that a teenage boy is not traumatized by sex with a 28 year old woman but a teenage girl is traumatized by sex with a 28 year old man, then that doesn't mean they shouldn't both still be illegal (they should be illegal) then that should be taken into account in sentencing. I'm not saying that it is true as an empirical proposition. I'm saying that I don't think I would have been traumatized if, as a 14 year old boy, an attractive 28 year old woman had approached me wanting to have sex and that I suspect a large majority of guys would take the same view. Since I don't think women would have the same view (certainly not to the same percentage) this may not be a case where strict gender neutrality is appropriate.
4.18.2006 12:06am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Randy R.: I do not share Clayton Cramer's views, though I'm not completely confident of some of his critics' assertions, either, for instance that "gay men are no more likely than straight men to sexually abuse children. Of course, they're more likely to abuse boys, but just as obviously, straight men are more likely to abuse girls." I've tried to get statistics on some such matters, but they are often unavailable; I tend to be more skeptical and uncertain on such matters than is either side in the debate.

But as best I can tell from mainstream press accounts, as of 1992 NAMBLA had "long been a small but very controversial presence in [San Francisco]'s gay pride parade" (L.A. Times, Mar. 10, 1992), and was "expected to participate" in it in 1992 (S.F. Chronicle, June 27, 1992). You may well be right that it hasn't been seen in such parades since then; but it sounds like it was around the S.F. parade until 1992.
4.18.2006 12:21am
JDNYU:
Interestingly, wikipedia has a picture of NAMBLA marching in an antinuclear demonstration. Clearly it's not reasonable to conclude that all (or even a non-trivial percentage) of those who oppose nuclear power/weapons support homosexual pedophilia based on that. The same is true of past participation in gay pride parades in San Francisco.

Moreover, whatever the rates of sexual abuse by gay or straight people, I think it should be clear to anybody that the vast majority of both groups are not pedophiles nor do they accept pedophiles.
4.18.2006 2:02am
Ubertrout (mail) (www):
Clayton: As far as I understand it, it was not necessarily explicitly beleived that slaves had souls. Source: Ariela Gross, "Pandora's Box: Slave Character on Trial in the Antebellum Deep South," in in Paul Finkelman, ed., Slavery and the Law (Madison, Wis.: Madison House, 1997), 291-327.
4.18.2006 2:38am
Kyda Sylvester (mail):
Lindsay Ashford is right about one thing: pedophilia is most certainly not a "sexual disorder that can be cured by medication and psychotherapy". But then he didn't mean it in quite that way, did he.
4.18.2006 4:08am
Ken Arromdee (mail):
To get slightly back to the subject, remember that the complainants said that the book made them feel unsafe. Assuming that a Quaker probably won't make someone feel unsafe, that increases the chance that they were lying through their teeth about their private feelings in order to trigger the harassment policy.
4.18.2006 10:21am
Randy R. (mail):
It isn't so much whether the person feared from the Quaker. Studies have shown that when you up the anti-gay rhetoric, more gay bashing occurs. For instance, Maine recently approved a state wide referendum to give equal rights to gays, but the Christina Coalition and other groups fought it with some nasty ads, and so on. Violence against gays increased.

Whenever some authority figures pick on a minority, violence against that minority increases. And it's not just gays.

So if I were a gay student at that college, and I know that all my peers are reading this tripe about how evil gay people are, I would feel a little unsafe too.

Let me give you another story. A teacher in Michigan I know had a gay son. When the teacher tried to talk about gay students in his class, and get them to be more accepting of gays, one student said, rather seriously, "If God says gays should be killed, then why can't we kill them?" The teacher was so chilled by this comment, he moved his family out of town to another place that would thought would be safer for his child.

Please don't underestimate the power of religion or other authority figures to egg people on to violence. It happenes all across the world, you know.
4.18.2006 11:21am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Cornellian writes:



I don't know who these "activists" might be but does anyone else find it incredibly weird that Mr. Cramer drives to San Francisco to watch gay pride parades, then hangs around afterwards to talk to the participants?
You know, you don't have to actually go to the parade to see it. Lots of people film these events.

And yes, you get a chance to talk to homosexuals in places other than San Francisco.
4.18.2006 11:46am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Jesus, man. How does pointing to anecdotes of gay men abusing children prove anything? As I'm sure you're aware, and as Penn &Teller pointed out recently on "Bullshit" (no cite ready, I'll post one when I find it), gay men are no more likely than straight men to sexually abuse children.
Evidence? I've looked for data on this, and there isn't a lot. The most bluntly pro-homosexual textbook I found asserted, "Actually, most child molesting is done by heterosexual men to little girls; 80 percent of child molesting is in that category, and only 20 percent is homosexual (McCaghy, 1971)." [Janet Shibley Hyde, Understanding Human Sexuality, 4th ed., (New York, McGraw-Hill Co.: 1990), 422.] It seems rather odd that Hyde's book, published in 1990, neglects to cite any of the more recent works on the subject, most of which indicate more homosexual molestation. Even at 20%, that would mean that homosexuals are 4x-6x overrepresented among child molesters.
4.18.2006 11:50am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

How so? In the last thread on this topic, Mr. Cramer went on at great length about the S&M thing as evidence of some of his theories about gays. He seemed to assume that such behavior is more commong among gays. And to assume that it's "weird," but he's answered that.
It is deviant behavior; most people don't get sexual pleasure from this sort of thing. That doesn't make it wrong in itself; but still, what would be your reaction to someone that enjoyed eating a good meal--but only while being whipped or burned? Would you assume that this was a natural or healthy association? Or would you look for evidence that something bad had happened to this person in their youth?

I just want to know if my perversions are going to make me catch The Gay.
It doesn't seem too likely. But I do recall a very interesting posting in the Internet newsgroup soc.motss where a guy explained that he had turned gay because there were more opportunities for him as an S&Mer being gay than being straight. Since straights outnumber gays more than 20:1....

There's no shortage of gay leather bars out there. I'm sure that if you dig a little, you can find some straight bars that cater to men and women that like to inflict pain and humiliation on each other. Let me know when you have a comparable list of such places. I'm not holding my breath.
4.18.2006 11:56am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Randy R. writes:


But of course, the larger point is that Mr. Cramer merely wants everyone to hate gays.
No, I do not. I do not want the society to treat homosexuality as a minority group, with all the claims to judicial activism that minority groups have enjoyed.

For some reason, he is absolutely fascinated by the sexual activities of a small minority of gay men, all the while ignoring the exact same sexual activies of straight people.
I do NOT ignore those same sexual activities of straight people. Read my blog--you will find plenty of condemnation of straight adults pursuing children for sex, and of the widespread sexual promiscuity that is spreading HPV to a generation of young women, with devastating results. You will find gobs of criticism of straight people who divorce, causing enormous heartbreak and emotional damage to kids.

No matter how much evidence we summon to say that most gay men have no interest in boys, it makes no tracks with him: Nope, in Cramerworld, all gay men are secretely lusting for boys. And apparently, we are not therefore deserving of any rights in our society.
I have repeatedly pointed out that most gay men are not pedophiles, but that there is a significant subculture that either are pedophiles, or are prepared to make excuses for them.
4.18.2006 12:00pm
Steve in CA (mail):
Thank you, Dr. Cramer, it's good to know that my slightly kinky tastes are pretty unlikely to make me catch the Gay. I was a little worried about that.

I think, though, that your attitude toward people with different tastes (and God, I sound like some freaky S&M person, which I'm totally not) is pretty revealing. You don't like gays because you think two dudes having sex is icky. Fine. I think it's sort of icky too, but I don't spend much time thinking about it. Perhaps you should try spending less of yours.
4.18.2006 12:30pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Thank you, Dr. Cramer, it's good to know that my slightly kinky tastes are pretty unlikely to make me catch the Gay. I was a little worried about that.
Why? I thought that there was nothing wrong with being gay!

I think, though, that your attitude toward people with different tastes (and God, I sound like some freaky S&M person, which I'm totally not) is pretty revealing. You don't like gays because you think two dudes having sex is icky. Fine. I think it's sort of icky too, but I don't spend much time thinking about it. Perhaps you should try spending less of yours.
Believe me, I would prefer not to think about it at all. But homosexual activists spend a lot of time forcing me to think about it, with continual lawsuits demanding that the government approve of what they do. There's an astonishing amount of kinky propaganda in places that you don't expect, too.

A few years back, when I was still living in the Bay Area, my son and I were watching TV. This was a broadcast channel, at 7:30 PM. At first, it seemed to be a magician. He's doing traditional sort of "sleight of hand" stuff--and then, the traditionally costumed female assistant strips off the outer layers--and she's wearing a leather suit with spikes, and chains the magician to a table, and pulls out a whip. At that point, I turned it off. What sort of person would consider this appropriate for broadcast TV?

Just as I moved out of the Bay Area, radio stations were beginning to carry ads for penis enlargement surgery. At first, I thought that these were some sort of bad taste humor--but they weren't. They were dead serious.

Why do I think about these things? Because the media in the Bay Area insisted on soaking me in them.
4.18.2006 2:33pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Randy R. writes:


It isn't so much whether the person feared from the Quaker. Studies have shown that when you up the anti-gay rhetoric, more gay bashing occurs. For instance, Maine recently approved a state wide referendum to give equal rights to gays, but the Christina Coalition and other groups fought it with some nasty ads, and so on. Violence against gays increased.
Did violence increase? Or did reporting of it increase?

Of course, there's a lot of "homophobic" violence that turns out to be false reporting. Like this "victim" at Claremont-McKenna. Here's a list of other faked hate crimes.
4.18.2006 2:38pm
Kendall:
Professor Cramer -
A few years back, when I was still living in the Bay Area, my son and I were watching TV. This was a broadcast channel, at 7:30 PM. At first, it seemed to be a magician. He's doing traditional sort of "sleight of hand" stuff--and then, the traditionally costumed female assistant strips off the outer layers--and she's wearing a leather suit with spikes, and chains the magician to a table, and pulls out a whip. At that point, I turned it off. What sort of person would consider this appropriate for broadcast TV?


And this is the fault of "homosexual activists" because...? It sounds like a fairly typical (and appalling) straight male fantasy. I mean, I know quite a few gay men and they've never mentioned a taste for women wearing leather and spikes. Maybe you've met different gay men than me though.
4.18.2006 9:01pm
Elais:
Clayton,

I wish you would stop using the words 'homosexual activist'. They are activists. Activists can be gay or straight. Being gay is not a requirement to be an activist fighting for GLBT rights. I am heterosexual, and I am something of an activist for gay rights, but I'm not a heterosexual activist. Do you understand?

I get penile enlargement emails all the time and I'm female. Everyone seems to be interested in big dicks. Gay, straight, male/female. That there are radio ads, billboards, magazine ads, advertising penile enlargment isn't exactly breaking news and pathetic arguement against gays.
4.19.2006 2:03am
Randy R. (mail):
Nope, actual violence increases. Just ask the FBI. They keep the stats.
4.19.2006 2:04am