Savage stands by his comments at the gathering, according to CNN. Why shouldn’t he? After all, he has the support of the president of the United States. What does he have to lose?

The message of It Gets Better is that homosexuality gets better with time. The purpose of It Gets Better, which Obama warmly endorses, is that teenagers should endure the difficulties of being openly homosexual. It Gets Better is probably the most open and effective mass homosexual recruitment project ever conceived.

Given the criticism of Savage, perhaps the homosexual at next year’s convention will be more polite.

                                                   —- Comments —

Jane S. writes:

Given the criticism of Savage, perhaps the homosexual at next year’s convention will be more polite.

John Purdy writes:

You write: “The purpose of It Gets Better…is that teenagers should endure the difficulties of being openly homosexual.” I’ve mentioned this in previous comments to you. There can be no good reason for anyone under the age of consent to be “out”. But in fact, given the experiences a homosexual teenager is likely to encounter, it’s better to wait until age eighteen. Moreover, teenage sexuality (genitality, if you prefer) is highly fluid until age sixteen or so. It would be easy to convince someone who was temporarily confused that he was homosexual when he’s just – confused.

If any of these kids commits suicide because of the pressures of being a homosexual teen then the adults who encouraged him to come out are implicated in the child’s death. There is something reprehensible, indeed ruthless, about the way teen sexuality is being treated in the modern schoolroom.

Jane S. writes:

 Dan Savage is not typical of homosexuals. Many of them are pleasant, friendly, helpful, well-meaning, kind. They are still consorting with evil, they’re just doing it in a nice way, which makes it even more pernicious. People complain about Dan Savage because of his mean, nasty presentation style, rather than his agenda. They are missing the point.

This is a long story, so I hope you’ll excuse me. Several years ago, I knew a guy at my university when I was on the editorial board of a scholarly journal. He was a graduate art student and designed the covers of our journal. He later helped me produce some promotional materials for a campus event I was planning.

I assumed he was homosexual, but you can’t know for sure, there are so many metrosexuals. In any case, it was not a personal relationship and I don’t ask questions like that.

He was just about the nicest guy you could ever meet—helpful, pleasant, dependable, creative, full of good ideas. He would hardly take money for his work—I had to insist.

When we were working on my event, I told him at the outset that I’m an extreme right-wing, gun-owning, fundamentalist Christian redneck. I always tell people that upfront, in case they want to run screaming from the place. He said he didn’t care and we worked together fine. I enjoyed working with him. He was a tremendous help.

Then he asked if I would edit his proposal for his master’s thesis. He seemed quite eager for my feedback. I said of course I would. He had been such a big help to me, I didn’t mind returning the favor.

For his master’s thesis, he proposed to produce a series of educational videos teaching sex techniques to young children and I mean, starting from newborns. According to him, babies should be having sexual encounters immediately upon exiting the birth canal.

I’ll spare you the gritty details and—believe me, they would make you vomit—but his thesis went like this: At one time, human beings lived in perfectly harmonious societies where there were no sexual taboos whatsoever. Life was just one big never-ending sexual adventure.

Then along came these evil-minded people called Judeo-Christians who decided to impose restrictions on sexual activity, for no other reason than to prevent everyone from enjoying themselves, because that’s what Judeo-Christians do, try to stop others from having a good time.

This guy has never read Rousseau or Marx/Engels. He didn’t need to. Nowadays, instead of getting an education in school, students memorize the all-purpose leftist template, which you can use conveniently to explain everything that happens.

Of course, Mr. Kiddie Porn did not offer any evidence that the nonstop hippie love-in societies he described ever existed. Instead, he presented Western European nanny-state socialism as the perfect model for a sexually liberated society. This in spite of the fact that child sex is not legal anywhere in Western Europe.

He did not offer even a shred of empirical data to support his argument—do away with Judeo-Christian morality and everyone will have great sex. Instead, he would quote things his friends told him. This is a thesis proposal, right? He said things like, “My friends in Britain told me you can have sex openly in the park and nobody will call the police.” Hey, I can vouch for that. In Europe, you can get robbed in parks, beaten up in parks, murdered in parks, and nobody will call the police. They don’t call police in Europe; if they police come, they don’t help you, anyway.

Mr. Kiddie Porn carried on about how the attitude towards sex is horribly repressive and intolerant in America. He made it sound as though it’s illegal to take a shower naked in the United States. Somehow, he managed to spend 30-some years living here without noticing we have a billion-dollar adult entertainment industry that rivals anything they have to offer in Europe.

The whole thing was larded through with such smarmy condescending benevolence, it was beyond belief. Average American parents can be entrusted with the tedious aspects of child-rearing—changing diapers, driving kids to school—but important things, like teaching them the right attitude about sex should be left to the Enlightened Ones, i.e., pedophiles. Sex is an important of having a fulfilling life. Your child deserves to have a fulfilling life, Mrs. Wood. You do want your child to have a fulfilling life, don’t you?

I called up the graduate studies office and asked them if they would really accept a piece of garbage like this as a thesis proposal. The woman I spoke to told me, in the most lethargic manner imaginable, that you can write your thesis about anything you want.

Homosexuals do not behave as though they are being bullied, intimidated or browbeaten into submission. Quite the contrary. They show an incredible degree of smug arrogance. They are so confident they are not afraid to offer up subjects like pedophilia as respectable academic discourse. And the university establishment does not disagree.

 Buck writes:

 John Purdy writes:

Moreover, teenage sexuality (genitality, if you prefer) is highly fluid until age sixteen or so. It would be easy to convince someone who was temporarily confused that he was homosexual when he’s just – confused.

I like his idea that “there is no good reason for anyone under the age of consent to be ‘out’ “. He’s right, there is no good reason. But, I have no idea what he and others mean by “confused”. Confused about what? A normal healthy boy is sexually stimulated and excited by girls. His excitement is manifest repeatedly around the clock. He has feelings and thinks about girls most of the time. It messes with his head. This boy is not sexually stimulated by boys, and he does not think about boys, he relates to them. He engages other boys in male pursuits and makes friends. If he is thinking about boys rather than girls, and if he is sexually excited by his thoughts about boys, then he’s not confused, he’s a homosexual. He’s the definition of a homosexual. If he’s confused about something, it’s something that society is still confused about; it’s about whether to suffer this aspect of his life quietly as a homosexual, but with some dignity, or to give up immediately and submit to the sickness of modern liberalism’s creed of radical autonomy by declaring himself to be gay. Choosing to be gay, immediately conceding any hope of maintaining any shred of manhood, in hopes that some mythical liberation is at hand; there is where we have confused this boy. He’s not confused about his homosexuality, he’s confused about what he should do about it.

Laura writes:

I entirely disagree with Buck’s point that homosexuality is a black-and-white thing. Many teenagers go through phases of strong identification with and attraction to the same sex. This has been well documented. Adults have a responsibility to deal with this confusion with sensitivity in private. That means, taking it seriously and guiding a confused young person toward a normal life.

Buck writes:

Thanks. If this has been well documented, then I must be wrong. I can’t, though, imagine how it can be so. It’s hard for me to imagine that as I was growing up, some of my friends were having thoughts about me or my buds, when girls had me tied up in knots. There was one boy on the street who was known to prefer dolls to playing ball. He remained mostly alone. None of us understood him. We weren’t very sophisticated. My radar must not work very well, because I never, ever picked up on what must have been very difficult for some of my friends to conceal. I was simply and completely unaware of such a thing.

How does this work? How does a boy not feel the natural urges that even he has yet to understand, that boil-up inside of him when his senses go off around a cute girl, because these urges are happening to him? He didn’t instigate them.

Are these urges also happening to some boys when they are around both or either girls and boys? This is hard-wired right? We don’t bring it on ourselves. It’s happening to us.

How is this un-wired? Ever? I don’t understand. And, I’m not arguing the point. I simply don’t understand how a male can be attracted to both sexes and then make a choice. To me, that seems the same as me making a choice about having a higher IQ, when I can’t.

If we all, or at least many of us, are actually choosing to be heterosexuals; that we, early on are given a choice about who or what we’re attracted to, rather than what we chose to do about it, then I need to rethink or better understand this. It is me that remains confused.

I’ll keep working at this.

Laura writes:

I misled you by saying “many teenagers.” It is still a small minority who have same-sex attractions, some only attracted to the same sex and others experiencing attraction to both.

When this attraction is anything more than fleeting, it is a result of abnormal psychological development. There are well-documented causes for this abnormality, including innate characteristics of the opposite sex. But people don’t choose whether or not to have these desires when they first arise. They choose whether or not to act upon them.

Some people only experience them in adolescence. Sensitive and artistic boys have a higher tendency toward same-sex desires. They often struggle with their masculine identity. The Heteroseparatist blog has many good links on studies of homosexual attraction.

It takes great energy, self-mastery and will power to conquer sustained homosexual desire.

Mr. Purdy responds:

I knew lots of boys, and not effeminate ones either, who had minor “adventures” with other boys when they were in the 11 – 12 year age range. All turned out to be rip-roarin’ heterosexual men. This is probably not common exactly but take a look at the history of the English public schools – crushes were a well known phenomenon. Some of these boys turned out homosexual, but most did not. If our modern educators had gotten ahold of them they might have convinced some of them they were homosexual when a few more years development would have revealed their true sexuality.

A good friend of mine, a homosexual man (and not particularly “gay”) always held that if you like other boys at 15, who knows? If you still like boys at 17, you’re gay. His experience, not mine.

Laura writes:

Yes, the intense friendships of adolescence can easily shade into sexual desire. And that’s why the It Gets Better Project is especially evil. It’s recruitment of confused teens into the homosexual life.

I have one small bone to pick with Mr. Purdy and that is, his use of the term “true sexuality.” There is neither true nor false sexuality. There is right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy.

Mr. Purdy writes:

Fair enough, although all I meant was that their ultimate sexual nature was temporarily obscured and emerged later after a period of confusion.

Laura writes:

Yes, but the ultimate sexual nature of everyone, even those with strong homosexual desires and an aversion to the opposite sex, even those who never experience intimacy with the opposite sex, even Dan Savage, is heterosexual.

My concern in your saying that someone’s true sexuality was later revealed after a period of confusion, is that you are implying that if he had continued to experience homosexual desires and interests, his true sexuality or ultimate sexual nature would have been homosexual.

Buck writes:

I shouldn’t say more, but…I cringe at Mr. Purdy’s statement, “I knew lots of boys, and not effeminate ones either, who had minor “adventures” with other boys when they were in the 11 – 12 year age range.” I know that I was an air-head, but I didn’t realize just how clueless I must have been.

I played sports with thousands of boys my ages and spent more than a dozen seasons showering and using team locker rooms. I went to boys camps and spent most of my time outside hanging with boys my ages. I was a sergeant in the U.S. Marines. I have never heard any male, ever, instantiate one of those “adventures.”

Obviously it’s me. I’ve been single since my divorce and have since had several longish relationships that went nowhere. I’ve been told by several women, that when it comes to women, I have no idea what is going on around me.

Mr. Purdy writes:

I am sorry I caused Buck to cringe (especially since he’s a former Marine). I was hesitant to reveal this fact because I knew how it would be read by some but it is a fact. Maybe I grew up with boys who were more “polymorphous” (to use Freud’s term) in their sexuality than is typical. I don’t know. It was a minority but not a tiny one.

As to your point about ultimate sexuality, I honestly feel you’re quibbling now. Some people become practicing homosexuals, most turn out hetero. If one turns out homo then in some sense that has to be seen as, well you don’t like the words “true” or “ultimate,” so how about “how one turned out, which may not have been clear at age 15.” A long phrase for ‘ultimate’ as in the last stage of development.

Thanks for the debate. Always a pleasure.

Laura writes:

You’re welcome, and thank you for your comments.

In all due respect, I think we are saying different things about sexual identity, and the distinction is important.

Let me put it this way. Let’s say a man with very strong homosexual desires lives in a village in, say, the Netherlands in the 16th century. There is little opportunity for him to live the life of a homosexual. He would probably get married and have children, or perhaps he would live as a celibate bachelor.

Now, would you say, he was ultimately a homosexual, even if he had married and fathered children? That same man if he lived today in New York or Paris might very well have full homosexual relations or he might refrain from them, suppressing his desires because he recognizes them as immoral.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem to be saying that some people are meant to be homosexual, that this is their true identity. This is similar to saying that someone who has powerful and innate inclinations to drink is meant to be an alcoholic, that his true nature is that of an alcoholic.

Mr. Purdy writes:

I think we’re talking past each other. I wish only to establish that homosexual proclivities at 15 do not necessarily translate into homosexual feelings for life. There simply has to be some means of describing this difference in outcomes in adolescent sexual development. Therefore I choose the term “ultimately” meaning specifically the end state of adolescent sexual development. I do not mean “ultimately” in the sense of for all eternity, or Platonically Ideal, nor do I mean such desires cannot be resisted (although most find it difficult) or that such a man would never engage in heterosexual relations. Surely, even in your example from the 16th C, the man has these desires even if he chooses not to act on them. No desire, no homosexuality, sure, desire and no activity is more complicated but can’t be described as normal exactly.

You can argue that, operationally, no homosexual behaviour equals no homosexuality but I’m not sure the homosexuals I’ve known would agree and the people I’m talking to are not flaming and are critical of many aspects of gay culture.

Buck writes:

My limited understanding of many things, and on this subject, seems to be more visceral.

I have never known a homosexual, or rather I have never known a known homosexual; until recently. Many months back there was a lengthy discussion at VFR, in which I described discovering that a regular at my local cigar lounge was a homosexual who openly self-identified as gay. He’s the good friend of most of the regulars. I think that he went to school with some of them. I’ve gotten to know him better over the months. I’ve never discussed his homosexuality with him, but it certainly comes up frequently, both in his presence and when he’s not around. He jokes carefully along with everyone else. I’ve adjusted to it, not because I forced myself to, but because it was easy. There seems to be a special deference afforded to him. I don’t want to mis-characterize this; but it seems somewhat like the way some explain the overdone manner in which whites will defer socially to blacks – this being characterized by the blacks themselves, who laugh at the white’s buffoonery. I’m not equating homosexuality to race.

I’ve asked a couple of the guys what they think about their own acceptance of him, a full welcome into their social arena, though still limited in many important ways. I get the same reaction: a chuckle and something like “Yea, I know. It’s weird isn’t it. He really is a nice guy.” I get the real distinct feeling that they don’t understand exactly what is happening, but that they feel compelled to not interfere with it or to upset the cart – not that they actually want to. It’s a special deference. He’s never demeaned or prodded the way guys will often do after a fuller familiarity. He’s a cop who patrols our neighborhood, and often shows up in uniform.

Many of the guys have done a ride-a-long with him. He works the late shift and they will hang in his cruiser as he makes his way around our district during the night and early morning hours. Everyone seems to look forward to it. I just laughed to myself. This is not something that I would ever have imagined. I’m confident that he respects the heterosexuality of the group and would not breach an understood protocol. It’s an interesting situation. I’m a late entry into this group and a less frequent presence. I was recently invited to a BBQ at one of the regular’s homes.

When I arrived there were only a few there, sitting inside at a table in the breakfast room. I sat down after greeting everyone, next to an obviously gay male who I was introduced to. Being already acclimated, it didn’t put me off. But, I was wondering what the hell was going on. The host was there and there were no females. This was a cigar and BBQ gathering. It was perhaps a half hour later that the host mentioned that his wife was away on a business trip, and soon the gay friend said goodbye and left.

I’m just kinda metaphorically scratching my head. I’m wondering; Is this how it has always been? Or, is this the way it’s getting to be and is going to be from now on?

Please follow and like us: