Skip to comments.How Many Victims of Penn State Homosexual Predator Jerry Sandusky Will Think They are ‘Gay’?
Posted on 11/13/2011 6:04:45 AM PST by Diago
click here to read article
Yes, and that is part of the sodomite agenda, now masking itself in “anti-bullying.”
It’s all about repressing the normal male behavior of fighting off sodomite overtures.
Even McQueary, 28 at the time, fell victim to this brainwashing, and failed to save a ten year old boy from anal rape.
S/B “Evidence of same” at the end of my last.
I have a bad habit on threads like this of touch typing very fast and hitting “post.”
And I’m not shutting up about it. Even in my novels, I have some homosexual predators, and I’ve been slammed for it.
Homos are a protected sub-species, doncha know. They may only be heroes, and never villains, in fiction.
I’m not familiar with that terminology. What is the difference between a pederast and a pedophile? Thanks for any information you have.
“... part of the sodomite agenda, now masking itself in anti-bullying”.
I have never really thought about it that way but it does make sense. What we define as “bullying” now usually involves Gay/Bi/Lesbian/Transgendered youths. A kid can still technically laugh at someone who wears glasses, tall/short, skinny/fat... but laugh at some boy wearing heels and purple eyeshadow and they are expelled from school. There are tons of ads called, “It gets better”... essentially telling the children to accept their homosexuality and in time... life gets better for them.
Would you agree that adult women who prey upon boys sexually are not the most mentally balanced people to be introducing boys to sex with females? There is a huge power difference in these relationships that put boys at the mercy of the adult female. If the experience is dark, would this effect a boy's sexual imprinting and result in him not being comfortable or real with normal women sexually? But we agree that being molested by a female adult versus a male adult are totally different animals in consequence for the psychology boys.
One of the major problems I see for boys and girls today is that they are not socialized to understand that sex exists within a larger inspiration called love and caring. Sex can be a mechanical process of sexual expression but that kind of sex (I call it head sex - masturbation with or without another person involved) is different from real sex that involves, touches and entwines the spirit or soul of a male and a female. One produces physical satisfaction and the other produces physical satisfaction combined with an explosion of love known only to humans. It's a blessed thing that is really hard to put in secular terms but all young people should know that it exists. It is like trying to explain to people what it is like when the Holy Spirit embraces you.
The grand jury report described how Sandusky selected his victims. It had nothing to do with being girly. It has everything to do with the self confidence and instinct necessary to reject his assertive grooming advances.
I agree with you. Just to be clear, you put a quote on your post to me that I did not make.
Male.....the nic goes back to my gaming days.
In the anecdote that you give, how do you know that abuse of some kind, at some age, by some family friend or relative, was not present? Please don’t simply blast me for pointing this out.. Many things go on in families behind closed doors that no one but the actual participants know about.
My bad. I think I pulled something from post #75 and simply elaborated on the thought.
Major League Baseball is buying into that 'It Gets Better' campaign...I know the Boston Ped...er, Red Sox are sponsors, and there are several other teams involved.
A lot of what we learn emotionally is learned before we are able to process it mentally so it feels to us as if it is just a natural emotion/feeling. This is true for lots of things besides feelings of emotional or sexual attraction.
For instance, my dad was emotionally abused by his mother and it has affected his life ever since. He has a violent temper as well, and my emotions “learned” from before I was able to even process it that if Dad blew up it was somebody else’s fault. I “learned” that if somebody else is mad at you it’s your fault. My husband grew up in a home that was the same way. When we got married I had lots of problems because our relationship had that same basic emotional foundation. I went to a counselor who told me that if just concentrated on pleasing my husband everything would be fine. I kept struggling with a strong desire to drive off the road on the way home from those counseling sessions, for some reason.
It was only when I began to deal with a recurring nightmare (that I had been having ever since I was a teen) that I began to realize the “automatic thoughts” that my mind had accepted. (The idea of “automatic thoughts” was the one valuable thing I got from the counseling sessions). I had “learned” that my dad’s anger was my fault, and as a result I “learned” to automatically think (when somebody was angry) that it must have been something I did. That thought/belief led me to FEEL guilty, even when I intellectually knew it was not my fault. I could reason with myself all day but still had the FEELING. That’s because my first, automatic thoughts opposed reason. They weren’t based on reason. They were based on a little 2-year-old girl trying to make emotional sense out of her world in a Pavlov’s-dog type of way. What should have been dealt with on an intellectual level was handled on an EMOTIONAL level, so I learned an EMOTIONAL response that I couldn’t overcome through reasoning.
All I could observe as an adult was my feelings. Those feelings “came natural” to me. But they were problematic. For me to accept that those feelings are just the way I had to live the rest of my life would have been a death sentence. We are not at the mercy of our feelings. Our feelings are there for a reason.
When I was trying to figure out and correct the problem so that my feelings would make sense, I tried a lot of other things that I thought would get my feelings where they needed to be. One of those things I tried was getting married. Having a guy think I was wonderful would fix everything, right? It didn’t. In 4th grade I decided to try being useful. That got more people to like me but it didn’t fix my feelings. I tried being a missionary to atheists as a reason to justify my existence; that didn’t work either. Nothing I tried worked. My feelings were only fixed when I finally emotionally came to terms with the fact that good people can still have others be mad at them. Having somebody be mad at you isn’t a “guilty” verdict.
Since I am not looking to my husband to validate my existence and his anger doesn’t threaten my emotional stability, our relationship is totally different than it was. Since I am not looking to my “missionary work” to validate my existence I don’t have to clutch desperately to it and have it run my life, which frees me up to go whatever direction the Lord truly does lead. I’m much healthier now than I’ve ever been, even though I still sometimes have to fight my feelings all over again.
The point of this long missive is that we think of our feelings as being who we are, but emotional feelings have causes just as much as toothaches have causes. When we adjust our chewing to accommodate a toothache it causes other problems in our life - displaces the pain so maybe the tooth doesn’t hurt but the jaw does. Or maybe there is no obvious pain but there is tension that eats away silently and causes chronic ulcerative colitis (which is how my husband dealt with the dysfunction rising from his dad’s emotional and physical abuse as a kid).
So a person may well say that they have these “natural” feelings and have had them their entire life, and yet those feelings may be the only clue the person has that will point them to a source of deep problems in their life.
I am a normal, rational, capable person who would not be classified as mentally imbalanced. And yet I spent a large part of my life suffering because of irrational feelings that I thought were normal because I had always had them. There was a rational reason for me to have those feelings, and they were not my fault. But they were hurtful to me and caused me to behave in sometimes-desperate ways. A person in similar circumstances could well have sexualized their response and had catastrophic results.
The United States has evidently adopted a duplicitous policy with regard to pederasty by assigning it to ¨cultural norms¨ in Afghanistan and other Islamic societies and that our military forces therein should just ¨look the other way¨.
What do our ¨leaders¨ - at every level - have to say about that? Not much it seems. Thus we freely evidently accept this role, and become the same accomplices to this monstrous crime as those at Penn State.
I think where you may feel a conflict in your personal experience with the lesbian versus what Travis is saying in is thread, is that this thread is about homosexuals who prey on boys and the effect it has on those boys.
Grooming is when homosexual child predators approach boys sexually to see if they would make good victims. They violate the taboo against homosexual adults interacting mentally and physically in a sexual way with boys. Sandusky’s grand jury report explains his methodology very well and it is the pattern commonly used by homo predators on boys. He did not pick on “girly” boys. He approached boys sexually and the boys who had the instinct to get away from him and the inner strenght to resist his efforts to dominate them were left alone. Those who acted like deer caught in the headlights, were dominated and raped.
After a boy is raped there is a continous process of manipulating and traumatizing him by the predator. Men who are abused as boys often suffer depression, sexual idenity issues, anger issues, shame and guilt issues... There is a high rate of homosexuals who were abused as boys and there is a high rate of suicide among young homoseuxal males. These tragedies are related.
Ask yourself why the “activists” are going after the children to exceed the taboos against interacting with boys sexually - groom them for homosexuality and dictate how they must interact with homo aggression so that they are not evil haters, bullies and homophobes. They are socializing boys to be deer caught in the headlights when they are confronted by homo aggression.
You are entering into a on-going conversation about homosexual boy rape and telling Travis, a man who is paying attention, to shut up because you know two homos so you are the expert on boy child abuse. Take this chance to find out about this problem and HELP!!!! One in six boys are molested - twice the rate of girls. Consider this in light of the fact that many more boys and girls never tell the truth about what happened to them.
OK, what’s the difference? I’ve seen several suggested.
1. one was pre-pubescent (no pubic hair - I think this was pedophilia) vs. post-pubescent (pubic hair - I think this was pederasty).
2. pederasty = boys only; pedophilia = boys or girls
3. pederasty = statutory rape
pedophilia = anything up to that point.
(linguistically this is the most defensible)
I thought it was interesting that Ron Brown’s prayer before the Penn State-Nebraska game was, in part, that they would all play with all their strength and integrity, knowing that young boys all over the country would be looking to them as a way to learn what manliness means.
I was so glad that Bo Pelini made the comments he did - that football is nothing compared to the lives of young people, and protecting them. Again, that’s a public figure displaying manliness - the manly desire to protect the vulnerable rather than exploit them. It flies in the face of a whole society that is built on exploiting the vulnerable - either by lying to them, taking from them, or whatever.
We have in the White House today a man who believes that children born alive after a failed abortion should legally be allowed to be killed either through neglect or an outright act of violence. All because he claims that simply allowing that child to live would be “too much of a burden” on a woman. IOW, this politician is exploiting tiny infants in order to get the votes of the women who want to abuse those tiny infants. Politician exploits woman by offering her the opportunity to exploit the very most vulnerable among us.
Sick, sick, sick. What can a creep like that, or anybody who supports that exploitation, have to say about real manliness? They are grown-up bullies in male bodies, that’s all. And it’s no wonder our young people are confused. The whole society is exploiting every vulnerability they can find.
The first media reports about AIDS were about the beginning of 1981 I think (although I think it was a bit later before the name was adopted). The Red Cross when screening blood donations uses the year 1977 as a cut-off (they won’t accept blood from a male who has had sex with another male since 1977). I once read about a mysterious case in St. Louis from the 1960s—a teenage boy was dying and the doctors couldn’t figure out what the matter was. They saved a blood sample and after the AIDS epidemic became known they tested it and discovered that the boy had had AIDS.
When I was younger and learned about how cruel ancient civilizations could be (child sacrifice, etc), I would think “thank goodness we have evolved”. I don’t believe that anymore. Ancient civilizations would sacrifice babies, virgins, slaves... in ignorance to a god for hopes of safety, better crops etc. We know the damage being done. We know that a fetus has a beating heart. We know that children suffer horribly (and for the rest of their lives) as a result of physical abuse/sexual abuse. The only true difference is we now seem to focus entirely on the needs of the perpetrator. We now label babies as “baggage” and children are offered to sickos each and every day. The media exploits this as well. Watch all sorts of movies/television shows and what do you see? Children being shown as “sexual” and teen characters taking care of their “little problem” by a simple visit to the abortion clinic. Nope, Butterdezillion, we haven’t evolved as a species at all.
A pedophile is one who sexualizes/objectifies a non-sexual child. A pederast likes the young sexual person who is first starting to figure out what it’s all about. So the pederast is one who “persuades” the malleable person to be gay.
And as long as our society is offering hetero and homo as equally valid persuasions, the pederast’s job is made easy. As long as younger and younger ages are considered to have sexual “rights”, desires, etc, the pederast’s job is made easier.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Travis, I have to tell you how much I respect and appreciate you for dealing with this. As you think about your own experience, is there any advice you would have for those of us who deal with boys, teens, and adults who are confused, have been groomed, or who have been sexually violated?
Think of this purely biologically, you have an organism through its behavior can't reproduce. And the Human Genome project demonstrated that there is no gay gene in spite of the academic “gay mafia” trying to stack the researcher deck. (And why would anyone think there would be? Where is the evolutionary driver for a gene that prevents the organism from reproducing?) Therefore their numbers through time can only come from two sources, all other things being equal something goes wrong in their psychological development. (Think a Bell Curve of personality/psychology archetypes, with aberrant behavior being the outliers.) & b) Recruiting. I would bet that natural numbers in a) is very small. Therefore the current numbers likely come from b). Particularly since society has dropped the pressure on this form of sociopathic behavior.
Yes I view homosexuality as a sociopathy, usually not overly dysfunctional, the exception of course being pedophilia.
One in six. That is obscene. I had no idea it was that common.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Adult female seducers of teenage boys do harm them, compared to the ideal ways to be introduced to heterosexual love and sex.
But at the end of the day, the boys are still on a heterosexual trajectory, with no confusion of their sexual identity.
IMHO the harm is orders of magnitude less than in the case of a sodomite pederast.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Got it. I thought you were speaking from the female POV.
My 11-year-old daughter was asking me what was going on at Penn State, that they were talking about when we listened to the NE-Penn State football game. So after the game we had a long talk that covered a lot of different topics. The subject of exploitation was one - and included a discussion of rape, child abuse, and abortion, and how they are interrelated. We also talked about coping mechanisms and how abortive women are both perpetrators and victims - as are (so often) abused children who grow up to abuse their own children, children who are sodomized who go on to sodomize others, etc.
We human beings are so easily trapped. No, we haven’t evolved at all. We are still the same vulnerable, easily-warped people we’ve always been. And the more we try to pretend otherwise, the more the society as a whole is suckered into believing our own lies and justifications.
It’s disgusting and demoralizing for our troops to be told to “look the other way” in Afghanistan (and other ME/islamic countries) when they see grown men grooming and raping “dancing boys.”
What a lesson to our troops, in our now “gay-friendly” military.
Frankly, I would not want my sons to join the military now. The barracks will be full of predatory sodomite NCOs, and the young recruits will have no way to fight back.
Amen. But don’t worry about me in regards to Joe in Texas. I could not care less. I am on this crusade for life, and pro-homosexuals only harden my resolve to resist their campaign to corrupt boys.
Close enough. The key point is that the sodomites HATE when the term “pederast” is used, because it means there is a blur between “normal” (sic) adult homosexuality, and “deviant” pedophilia.
Pederasts are the bridge. Adult homosexuals overtly decry the Sanduskies while secretly applauding them, for having the “courage” (in terms of risking prison) to corrupt young boys, and send them on a trajectory where many will be available for homosexual sex later on.
The pederasts feed this sick, evil cyle, to the benefit of adult homosexuals.
That’s why I always distinguish between pedophiles, who are already condemned by one and all, and pederasts, who feed and sustain the homosexual pipeline with new victims.
But just let the power go out for a year or two, and we will be right back in the jungle of warlords, chattel slavery, sexual slavery, torture for pleasure, etc.
It's a very thin thread holding our civilization intact.
The pederast is the necessary bridge between adult homosexuals and vulnerable adolescent males.
That's why the sodomites want the word expunged.
I agree, and it’s time to make that case, and not just follow the PC claptrap about homosexual genetic destiny.
We must resist the sodomite agenda, to save our boys, and Western society.
Or, we can follow the Road to Sodom, and that is not a happy road.
Lots of boys at that age are confused by their sexuality. The homosexual recruiters try to claim these boys are confused about their sexuality. It's fraudulent from the word go.
I'll bet he also pursued boys who were fence sitters and now he has turned them gay for life unless they get some high quality intervention. Fence sitters will go the way the dominant culture pushes them which is towards normal heterosexuality....unless a scumbag like Sandusky comes along and pushes them into the gay way via sex
The physical act of a grown man doing this with a boy's rectum is so disgusting and worth hanging him for it
Totally. It’s a scam being run by sodomite predators. The difference is that the social norm has now moved radically toward “gay acceptance,” which is a pederast’s dream.
“Glee” = gay grooming. Period. And the world is all tuned to “Glee’s” frequency now. Shoot, just SAY the word “fag,” and you are excommnunicated from Hollywood.
Yep. There is a reason society kept them in the closet, in a modicum of fear. It was a means of settng boundaries around their behavior, to protect our children.
Now the boundaries are all shattered, and “Glee” type messages are bombarding kids. By the time they matriculate at Predatory Sodomite U, they are putty in the hands of the homosexual profs, TAs and coaches. Their resistance to the homosexual agenda has been brainwashed out of them.
You are very wise to talk to your daughter about all of this. If she doesn’t hear this talk from you then she has to rely on what she hears at school or the media. I find it amazing how many parents won’t talk to their own kids about these subjects. It is disheartening. We have to prepare them for the world and how to protect themselves. I remember when my son was real little and went to the pediatricians. The doctor examined him and my son started to yell, “BAD TOUCH, BAD TOUCH!!” The doctor was very happy that he knew how to respond even as a little guy.
Very good points and when one considers that Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocated fot lowering theage of consent for sex between an afdult and a minor to I think 12 years old I think you have your answer, And another questionas to why republicans didn’t oppose her based on her paper advocating her psoition.
My daughter asked me if I hate people who like Obama. I said no, that I wouldn’t hate them just for that and in most cases the reason they like Obama is because they have believed the lies that the media has told them.
She was relieved to hear that I don’t hate them and then confessed that a friend of hers likes Obama. lol. I asked her why her friend likes Obama and she said because Obama is supportive of women and women’s choices. I said, “Honey, most often when they talk about women’s choices they are talking about a woman having the legal choice of killing her child before the child is born.”
She assured me that her friend would never support that.
I said, “But she supports Barack Obama because somebody who DOES support that told her Barack Obama is pro-woman. In reality, abortion HURTS women...” and then went on to explain how women are victimized by abortion and many spend the rest of their life either in denial or in coping mechanisms. Obama is HURTING women, but by jive-talking them into thinking he’s really helping them, he is exploiting those women just as surely as Sandusky raped those boys after letting them think he was a gift-giving friend.
And the whole while the “pro-choice” movement knows that abortion is one dead and one wounded - yet will not defend the vulnerable because their own power means more to them than the people who are hurt by their exploitation. Just like Penn State.
I think I also brought in Fast & Furious - and how our own government sold guns to the drug cartels so that they could create a massacre-type situation in Mexico, from which good, decent people needed to flee - so that it would seem heartless to close the border to them (and we’d have an excuse to keep the border open to Mexicans who would then come to the US and vote democrat). And so Obama’s administration could say that guns should be forbidden (so only the crooks would have guns and the “little people” would be unable to defend themselves and thus become just like the people in Mexico who had to flee the butchering...)
It was a heavy-duty conversation. I hope it wasn’t too much for her. I did want her to see that people in positions of power who are supposed to be protecting the innocent and executing justice are - all over the place - instead doing the exact same thing that the Penn State system did: letting innocents be hurt, so the powerful people could keep their power.
And they do it while the media calls them wonderful and most people have no clue just how depraved they actually are. My daughter’s friend would be appalled to know that Obama supported a woman’s “right” to have her fully-born child neglected or abused to death - since Obama says that allowing the child to live would be “too burdensome” for a woman.
If Karla knew that she was praising Obama because he supports a woman’s right to butcher her fully-born child, she would be disgusted. Hopefully she would question how the people she trusted could ever tell her that was a good thing. Perhaps she would see that she - in all her trusting but not verifying - is also being exploited by the very people that SHE trusts. If so, that 11-year-old girl would be wiser than nearly every woman in the democrat party.
It's called "a beard". And it's rather commonplace.
Wow. I wasn’t aware of that either.
The way the laws are now pretty much gives the “right” of young people to have sex with each other. In many instances it just makes it so that the two “consenting teens” have to be less than 3 years apart in age. So the whole idea of teens not being able to legally consent to sex is already shot. They can have legal sex until the cows come home, as long as they have it with somebody who is within 3 years of their own age. The legal justifications for that can’t help but be blurry - leaving the way wide open for the argument that age shouldn’t matter at all.
It stinks and we all know how the gays love to infiltrate their agenda into the public schools. Their agenda being that gay is OK and perfectly normal. I really think getting a penis put into his rectum really messes up a guy’s nervous system including brain and endocrine system due to all the sensitive nerves in the rectum area. Gays can pretend they are normal but they have messed up “house wiring”. Periodically putting bursts of 2000 volts through wiring intended for 110AC and 15 amps.
Maybe some gays are always the doer and never the sperm receptacle. I don’t know enough about them (thankfully)
Exactly. Once the society has taken the position that children can be voluntary sexual participants *at all*, there is no logical limit to a total free-for-all short of a general agreement on criminalizing violent coercion.
Psychologists now like to say we are all "sexual beings" from birth, and that's true (from conception) if it means that every person is genetically either male or female. However, that's not what they mean. If you take a look at what the UN considers "basic rights" regarding sexuality, it will make you sick.
I a “beard” the proper term for it? Meaning is that what the term for someone using a marriage as a smoke screen?
Yes, “beard” is a well-known colloquial term for a woman who is married to or in an apparent sexual relationship with a homosexual man. It’s not unknown for them to produce children, since men can do a sex act with absolutely anyone or anything, even if their preference is for anal with a man or boy.
Is that the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of the Child that Hillary Clinton tried to get approved so that there was no way that anybody in the US could ever get us out from under its obligations?
Is that the declaration that keeps the US from being on the UN’s Human Rights Council while allowing Iran and Venezuela to be on it?
I just read an article about a 10-year-old girl in Mexico having a baby. The article talked about Mexico not allowing abortion except in cases of rape - as if a 10-year-old girl aborting would make it no problem that these girls are either being raped by older guys or having sex with boys.
The Rights of the Child statement is pretty bad, but more is included in their proposals for the universal rights of women ... “women” being defined as any female who makes it past birth and the age for a quick infanticide.
I saw the story about the girl in Mexico. It’s insane that we’re supposed to believe that abortion is a cure for rape and/or incest, but that’s consistent with the modern viewpoint that fertility, pregnancy, and childbirth are pathological conditions, while sterile sex with anything with a pulse is the healthy human norm.