Skip to content

ACADEMIC ASSAULT on Michael Jackson. THE GUYS who recommended CARL TOMS’ BOOK. Part 1

May 21, 2010

This post is a continuation of two earlier posts made about Carl Toms’s filthy book here and here. The problem is that initially I was fool enough to believe the university scholars who recommended the book as a serious study.

When the truth about Carl Toms and convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll being one and the same person was revealed I was ashamed by my folly but as someone with a university background was still at a loss as to why some university professors would speak of the filth about Michael Jackson by Carl Toms or convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll as ‘recommended reading’.

Many other people were similarly misguided by their reviews. I found some of Michael’s haters exclaiming in sheer excitement: ” I am ecstatic that no less than FIVE renowned academics also heartily endorse it! Renowned academics? They are actually some of the biggest names in their fields!:  http://www.boychat.org/messages/1206133.htm

So I decided to have a look at the ‘renowned academics’ and never regretted it. This small study told me more about Tom O’Carroll’s educated and powerful friends than anyone could ever expect. The preferences and interests of these guys reminded me of a proverb “Tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are”.

So let me introduce here the guys who recommended Carl Toms’s book or Tom O’Carroll’s friends:

Tom O’Carroll’s friend # 1.

JAMES R. KINCAID

He spoke of the book about Michael Jackson as “the most engaging, informed, and generous-hearted book we have on the subject or are likely ever to have”.

University of Southern California says the following about their scholar:

“James Kincaid has been a professor in the English Department at USC since 1987. Kincaid’s earlier work in Victorian literature and culture has yielded to publication in cultural studies, most recently in the current cultural practices of eroticizing children and instituting elaborate scapegoating rituals to disguise what we are doing. He regularly teaches classes in criminality/lunacy/perversion, in age studies, in censorship, and in other areas.”

Why should a literature professor teach a class in ‘criminality, lunacy and perversion at his department and why these subjects should be taught at all (unless it is a medical or psychiatric college) is completely beyond my understanding, but let us go on with our little study:

“James Kincaid has written a number of books including “Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture, 1992 and others. Additionally Professor Kincaid has been published in several journals and has been active on Boards and Committees in his field”.

Interesting to see what that erotic child book is all about… Ralph Underwager, of Institute for Psychological Therapies, Northfield, Minnesota says in his review of the book:

  • The author .. specifically treats pedophilia as it is presented in Victorian texts and then in the current child sexual abuse system.  He claims the separation into child and adult with the child asexual and the adult sexual is an error.
  • He presents children’s sexuality as inherent, complex, rich, and rewarding to children.
  • Though not explicitly stated, the book in a subtle way appears to also be an apologetic for pedophilia.  It openly poses the question about child-adult sexual contact being potentially positive, but does not give an answer.  The reader is left to infer that the answer Kincaid gives is, yes, sexual contact between a child and an adult can be positive for the child.  Perhaps because the author chooses to mute and soften this argument, it is not clear.
  • This is a provocative book that will make some people very angry.  It will also cause many readers to exclaim, “Now I understand why this system seems so wrong!”

Well, what isn’t clear to the first reviewer is self-evident to the second one:

  • “James R.Kindcaid’s latest book is not really a book about Victorian culture so much as it is a book about our culture. Kincaid touches upon some Victorian literature, of course… but his subject is “child-loving,” or, not to put too fine a point on it, pedophilia.
  • The topic itself is jarring at first, unsettling and perhaps more than a little suspect. Colleagues of mine who saw the book wanted to know just why I was reading it: then, after glancing through it, they wanted to know just why he had written it. Such concern plays right into Kincaid’s hands and reinforces one of the central arguments of his book: that we are ALL – yes, dear reader, even YOU and I – closet pedophiles of sorts, and we mask our fascination through denial and abhorrence.
  • To teach this conclusion Kincaid draws upon literature, psychology, personal anecdotes, legal documents, journalism, and medical and child-rearing manuals… The erotic possibilities of Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan have of course not gone unnoticed, but Kincaid manages to turn both works inside out, demonstrating that they are little more than texts about “child-loving”.
  • Such pedophilic aspects of Victorian literature can make us squirm uncomfortably, but, Kincaid asserts, the Victorians, with their Little Nell and Paul Dombey, were more honest about their “child-loving” than we are.”

So once a pedophile – always a pedophile, or a man who sees pedophilia ‘signs’ everywhere he looks and where you least expect to find it. And what about this fresh and engaging idea of everybody being closet pedophiles? If that is the case then Michael Jackson should naturally be among ordinary people like us …

The idea of everyone being a pedophile is promoted by the author in his other book with an amazing title “Erotic innocence: the Culture of Child Molesting” http://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Innocence-Culture-Child-Molesting/dp/0822321939/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top which prompted one of its readers to leave the following comment on Amazon.com:

  • The most ominous thing about this book, though, is that Kincaid purports to be one of but a few people who can cut through the hysteria with truth, when in fact he adds to it a hundredfold by saying that everyone is a pedophile and that (nearly?) every work of art involving children eroticizes them. Furthermore, his solution is not for people to wake up from the “story” and see things as they are, but to instead construct new “stories,” i.e. to delude themselves into believing something else. This, he has the gall to call “rational.”
  • “I believe most adults in our culture feel some measure of erotic attraction to children and the childlike; I do not know how it could be otherwise,” he writes, in a statement which summarizes the book’s logic. Sorry, Mr. Kincaid. I need a lot more than your testimony of faith to believe such a fantastic story.”

Isn’t it amazing that people like James Kincaid were allowed to write their stuff quite openly and for so many years too, and nobody noticed it? While innocent Michael Jackson was trashed by the media, authorities and public opinion for all these years and absolutely for nothing. They were trashing the innocent while the guilty were thriving!

From the official university site we also learn that professor Kincaid is in charge of “What Matter to Me and Why” program at USC. I wonder what kind of guidance he gives to his students there? The site promotes it as “an informal dialogue where students are encouraged to talk about important, personally charged questions in an open, mutually respectful way”.

Is my guess correct about what they discuss at their sessions?  Does he teach his students that they are also closet pedophiles by “drawing upon literature, psychology, etc.”? No doubt he does as judging by what USC says about the people working on this program, “they have a great deal to pass on in terms of worldly wisdom, moral guidance, and sources of spiritual strength”.

*  *  *

Tom O’Carroll’s friend # 2.

THOMAS K.HUBBARD

His review of Thomas O’Carroll’s book says it “shows that the only real ‘abuse’ of children that occurred was not from Michael’s bedroom horseplay, but parental manipulation of kids for financial gain. As such, this book gives us a profound cultural critique of received assumptions about childhood innocence, pedophilic ‘power’, and parental goodwill.”

This sounded very much all right to me and it was actually this guy who misguided me most. So it was very interesting to get familiar with the scholar….

Please, meet Thomas K. Hubbard.

He is Professor of Classics at the University of Texas, Austin and the world’s leading authority on Greek Pederasty. He received his doctorate from Yale in 1980 and taught the first course in Gay & Lesbian Studies at his university in 1992.

Well, despite his face and general demeanor the man is indeed the main authority on Greek Pederasty, though the question whether this subject should be taught at all still remains, of course…  I didn’t know that Gay & Lesbian courses were also taught at American universities, especially at their Classical departments.  The whole idea seems ridiculous to me – same as, for example, “Heterosexual love” or “Perversion” to be taught as special subjects. Sorry, I forgot, as regards guiding students on ‘perversion’ we have the first scholar – James Kincaid…

Thomas Hubbard’s main publications are quite enlightening as to his personal interests and preferences:

–        GREEK LOVE RECONSIDERED (New York: Wallace Hamilton, 2000), edited collection.

–        HISTORY’S FIRST CHILD MOLESTER: Euripides’ Chrysippus and the Marginalization of Pederasty in Athenian Democratic Discourse, in J. Davidson, F. Muecke, and P. Wilson

–        PEDERASTY AND DEMOCRACY: The Marginalization of a Social Practice. In T. K. Hubbard, ed.

–        SEX IN THE GYM: ATHLESTIC TRAINERS AND PEDAGOGICAL PEDERASTY, Intertexts 7 (2003)

–        THE VARIETIES OF GREEK LOVE, The Gay & Lesbian Review 11.3 (2004)

Greek pederasty reconsidered? What for? Pederasty and Democracy going hand in hand? Why so? And what the hell is Pedagogical Pederasty? The author says about it:

  • As abhorrent as teacher-student relationships may be to some modern constructions of sexual morality, as institutionalized today in the ethical codes of virtually every school and university, we must recognize that the bugbears of sexual harassment and child molestation did not possess the same valence in antiquity; pederasty and pedagogy were intimately linked. The educational historian H. I. Marrou was forthright in acknowledging the pederastic basis of advanced education in all spheres:  Pederasty was considered the most beautiful, the perfect, form of education.
  • Throughout Greek history the relationship between master and pupil was to remain that between a lover and his beloved: education remained in principle not so much a form of teaching, an instruction in techniques, as an expenditure of loving effort by an elder concerned to promote the growth of a younger man who was burning with the desire to respond to this love and show himself worthy of it.

Okay, so now we know due to Thomas Hubbard that ancient Greeks regarded pederasty as sheer poetry. But I also know that as a result of these criminal morals the ancient world eventually became so corrupt that it fell into ruins under the attack of so-called barbarians.

It’s a miracle and pure ‘coincidence’ of course that the almost only survivals of the Ancient world were Christians whom the no less educated Romans used to feed to lions to the frenzy of the blood-thirsty mob and whose chastity (initially very genuine) eventually took the upper hand over the corrupt morals of ancient Greeks and Romans – even if they are being reconsidered now and regarded as ‘beautiful’ by some of the present scholars…

Whatever is the case with Dr. Hubbard I have a question to all of you – would you like your children to be educated by this man? Even if you haven’t seen the photo?

*  *  *

Tom O’Carroll’s friend # 3.

WILLIAM ARMSTRONG PERCY III

It is a pity that the true names of Carl Tom’s friends are now disappearing from the internet. At present you can still find them only at a boychat site I quoted above. This is the sole place where I saw the endorsement from Professor William A.Percy III, University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Amazon.com was somewhat shy about him and now I even know why. The man is so odious that no one in their right mind would ever cite this monster’s opinion. However in case of a book about Michael his comment is not as bad as one would expect it from a scholar with his reputation:

  • “This fascinating, closely reasoned brief argues that Michael Jackson never harmed much less traumatized any of his favorites. He cuddled with, French kissed, and sometimes caused to ejaculate but never penetrated boys from eight to fourteen.”

Thank you, Professor for your kind words and expertly opinion – your comment is extremely valuable as you’re surely a specialist in the activities like that. The only small addition will be that Michael Jackson did not do even the above little things you’ve mentioned. Contrary to real molesters he couldn’t bring himself even to say this word and think the things you’re demonstrating so boldly at your tell-all site (where you call yourself Bad Bill): http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

The site is said to be a “website for the fallen, the ostracized, the scorned, the despised, the damned — ideas and people alike — those not mentioned in polite society, not invited to or published in respectable places”. Frankly, Bill, I couldn’t bring myself to go as far as that “Men and Boy” post in your Pederasty section, but what I’d seen before that was quite enough for me to get some idea of your preferences and turbulent activities, as well as the zeal with which you are championing your cause.  With men like you your people are not far from a triumphant victory…

For those who haven’t seen you, here you are in all your glory:

William Armstrong Percy, III (born 10 December 1933) – professor, historian, encyclopedist, and gay activist. In 1968 he moved to the University of Massachusetts at Boston. He joined the fight for equal rights for gays in 1982 and began publishing in gay studies three years later.

One of his main publications is naturally “Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece” (University of Illinois Press, 1996). A review from Mark Anthony Masterson, Ph.D. student in Classics at the University of Southern California (must be James R.Kincaid’s student) says about it:

  • “There is much to praise about this book. Percy has provided a description of the institution of Greek pederasty that is needed. The scholarly writing up to now has mostly been for specialists. Percy’s book, in contrast, speaks to a wider audience without condescension. It could also be used as a text in a gay studies course”.

A perfect textbook for gay studies and pederasty? The one which would be perfectly suitable for the ‘Perversion’ course taught by James R.Kincaid or ‘Gay/Lesbian Studies’ taught by Thomas K. Hubbard?

Another comment from Gerald Erickson of University of Texas on Percy’s book says that” the view offered is the proposition that pederasty was the primary causal factor in producing the Greek Miracle’. This book does present institutional pederasty from a positive perspective and may consequently help to counteract decades of censorship and squeamish avoidance”.

Prof. William A.Percy confirms the idea at his site http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php/Pederasty_and_Pedagogy_in_Archaic_Greece:

  • “Pederasty was from the beginning both physical and emotional, the highest and most intense type of male bonding. These pederastic bonds were responsible for the rise of Hellas and the “Greek miracle”: in two centuries the population of Attica, a mere 45,000 adult males in six generations, produced an astounding number of great men who laid the enduring foundations of Western thought and civilization”.

Thank you, Bill that you’ve explained to us that all good comes from pederasty only and that you’re helping us to overcome our natural revolt towards the subject. Your book must be a great read according to readers’ comments at Amazon.com – some of whom are practically squeaking with excitement at the new opportunities pederasty is opening to them:

  • “Male love was very much a part of Greek culture — and William Percy boldly argues that pedagogical eros, the relationship between adolescent youths and their older mentors, helped to create and sustain the “Greek miracle”. This is a very thorough and scholarly book”.
  • “The author clearly differentiates “pederasty” (sex between postpubescent youth and adult males) from “pedophilia” (sex between prepubescent boys and adult males), noting the evidence showing that pedophilia was not a condoned behavior in Archaic Greece. This work is an excellent place to begin for anyone who wishes to trace how previous civilizations not only tolerated, but in some instances even encouraged, male-male relationships until the purveyors of the Judeo-Christian model vigorously proselytized their beliefs and shunned the behavior out of the mainstream”.
  • “If this book is anywhere near true, men have been missing out on a lot of action for almost two thousand years. Mind boggling if true”

The ‘Judeo-Christian’ model which has been mentioned here reminded me of how amazingly easy ‘this model’ can deal with authors like William A. Percy.  Jesus Christ told us that the true worth of a tree is known by its fruit – so if reading Percy’s book boggles the mind of a reader by the exciting prospect of doing something that has been an unspeakable crime for thousands of years and which is being joyfully regained now, you can pass your verdict on the author with an almost mathematical accuracy:

This historian and other ‘scholars’ are inviting us to Hell which has a gate wide open to it.

For continuation please go here.

You may be interested to know that at least two of the above professors are extremely sympathetic to the NAMBLA cause.


75 Comments leave one →
  1. goodie permalink
    May 17, 2013 6:06 am

    People are allowed to publish such books?and they are professors??And a man is trashed because he says that he shares his bed with children in a complete innocent,friendly and fatherly way?? i can just quote one thing human stupidity is infinite

    Like

  2. yana permalink
    June 17, 2011 12:55 am

    Thanks for the info on the professors. It explains a lot.

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    May 6, 2011 8:47 pm

    Well David it’s you and me it looks like.

    Like

  4. May 6, 2011 6:58 pm

    I agree with Helena and Ares. David that book doesn’t need to be scanned and passed around. Just unnecessary.

    Like

  5. Carm permalink
    May 6, 2011 3:18 pm

    I got this update from MJTruthNow. I’m glad to see the distributor took immediate action once they received information about the author’s background.

    NEWS UPDATE:

    PLEASE STOP CONTACTING Daryl Willcox Publishing.

    Daryl Willcox Publishing has dropped Carl Toms’ book Dangerous Liaisons from its site. The company was unaware of Toms’ and company’s true identity.

    The firm is doing the right thing by immediately dropping any reference to this book, so let’s not deluge them anymore.

    We will now focus on remaining alert to this book and continue to inform prospective publishers, distributors, or PR outfits about it ONLY IF NECESSARY.

    Good work to all who wrote or called to inform them!!

    Thank you!

    MJTruthNow

    Like

  6. ares permalink
    May 6, 2011 2:32 pm

    David i think it would be wise to not distribute a book writen by a convicted pedophile whose purpose is to perpetuate a propaganda about sick and criminal desires.

    Like

  7. May 6, 2011 12:50 pm

    “But I’ll scan it in a few days and send it to anyone who wants it!”

    David, please don’t!

    Like

  8. May 6, 2011 12:48 pm

    “Weren’t you guys the ones that wrote the first definitive piece on Carl Tom and outed him?”

    Teva, thank you for thinking so well of us. In fact, it wasn’t our team who discovered Carl Toms true identity – the situation was a reverse one. I wrote an angry post about Carl Toms when I first got familiar with the Amazon press release about his book, but then someone pointed out to me that certain university professors were recommending it as a serious study and I began doubting what I had written and amended the post.

    Later on someone found out that Carl Toms was a convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll and this made me have a closer look at the “professors” who recommended his book and misguided me so terribly. Now I don’t regret it happened this way because the research took us into totally unexpected quarters as a source of pedophilia promotion – universities, academic “studies”, etc.

    Now I understand why pedophiles say that their cause is supported by “prominent scholars” – it won’t surprise me if we find further proof that all these guys form one and the same pack of people, which might also include Victor Gutierrez as a suspect NAMBLA member.

    Like

  9. May 6, 2011 10:26 am

    “the publishing company you mentioned belongs to Carroll”

    The publishing company belongs to Carroll??? There must be big money behind this man!

    Like

  10. May 6, 2011 10:20 am

    “The press release has been withdrawn”

    Thetis, I apologize for missing all the news. Thank you for taking immediate action and contacting the Estate. They are probably the ones who made the distributors to remove the release. However I AM TERRIBLY WORRIED about the plans of Thomas O’Carroll and his supporters – they say they are relaunching the book and are surely planning further action to promote it.

    Actually every new year before the anniversary of Michael’s death they start it all over again. The previous time was also May 2010 – and I am not saying that all this time they’ve been completely idle. They are looking for ways to get Michael’s fans to their side and appeal to their loyalty to Michael – QUOTE: “I believe truly loyal and thoughtful fans will welcome the opportunity to confront all the evidence in depth, the better to understand Michael‟s extraordinary life and talent.”

    Bastards! They are trying both to poison and disrupt Michael’s fan community and receive acceptance in the society – acting against all of us like a sort of a virus.

    And the same old gang of professors is again unashamed to promote the book of a convicted pedophile!
    QUOTE: When the book was under attack, historian Professor William Armstrong Percy III leapt to its defence, proclaiming it “a work of genius”. He had been one of five scholars who had earlier given enthusiastic pre-publication endorsements.
    Another of them, cultural guru Professor James R. Kincaid, described Michael Jackson‟s Dangerous Liaisons as, “The most engaging, informed, and generous-hearted book we have on the subject or are likely ever to have.”
    Donald West, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Criminology at Cambridge University, said the author’s “vivid and insightful commentary is a joy to read”.

    If I were a parent of a student taught by these “eminent” professors I would immediately take the young man as far as possible from the place where they are giving their lectures…

    Like

  11. May 6, 2011 9:48 am

    Dial it’s a promo video for the fantasy book

    Like

  12. Dialdancer permalink
    May 6, 2011 5:01 am

    I am told there is a video which comes from a legitimate source, it is of Michael and Mack, it is suppose to be a promo video introducing the book.

    Like

  13. May 5, 2011 11:43 pm

    This convicted pedophile et al advocating their filthy cause under an academic banner have the gall to claim that most adults in our culture share their tastes and on top dragging MJ`s name into it.Was it with his consent?Apparently that is an unknown concept to them.
    Then a bit of Greek;the language has 2 words for love with different meanings,eros and agape. Wonder if these “academics” know the difference.
    I´m happy to know that some action will be taken against them.

    Like

  14. lcpledwards permalink
    May 5, 2011 11:37 pm

    @ Lynette
    I have the book, and there are no photos whatsoever included. Just 624 pages of pure smut!

    And I haven’t even had time to read it because I’m so involved in other research projects at the moment. But I’ll scan it in a few days and send it to anyone who wants it!

    Like

  15. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 11:20 pm

    @David
    Did you ever finish the book?

    Like

  16. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 11:13 pm

    VindicateMJ & administrators should feel very proud. Weren’t you guys the ones that wrote the first definitive piece on Carl Tom and outed him?

    Like

  17. Suzy permalink
    May 5, 2011 3:22 pm

    From Twitter:

    UNITED4MJLEGACY Fans United 4 MJ
    @danielgriffiths i just visited your website. So your firm was behind O’Carrol’s press release. Can you tell us why it was withdrawn?

    danielgriffiths Dan Griffiths
    by UNITED4MJLEGACY@
    @UNITED4MJLEGACY We are a distribution service; no connection with publisher or book. Removed release as we considered it inappropriate.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:41 pm

    They did the same think last year when I contacted Brian Oxman. The book was always a self published book . I am going to ask someone that bought the book if it has photos in it of young children. If it does we can involve the authorities as well.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    May 5, 2011 11:07 am

    Great that they removed the “press release”. But we need to be on alert. They will certainly find other outlets to advertise their filth.

    Like

  20. May 5, 2011 10:36 am

    Megan the Estate is involved big time and the publishing company you mentioned belongs to Carroll.

    Like

  21. May 5, 2011 10:35 am

    The press release has been withdrawn

    Like

  22. Megan permalink
    May 5, 2011 3:10 am

    @thetis7

    That is wonderful news! Thank you for the update and getting in touch with the Estate.

    General Question: In order to get in touch with the publishing company to stop the publishing of this book should we get in touch with Dangerous Books, INC.? I would think having the Estate involved and fans e – mailing the publishing company they would back off like the last publishing company did.

    Thanks for the help!!

    Like

  23. Suzy permalink
    May 4, 2011 6:32 pm

    @ Thetis

    That’s good news!

    Like

  24. May 4, 2011 6:12 pm

    Suzy, I just got word back from the Estate. They know and they will do everything is legally in their power

    Like

  25. Suzy permalink
    May 4, 2011 4:28 pm

    That’s great, Thetis.

    I hope the Estate know what they are dealing with and where this whole thing is coming from.

    Like

  26. May 4, 2011 3:22 pm

    Suzy I have already contacted the Estate about this

    Like

  27. Suzy permalink
    May 4, 2011 3:11 pm

    They are trying to publish the book again!

    http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=64394

    Like

  28. Paulie permalink
    July 21, 2010 3:27 am

    I threw up a little in my mouth. Unfortunately, a few of us had contact with at least three of these individuals in a forum (as I stated elsewhere on this site). It was quite odious. We managed to ferret out their true identities and get them off the forum. Anyway, what rubbish. Smother it in academia and truss it up with $10 words and it’s still a slobbering adult molesting a child. If you are a pedophile you only see children as sexual and sexualized beings for your pleasure and you see it everywhere. You think an 8 month old is coming on to you. To their sick minds they cannot imagine someone looking at a baby and only see beauty, not a sexual object. They have no interest in children unto themselves as individuals who have the right to remain untouched by some quivering, liver-spotted, wrinkled disgusting old man who should learn to masturbate.

    Like

  29. Lynette permalink
    June 13, 2010 12:30 am

    First let me say this: Until 1994 when the DSMIV was written the DSM III and the DSMIII-R did classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. I will provide a link to the background of this book so you can further educate yourself on what I am about to write. This manual is used in the US only not worldwide for diagnosing mental disorders. Some of the information written here is written by people from other countries like say Russia for instance which would explain that it may very well still be classified as a mental disorder in that country. The entire world is not as politically correct as we are here nor are they as progressive in their acceptance of homosexuality. It is not prejudice if they do not believe the same as you if they are from a different culture. Secondly pedophilia is still classified as a mental disorder and when a person is diagnosed with it they are classified as mentally ill and sexually dangerous requiring special forensic hospitalization. I know I still do a monthly rotation as a Psychiatric nurse at a state hospital. So Sean if you would like to let me know who you are and where you live I can refer you to a professional that can help you.
    Otherwise do not state on this forum that pedophilia is just a different lifestyle choice it is actually a disease and it involves criminal behavior. Here is the link for the information on the book I was referring to so you can read for yourself.

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=vindicatemj.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fvindicatemj.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F17%2Fcarl-toms-book%2F%23comment-310

    Like

  30. sean permalink
    June 12, 2010 6:57 pm

    your prejudice is showing, and it lends credence to Tom’s position.

    Like

  31. Autistic One permalink
    June 7, 2010 9:40 pm

    VindicateMJ, your belief that homosexuality is an illness is not fact. It is simply your belief. It used to be my belief, until I started using my mind to question it.

    If I had a son and he turned out to be gay, I would be unconditionally accepting and supportive of him during the years he needed it most. The only reason I went through what I did as a child/teen/adolescent was because I heard only negative word of mouth from my peers. Naturally, I feared that my parents would not accept me if I came out, so I waited until I was 18 to tell them, so that they effectively had no legal right to do anything to me. Luckily, they were more supportive than I ever could have dreamed.

    With regards to your statement that my parents will never have grandchildren, you made the mistake of making a baseless assumption. I am not an only child; I have two younger sisters who are now adults, and I also have a half-sister from one of my parent’s first marriage. She has four children of her own, which effectively makes my parents grandparents.

    I cannot stand your attachment to the idea that I am doing wrong by not knocking up a woman to give my parents grandchildren. My family will continue on through my sisters. And by the way, who ever said I was obligated to provide my parents with grandchildren? Maybe I’m not meant to through natural means! Stop speaking as though it is my obligation to help a woman bring more babies into an already overpopulated world. That is my decision, and I had no one influencing me to make it.

    Like

  32. June 7, 2010 6:32 pm

    it is a surprise to me too. This blog seems to be living a life of its own and sending me and everyone else in the directions it willfully desires. The talk about homosexuality has definitely taken us away from the subject of vindicating Michael, but I still hope that there is a reason for everything – even for this off-topic…

    I AM trying to get it back on the track, but there is so much to say that it is the choice which makes it most difficult.

    Like

  33. Skeptic permalink
    June 7, 2010 6:15 pm

    Wow vindiactemj you are slighly wacky, its no wonder that people think alot of michael jackson fans are nutty. Its a real shame though because your blog was pretty good – especially your earlier articles, but then you started to put in your unfounded opinions/assumptions that you have no way of knowing if its true.

    Like

  34. June 7, 2010 5:13 pm

    Autistic, if you had a son, would you like him to go through all the suffering you went through during adolescence? I know you wouldn’t, so you’ll probably understand why I feel sorry for you.

    If you had a son and he turned homosexual can you imagine the parents’ frustration at the impossibility to ever see their grandchildren? Probably adopted, but not their own? If you can, you’ll probably understand why I feel sorry for your parents – even more than for you.

    Feeling sorry is not the same as feeling hate or thinking someone inferior, and I don’t know why you think I am guilty of both. In my opinion homosexuality as a deviation from normal development and is therefore an illness, psychologically very painful, but not necessarily a psychiatric one – it might be something to do with hormones (as I said earlier) or other factors which are unknown at the moment.

    Taking offence at it being called an illness is as ridiculous as taking offence at somebody having pneumonia. Homosexuality is of course much more serious (I’ve heard that it sometimes starts as an aftereffect of certain diseases in early childhood – like German measles, which trigger off the process for some boys), but then it is all the more important to do the necessary research and find an antidote to it at an early stage – rather than pretend it is perfectly okay to be ill with it.

    I do think that both sides should stop being hysterical about it and look at the problem seriously without flattery, lies or political agenda. In a way it is good that homosexuality is no longer in the closet and everyone can talk openly about it. What can be treated should be treated and regenerated into heterosexuality, what can’t – should be accepted, but PLEASE don’t impose it on others as a norm and don’t turn it into a fashion. This is what I absolutely cannot agree to.

    And I am not a Roman Catholic – my church is Orthodox Christian. I am not a Conservative and far from being fanatical – in fact I am not even a churchgoer though believe in God with all my heart and soul. He is my only hope, support and my only guide.

    God bless you.

    Like

  35. Autistic One permalink
    June 7, 2010 12:38 pm

    VindicateMJ, you may only have been saying that you felt sorry for us, but your actions spoke louder than your words with the citing of your sources, not to mention your assertion that homosexuality is an illness. Sorry, but your actions and your words have spoken the truth about you.

    The only reason I was spitting rage at you is that I am tired of the rampant homophobia that people like you perpetuate. I did that in self defense. As I told you in a previous comment, homophobia nearly destroyed me, as did my Roman Catholic upbringing. When I come across a homophobe such as yourself, especially one who considers us gays inferior, I am compelled to defend not only myself, but my friends, my boyfriend, and every other person who may be gay. It is also incredibly liberating, invigorating, and cathartic to do what I did.

    I am out of the closet and I am staying out. And I will do what I need to so that other people, young and old alike, can safely come out of the closet without fearing for their lives, or hating themselves. I will not let people like you continue to perpetuate your hatred and intolerance.

    Like

  36. June 7, 2010 7:33 am

    Autistic One, which of us is “spreading the message of hatred and intolerance” I really don’t know. The ONLY thing I said about homosexuality is that I feel sorry for these people – nothing else. Is it reason enough for you spitting so much rage in my face?

    All the other information is coming from researchers whose findings were completely ignored when psychiatric or law decisions about homosexuality were taken. They (as well as the ‘esteemed’ Alfred Kinsey) have found that homosexuality is not stable and can change.

    Okay, so YOU don’t want to change anything – but there are probably others who would. But now they are not even given a chance for treatment. As homosexuality is no longer considered an illness, the research is evidently not made at all. Do you think this is fair?

    And do you think it fair and equal when the other side – heterosexual people – cannot express their opinion at all and the only choice we can make is keep silent about it? Don’t you notice that it is you who is combating me, not the other way about?

    Instead of being so belligerent you could at least agree that the research should go on and if someone wants to amend their homosexuality they should be given a chance to do that.

    As to the extinction – yes, people involved in homosexual relations cannot bear children on their own and that is why their family will not have any continuation – and we even don’t need any brains for coming to such a conclusion, do we? The only thing homosexuals can do is adopt a child born by a heterosexual couple.

    It is up to the society to decide which is a better road to take – minimize chances for children to be left unattended by their biological parents or leave things the way they are to give homosexuals a chance to adopt a baby.

    As to the means of controlling the population – yes, it is true – this was one of the reasons why it was used in ancient Greece. If someone wants it this way no one can stop them from taking such a decision. The only thing to bear in mind is that one day these people will be eventually replaced by those whose sexual habits are predominantly heterosexual.

    The law of Nature, you see…

    Like

  37. Autistic One permalink
    June 6, 2010 5:16 am

    Vindicatemj, I don’t believe *any* of the nonsense you’ve vomited. As a gay young adult male, I believe that your so-called “researchers” are obviously pandering to the radical right-wing Christians of this country. The “evidence” that you’ve parroted goes completely against what I know about homosexuals.

    I must take issue with your assertion that what you call “the truth” is “more loving” and will help me “live a healthier, happier, and more fulfilled life.”

    How dare you make such a baseless assumption that your beliefs will benefit me. I’ve got news for you: since I was a child, I *never* had an emotional or physical attraction to females. During puberty, I *never* had the desire to copulate with a female. The only reason I ever tried to court females while growing up was because I was indoctrinated to believe that it was the *right* and *true* thing to do. Well, I’m telling you now that for some people (those who are gay), courting someone of the opposite sex is *NOT* the right or true thing to do.

    I also must take issue with your assertion that the homosexual lifestyle is comprised entirely of “scientifically documented serious promiscuity, inability to maintain sexual fidelity, partner abuse and psychological and medical illnesses associated with the lifestyle.”

    I’ve got news for you: *not* all homosexuals are promiscuous or unable to maintain sexual fidelity, or any of the other nonsense that your so-called “researchers” are pandering. Those who have submitted to research do *not* represent the entire homosexual population. I know this because I myself am *not* promiscuous or unable to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, there is *no* partner abuse in my relationship. And furthermore, while I do battle with depression and anxiety, I can assure you that they are *not* the result of my “lifestyle.” Number one, I have a developmental disability on the autism spectrum: Asperger Syndrome, which, due to a neurological re-wiring of my brain, renders me extremely susceptible to situational/circumstantial depression and anxiety. Number two, I am still battling over 18 years of religious and homophobic indoctrination. I am *proud* of who I am as a person, and who I love. Whether you like it or not, God *did* make me this way. He wouldn’t have made me this way if He didn’t have a reason.

    Guess what: there *is* no hope of change, for me, for my boyfriend, or for any of the many gay friends of ours. And you’ve heard it directly from the proverbial horse’s mouth. I’ve been in therapy since I attempted suicide at age 23. Now, at age 27, I am in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship. Any depression or anxiety I may still possess is the result of my psyche fighting off the religious and homophobic indoctrination with which I have been poisoned over the years of my growth and development.

    I don’t believe for one second that I would have been in any danger if I had come out as an adolescent. I *never* possessed a need to take drugs, nor did I possess a notion of anal sex. Even when I learned about anal sex, I was disgusted at the thought of it and vowed never to engage in it, at least not without protection, and not without a mutually faithful monogamous boyfriend.

    I’ll tell you this: if I *ever,* *EVER* had sex with a female for the sake of “liv[ing] in accordance with [my] designed natures” as you so boldlyassert, I would be psychologically scarred for the rest of my life. This has happened to a very close gay friend of mine. To this day, he is completely repulsed by the sight of female nudity. So don’t you dare tell me that I am not living in accordance with my designed natures. Only one person can know that, and that is *ME*. Do not attempt to claim that you or any of your so-called “researchers” knows otherwise because they *DO NOT* know me!

    You further claim that “research shows — and activists admit — that it is unrealistic to expect male couples to be faithful.” Well guess what, my dear: those so-called “researchers” have not interviewed the right people. I told you before: *not* every homosexual person is unfaithful. I am not unfaithful, and neither is my dear boyfriend. I’ve got news for you: I am a very loving, caring, kind, sensitive, and gentle soul. I would *never* cheat on the person I love. Not that you or any of your so-called researchers would ever know that because you’ve been irrevocably indoctrinated against using your brain.

    Sure there may be some bad homosexuals out there, but they *DO NOT* represent the feelings of the entire homosexual population. That would be like saying that just because some men rape women, *all* heterosexual men must have a tendency to rape women. Don’t you see the flaws in your logic? I didn’t think so.

    So, Vindicatemj, you and your so-called “researchers”, as well as your homophobic religious cronies, can go about spreading your message of hatred and intolerance as much as you want. But I assure you that we gays will always be there to combat it. The more you push someone, the more they will fight back. My advice to you and all of your friends is to stop pushing us back into the closet because we will fight even harder to get out!

    Like

  38. May 28, 2010 12:54 am

    Troubador withdraws Michael Jackson book
    Troubador has ceased distribution of a self-published book written about Michael Jackson. Following new information that came to light on 18th May, the book’s distribution was immediately halted. The company has taken legal advice on its position, and may take further action.

    There had been an ongoing, concerted campaign by some MIchael Jackson “fans” against the book’s release, but the company stresses that this ‘campaign’ is not the reason why distribution was halted.

    http://www.troubador.co.uk/news_detail_troubador.asp

    Like

  39. shelly permalink
    May 27, 2010 11:18 pm

    “Well, immoral actions can be spread like a disease.”

    I didn’t want to start a fight here that was not my point. There is nothing immoral in sexuality unless you force someone else to do it and sorry but I don’t think it’s up to other people to judge anyone else on that.

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    May 27, 2010 9:46 pm

    Helena, I like the fact that you take the time and effort to research everything so well! A very interesting read! Thank you!

    Like

  41. Suzy permalink
    May 27, 2010 9:08 pm

    Shelly,

    “The other guy spreads nothing that was something he had in himself.”

    Well, immoral actions can be spread like a disease. People can talk each other into doing the wrong things. It happens all the time – not just in the area of sexuality. They can be made a fashion too. Like David Bowie said: he wasn’t attracted to men, he just did it because it was fashionable in certain circles.

    And I don’t agree that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. Even mother nature tells us the two are not equal.

    Like

  42. May 27, 2010 8:47 pm

    Guys, our whole attention should be paid now to fighting Carl Tom’s book – so the main space for a post has been given to Danae and her message. Please read and take action!

    However it is also top important to clarify a few things about homosexuality – especially since I’ve just found out that the same ‘scholars’ who promoted homosexuality some 30 years ago are now supporting pedophilia by using the same argument – that this type of behavior is ‘natural’ for the world of animals (Richard Green, friend #4 of Thomas O’Carroll).

    So I am now taking this COMMENT opportunity to disprove some of the most common myths about homosexuality told by gay activists disguised as scientists. See what really serious researchers say about these myths and pass the information on to your gay friends, please:

    HOMOSEXUALS WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY!
    Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D.:”The argument that homosexuality is biologically determined, and is therefore not amenable to change, continues to find little support in science”.

    Friedman and Downey, Columbia University: “At clinical conferences one often hears…that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true….

    Dr. Kenneth Zucker: “Sexual orientation is more fluid than fixed”.

    Even the gay-activist researchers themselves whose studies have been used by the media to trumpet the message that homosexuality is biologically determined do not support the “born that way” myth.

    Simon LeVay: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work”.

    Yet the national organizations continue to offer the “born that way” argument as a guide for law and public policy. Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, a prominent member of the American Psychiatric Association and historic ally of gay activists, provides even more insight into how activism has replaced science in the national organizations:

    “There’s a gay-activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There is nobody to give the other viewpoint…There may be a few people…but they don’t talk”.
    http://www.narth.com/docs/essentialist.html

    But when they do talk this is what they say:

    FACTS, NOT FLATTERY, ABOUT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION

    Who helps you: someone who fails to tell you the truth or someone who does tell you the truth? The former may make you feel better; they may soothe and flatter, but the truth is more loving. It will help you live a healthier, happier and more fulfilled life.

    Defenders and promoters of homosexuality try to cover up the scientifically documented serious promiscuity, inability to maintain sexual fidelity, partner abuse and psychological and medical illnesses associated with the lifestyle. Also, they tell persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) that “It’s genetic,“You were born that way,” or worse “God made you gay.”

    If homosexuality were genetically predetermined, then identical twins would virtually always have the same sexual orientation. One major study’s analysis of data from the Australian twins registry found that if one male identical twin had SSA there was only an 11 per cent chance that the other would too.

    Persons with SSA are told that there is no hope of change and that trying to change will make them worse. Numerous studies have found that SSA is not a stable condition. The majority of those who experience SSA during adolescence find the problem has disappeared by the time they reach 25 without any intervention. Those who seek therapy or spiritual counseling can achieve various levels of freedom from SSA.

    Adolescents with SSA are told that “coming out” will solve their problems. In fact, it puts them at risk. In spite of intensive AIDS education, young men of any age who have sex with men are at extremely high risk for infection with STDs, including HIV/AIDS, involvement with alcohol and drugs, in particular crystal meth, and depression. The combination of drugs and high risk sex has reignited an STD/HIV epidemic among men having sex with men.

    While homosexuality is claimed to be a normal variant of human sexuality and that persons with SSA are as psychologically healthy as the rest of the population, research refutes this generalization. Four recent, well-designed studies have found that persons with SSA have significantly higher rates of psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, and suicidal ideation than the general public.

    Gay activists insist that all these problems are caused by society’s negative attitudes, but the problems are just as prevalent in extremely tolerant countries, such as the Netherlands and New Zealand. Thus it should be no surprise that when we live in accordance with our designed natures, we are happier and healthier. Blaming society for the myriad difficulties faced by persons with SSA prevents self-knowledge and healing.

    Research shows that gender identity disorder in childhood puts a child on the path to SSA, but defenders and promoters of homosexuality oppose treatment of these children, even though that intervention can eliminate childhood isolation, anxiety, and depression.

    Public school teachers in many areas of the country are teaching children that homosexual behaviors are genetically determined and are as healthy as heterosexual and marital relationships. Recently, high school students have been disciplined by school administrators for refusing to attend/support homosexual promoting events, such as a day of silence, while at the same time being refused permission to conduct heterosexual support events. (EQUAL RIGHTS?)

    Promoters of “gay marriage” claim that same-sex relationships are just like marriages and therefore deserve all the benefits of marriage, but research shows — and activists admit — that it is unrealistic to expect male couples to be faithful.

    Homosexual marriage promoters also tell judges or legislators that research proves there are no differences between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by their biological married mother and father. The studies they reference are, virtually without exception, internally and externally invalid. In many cases the authors have misreported their own findings. Given the extensive literature on the damage done to children through father or mother absence, it is deceitful to suggest that purposely and premeditatedly depriving a child of a mother or a father will not have consequences for that child.

    While truth can stand on its own, distortions must be protected with further distortions. Homosexual activists make false accusations of “hate” and distort religious teachings. They ignore the truth about anger and “hate”. For example published research demonstrates a high prevalence of partner abuse in homosexual relationships, but instead of addressing this serious problem, activists are attempting to use hate crimes legislation to harass and punish those who challenge the ethics of their behavior, sexual and otherwise.

    Who really helps people with SSA, children and families: those who speak the truth to them or those who attempt to distort the truth?

    Signatories
    Dean Byrd, PhD
    President elect of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
    Michelle A. Cretella, MD
    Board of Directors, American College of Pediatricians
    Joseph Nicolosi, PhD
    President of NARTH
    Richard Fitzgibbons, MD
    Scientific Advisory Committee, NARTH
    Dale O’Leary, author of The Gender Agenda, co-author of Homosexuality and Hope and a soon to be published book on marriage.
    George A. Rekers, PhD
    Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science Emeritus
    University of South Carolina School of Medicine
    Robert Saxer, MD
    President, Catholic Medical Association
    Philip M. Sutton, PhD
    Scientific Advisory Committee, NARTH
    Gerard van den Aardweg, PhD Netherlands
    Scientific Advisory Committee, NARTH.
    Joseph Zanga, MD, FAAP, FCP
    Past President, American College of Pediatricians

    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/facts_not_flattery_about_same_sex_attraction/

    CANADIAN PSYCHIATRIST FINDS MAJOR FLAWS IN A.BOGAERT’S STUDY OF GAY BROTHERS

    July 5, 2006
    Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert’s study which claims to have found a biological basis for homosexuality has been reprinted worldwide. Canadian Psychiatrist Joseph Berger, M.D., is a Distinguished Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association observed:

    Bogert’s study is rubbish. It should never have been published. I suspect it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and are essentially ignorant of the literature.

    The first major glaring flaw is that the author starts by presuming “evidence” for some sort of biological causation of homosexuality, and what is the author’s evidence? All the first references are to people such as Hamer, LeVay, Bailey, etc.,[gay activists] whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people.

    They remind me of Bailey’s quote some years ago following the paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry on the adopted-away Minnesota twins, which found zero correlation for women and one pair for men, and that pair was twins with recognized developmental disturbances who found each other in their twenties and whose relationship was with each other. On the basis of that one bizarre exception the report concluded that there was strong evidence for a biological genetic component!

    Absolute utter rubbish.
    http://www.narth.com/docs/bogaert.html

    THE ANIMAL HOMOSEXUALITY MYTH
    by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

    In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
    1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
    2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
    3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

    Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises, the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

    If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

    There Is No “Homosexual Instinct” In Animals
    Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

    — Animal “Filicide” and “Cannibalism”
    Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals” from their instincts:
    Most female cats can switch between “play mode” and “hunt mode” in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of “hunt mode” may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the “hunting” instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue….

    Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.

    — Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior
    Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ.

    Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.

    Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
    Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

    Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

    Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

    Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

    — “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist

    In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
    Although homosexual behavior is common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

    Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

    Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such.

    Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual.

    It Is Unscientific To “Read” Human Motivation
    And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior

    Homosexual activists often “read” human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science.

    Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

    We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals ….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”

    Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation.


    Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man

    Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior reason that if it is natural and good for animals, ,it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

    Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, cautions:

    For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes. The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality.

    That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:

    … man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.

    To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

    GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN MISUNDERSTANDS ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR
    by Dr. A. Dean Byrd

    Presidential hopeful Dr. Howard Dean was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying that, “From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people,” and “The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to homosexuality.”

    Dr. Dean’s theological comment, while sounding compassionate, is a rather naive view of homosexuality. Homosexual behaviors are fraught with serious mental health and physical consequences–all of which are well documented in scientific literature. One doesn’t have to consider homosexuality to be sinful to understand that such behaviors places its participants at risk for mental/physical illnesses.

    In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, “Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.” Dr. Dean should be asked WHY he thinks homosexual behavior should be encouraged when this behavior so clearly endangers men’s lives.

    We have learned at NARTH that homosexuals can be helped through therapy to overcome unwanted homosexuality, with its elevated risk of both emotional and physical disorders.

    Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the psychiatrists who led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the diagnostic manual, is now convinced that not only can homosexual behaviors be eliminated but that some individuals can experience a change in sexual orientation from predominantly homosexual to predominately heterosexual through the help of competent therapy. He has recently published a study that found that a homosexual orientation can be modified.

    Dr. Dean’s second statement is even more problematic than his flawed theological views on homosexuality. To say that there is “overwhelming” evidence that homosexuality has a “significant, substantial genetic” component is just the opposite of what the latest scientific research says.

    In fact, even gay-activist researchers themselves, who have been desperately seeking a genetic element to homosexuality, have come up empty. Several of these researchers have openly admitted their failure.

    According to Hamer, “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

    Homosexual philosopher Camille Paglia is quite blunt in her assessment of the “born gay” theory: “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. …”

    http://www.narth.com/docs/dean.html

    IN THEIR OWN WORDS:
    GAY ACTIVISTS SPEAK ABOUT SCIENCE, MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY

    A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH
    Shirley E. Cox, DSW
    Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.

    May 27th, 2001.

    The Salt Lake City Tribune has published several articles in recent months regarding homosexuality. While many of the articles are well-written, they do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, the social advocacy of many of the articles seems to suggest a greater reliance on politics than on science.

    What is clear is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

    Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland write,
    “We never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants” (1994).

    Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:

    “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

    Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure[AFTER a person enters into a homosexual relationship!!!].

    “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain” (1997).

    Is Change Possible?
    Is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it amenable to change? The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association had a chilling effect on research. The APA decision was not made based on new scientific evidence – in fact, as gay activist researcher Simon LeVay admitted, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality” (1996).

    In reviewing the research, Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. (1996). Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up (1984). Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%.

    What is more intriguing is the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University. Dr. Spitzer was the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights. His current study focused on whether or not individuals can change. His preliminary conclusions are:

    “I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news… I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained” (2001).

    What was most interesting was Dr. Spitzer’s response to a journalist who inquired what he would do if his adolescent son revealed his homosexual attraction. Dr. Spitzer said that he hoped that his son would be interesting in changing and would get some help. It is interesting to note that Dr. Spitzer has received considerable “hate mail” and complaints from his colleagues because of his research.

    Comparative Levels of Mental Health: The Data
    What is particularly disturbing is the lack of attention paid by the media to the research evidence reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry which concluded that gay, lesbian and bisexual people were at higher risk for mental illness, specifically suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder..

    While one might suggest that society’s oppression of homosexual people may be the cause of such mental illness, this may not be the case. In fact, this study corroborated the findings of a well-conducted Dutch study, and Dutch society is a very gay-affirming and gay friendly society.

    Bailey offered other possible reasons for significantly more mental illness in homosexual individuals:
    “Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” or another possibility is “that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”

    Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:

    “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm… Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction… No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait….. Helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim…. Currently gays insist that homosexuality is ‘not a choice,’ that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort.” (1994).

    Finally, lesbian activist and biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University offers some interesting insight. Referring to the “born-that-way” argument, she states,

    “My interest in gender issues preceded my own life changes. When I first got involved in feminism, I was married. The gender issues did to me what they did to lots of women in the 1970’s: they infuriated me. My poor husband, who was a very decent guy, tried as hard as he could to be sympathetic. But he was shut out of what I was doing. The women’s movement opened up the feminine in a way that was new to me, and so my involvement made possible my becoming a lesbian.

    A Moral-Philosophical Issue, or a Scientific Issue?

    Gay-activist researcher Dean Hamer makes a revealing statement about science and morality. He states,
    “…biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not” (1994).

    Homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at reducing those attractions.

    Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting their right to make the choice. In fact, tolerance and diversity demand that they do so.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

    YES, PEOPLE WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTION HAVE A FULL RIGHT TO RECEIVE HELP AND BECOME HARMONIZED AGAIN – but gay activists have replaced the TRUE right of these people with a FALSE flattery for their dysfunction.

    Anyone interested please look up the NARTH organization who may really help: http://www.narth.com/menus/therapist.html

    This organization calls to DEFEND THE TRUTH and MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

    Like

  43. This is the one to spread! permalink
    May 27, 2010 7:52 pm

    Author ‘Carl Toms’ real identity is Thomas O’Carroll.

    He admits his real identity three times in his forthcoming book – Dangerous Liaisons.

    An Ango/Irish writer of consistently pro-paedophiliac books and papers, he has been an activist for ‘the cause’ for over three decades.

    Thomas O’Carroll was convicted twice – once in 1981 and secondly in 2006 – on charges of possessing and circulating child pornography.

    Thomas O’Carroll is a paedophile.

    In Pedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll writes: “The disparity in size and power between parent and child creates a potential for abuse. But, on the basis that parent–child relationships are generally positive we accept that inequality is simply in the nature of the thing. I would like to see paedophilic relationships looked at in a similar light.”

    Supporting this man books supports the abuse and corruption of children.

    The repercussions and damage this book will set in motion are immeasurable.

    Michael Jackson was found innocent of any wrongdoing in the 2005 trial, by the decade-plus investigation by the FBI, and by the very words of the people Thomas O’Carroll (Carl Toms) repeatedly quotes in his forthcoming book – Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson.

    This book is not only the work of a repugnant mentality and a coward, but a clear attempt to hijack Michael Jackson’s name to promote the abuse of children.

    Sales of this book will go directly back into the hands of the pro-paedophile networks and its members.

    This is unacceptable.

    So is Amazon’s endorsement.

    There is a now a worldwide boycott in effect re Tom O’Carroll’s – aka Carl Toms – book.

    Refuse to support this book and join the boycott.

    Support the rights of children; not the rights of paedophiles.

    This is a call to arms: Pass this message onto every MJ site, forum and post randomly on any blogs all over the web – be they financial, economic, mothers and babies magazines, Oprah’s website, Huffington Post, Fox News sites, ABC, Hollywood Gossip, Perez Hilton, TMZ, Spike Lee’s site, LA Times, NY times, NY post etc.

    Don’t keep this information just on MJ sites. Decent people everywhere need to be aware of the threat to their children – and all children – that is being perpertrated under their noses by major online book distributor Amazon.

    Call into radio shows but instead of announcing a request – denounce Amazon and the faux academic pro-paedophile movement’s attempt to conscript an innocent man into their perverted community.

    This isn’t a message.

    It’s a flare.

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    May 27, 2010 7:42 pm

    “Well, this guy said it was a choice for him. Who are you to say he is lying? And I don’t get your point about rape. Of course, it was this guy’s choice to go into that relationship, he was not raped or forced into it. But nevertheless it was a CHOICE.”

    My point was he choose to go into that relationship because he was attracted to that guy. The other guy spreads nothing that was something he had in himself. Yes he choose by himself to go into that relationship but the sexual attraction he had for his guy was not his choice.

    “Well, this guy said it was a choice for him. Who are you to say he is lying? And I don’t get your point about rape. Of course, it was this guy’s choice to go into that relationship, he was not raped or forced into it. But nevertheless it was a CHOICE.”

    I am not saying he lied on that. As I said earlier you choose the relationship you have but you don’t choose your sexual attraction. You can be gay and refuse to have any romantic gay relationship because of your value. But what the point of that?
    Homosexuality is about adults who know what they are doing. Pedophilia is when an adult force a kid to have sex with him. Pedophilia destroys someone else life when homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality it doesn’t hurt. It’s about 2 adults falling in love with each other like heterosexuality.

    Like

  45. May 27, 2010 6:21 pm

    Danae, both of your posts are great. We should send these messages all around internet. EVERYBODY PLEASE JOIN IN!

    Like

  46. Suzy permalink
    May 27, 2010 8:36 am

    Shelly,

    what does it have to do with pedophilia? Only that you use the same argument to prove homosexuality is “natural” as what pedophiles use to prove they are only doing something that is “natural”, namely that it exists in the animal world. Pedophila too exists in the animal world! Murder too exists in the animal world! Does that make it right for humans to do that too?

    This highlights the moral dangers of the Darwinan logic which claims we are merely “clever animals”. I don’t think so – unlike animals, people should be able to tell apart good from bad. But if someone thinks we are merely clever animals, that leads us to dangerous territories IMO. Because in this case even the pedophile arguments may start to ring true, after all: monkeys do it, so why shouldn’t we?
    Well, we shouldn’t because we are humans and not animals! That’s why.
    I believe in moral and human’s ability to tell right from wrong.

    Well, this guy said it was a choice for him. Who are you to say he is lying? And I don’t get your point about rape. Of course, it was this guy’s choice to go into that relationship, he was not raped or forced into it. But nevertheless it was a CHOICE.

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    May 27, 2010 7:40 am

    “I have read an interview with a man who was once gay but is now married with children after coming to Christ. He said homsexuality IS a choice!”

    Sorry, it’s not a choice. First of all, you don’t know what he is doing in his private life. Look at Ted Haggard.
    Secondly, there is something calls bisexuality, that means those people slept with men and women.

    “Helena mentioned: he met an older gay man, who showed him this “alternative”
    Was he raped by that man? Because if not, it means he was willing to do it and has nothing to do with the gay man. There is something called free will. If a gay man try to seduce you you are still free to say no.

    “As for comparing ourselves to animals: animals also kill. Sometimes they even eat the ones of their own. Does that mean it should be allowed in human societies as well? And BTW, pedophiles have this argument too!”

    What does it have to do with pedophilia? Homosexuality is about 2 willing adults not children and not teenagers. By the way there are plenty of heterosexual pedophiles.

    Like

  48. Suzy permalink
    May 27, 2010 6:50 am

    As for comparing ourselves to animals: animals also kill. Sometimes they even eat the ones of their own. Does that mean it should be allowed in human societies as well? And BTW, pedophiles have this argument too! That some monkeys play sexual games with their children, so it is actually “natural” and should be allowed for human as well!

    Like

  49. Suzy permalink
    May 27, 2010 6:37 am

    I have read an interview with a man who was once gay but is now married with children after coming to Christ. He said homsexuality IS a choice! In his case the reason behind it was that he was unsuccessful with women, so he took the easy way out and went into homosexual relationships. And it was the pattern that Helena mentioned: he met an older gay man, who showed him this “alternative”.

    Now he is happy with his wife and he is happy he left it behind.

    Like

  50. Re-post this one as typos in the one below this permalink
    May 27, 2010 1:04 am

    Author ‘Carl Toms’ real identity is Thomas O’Carroll.

    He admits his real identity three times in his forthcoming book – Dangerous Liaisons.

    An Ango/Irish writer of consistently pro-paedophiliac books and papers, he has been an activist for ‘the cause’ for over three decades.

    Thomas O’Carroll was convicted twice – once in 1981 and secondly in 2006 – on charges of possessing and circulating child pornography.

    Thomas O’Carroll is a paedophile.

    In Pedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll writes: “The disparity in size and power between parent and child creates a potential for abuse. But, on the basis that parent–child relationships are generally positive we accept that inequality is simply in the nature of the thing. I would like to see paedophilic relationships looked at in a similar light.”

    Supporting this man books supports the abuse and corruption of children.

    The repercussions and damage this book will set in motion are immeasurable.

    Michael Jackson was found innocent of any wrongdoing in the 2005 trial, by the decade-plus investigation by the FBI, and by the very words of the people Thomas O’Carroll (Carl Toms) repeatedly quotes in his forthcoming book – Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson.

    This book is not only the work of a repugnant mentality and a coward, but a clear attempt to hijack Michael Jackson’s name to promote the abuse of children.

    Sales of this book will go directly back into the hands of the pro-paedophile networks and its members.

    This is unacceptable.

    So is Amazon’s endorsement.

    There is a now a worldwide boycott in effect re Thomas Carroll’s – aka Carl Toms – book.

    Refuse to support this book and join the boycott.

    Support the rights of children; not the rights of paedophiles.

    This is a call to arms: Pass this message onto every MJ site, forum and post randomly on any blogs all over the web – be they financial, economic, mothers and babies magazines, Oprah’s website, Huffington Post, Fox News sites, ABC, Hollywood Gossip, Perez Hilton, TMZ, Spike Lee’s site, LA Times, NY times, NY post etc.

    Don’t keep this information just on MJ sites. Decent people everywhere need to be aware of the threat to their children – and all children – that is being perpertrated under their noses by major online book distributor Amazon.

    Call into radio shows but instead of announcing a request – denounce Amazon and the faux academic pro-paedophile movement’s attempt to conscript an innocent man into their perverted community.

    This isn’t a message.

    It’s a flare.

    Like

  51. Danae permalink
    May 27, 2010 12:38 am

    Author ‘Carl Toms’ real identity is Thomas O’Carroll.

    He admits his real identity three times in his book – Dangerous Liaisons.

    An Ango/Irish writer of consistently pro-paedophiliac books and papers, he has been an activist for ‘the cause’ for over three decades.

    Thomas O’Carroll was convicted twice – once in 1981 and secondly in 2006 – on charges of possessing and circulating child pornography.

    Thomas O’Carroll is a convicted paedophile.

    Supporting his books supports the abuse and corruption of children.

    The repercussions and damage this book will trigger and set in motion are immeasurable.

    Michael Jackson was found innocent of any wrongdoing in the 2005 trial, by the decade-plus investigation by the FBI, and by the very words of the people Thomas O’Carroll (Carl Toms) repeatedly quotes in his forthcoming book – Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson.

    This book is not only the work of a repugnant mentality and a coward, but a clear attempt to hijack Michael Jackson’s name to promote the abuse of children.

    Sales of this book will go directly back into the hands of the pro-paedophile newtworks and its members.

    This is unacceptable.

    So is Amazon’s endorsement.

    There is a now a worldwide boycott in effect with regard to Thomas Carroll’s – aka Carl Toms – book.

    Refuse to support this book and join the boycott.

    Support the rights of children; not the rights of paedophiles.

    This is a call to arms: Pass this message onto every MJ site, forum and post randomly on any blogs all over the web – be they financial, economic, mothers and babies magazines, Oprah’s website, Huffington Post, Fox News sites, ABC, Hollywood Gossip, Perez Hilton, TMZ, Spike Lee’s site, LA Times, NY times, NY post etc.

    Don’t keep this information just on MJ sites, we already know the truth. Call into radio shows but instead of announcing a request – denounce Amazon and the faux academic pro-paedophile movement’s attempt to conscript an innocent man into their perverted community.

    This isn’t a message.

    It’s a flare.

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    May 26, 2010 11:56 pm

    “I really don’t understand why people sound offended if I call homosexuality unnatural. Is there anyone here who considers it natural and normal? Or has this issue been so cleverly twisted by gay activists that no one asks elementary questions any more? Would you as a parent want your child to enter a homosexual marriage when he grows up? Are you really indifferent to things like that or do you only pretend you are? Would you be happy and enthusiastic if it happened in your family? ”

    Because it is something natural. Homosexuality is something natural, it actually exist in the animal world and we are nothing but clever animals. I don’t pretend to be indifferent, I am totally indifferent to things like that. As I said earlier I have plenty of friends who are homosexual and if it happens in my family I wouldnt care about that. The sexuality of anyone else is not my business and I strongly believe in equal rights to everyone and that include civil unions.

    “Why not apply the same rule to homosexuals – it is okay for you to do whatever you please, just don’t spread it any further or draw minors into it… ”

    You can’t spread something like that. The guy or the woman is attracted or not and that something inside you

    Except that you can’t spred something that you don’t choose. You are or you are not gay

    Like

  53. May 26, 2010 10:15 pm

    I really don’t understand why people sound offended if I call homosexuality unnatural. Is there anyone here who considers it natural and normal? Or has this issue been so cleverly twisted by gay activists that no one asks elementary questions any more? Would you as a parent want your child to enter a homosexual marriage when he grows up? Are you really indifferent to things like that or do you only pretend you are? Would you be happy and enthusiastic if it happened in your family?

    And if the idea becomes top popular with the society in general – where will children come from then? Will there be any children at all? Or will children be born by the remaining heterosexual couples for the ones who have consciously selected to be barren due to their same-sex marriage? What kind of a society will that be? Is it a horror film that we are watching?

    Of course this is an exaggeration! But sometimes things need to be exaggerated to show how terribly absurd they are….

    To me homosexuality is a disease – whether a physical or psychological, but still a disease. In fact it would be much better for homosexuals to be called ill people. If that were the case doctors would look for a way to treat the problem and finally beat it. (BTW, are they looking for a remedy now if homosexuality is considered to be normal?)

    If it were regarded as a disease no one in his right mind would ever want to fall ill with it, no matter how ‘in’ it is in some circles. Illness is not a fashion to follow – it is something which requires treatment and arouses sympathy, not envy.

    If a homosexual were considered ill no one would ever think of criticizing him, harassing or taking him to prison. However if he wanted to spread the disease those around him might not like it. It is just the same as if he were ill with TB – if he starts coughing in other people’s faces and spitting at them in an effort to spread the virus, his behavior will not be understood by others and may involve him in a lot of trouble. Why not apply the same rule to homosexuals – it is okay for you to do whatever you please, just don’t spread it any further or draw minors into it…

    Does homosexual love destroy a young man’s life in an almost the same way as a pedophile’s ‘love’ destroy the life of a child? I am sure it does. Is there any real difference between a teenager 16 or 15 years old if he had the misfortune to sexually attract an adult man rather than a girl? No, there isn’t in (my opinion) – it is the fact that this seduction has taken place at all which really matters here.

    Young people are so full of teenage complexes and are so curious about adult life that they can easily be led astray by clever, seductive and entertaining guys like, for example, our old friend Bad Billy. If we look at the fate of many famous gay people (Oscar Wilde, for ex.) you will see that there was a clever, cynical and corrupt somebody in almost every gay person’s life who stood at the very beginning of it. So propaganda of their morals is not as harmless as you think it to be…

    And what does the age of consent matter here? What if the age of consent for all types of sexual relations is 12 years in Mexico, 13 in Spain, 14 in Germany, 15 in Greece, 16 in Britain and most US states, 17 in Ireland or 18 in Malta?

    Where do ‘ordinary’ homosexual relations finish and pedophilia starts? And what if the same-sex family travels from Mexico to Ireland?

    Like

  54. shelly permalink
    May 26, 2010 11:24 am

    It’s possible there are cases where there is a psychological reson for that but anyway there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is 2 adults who are willing to do that. It’s their personal business and they are not hurting people.
    Pedophile are destroying people’s life that’s why it’s not accepted and will never be. Yes there are people who are defending pedophilia but it has always been the case and it was worse 30 years ago. If you look at what happened during the seventies you will found very famous people defending pedophilia and nobody is doing that now except for a few people.

    Like

  55. Suzy permalink
    May 26, 2010 10:28 am

    Shelly,

    Actually it is very much debated whether people are born gay or not. Of course, each side has its arguments but nothing is proven. I don’t think in every case it is a choice, but where it isn’t, I think, it has psychological reasons (yes, often rooted in the childhood, family background), not genetical. (The twin argument BTW is often used by people too who say it’s not genetic, since there are many examples of one twin being gay and the other not.)

    Like

  56. shelly permalink
    May 26, 2010 10:00 am

    Sorry but there is no way that gay people choose to be gay. I don’t know if you know gay people but the few of them I know knew they were “different” when they were 9 or 10 years old. I am not gay myself but I have gay people as friends but lots of times when one of a twin brother or sister is gay the other is too.
    Being gay is not a choice you are born like that and it’s not a disease.

    Like

  57. Suzy permalink
    May 26, 2010 8:39 am

    Back to the point:

    I agree with you, Helena, that there’s a culture war going on to destroy the (natural) resistance in people against immorality. We are being indoctrinated every day of our lives to accept immoral things as normal – with a big help from Hollywood and the media, BTW.

    I can see where you are coming from when you say pedophiles use the same tactics as homosexuals used to. They are not as far ahead yet, of course. Pedophilia is not yet widely accepted. People are still outraged and upset whenever they hear news about pedophiles. But change (for the worse) is only a matter of time if things will go on like this. They are working hard on breaking society’s moral resistance. And as more and more people don’t have a solid moral base nowadays, this task will be easier and easier to achieve with time.

    The scary aspect of all this what your research has revealed that it seems pedophilia ALREADY IS accepted within some academic circles. They teach it, advocate it as normal, natural sexual behaviour which is only incriminated by today’s moral standards – which is based on Judeo-Christian moral standards, thus not absolute (according to their arguments). See their constant references to the Greeks and Romans. So these are not just some isolated pervs. They are organized and on power and have authority! They are also cunning and good with words. This is the so called elite! And I bet what we see here is just the tip of the iceberg.

    If with relatively little research we already can see so much, I don’t want to imagine what’s going on behind the scenes and how infected our society really is!

    It would make a good subject of a good, investigative documentary by some HONEST journalist. I wonder though how much resistance she or he would have, how far such a documentary would be allowed to go. I don’t want to sound paranoid, but what I have read makes me wonder if there are people in power (in political circles, as well as in the media) already who would stop any documentary exposing these things.

    Like

  58. May 26, 2010 8:33 am

    I’ve also read about Freddie Mercury coming from a Zoroastrian family. It was due to his religious background that he never admitted to his parents that he was gay. The fact that Zoroastrians are so strict about this matter does not mean they didn’t have it among their ranks – the very fact that they’re paying so much attention to it shows that they also faced this problem. I happened to study Zoroastrianism for a year and we were told that Zoroastrians didn’t do anything with gay people if they didn’t impose their views on the others – they were just not allowed to approach women (as it was forbidden for them to have children) and they could not enter the shrine, that’s all.

    As to any religion being twisted, you’re absolutely right (look what they did to Jesus’s legacy).

    While searching for Zoroastrian quotes I found what our old friend Bad Billy (as historian William A.Percy III) says about Zoroastrianism and realized he had distorted many of their basic concepts and in a rather credible and ‘scientific’ way. Well, as Zoroastrians say LIES would never be so alluring to people if they presented themselved in their outrageous DIRECT form – because no one would go for them if they saw them in all their falsehood. That is why lies always IMITATE the truth and present themselves in the most credible form possible to them. However the ancient sources of Zoroastrianism (which existed long before Zoroaster, who was the one who restored their religion) say that human beings will eventually learn to tell the truth from falsehood.

    The good news about it is that they assure us that the process has already started (though the bad news is that it will take thousands or probably more years to finish). The speed of it depends on each of us because every human being is given complete freedom and it is within our own power to make a choice which would be in harmony with the Creator. Zoroastrians consider human beings to be the co-workers of the Absolute.

    Like

  59. Anonymous permalink
    May 26, 2010 8:27 am

    Yeah – because people really CHOOSE to be gay. You people need to grow up. There is so much stupidity in what your arguments but i’m not going to bother saying anything. People who read your comments will see that for themselves.

    Like

  60. Suzy permalink
    May 26, 2010 7:20 am

    Helena, I don’t know anything about the Zoroastrian religion. The only time I heard about it was – ironically – in connection with Freddie Mercury (he and his family were of the Zoroastrian religion). Which is strange, since we know he was gay. But then there are also people who claim to be “Christians” and gay at the same time – when the Bible is clear about homosexuality. But there’s always a way to twist things. And as long human is human people will try to twist the inconvenient truths as they like. I guess it’s the same within every religion, not just Christianity.

    Like

  61. May 25, 2010 9:55 pm

    SUZY, yes, my name is Helena and you’ve said it so well (about homosexuality) that I cannot add anything at all. I didn’t know that David Bowie went into homosexual relations just because it was ‘in’ in his circles… poor guy…what a foolish mistake…

    ANONYMOUS, oh, I knew that my mentioning homosexuality would take me away from the main job of vindicating Michael. But now it can’t be helped – so let us stop for a moment and make a few things clear between the two of us:

    1) I am NOT putting paedophiles into the same boat as homosexuals – I am just trying to make you aware of the erosion of human ethics and morals which is in full swing now (through propaganda of homosexuality) and which will inevitably result in legalization of pedophilia if people don’t make an effort to resist this process.

    2) Why inevitably? Because the young generation is discovering sex much earlier now (due to helpful guys like Bad Billy) and there will soon come a time when the age of consent will drop from whatever it is now to 15, 14, 13, 12 and so on. This concerns both girls and boys (if homosexual relations are still considered to be a full alternative to straight love).

    3) Let’s forget about rape – we are talking about a voluntary consent from the other side. Rape is never ‘natural’ in any of its forms (girls, boys, adult women or adult men). It is a hideous crime which is not necessarily or solely connected with pedophiles.

    4) So what pedophiles are actually aiming at is a voluntary consent from children. The big idea is first to arouse their sex instincts, deprave and corrupt them, and then shout at every corner that ‘children need it and also have the right to do it”. You’ve noticed that these ‘scholars’ are speaking about children having a rich and rewarding erotic feeling which shouldn’t be suppressed, haven’t you?

    5) I don’t hate gay people – I feel frustrated about those who were foolish enough to decide it is trendy, spicy, cute, etc. and sorry about those who have a natural inclination for homosexuality due to a malfunction in their biochemistry. If someone finds a medicine against this malady I’d give them all the Nobel prizes taken together…

    6) When I said that homosexuality was second only to murder I wasn’t kidding – I was quoting what Zoroaster ethics say about it.

    What is Zoroastrian ethical system and what does it have to do with homosexuality? I KNOW this is not the right place to speak about it but I again seem to be forced to do something which is coming into play on its own.

    Zoroastrianism is the OLDEST religious and ethical system in the world (dates back to at least 2000 B.C.) but despite its ancient past it has survived until TODAY (is the religion of Parsis in India) and is being even restored now. It is a system of thought which miraculously answers lots and lots of questions on ‘practical’ issues which other religions for various reasons fail to provide. I am a Christian but admire Zoroastrian ethics for its absolute and impeccable beauty.

    Why do they consider homosexuality a crime – and so grave too that it comes second after murder? Because it contradicts life as a living process. Raising children is the very essence of living – it is actually what life is all about. And if some people involve themselves in a kind of love which does not bear fruit they are doomed to extinction from the point of view of simple but wise nature – just like any other living species inhabiting the earth. It is just a simple fact of life which shouldn’t pretend to be more complex than it is.

    It is of course possible to adopt other people’s children but this is not the point – the point is that these people are not taking part in reproducing life. Of course it is their choice! Who else’s? But in making their choice they should know that if life has been created for the purpose of creating life their choice is nothing else but a direct protest against the will of Creator.

    Yes, Zoroastrians see homosexuality as a fight against God and all the good embodied by God: “In the Zoroastrian world picture, the world is a battlefield between the forces of good and evil, and, since one of the duties of the partisans of good is to produce new life the barrenness of homosexuality clearly qualified it for the camp of evil, as elaborated in Zoroastrian literature. It is explained clearly that anal intercourse was instituted by the forces of evil to prevent the semen of men from mingling with women and so from producing the desired result of renewal and furthering of life in the service of good, and instead to cause the progress of mankind to come to an end.”

    No wonder Zoroaster’s moral code regards homosexuality as a form of demon worship:
    “The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas”

    Zoroastrianism has been said to have a “hatred of male anal intercourse”. When the Destructive spirit, the “Lord of Lies”, sought to destroy the world, he engaged in self-sodomy. This homosexual self intercourse caused an “explosion of evil power” and resulted in the birth of a host of evil minions.

    * * *
    The healing against evil lies in purifying one’s soul, mind and body. Zoroastrian morality is summed up in a simple phrase: “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” Following this phrase, one can become a follower of ‘asha’. Asha is an idea put forth by Zoroaster that is understood as “truth,” “order,” “righteousness,” or “holiness.”

    Yes, ancient Zoroastrians worshipped the TRUTH and regarded it as an absolute substance, like light. They NEVER told lies. Herodot who went to ancient Persia wrote down in some surprise that the most distressing thing for Zoroastrians was hearing another person lie. The MOST distressing one. Can you imagine the whole nation telling the truth only? By the way it was exactly for this reason that the descendants of ancient Persians who fled to India under the attack of Islam turned into the most prosperious community there. It was because everyone wanted to have business with them as they never cheated!

    I’m deeply impressed by their system of values the primary of which is fighting falsehood and searching for the truth.

    In this respect it won’t probably look strange to you any longer to see why one small amateurish admirer of Zoroaster’s ethics has suddenly decided to try and clean of the dirt the man who – besides being a fantastic musician, dancer, composer, great human being and a very pure soul – was also the biggest attraction for lies, slander and falsehood one could ever imagine.

    Like

  62. Suzy permalink
    May 25, 2010 10:18 am

    Helena (that’s your name, right?)!

    I was raised a Christian so I consider homosexuality a sin. Whether it’s politically correct to say that or not, that’s what the Bible says about it and I stick to that.

    I don’t know if it’s an illness. But I definitely don’t believe it’s genetic. If it would be genetic it wouldn’t be right from God to call it a sin, would it? And it was actually never proven it’s genetic (although they try hard).

    The way I see this is that one part of it comes from psychological reasons. And today, in our world, a great deal of it comes from “fashion”. How come that so many people in Hollywood are gay? It cannot be that they all have the “gay gene”. I think it’s just a fashion over there. If you are gay you are considered to be cool in Hollywood.

    Basically that was admitted by David Bowie and Cyndi Lauper. Back in the ’70s and ’80s Bowie said he was bisexual. Recently he admitted in an interview he actually never had gay desires. He went into homosexual relationships because it was ‘in’ in those circles.

    And Lauper said jokingly that at the time she felt strange and weird because all of her friends were gay/lesbian and she wasn’t. She felt like she was the abnormal one.

    But that doesn’t mean I hate gay people generally. They are just people and they can be nice people otherwise. One of my favourite artists of all times is Freddie Mercury who was gay. It’s God’s job to judge whatever they do in their bedroom, not mine. Like I said it’s a sin but there are so manny sinners in this world – if I’d hate them all, I should hate almost everybody. I hate their sins, not them.

    However I hate flaming homosexuals! I hate those who want to shove down their homosexuality others’ throats! I hate the Ian Halperin types, who think everybody else is gay, just because they are! (Isn’t it similar to the pedophile logic?). Just look at Halperin’s website: he is preoccupied with outing everybody and their mother in Hollywood as “gay”. Michael is just one of his victims, and, homosexuality, that’s his central subject. (And I think he will pay gay con artists to testify in his “documentary” about Michael having sex with them. Be prepared.)

    And I hate the Jason Pfeiffer/Arnold Klein types who “out” other people without anybody asking them to do so – especially if they are lying, like these two.

    About Michael I think, depsite of what the general public thinks about him and what rumours are said about him, despite of all the make-up, high voice and “feminim” traits (or whatever superficial reasons they have to think he was gay), he was probably one of the straightest guys in Hollyweird! I really do think so and I have good reasons to think so.

    I think there’s a big fight going on for Michael among certain groups, because he was so popular. Pedophiles want him to be their own, gay people want him to be their own, Muslims want him to be their own (they say he converted to Islam, which, again, is not true) and the list goes on. Everybody wants a piece of him and everybody wants to be associated with him. And because he was so mysterious and so secretive – and so lonely -, it’s very easy to claim anything about him. And these groups use this opportunity to claim him as one of their own.

    I also wonder if Halperin is paid by certain gay groups (besides being gay himself) to paint as many celebrities “gay” as he can. To me it looks like he has an agenda about homosexuality.

    Like

  63. Anonymous permalink
    May 25, 2010 10:01 am

    Vindicate MJ, I think your comments are unfair and quite insulting.

    How can you say that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of paedophilia – the two things are not linked.

    Love is not just about procreation – it is not anyone’s business what two consenting adults do – it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

    Paedophilia is wrong because it is about an adult taking advantage of child – children can’t consent to things like that.

    What about paedophiles who rape little girls – can you link that to homsexuality?

    I am not a homosexual myself, but I have friends who are – don’t put them in the same boat as paedophiles.

    And seriously, ‘homosexuality is a crime only second to murder’ – are you kidding me?

    What’s next – are you giong to say that when a man rape’s a woman – it is okay beacuse it’s ‘natural’ – really open your mind.

    By the way – there have been natural disasters on this earth since the dawn of time. The climate is ever-changing.

    Like

  64. May 24, 2010 10:26 pm

    I wish to thank each and everyone one of you for your great comments. When starting on the road to vindicate Michael I never knew our conversation would turn into this direction and we would dive that deep into this problem. It seems that everything happens for a reason.

    I’m afraid we’ve seen only the tip of an iceberg. If these universities openly display on their official pages which professor teaches in ‘perversion’ and which in ‘gay/lesbian’ studies, and if their ‘scholars’ openly speak and write books about ‘everyone’ being pedophiles or children’s sexuality being ‘rich’ and ‘rewarding’- it means that the process has really gone TOO far. I am sure that the erosion started with propaganda of homosexuality which now in its turn is paving its way to pedophilia. If homosexuality is okay, pedophilia will soon be okay too, because it is only the age of consent which is the last barrier here.

    I regard homosexuality as an illness which probably has to do with some biochemical health dysfunctions, psychological problems and probably hereditary issues which should be studied and treated with all seriousness. I feel sorry for these people and hope they will soon be helped to find a way back to the mainstream of life.

    Just as ancient Greeks said it homosexuality is indeed counter-productive. It is also unnatural as it goes against the world’s nature and harmony. Those who become gays and lesbians out of curiosity or ‘fashion’ should probably know that the most ancient in the world Zoroaster ethical system, whose Three Wise Men travelled a long way to greet new born Christ, considered homosexuality as a crime against LIFE in general (which was second only to murder). Since homosexual couples couldn’t (and were not allowed to) have children their life was a dead-end road among the rest of the people.

    I wouldn’t have mentioned this subject if it weren’t for pedophilia which is evidently the next big and awful step of moral and mental erosion awaiting us. If the society eventually comes to ‘accepting’ it as a norm this will surely be the end of our civilization.

    If somebody has ever been wondering why there are so many floods, natural disasters and weather changes the most probable answer to that would be the state of our minds and awful decay of our morals registered by the nature in this or that way. If we want to survive we really need to return to innocence. And Michael is probably our biggest hope here. Remember what he said in his HIStory album? Let’s harmonize all around the world.

    Like

  65. Nancy permalink
    May 24, 2010 4:52 pm

    As much as I deplore the media…maybe they should be considered in some limited way to shed light on this despicable man and his reprehensible collegues? We have to think about how many minds they are manipulating and the outcome if they are allowed to continue. I can’t think of any way to make the knowledge of their agenda mainstream so that even those who don’t have an care about the reputation of Michael Jackson are made aware this is going on.
    This is just a thought that I want ‘to put out there’ for open discussion and debate. What would be to the greater good and what would Michael want? His legacy is in jeaopardy…but so are many young minds and a subversive agenda by a group of crums to harm children.
    I am appalled the universities and the parents of the children that attend them are not speaking out against these men and what thoughts they promote. I believe in freedom of speech…but this goes beyond anything I have ever encountered. I am curious if the parents who pay this astronomical tuition are really informed of what their children are hearing?
    What say these universities who have these men on their staff?

    Like

  66. Suzy permalink
    May 24, 2010 1:36 pm

    They are trying to make MJ their poster boy. But we can turn this around and make him the poster boy for fighting AGAINST pedophilia! And that is what he would want!

    Blogs like this already do it by calling MJ fans to resist and protest these people. Because it seems few other people even care that these guys are in our academias and universities advocating sex crimes and teaching our youth to accept them as “normal”! (Michael was right once again: “They don’t really care about us”!)

    All those haters going on gossip sites to bash Michael and call him a pedo, why don’t they fight real pedophiles, like these guys instead? Is their interest really in fighting pedophilia or they just like to bash MJ? The latter seems to be the case. But we must fight and not just for Michael, but also against pedophilia that is spreading like pest in our sick society!

    Like

  67. Nancy permalink
    May 23, 2010 3:22 pm

    Ok…I am starting to get a gut sinking bad feeling about all this. What keeps running through my mind is a whole group of ‘chld-lovers’ who are using psychlology and sublimal messages to ‘change the mentality’ of the general population in an attempt to vindicate their own diseased minds and perhaps make their abnormal behavior appear as normal? They go to the young minds from a postiion of authority and manipulate them? The avenues by which to do this are through the arts and education fields. It is propaganda of consciousness. It seems very well thought out and strategic. Change the perception in those minds that are still malleable. Make being a perv a normal occurrance…like you are born with it…so it’s ok….go with the flow…embrace your inner sickness?
    I am referring to child-adult ‘relationships’ here…nothing more.
    Now, as an ‘older’ student, I went head to head with many professors. I would be sitting in the classroom listening to what they were telling the students and would get angry. I was often pulled into an office where the discussions with the professors got even more heated and the students would gather outside to see how I fared. My main gripe was that they were teaching ‘what to think’ instead of ‘how to think’…especially when it came to politics. They were neglecting the tools that these students needed to inform themselves and then decide. Many times my main gripe was that the professors were talking from the perspective of white-collar-I-have-become-successful-thereby-you-should-heed-my-words-postition to a bunch of kids who were raised in a blue-collar-how-do-I-break-out-of-this-cycle-of-limited-income-and-limited-experience-world. I said that the ‘filters imposed’ in the worlds of these children by all the life experience they knew was what limited them and that they needed tools…..not to be told how to choose by someone who ‘appeared to be what they wanted in life’. They were bright but easily led and didn’t know their minds were being manipulated….but I did.
    So…back to Michael Jackson. If you are trying to subvert the consciousness of a young population and create an aura of acceptability for a ‘movement’ towards ‘child-loving’…you need to use something that will speak to these young minds and get through besides your boring text books or your boring lectures. You need music because that is what kids do…they listen to music. Michael himself knew the power of music to ‘speak messages’ right? And you need someone ‘who has made it’ to show these kids that they too can go on to prosper by this path of enlightenment. Propaganda. Thievery of consciousness.
    And who would know better than Michael Jackson about this? He studied all the arts and culture and knew how this art form could change mentality. These nimrods have to drag him into it to promote it more widely. They have taken someone beautiful and used him in the worst way. They have ‘flipped’ him to promote an agenda. And they are subversive and clever and sick.

    Like

  68. May 23, 2010 7:54 am

    Beatriz, I understand your feelings very well. I also desperately need something to purify my mind and soul after digging this deep into this filth. I will now take a short time out to draw some purification from the forces of mother nature.

    Michael did the same and exactly for the same purpose. It’s a pity I can’t climb trees as he did it…..

    Like

  69. May 23, 2010 4:47 am

    They should be all in jail for the rest of their lives!

    Like

  70. May 23, 2010 4:36 am

    This is so difficult to read! I feel nauseas. Amazing job Helena, I’m going to copy it without reading, I really can’t.

    Like

  71. May 22, 2010 4:11 pm

    Raven, I’ve found a new link to William Percy’s site and have already posted it in the text:
    http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

    As regards scientific studies I’ve also asked myself a question how far a scientist can go in his scientific research. My answer is – as far as the truth takes it. If male/children bonds were allowed in ancient Greece, scholars should naturally write about it if it is the truth, but it is THE ASSESSMENT OF THESE FACTS WHICH IS TOP IMPORTANT HERE.

    If a scholar says that pederasty and pedophilia were the reason for the Greek miracle, it’s should be regarded as nothing but a joke. I don’t know which part of his body made him come to a conclusion like that – surely it wasn’t his brain….

    When a scholar looks at these relations as positive – it is not a historian, but a gay activist who is talking. Today the age of consent is this and tomorrow it is different – so there will surely come a time when teenagers will become the main objects of their attention.

    When a scholar hails pederasty as a form of democracy he is actually campaigning for the same type of social relations which were typical for ancient Greece where the future of a young man fully depended on aristocracy. If an aristocrat liked him, his future was well taken care of (with education and promotion guaranteed), but if he was not, his future held nothing good for him. It could have been a type of segregation – or at least this is how it could have started.

    Wikipedia says: “For the youth – and his family – one important advantage of being mentored by an influential older man was an expanded social network. Athenian fathers would pray that their sons would be handsome and attractive, with the full knowledge that they would then invariably attract the attention of men. It is also consistent with the importance that a son would have had for him. A son was the only hope for the survival of a Greek man’s name, fortune and glory.”

    Looks to me more like half-voluntary/half-compulsory prostitution on a government scale…

    “Boys entered into such relationships from the age of twelve to about eighteen or nineteen, though some suggest they started around fifteen. This was around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage – also to adult husbands many years their senior. There was a difference between the two types of bonding: boys usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate. Girls, on the other hand, were used for economic and political advantage, their marriages contracted at the discretion of the father and the suitor”.

    It was also a way to control birth rate. Aristotle claimed that the Cretan lawgivers encouraged pederasty as a means of population control, by directing love and sexual desire into non-procreative channels: ” the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex”.

    Whatever the reason this sex dependency system didn’t make the boys happier:

    “Even when lawful, it was not uncommon for the relationship to fail, as it was said of many boys that they “hated no one as much as the man who had been their lover”

    “Plato in his Laws, blamed pederasty for promoting civil strife and driving many to their wits’ end, and recommended the prohibition of sexual intercourse with boys, laying out a path whereby this may be accomplished”.

    “In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a morbid condition, adult homosexuality, that today’s ‘eromenos’ may become tomorrow’s ‘kinaidos’ (defined as the passive or “penetrated” partner)”.

    As to Spartans it seems that they were made pedophiles even in spite of their will:

    The Spartans were said to have practised chaste pederasty. Plutarch states that it was as unthinkable for a lover to sexually consummate a relationship with his beloved as for a father to do so with his own son.

    In Sparta, for a man to not have a youth for a lover was considered a deficiency in character, and he was punished for not making another as good as he was himself, despite his excellence. But Aelian also says that if any couple succumbed to temptation and indulged in carnal relations, they would have to redeem the affront to the honor of Sparta by either going into exile or taking their own lives.

    The lover was responsible for the boy’s training. Pederasty and military training were intimately connected in Sparta, as in many other cities. The Spartans sacrificed to Eros before every battle.

    SO WE SEE THAT THIS SORT OF A RELATIONSHIP WAS CONNECTED WITH:
    1) war needs and military training
    2) getting a certain social status through the necessary ‘connections’
    3) receiving education which was otherwise probably unattainable
    4) birth control (possibly related to feeding the population)
    5) a lot of problems for young boys beginning with hate for their older mentors and ending with almost inevitable passive homosexuality and getting insane.

    Why would anyone consider such experience ‘positive’
    (as some of these scholars say) is beyond my comprehension. Do they want to restore the system or what?

    While looking up Wikepedia I also found one interesting fact which surprised me enormously. Speaking about the typical homosexual sex of ancient Greece it mentions:

    “Intercrural sex is sometimes known as the “Princeton First-Year”. The term may refer to a system by which upperclassmen helped new students assimilate to university life in exchange for sexual gratification. A similar system was present at Oxford University, hence the synonym “Oxford Style”. Students at both Oxford and Princeton may have been imitating homosexual practices in ancient Greece, depicted by authors such as Plato and Aristotle”.

    It is not the first time we come across university life in this connection????????

    P.S. As to the factual side of Thomas O’Carroll’s book which is used by these ‘scholars’ for making their conclusions, I looked up a couple of pages on the 1993 case in search for some new facts he might have found and realized that there was NOT A SINGLE ONE – he is repeating the OLD TRASH told by the WORST Michael’s haters and presents them as FACTS saying in his condescention that he always ‘knew’ it about Michael.

    Well, I also KNOW that the facts he is referring to are complete LIES as I analyzed them here in my blog (see parts 1-3 of https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-always-afraid-to-ask-part-1/ ), and if the author doesn’t know it, so much the worse for him – it immediately shows the level of his research.

    So first taking a LIE + and then having it analyzed by a PEDOPHILE = is really TOO MUCH for anyone to bear!

    Like

  72. May 22, 2010 1:15 pm

    Thank you for saving this information before it disappeared completely. While being a scholar I can’t completely condemn the “study” of Greek Pedartsy within the context of a university setting, we have to be careful about condoning those practices to rationalize pedophilia in today’s world. And while the ancient Greeks did condone what we would call “man/boy love” it didn’t always necessarily mean having sexual relations with children. It could mean an older man in his 40’s having relations with a young man in his 20’s (which even today would not be a crime).

    The problem I have with this book and these reviews are when they start making unequivocal statements such as William Percy’s that Michael did this or this or this, as if these things are known FACTS, rather than allegations they have gathered from reading a bunch of dubious sources such as Diane Dimond’s and Ray Chandler’s books, as well as tabloids, etc.

    One of the things these advocacy groups will always do is latch onto public figures and famous people (usually deceased, of course) whose sex lives “appear” to give validity to their claims. Oscar Wilde, of course, comes to mind. One of his most oft-repeated quotes-“The love that dare not speak its name”-is usually thought to refer to homosexual love. Now there was a poor man whose intimate life has been dragged through every kind of academic “study” one can imagine. In his lifetime, Wilde was toppled from success and made into a public scapegoat-persecuted and reviled-not for being a pedophile, but for being gay in a time when homosexuality was still viewed as a crime. His affairs were with younger men (not necessarily children, though some of them could have well been as young as 15, 16 years old…the laws governing age of consent were not as strict as now) but I think it is one thing to make a case study for someone who has been gone over a hundred years, as opposed to someone who only passed away a year ago, who still has small children and millions of people mourning his death. It would be equally disrespectful to come out with a trashy, tell-all book about Michael’s heterosexual affairs, and I would not condone that, either…not now, anyway. Maybe in a few years, when the wounds are not so raw. But what is being done with this book is-well, as I’ve said, just wrong on so many levels. I really don’t buy for a minute that this guy has been researching the book all these years as they claim, either. He may have been studying the allegations (I’m sure he and his buds were paying VERY close attention) but you can’t tell me anyway in hell he would have even CONSIDERED putting out such a book if Michael hadn’t died, because he would know he would have been sued in a heartbeat. It must have been just too convenient for him that Michael was killed.

    Like

  73. Emma permalink
    May 22, 2010 9:19 am

    The book is out NOW. They brought the release date forward- probably so they could get copies out before they are forced to pull it.

    Like

  74. May 22, 2010 8:08 am

    Sharon, the book is to be released on June 7, 2010 – in two weeks from now. They’ve been getting ready for their assault for a long time as the first announcement about it came in March this year. They’ve prepared it as a ‘present’ for the 1st anniversary of his death and are just waiting to get closer to the date.

    I am afraid that very many people are underestimating the seriousness of their effort.
    This is probably the MOST serious attack of all that have been made before.

    The fact that a convicted pedophile is allowed to attribute his own fantasies to another (deceased) person who cannot answer back shows that they’ve been given a free hand to use his name for furthering their cause. You may be sure that after its release you will see all those ‘scholars’ on TV giving their opinion about ‘how true the book is’.

    The only problem is that the judges who pass the verdict are most probably pedophiles themselves.

    It seems that in fighting this trend we should join forces with anti-pedophile groups (like Absolute Zero, for example – http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2009/01/next-stage-of-negotiation.html).

    It is top important to flood internet with information about true pedophiles standing behind the book. In cases like that they are just using a popular name for attributing to him their own pedophilic fantasies and experiences. It means that we are reading NOT about Michael – we are reading about THEM.

    If a SERIAL KILLER wants to share his views on human life in a book about somebody will you choose to read it? So the same goes for pedophiles!!!

    Please leave your comment on Amazon, etc. and feel free to use all the information provided here for clearing Michael’s name of this filth.

    This filth should be thrown into FIRE!

    Like

  75. May 21, 2010 10:13 pm

    Are these ‘things’ selling? On Amazon I noticed they have only a few available. Are the books selling in another venue? If so, please don’t give the info here!
    I pray they’re not selling anywhere!!!!!!
    What a clever, and evil, way to present this garbage. Why couldn’t you leave Michael out of it. He’s suffered enough through dealing with the filthy accusations. Don’t drag his name down again with the pretext that is is to help him.
    LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: