The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Clayton Cramer
The Results of Childhood Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------
Identifying With The Abuser
What are the consequences of childhood sexual abuse? One sur-
prising result is "traumatic bonding," similar to the well-known
"Stockholm Syndrome," where hostages over time sometimes develop
a sense of identity with the terrorist:
The final component of victimology we note is that of
traumatic bonding, described by Don Dutton and Susan Painter
(1982). This refers to the development of strong emotional
attachment under conditions of intermittent maltreatment.
Experiments with dogs showed that those who were treated
intermittently with indulgence and punishment showed higher
degrees of bonding than dogs who had been consistently
either indulged, punished, or isolated....
This explains the strong attachments many abused children
have for their parents (Kempe and Kempe 1978) and the
tendency of many sexual abuse victims to deny their own
hurt in sympathetic understanding of their abuser.[Bagley &
King, 109-110]
We should not be surprised at the number of net.homosexuals who
have related accounts of molestation by adults, and who insist
vigorously that THEY were the aggressor, not the adult, and that
the experience of being used by an adult as a sexual plaything
at 12 was a positive experience.
Eating Disorders
Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
normal body shapes).
Promiscuity
Not surprisingly, a child's sexuality frequently becomes severely
distorted by the experience of molestation, with all three sources
agreeing that "Children so traumatized may cope by becoming
promiscuous or developing an aversion to sex. Each type of
reaction represents a failure to develop normal sexual relation-
ships."[Bagley & King, 115, 119, Faller, 147-148] This promiscuity
"frequently represents a lack of inhibition against and sometimes
a compulsion toward sexual behavior of all sorts, including
sexual abuse."[Faller, 209]
We have observed that some persons (men as well as women)
who are promiscuous or who appear to be unable to "attach"
by establishing trusting love relationships may have been
victimized as children. These people may easily involve
themselves in sexual encounters with strangers, but have
tremendous difficulty in forming and maintaining healthy
partnerships. They may enter therapy with the complaint
that they feel adrift and alienated from life. Many appear
socially adept but in fact lead solitary lives, devoid of
close ties or committments.[Everstine & Everstine, 153-154]
Of course, the resemblance to the gay bath house, sex club,
gay bar scene, and public restroom activities of homosexuals
should be obvious. How typical are these stereotypical behaviors?
Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny include a table titled, "Sexual
Partners Among Homosexuals." The results of the survey are
fascinating, and nicely dovetail with reading soc.motss:
Homosexual Males Homosexual Females
White Black White Black
N=574 N=111 N=227 N=64
Lifetime number of
homosexual partners
1 0% 0% 3% 5%
2 0 0 9 5
3-4 1 2 15 14
5-9 2 4 31 30
10-14 3 5 16 9
15-24 3 6 10 16
25-49 8 6 8 11
50-99 9 18 5 8
100-249 15 15 1 2
250-499 17 11 1 2
500-999 15 14 0 0
1000 or more 28 19 0 0
Proportion of partners
who were strangers
None 1% 5% 62% 56%
Half or less 20 43 32 38
More than half 79 51 6 6
Proportion of partners
with whom sexual activity
occurred only once
None 1% 4% 38% 41%
Half or less 29 59 51 55
More than half 70 38 12 5
[Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, 404]
Read this chart carefully. More than half of the white male
homosexuals had 250 or more lifetime homosexual partners, as did
44% of the black male homosexuals. Just like the rest of us?
How many heterosexuals do you know that have 250 different
sexual partners in one lifetime? How many do you know with 1000
or more?
Note that these aren't close, loving relationships of relatively
short duration -- majorities of both black and white male homosexuals
had more than have of their sexual relationships with strangers.
The number of partners with whom sexual activity "occurred only
once" is really astonishing. Long-term, emotionally satisfying
relationships? Don't let this lie continue to be told. There may
be homosexuals for whom this true, but it would appear that they
are very few and far between.
The female homosexuals figures are considerably closer to self-
restraint -- which may be one of the explanations for their
relatively low levels of AIDS infection.
Powerlessness
Bagley & King describe one traumatic effect of childhood sexual
abuse as a sense of powerlessness[Bagley & King, 115-116] --
which certainly describes the continual whining in soc.motss
about being an oppressed minority in a heterosexist world.
Self-Mutilation & Piercing
Both Bagley/King and Faller mention self-multilation as a response
of childhood sexual abuse victims.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 152,
306] The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
(though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious. As
a female victim of childhood sexual abuse who had taken to burning
herself with cigarettes and pulling out her hair told my wife,
"It's a different kind of pain. It takes your mind off the other
things that hurt."
Chemical Dependency
Alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse are repeatedly
mentioned by all three sources, as a method of deadening the
pain of childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 103,
152, 306-307, Everstine & Everstine, 153]
I'm reluctant to quote secondary sources (especially postings),
but I have been unable to locate the original documents, and
while Arthur Hu received substantial namecalling and insults,
I don't recall anyone questioning the validity of the data
presented:
The taboo on criticizing lifestyles means that means you
can't explain about massive numbers of sexual partners, or
the unhealthy level of drug and alcohol use, which was well
documented in a recent report for the Lesbian & Gay
Substance Abuse Planning Group in San Francisco. [EMT] The
report got just the barest 2 inch mini-article in the
Chronicle, and was extremely difficult to track down even
after calling the San Francisco AIDS office.
The study found that while some earlier studies may have
exaggerated the degree of drug use among gays, one quarter
of gays were recovering from alcohol or drug use. 33 to 42
percent of lesbians and gays were using drugs and alcohol at
dangerous levels, much higher than the general population.
In addition a strong link was established between combined
sex and drug use and unsafe sex practices, even without IV
drug use. Though Kaposi's Sarcoma is a skin condition
commonly associated with AIDS, it is most probably caused by
use of nitrate inhalants, often used by gays during sex.
[EMTC p. 42] One quarter of gay men and half of lesbian
women had been sexually abused as children.
EMT: San Francisco Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Substance Abuse
Needs Assessment, Executive Summary(A), Anonymous Survey(B),
and A Review of the Literature(C). Prepared for the Lesbian
& Gay Substance Abuse Planning Group, San Francisco by EMT
associates, 3090 Fite Circle, Suite 201, Sacramento CA
95827. Contact San Francisco Department of Public Health,
Community Substance Abuse Services, 130 Howard Street, Suite
400, San Francisco CA 94103 (free)
[Arthur Hu, Arthu...@cup.portal.com, <50...@cup.portal.com>]
As you can see, a lot of homosexuals not only have chemical
dependencies, but were sexually abused as kids -- more than
you would expect, if there were no connection between their
sexual abuse, and their current behavior.
Hyde also confirms the use of amyl nitrate by homosexuals as
an aphrodisiac, and because it relaxes the anal sphincter muscles
to allow sodomy.[Hyde, 242-243]
Suicide
The high rate of suicide among homosexual teenagers has long
been shown as "evidence" that the heterosexism of our society
is destructive. But a characteristic of childhood sexual abuse
victims is abnormally high levels of suicide attempts and
successes.[Bagley & King, 121, 123, 141-142, Faller, 152, 306-307,
Everstine & Everstine, 13, 153] Perhaps homosexuality isn't
the reason for the suicides, but both are symptoms of the same
underlying pain?
Interesting Parallels
As should be obvious from the list of symptoms described
above, there is some astonishing parallelism between the char-
acteristics of childhood sexual abuse victims, and homosexuals.
Perhaps the most interesting of all is Faller's description of
the characteristics of child molesters:
A fourth and related pattern to look for in evaluation is
unusual or bizarre sexual practices. Sometimes these are
encounters in which the perpetrator is very regressed.
Other times they are patterns of sexual deviation such as
transvestism, sadistic or masochistic activities, copro-
philia and coprophagia, zoophilia, fetishism, or certain
kinds of homosexual encounters.[Faller, 212]
Why, that's just a normal month in soc.motss! Some of you may
recall the postings there discussing what parts of the human anatomy
they would like changed to an animal part, to make sex more
"interesting."[George Dalton Madison, Fu...@cup.portal.com,
<56...@cup.portal.com>, Mark Manning, ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov,
<1992Mar27.2...@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>]
What are these deviant sexual behaviors called? Masters, Johnson,
& Kolodny define these as "paraphilias":
Recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies
usually involving either (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering
or humilation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or
other nonconsenting persons.[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 418]
"[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's
early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426] This also
fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
sexual abuse -- and the connection of dominance, pain, suffering,
and the various fetishs, to an adult dominating a child, causing
pain in connection with the sexual organs, or tying a child up,
should be obvious.
Differences In Response Between Men & Women
"So why don't lesbians go molest little girls? Huh? Huh?"
is the usual response of the homosexual community. The answer
is straightforward:
Halliday (1985) identifies migraine headaches, back problems,
stomach problems, infections (27 per cent of her sample
had hysterectomies because of infections), anorexia, obesity,
asthma (especially among male victims of oral sex), epilepsy,
multiple personality, addictions, severe depression, self-
multilation, and increased acceptance of pain, as long-
term sequels. She found that male victims tend to be more
aggressive or externalizing of their distress, while females
tend to be more internalizing and self-destructive.[Bagley
& King, 119; also see Everstine & Everstine, 387]
"I've Always Been Gay"
This claim is made frequently -- one email correspondent related
getting started having sex at seven, and suggested that homosexuals
just get started younger than straight people. The parallel
to molested children expressing a precocious knowledge or interest
in sex is obvious -- but can we trust the claim, "I've always been
gay"? In spite of Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny being so very
Politically Correct about homosexuality, they discount this claim:
Some homosexuals say that they were aware of being gay as early
as age five or six, while others don't make the discovery until
sometime in adulthood. However, it is not very likely that the
young child has a real sense of homosexual orientation. The
sense of being "different" during childhood that some homosexuals
recall as adults is not always an accurate barometer of later
sexual orientation, since many "straight" adults also feel
"different" as children. Furthermore, adult recollections of
childhood feelings and behaviors may possibly be influenced
by social expectations of what homosexuals "should" have felt
(Ross, 1980).[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 399]
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get
your way, have a riot. Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Gene W. Smith
writes:
>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
>where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
>and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
>normal body shapes).
This is so completely stupid I should save it an quote it from time to
time. FYI, a bear does not mean "overweight and hairy", though it is
possible for a bear to be heavy. Anybody who actually knows anything
about the gay community knows it is not overrun by heavy people.
>Read this chart carefully. More than half of the white male
>homosexuals had 250 or more lifetime homosexual partners, as did
>44% of the black male homosexuals. Just like the rest of us?
>How many heterosexuals do you know that have 250 different
>sexual partners in one lifetime? How many do you know with 1000
>or more?
How many had the opportunity, O Wise One?
>Both Bagley/King and Faller mention self-multilation as a response
>of childhood sexual abuse victims.[Bagley & King, 117, Faller, 152,
>306] The obvious parallel to "piercings," in which homosexuals
>(though not exclusively homosexuals) have nipples (male and
>female), scrotums, and the labia pierced, should be obvious.
Right. Now go and find an actual connection, or shut the hell up.
> In addition a strong link was established between combined
> sex and drug use and unsafe sex practices, even without IV
> drug use. Though Kaposi's Sarcoma is a skin condition
> commonly associated with AIDS, it is most probably caused by
> use of nitrate inhalants, often used by gays during sex.
> [EMTC p. 42] One quarter of gay men and half of lesbian
> women had been sexually abused as children.
This is what comes of quoting Arthur Hu: an assertion that nitrate
inhalants cause KS. I would suggest you check your sources, except you
have already admitted you have none.
> [Arthur Hu, Arthu...@cup.portal.com, <50...@cup.portal.com>]
A well-known expert in the field.
> A fourth and related pattern to look for in evaluation is
> unusual or bizarre sexual practices. Sometimes these are
> encounters in which the perpetrator is very regressed.
> Other times they are patterns of sexual deviation such as
> transvestism, sadistic or masochistic activities, copro-
> philia and coprophagia, zoophilia, fetishism, or certain
> kinds of homosexual encounters.[Faller, 212]
>Why, that's just a normal month in soc.motss! Some of you may
>recall the postings there discussing what parts of the human anatomy
>they would like changed to an animal part, to make sex more
>"interesting."[George Dalton Madison, Fu...@cup.portal.com,
><56...@cup.portal.com>, Mark Manning, ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov,
><1992Mar27.2...@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>]
>What are these deviant sexual behaviors called? Masters, Johnson,
>& Kolodny define these as "paraphilias":
Discussing what parts of the human anatomy you want changed is not a
paraphilia. And have you read alt.sex lately (or ever?)
>"[V]irtually all the paraphilias have their origins in a person's
>early sexual history."[Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 426] This also
>fits in with my hypothesis that homosexuality is a result of childhood
>sexual abuse -- and the connection of dominance, pain, suffering,
>and the various fetishs, to an adult dominating a child, causing
>pain in connection with the sexual organs, or tying a child up,
>should be obvious.
To have a hypothesis you ought to have evidence, which you don't give.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Phil Ronzone
>In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP
>(Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a
>>group where many members identify themselves as "bears"
>>(overweight and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those
>>with more normal body shapes).
>>
>This is so completely stupid I should save it an quote it
>from time to time. FYI, a bear does not mean "overweight and
>hairy", though it is possible for a bear to be heavy. Anybody
>who actually knows anything about the gay community knows it
>is not overrun by heavy people.
Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
person is.
Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!
His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!
But, more to the point, consider the above. Upon reading it, an
immediate bullshit alert should go up. Clayton mentioned a "bear",
and "Gene Smith" immediately says, nope, that's not it, you're stupid.
Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.
Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.
I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.
In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
a nerve.
Anybody else going to "argue by mommy figure"?
--
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Gene W. Smith
>Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
>recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
>person is.
Gene Smith is my actual name, and therefore does not belong in quotes.
I sometimes become annoyed at stupidity, which means I sometimes
become annoyed reading netnews. As for driven, a clear example of
seemingly irrationally driven behavior is Calyton's obsessive postings
on the subject of the supposed connection between child molestation
and homosexuality.
>Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
>and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
>says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!
My point was, my mother had those very same professional credentials.
If you want to give that much credit to a person who may have done
their thesis as macrame, go ahead.
The people Clayton quoted had in several instances very dubious
credentials (about as bad as your preposterous citation of the opinions
of detectives who work in the area.) Neither a police detective nor a
psychiatric social worker nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of
what they do or know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child molestation.
Having said that, I also take note of the fact that the evidence
offered by both you and Clayton Cramer shows, if anything, the *lack*
of such a relationship. Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows
that you are both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.
>His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!
Is your mind still at a grade-school level? This could explain this
obsession with child-molestation, I suppose.
>Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.
Why should I? It would take to long to explain, anyway.
>Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
>posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
>50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.
>I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.
>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
>a nerve.
I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone. You and Clayton sit and
talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with little or no idea what it
means. If you want to find out, get a copy of Bear Magazine or
something. I have no particular interest in giving a course in intro
gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes. What I am really
curious about now is the question of whether your really think you've
scored some kind of a rhetorical triumph here. Do you think Clayton
knows more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
deliberatly covering up the awful truth?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Phil Ronzone
>Neither a police detective nor a psychiatric social worker
>nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of what they do or
>know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
>relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child
>molestation. Having said that, I also take note of the fact
>that the evidence offered by both you and Clayton Cramer
>shows, if anything, the *lack* of such a relationship.
>Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows that you are
>both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
>reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.
Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
that any one else.
>I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone. You and
>Clayton sit and talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with
>little or no idea what it means. If you want to find out, get
>a copy of Bear Magazine or something. I have no particular
>interest in giving a course in intro gay studies to a couple
>of moronic homophobes. What I am really curious about now is
>the question of whether your really think you've scored some
>kind of a rhetorical triumph here. Do you think Clayton knows
>more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
>deliberatly covering up the awful truth?
No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.
You are typical in this regard.
You assert that others are "wrong".
Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong,
state that you have no particular interest in giving a course
on gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes.
You lie.
1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.
And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just
too "about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant
elitist pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach
given off by intellectually dishonest people cornered by their
own contradictions.
If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.
Gene W. Smith
>Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
>first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
>better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
>that any one else.
Actually, social workers such as my much-derided mother are likely to
be the first line of encounter. Neither a police officer nor a
CPS worker is studying the problem scientifically--that isn't their
job.
Your citation of the detective who opined that the membership of Nambla
consisted almost entirely of sadistic child-rapists is a good example
of the limitation of this perspective. A police officer tends to look
at the world in terms of perps, other officers, and civilians (since
you seem to hate this kind of thing, I will spare you the details of
why and how I had the opportunity to get to know some police
detectives.) If you have an organization like Nambla, a police
officer's first instinct will be that these guys sound like perps.
When some of them turn out to be, it is easy to assume that they all
are, more or less. But this isn't a reasoned judgment based on
evidence. If you had given any evidence that the detective involved
actually knew anything to base his judgment on, your preposterous
credulity might have made some sense. But you didn't and it doesn't.
>No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs >and
>you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that >disagrees
>with your beliefs and preconceptions.
It say a lot about you (and none of it good) that you charge *me* with
this, given the Clayton Cramer postings which started all this. I
respond to information rationally. If you don't know how that works,
try bringing in *real* data and arguments. You'll get a lot more
respect. I've gotten in trouble enough for objecting to stuff with
whose conclusions I am in sympathy. I don't think you know much about
the scientific mind and how it works, Bub. I've been trained to
go after weak arguments, and so that is what I do. If the weak arguments
are personally offensive to me, so much the worse for them, but
that doesn't mean I let it cloud my judgment.
If you want to see a rationalizer, buy a mirror.
>Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong, tate that
>you have no particular interest in giving a course on gay studies to a
>couple of moronic homophobes.
You are capable of doing your own homework, are you not? I told you
one place you could find out what "bear" means in gayspeak if you felt
you absolutely must know. In fact, if you really, truly are interested
in the question of what "bear" and "twink" actually mean, I suppose I
could explain. But my impression is that you are using this as
something on which to base a bogus rhetorical point.
>>You lie.
You didn't do this right. The correct, Maroney-style syntax is:
YOU LIE!!!!
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you then need to
post actual lies.
>1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
My several long posts are not evidence that I am interested in
furthering *your* education, Stupid.
>2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.
If you and Clayton don't want to be considered moronic and homophobic,
then don't post moronic and homophobic stuff all the time. To show this
is a lie, you would have to show that I knew neither of you was
moronic and homophobic, but said so anyway.
Speaking of fundamental dishonesty, what about your contention that you
and Cramer are *not* homophobic? In Cramer's case it is painfully
obvious, and only a person who was capable of and in the habit of lying
to himself could ignore this.
If you want to see a liar, buy a mirror.
>And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just too
>"about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant elitist
>pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach given off by
>intellectually dishonest people cornered by their own contradictions.
If you want to corner someone with their contradictions, you must first
find at least one actual contradiction. And I am considered
Politically Incorrect(tm) by some, so I aint worried about that rather
limp epithet.
Donn F. Pedro
A bunch of stuff to Gene Smith that, in fact, applies to the very person
he is striving to protect -- Clayton Cramer.
:In article <1992Oct10.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsm...@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
:
:No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
:and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
:disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.
A very accurate description of Clayton's behavior.
:You assert that others are "wrong".
Another.
:1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?
Yes. Why the several long posts?
:If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.
We are not here for you, Phil. Clayton can make all the assertions (lies)
he wishes, and you can defend him all you want, but no one is obligated
to educate someone who will refuses to listen.
Clayton's 'culling' of soc.motss should be all the education he needs,
yet he only sees what he wants to see.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
There are no ordinary moments.
Hot Young Star
In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The Results of Childhood Sexual Abuse
>-------------------------------------
[...]
>Eating Disorders
>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a group
>where many members identify themselves as "bears" (overweight
>and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those with more
>normal body shapes).
First of all, you misinterpret what a "bear" is. Clue: there is no
one "type" of bear. The whole bear mystique has a lot to do with
body hair, to be sure, but just as much to do with a rugged, outdoorsy,
masculine bearing (sorry for the pun!) as with actual hirsuteness.
It has nothing much to do with body shape at all.
Secondly, and more importantly, is your false implication that
gay men tend to be more overweight than the general population.
My experience among gay men my age is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. They seem
to be more interested than the average young man in perfecting their
bodies. As a result, gyms have become staples in the daily routines of
many, to the point that they have also become major places of congregation
and friendly conversation.
I often give advice to the newly out who ask me about good ways of
meeting other gay men. I always say "avoid the bars", and point them
to gymnasiums (not to mention bookstores and dinner parties!). People
seem to be a lot more friendly with a dumbbell in their hand than with
a drink! Maybe because there are fewer pretentions at the gym. You can
see your workout partners and the other gym members all have less than
perfect bodies. Everybody knows it. Bars on the other hand tend to be
the way of offering yourself as a "perfect package"---if you don't go
to bars to socialize, that is.
This whole "gym body" phenom does have a bit unsettling implications,
though. It speaks of how we still expect men to notice the most physically
attractive people first, whether they be male or female.
Says a lot about how many women must feel about appearing attractive to
straight men!
Clayton Cramer
> In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #heterosexuals, and making obviously absurd assumptions about non-
# #monogamous heterosexuals remaining so, and at the same sexual
# #promiscuity level throughout their lifetimes, still show homosexual
# #men as at least twice as promiscuous as the non-monogamous homosexuals.
#
# The assumptions aren't that absurd given recent divorce stats.
Guess what -- lots of divorced people get remarried. (And many
of them get divorced again, because they haven't resolved the
problems that caused the first divorce). I have known heterosexual
men who engaged in the sort of promiscuity that you talk about.
They have been extremely rare -- even in the late 1970s, they were
pretty remarkable cases.
# I realize this will be difficult to digest, especially since some of
# my interlocutors go under the assumption that sexual fidelity is the
# end-all of a good marriage.
#
# While I remain monogamous at this point, I don't delude myself by believing
# that the day will never come when my partner and I might come to an agreement
# that we may entertain outside partners from time to time.
Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. My wife and certainly
engage in this "delusion." That you are prepared to plan for this
eventuality shows your committment to monogamy.
# Brian
Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
Thanks,
AAP
.