Re: Tell Dr. Laura what you think of her hate-mongering

Hey gang, I am resending this *without* the html formatting that made the
original posts damn near unreadable.  Was it a problem with my mailer's html
encoding (it is an M$ product) or a problem with your mailers or the bonobos
archiver?  I dunno.

Anyway, my problem is apparently not that the messages aren't getting
through, but that they are not being sent back out to me?

mbz


***

I haven¹t read the piece to which I assume Mr. Foster (?) is referring, but
will take a shot at a reply here.  (Does this go to him if I just post to
the list?  I would like it to, but don¹t want to double hit...)  I am
utterly in the dark, however, by whether he means by ³homosexual lifestyle²
(that which he cannot ³support²) anything more than the TV caricature.  Or
upon what basis he says that he¹s ³seen² it ³destroy² too many lives ‹ are
these homosexuals of his acquaintance, of his professional involvement?  And
what was the extent of the ³destruction² -- what are we talking about here?

I am only occasionally subjected to Ms. Schlesinger¹s diatribes, but when I
am so, I am never less than appalled at her self-righteous shrillness, and,
more to the point, the baseless and illogical nature of her
arguments/pronouncements.

That said, enough of ³Dr.² Laura.  On to the great shibboleth,
homosexuality.  I¹ve seen ³it² ³destroy² few lives, if any ‹ and those,
among the many homosexuals I¹ve known, whose lives were problematic either
would have been problematic regardless, due to issues unrelated to that
person¹s sexual orientation ‹ or were problematic at least in part due to
the pressures they faced from society, family, friends and themselves with
regard to their homosexuality.

About the pressures society directly places on homosexuals, or suspected
ones, no more need be said than is obvious.  A significant factor, however,
that is not only commonly ignored in considering the lot of the homosexual
(and especially with regard to the standard, and inaccurate, lines about
promiscuity and pedophilia) is that there are few arenas in social life
where homosexual people are allowed latitude to freely pursue healthy,
³normal,² loving relationships of any kind with the objects of their sexual,
romantic, or platonic affections.  In San Francisco... Well, maybe, but even
there it is spotty.  ³Tolerance² is not the same as freedom from pressure.
When the societal pressure that distorts the lives of any pressured group¹s
people ‹ whether ethnic, ³racial,² religious, or sexually oriented ‹ is
factored for or eliminated, then perhaps an analysis of trends and
characteristics of the members of such a group can be honestly attempted.

A case on point is the accusation that homosexuals are disproportionately
promiscuous, or pedophiliac.  The former, in my experience, may be the case,
although it is not the case for most of the homosexuals I know.  I think it
is more of a TV thing, in that the hardcore promiscuous element receives the
most press, attention, etc..  Assuming, though that homosexuals are
generally promiscuous, what is the point?

And as to the ³why?²  -- well, why wouldn¹t a significant number of
homosexuals, especially youthful ones, be promiscuous?  Promiscuity is very
common in the hetero society, and popularized, advertised, and exploited in
the various media.  It may very well be an evolutionary biological
imperative. :-)  More importantly, and considering that sexual morality and
restraint are likely socially inculcated rather than innate, we should ask
what incentives society offers homosexuals toward either monogamy/abstinence
or promiscuity.  In the very cramped confines of the social space in which
the homosexual is allowed to exist, it is ³natural² and ³logical² to pursue
ones sexual/romantic interests in a manner as free from risk of societal
oversight and opprobrium as possible ‹ thus even the caricatured furtive,
serial homosexual encounter that seems to exemplify this ³promiscuity² makes
sense (leaving the health issues aside).  In short, when society makes it
damn near impossible for a homosexual to live a fulfilling life by the
³family values² it endlessly trumpets ‹ even live those family values with a
caring same-sex partner ‹ where else is there to go, but to furtive sex,
short-term sex, serial sex where one dares not grow too close because there
is no social room to make a life with a partner to whom one becomes
attached.

Now, pedophilia... The great unexamined canard.  I don¹t know what the
statistics are, but in my own experience, most pedophiles of whom I have
become aware are hetero.  (In fact, just by sheer numbers, the heteros are
responsible for the majority of wickedness in the world. ;-)  What we are
after in this business, are we not, though, is a way to profile? To point
out that, hey, that guy is gay and so represents more of a threat to the
children than your average hetero?)  I would guess, moreover, that once the
family incest/molestation numbers are factored, the risk of molestation by a
hetero person is greater than that by a homosexual person, although this is
pure speculation.

The same critique of the promiscuity thing, lack of social space, applies to
pedophilia, i.e., where do we expect all the affections, attractions,
drives, etc., to go?  Take the ongoing awareness of the predations of
Catholic priests, for example.  (First off, apparently the bulk of the
molestation has been hetero, which has largely gone unreported but for short
mentions in the Times or the Post.  Moreover, the degree of true
homosexuality, to the extent that any human sexuality can be described in
those polar terms, rather than a mixed bisexuality, is likely overstated,
since most priests seem to have far more access to boys than to girls, I
believe, and if not, then certainly there is likely some self-selection of
priest-candidates for those with sexual issues.)   But the priest situation
is an example of lack of social space for what we know exists in humans,
sexuality, romance, and affection.  What the hell does the Church expect to
happen when it locks down these men¹s humanity?

More importantly, apart from the mythical, never-presented statistics
linking homosexuality with pedophilia, what is supposed to be the connection
between being gay and being turned on by kids, of either sex?  I see no
connection, nor has one been put forth that makes sense to me, any more than
there is a connection between heterosexuality and wanting to have sex with
kids.  Perhaps there is just a subsection of humanity of all sexual
orientations that is led by nature or nurture to be into kids ‹ and
certainly there is an overabundance of sexualizing of kids, most of it
hetero, in the media and popular culture.  To some extent, I think that the
fear of homosexual pedophilia, even that behavior may occur less often in
both absolute and proportional terms, is nothing more than the stigma and
fear of homosexual behaviors in general, applied by the hetero population to
the problem of pedophilia.  That is, while heterosexual molestation of kids
is bad, homosexual molestation is far worse, because it involves, you know,
guys on guys, and homosexuality is just sick, etc.


> From: [email protected]
> Reply-To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:45:38 EDT
> To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Subject: [Bonobos] Tell Dr. Laura what you think of her hate-mongering
> 

> I for one do not listen to Dr. Laura on a daily basis. But when I do, I think
> she is mostly right on the money. There is nothing wrong in seeing something
> wrong and saying so. I do not and cannot support the homosexual lifestyle. I
> have seen it destroy to many lives. I can not say with any certainty if she is
> wrong in saying that homosexual men are more of a chance in being a pedophile
> than a heterosexual male cause I do not have the facts. Instead of going on a
> website and calling people names can you not find a more decent way of saying
> that you disagree?