The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[Jones]

However, truth be told, it certainly gave some insight into what goes on in the minds of a LOT of people in respect of gays and in that respect, it was a useful display and it certainly triggered Cyre to display his own character, ideas, beliefs, which were equally crude and insensitive.

I found the transcript of the case that I mentioned in my last post as an example. The events that the case addressed occurred in 2005.

The man was described in some news articles as ultra right wing. Apart from the bumper sticker already mentioned he makes the comment in a local government meeting:
“That’s because I probably don’t class the gays as being human”.

In a report submitted to local government:
“Sodomite’s (sic) cannot reproduce, their only means of recruitment to their way of life is by preying on the children of normal human beings ...”.

Then when he was interviewed on TV about the case:
“I think it is a very perverse lifestyle. ... Can our health services cope with the sodomite’s epidemic? ... As you have prisoners who break the law lose certain rights and I do believe homosexuals lose rights. ... I think that they know they are going to die shortly I mean AIDS is pretty prevalent.”

On his own website, which has since disappeared and in an article titled 'No Human Rights for Non Humans' he said:
"Any person who commits acts that no ignorant animal would commit declares war on his community, and therefore may be destroyed by any or all of that community ...”

Apart from the above, he also had a pamphlet printed up and distributed on the subject.

In 2008, he run for the position of Mayor and got between 4 - 5,000 votes from a population of about 37,500 IIRC. So while his campaign wasn't successful, somewhere around 10 -13% of the population of the area agreed with him.

https://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/cases/2008QADT20.pdf

@Ant22

The wording of that study is odd. I'm tired so I may not be reading it correctly but this line:
"...and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

Seems to contradict the very next sentence:
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

 

[Seamus]

Here's an example of a study showing statistical distribution of homosexual vs. heterosexual pedophiles:

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study - PubMed

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thanks for the link Ant22

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The wording of that study is odd. I'm tired so I may not be reading it correctly but this line:
"...and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

Seems to contradict the very next sentence:
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

Think about it this way. Something like 98% of the population is heterosexual, 2% homosexual. If 1.1% of heterosexuals are pedophiles and 5% of homosexuals are pedophiles, that means 1.08% of the total population are heterosexual pedophiles, and 0.1% of the population are homosexual pedophiles. Note, I'm just making these numbers up to make the point. So even though the proportion of pedophilia is higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, in terms of absolute numbers, there are more heterosexual pedophiles than there are homosexual pedophiles.

 

[Jones]

Think about it this way. Something like 98% of the population is heterosexual, 2% homosexual. If 1.1% of heterosexuals are pedophiles and 5% of homosexuals are pedophiles, that means 1.08% of the total population are heterosexual pedophiles, and 0.1% of the population are homosexual pedophiles. Note, I'm just making these numbers up to make the point. So even though the proportion of pedophilia is higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, in terms of absolute numbers, there are more heterosexual pedophiles than there are homosexual pedophiles.

Ahh - I get it. Thanks

 

[Ant22]

Think about it this way. Something like 98% of the population is heterosexual, 2% homosexual. If 1.1% of heterosexuals are pedophiles and 5% of homosexuals are pedophiles, that means 1.08% of the total population are heterosexual pedophiles, and 0.1% of the population are homosexual pedophiles. Note, I'm just making these numbers up to make the point. So even though the proportion of pedophilia is higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, in terms of absolute numbers, there are more heterosexual pedophiles than there are homosexual pedophiles.

Yet the study didn't say "absolute numbers" but "proportion". So the study does in fact contradict itself. Interesting stuff, I'll see if I can find other studies to compare findings.

As Aragorn pointed out, using such a definite statement as "of course", especially when it's used to contradict the results of the study, is somewhat strange. I'd be interested to know who funded the study. If the LGBT gang, then it may be the case of "don't bite the hand that feeds you"

That said, LGBT is so infiltrated by absolute lunatics that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall percentage of pedophiles among this group in general was higher than in the remaining part of the society.

 

[Laura]

I found the transcript of the case that I mentioned in my last post as an example. The events that the case addressed occurred in 2005.
<snip>

In 2008, he run for the position of Mayor and got between 4 - 5,000 votes from a population of about 37,500 IIRC. So while his campaign wasn't successful, somewhere around 10 -13% of the population of the area agreed with him.

https://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/cases/2008QADT20.pdf

Dear Lord! That's a perfect example of how bad things can get when you mix a probable hard-wired aversion with a crazy mind. There is also a possibility that he was victimized as a child by a sexual predator and his "macho" image won't allow him to admit it, and so everything gets channeled into his personal vendetta.

Still, scary talk. What to do? Lock him up? Lock everyone else like him up?

@Ant22

The wording of that study is odd. I'm tired so I may not be reading it correctly but this line:
"...and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

Seems to contradict the very next sentence:
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

Yes, I read that over several times and I'm afraid that it didn't make sense unless they reversed the order of the first part of the sentence in relation to the last, possibly deliberately?

 

[luc]

If I understand correctly, then the contradiction here lies in these two sentences:

This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

The first sentence claims that the proportion of pedophiles among homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals. In other words, yes, homosexuals do have a "greater propensity to offend against children" statistically. For example, this means that if your uncle Tom is homosexual, statistically, it's more likely that he's a pedophile than if he was heterosexual.

Unless the author means something like "a homosexual who is not a pedophile isn't more likely to molest children than a heterosexual who is not a pedophile", which is a tautology. But I fear that might be how he meant it, as some sort of nonsensical PC disclaimer.

God, this nonsense just makes people brain-dead and doesn't help anybody.

Edit: Thinking about it, I frankly have no idea what the author means. I guess you would have to read the study. But isn't it crazy how convoluted this kind of language has become? Why not say straight-away what you found? It's exactly as outlined in Political Ponerology, people have to learn to speak the language of the Pathocrats, always afraid they make the slightest mistake for which they get sent to the Gulag.

 

[Ant22]

Edit: Thinking about it, I frankly have no idea what the author means. I guess you would have to read the study. But isn't it crazy how convoluted this kind of language has become? Why not say straight-away what you found? It's exactly as outlined in Political Ponerology, people have to learn to speak the language of the Pathocrats, always afraid they make the slightest mistake for which they get sent to the Gulag.

Hmmm... I'm quite tempted to email them and ask what they meant specifically. I'm more curious about the fact that they published a contradictory statement on their website than the proportion of pedophiles among homo and heterosexuals.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The first sentence claims that the proportion of pedophiles among homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals. In other words, yes, homosexuals do have a "greater propensity to offend against children" statistically. For example, this means that if your uncle Tom is homosexual, statistically, it's more likely that he's a pedophile than if he was heterosexual.

Confused me too. While searching for the full text I found this, which makes sense:

Are androphilic males persons with a homosexual erotic development?

I come across the following piece and don't understand the last sentence in the light of the first one. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homose...

english.stackexchange.com

Besides the possibility you suggest in the last sentence, it just occurred to me that it may also be possible that "androphilic" is here being used as a contrasting term to "pedophilic": that is, the authors are trying to stress that homosexual men attracted to other adult men are not any more likely than "gynophilic" men (attracted to adult women) to sexually abuse children. This could be true even if the proportion of pedophilic individuals is greater among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. – sumelic Jun 5 '15 at 1:50

Short answer: Yes, androphilic or "man-loving" males are persons with homosexual or "same-sex" erotic development. In fact in the first sentence of this article, Freund and Wilson define androphilia as "an erotic preference for physically mature males." But the groups are not synonymous.

Here's the full text: https://www.researchgate.net/public...fenders_against_children_An_exploratory_study

 

[thorbiorn]

Jones said:

@Ant22

The wording of that study is odd. I'm tired so I may not be reading it correctly but this line:
"...and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

Seems to contradict the very next sentence:
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

The way I read the first sentence was that 11:1 means that if you have 12 then 11 is of one sort and the last one of another. In percentage that would mean 11/12 vs 1/12 or 91.5 % vs 8.5 % in total 100 %

The second sentence combined with the result of the first may mean that they work with some figures and statistics that show there are less than 8,5 % homosexuals in a population of men. If there are only 5 % then the ration of heterosexuals to homosexuals is 19:1 or 19/20 vs 1/20 or 95 % vs 5 %.

If one uses the figures from the examples and compares the 1/12 vs the 1/20, then in the group of pedophiles there would be a higher proportion with a homosexual orientation (1 in 12) than can be found in the ordinary population (1 in 20).

 

[Seamus]

Hmmm... I'm quite tempted to email them and ask what they meant specifically. I'm more curious about the fact that they published a contradictory statement on their website than the proportion of pedophiles among homo and heterosexuals.

That's a good idea, I've found researchers are often happy to share their article with you for free if you ask for it, even if you can't get it from the publishing journal.

 

[Seamus]

What to do? Lock him up? Lock everyone else like him up?

If there was a legitimate, reasonable use for all of the Big Brother spying technology it seems like keeping a close watch on people like this would be it.

 

[Joe]

There's a third solution: a cultural one, ie considering that kissing on mouth in public (hetero) is displaced, that such things are private and must not be displayed in public. So, it will go for homo's too. Speaking for me: Hetero or homo couples holding hands don't bother me, but seeing a couple (homo or hetero) kissing without discretion can bother me, because I consider that intimate things must stay private, not in front of others.

I don't think there are many people alive who would not be to some extent, shocked, perturbed, disturbed, feel awkward or just 'averse' in some way to two people (of whatever orientation) passionately kissing or 'making out' in public. This appears to be a hard-wired FACT that spans all cultures and probably all times and amounts to an unwritten law. Given this FACT, I can't understand how any gay person could not stop and think about 'gay culture' (including gay pride parades and what they often represent) that obviously seeks to willfully, flagrantly and publicly flout this 'law'. Sure, the narrative is that this is done because of oppression and intolerance, but that STILL doesn't make the deliberate and public rebeling against this universal public injunction AGAINST that type of behavior, a good idea.

 

[Laura]

If there was a legitimate, reasonable use for all of the Big Brother spying technology it seems like keeping a close watch on people like this would be it.

Either that or an insane asylum. He's clearly mentally ill and needs help. And if he can't be helped, people need to be protected from him.

 

[Joe]

All of it is just so confusing. It's not easy to navigate, and my feelings are always conflicted about being a gay man wondering about where I should stand in all of this, where it's heading in the wider picture.

Well, you know what our take on the not-so-distant future is (even if it's only a pretty decent theory at this point). So in your position (and honestly, we are all in that same position of wondering where we should stand in the face current events on the planet and what, if anything, we should do), the most perspicacious approach, IMO, is to wait, watch and see what happens. It's like hedging your bets, or 'Pascal's wager'. And let's be honest, there is more than little evidence that there is a decent chance of something along the lines of what we think might be in the offing actually coming about. So we're not talking about some kind of delusional or blind belief that runs totally counter to observable reality.

Happy Birthday btw!