Age of Consent at 14 Makes Canada Favoured gay Tourism Destination

Age of Consent at 14 Makes Canada Favoured gay Tourism Destination

By Hilary White

OTTAWA, December 19, 2006 – A newly released report says that the age of consent for vaginal sex in Canada – currently set at 14 – has made this country a favorite destination for child-sex “tourism”. The Global Monitoring Report on the Status of Action against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, says that Canada’s age of consent has made Canada a haven for pedophiles.

The report was issued by the Bangkok-based organization, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, or ECPAT International. It gives Canada 17 recommendations, including raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.

EPCAT International monitors and studies the problem of child sexual exploitation around the world. The Global Monitoring Report says that legal action is not enough and that a culture of sexual exploitation of children has arisen around the world in recent years, particularly in media imagery and the internet. This, the group says, coincides with trends of children being frequently victimized by adults for commercial sex, “under the wrongful concept of their ability to consent to exploitation.”

The report recommends that “all children up to the age of 18 …be afforded legal protection from commercial sexual exploitation.”

A bill to raise the age of consent, one of the first to be put forward by Canada’s Conservative government, passed second reading in the House of Commons in October.

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews told the CBC that Americans are being prosecuted under US laws for using Canada as a sex-tourism destination. “It's ironic in Canada we can't prosecute them, and yet Americans coming here and taking advantage of our children, when they go back, can face criminal prosecutions and lengthy imprisonment." Toews told the CBC.

The CBC report quotes Toronto police constable, Paul Krawczyk, who said, “I've been in pedophile chat rooms that discuss Canada having such a low age of consent that they tell other pedophiles to travel to Canada because of that. Sixty-year-olds engaging in sexual activities with 14 or 15-year-olds is not appropriate.”

The federal government’s proposal to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16 was vocally opposed by homosexual advocacy groups who accused the government of attacking the sexual freedoms of young people.

As a longtime proponent of raising the age of consent, Toews responded in June when the government tabled their bill, “Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers.”

The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age clause that means young people 14 or 15 can have sexual relations with someone “less than five years older.”

The sides are clearly lined up in the war over child-protection and the age of consent. After the Conservatives tabled the bill, the Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario and the Sex Laws Committee said raising the age would discriminate against the sexual choices of gay youth.

Planned Parenthood Ottawa and the Canadian AIDS Society also criticized the bill saying it would interfere with efforts to educate youth about pregnancy, disease prevention and sexual rights.

This February, the homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), asked the government to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from its current 18, saying that the difference only served to “stigmatize gay men.”

Following this, in November, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, called for the lowering of the age of consent for anal sex.


Pedofilia i gay lobiji

On the Pedophilia Issue:
What the APA Should Have Known

By Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. and Dale O'Leary

Deconstructionists argue that distinctions between the genders are arbitrary and political. Now, the same argument is being advanced by man-boy love advocates about the distinction between the generations.

An article published last summer in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin has drawn a recent firestorm of criticism. Talk show hosts and congressmen are calling for investigations. The outrage has focused on the authors' conclusion, based on their analysis of child-molestation studies, that "the negative effects [of sexual abuse] were neither pervasive nor typically intense."

The article was entitled "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples."

APA spokeswoman Rhea Faberman defended publication of the article as part of the scientific work of the organization, saying, "We try to create a lot of dialogue." She labeled "ridiculous" the claim of radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger that publication of the article and the attempt to normalize pedophilia were in any way related.

Contrary to Ms. Faberman's assertion, however:

1.       There is a real and growing movement to legitimize and also legalize sexual relations between boys aged 10 to 16 and adult males;

2.       Robert Bauserman, one of the authors of the article, has associated himself with the pedophilia movement through a previous article;

3.       The movement's strategy is to promote the "objective" study of child/adult sex, free of moral considerations;

4.       The APA should have known this before they published the article.

Those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the "absolutist" moral position, to the "relative" position that it can sometimes be beneficial. The A.P.A. article furthered exactly this position.

Deconstructionists have argued--with some success--that distinctions between the genders are arbitrary and politically motivated. Now, the same argument is being advanced about the distinction between the generations.

In a recent lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality (1), for example, Harris Mirkin says the "sexually privileged" have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheer political force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement.

The Movement to Legitimize Pedophilia

In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men.

According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative.

The study was severely criticized by experts in the field of child sexual abuse. Dr. David Mrazek, co-editor of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families, attacked the Sandfort research as unethical, saying:

"In this study, the researchers joined with members of the National Pedophile Workshop to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners' of its members ... there is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern. However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically motivated to 'reform' legislation.

"These researchers knowingly colluded with the perpetuation of secret illegal activity ... In the majority of cases, these boys' parents were unaware of these sexual activities with adult men, and the researchers contributed to this deception by their action."

Child sexual-abuse expert Dr. David Finkelhor also criticized the Sandfort research, pointing to the numerous studies which show adult-child sexual contact as a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual problems.

Dr. Finkelhor strongly defended laws against child/adult sex, saying that many of those now-grown children are very active in lobbying for such protection.

In 1990, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal on Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives.

This volume provided devastating information on the way psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are starved for adult nurturance and protection.

In the forward, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes

"successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult's love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an 'enormously nurturant relationship'."

There is another deeply disturbing article in the volume, revealingly titled, "The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children." In it, pedophiles reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his activity as a search for love, and complains that: "Although I've had physical relationships with probably, I don't know, maybe a hundred or more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true relationships over that time."

The volume also contains an introductory article which decries society's anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the difficulty studying man-boy relationships in "an objective way," and they hope the social sciences will adopt a broader approach which could lead to understanding of the "diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy."

Bauserman Defends Sandfort's Research

The same volume contains an article by Robert Bauserman-co-author of the A.P.A. study--which complains that objective research is impossible in a social climate that condemns man-boy sexual relationships. Bauserman decries the prevailing ideology that labels all boys as "victims" and all adult pedophiles as "perpetrators." He attacks researchers Mzarek and Finkelhor as being driven by a "particular set of beliefs about adult-juvenile sex." Bauserman looks for a new "scientific objectivity," with the explicit call for research that will challenge the social-moral taboo against adult/child sex. The meta-analysis which he co-authored, and which the American Psychological Association published, can be seen as Bauserman's follow-up to his Journal of Homosexuality article.

More Recent Defenses of Pedophilia

Harris Mirkin recently wrote a lead article in the Journal of Homosexuality entitled "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." Using social-constructionist theory, he argues that the concept of child molestation is a "culture- and class-specific creation" which can and should be changed.

He likens the battle for the legalization of pedophilia to the battles for women's rights, homosexual rights, and even the civil rights of blacks.

He sees the hoped-for shift as taking place in two stages. During the first stage, the opponents of pedophilia control the debate by insisting that the issue is non-negotiable--while using psychological and moral categories to silence all discussion.

But in the second stage, Mirkin says, the discussion must move on to such issues as the "right" of children to have and enjoy sex.

If this paradigm shift could be accomplished, the issue would move from the moral to the political arena, and therefore become open to negotiation. For example, rather than decrying sexual abuse, lawmakers would be forced to argue about when and under what conditions adult/child sex could be accepted. Once the issues becomes "discussible," it would only be a matter of time before the public would begin to view pedophilia as another sexual orientation, and not a choice for the pedophile.

The response to the APA article shows that for the present, social opposition to pedophilia continues to be strong. Finkelhor's response to Bauserman, which was included in Male Intergenerational Intimacy, explains why:

"Some types of social relationships violate deeply held values and principles in our culture about equality and self-determination. Sex between adults and children is one of them. Evidence that certain children have positive experiences does not challenge these values, which have deep roots in our worldview."

To pedophile advocates, any discussion of the benefits of child-adult sex is a victory. The APA should have understood this, should have known about Bauserman's connections, and should have been well aware of--and vocally resistent to--the growing movement to legalize pedophilia.


Mirkin, Harris, "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia," Journal of Homosexuality vol. 37(2), 1999, p. 1-24.



Pedofilia i incest, pozitivno iskustvo-tvrde gay psiholozi i psihijatri

International Academy of Sex Research Joins the Debate: Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?

In an issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior--the official journal of the International Academy of Sex Research--some clinicians argue that "unusual sexual interests" should not be considered mental disorders.

Bruce Rind, author of the 1998 meta-analysis that claimed to find little or no harm in man-boy sex, joins the discussion; other commentators disagree.

By Linda Ames Nicolosi

The Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 to discuss whether pedophilia should remain a mental disorder.

Opening the debate was Richard Green, M.D., J.D. a widely known writer specializing in homosexuality and gender-identity issues. Green argued in favor of removing pedophilia from the diagnostic manual (DSM).

Green was one of the clinicians who, in the 1973, took the side of gay activists to argue for removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual.

In a second article in the Archives, "The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile," Gunter Schmidt, D. Phil., makes a sympathetic case for the pedophile who, Schmidt says, must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost." Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.

Furthermore, Schmidt argues, molested children do not always appear to be harmed. A 1998 study by Bruce Rind, he notes, found that many boys grow up to have positive or neutral memories of their man-boy sexual experiences.

The Issue of "Consent"

Many of the commentators in the Archives argued that children are usually too emotionally immature to offer valid consent for sex with an adult. But the issue of ability to give valid consent is not the point at all, another writer responded--for no parent asks his child for his "consent" before baptizing him into a church.

A number of the commentators indicated their disapproval of the moral influences exerted on society by its Judeo-Christian heritage, which has traditionally stigmatized child sexuality.

Psychiatrist Richard C. Friedman, the author of Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective and a number of related research papers, says that it would be "more helpful than harmful" to continue to view pedophilia as a mental disorder because we know so little about adult-child sex at this time, and because of the potentially harmful age and power discrepancy between children and adults. But he closes his commentary by urging that society not "discriminate" against people who are sexually attracted to children.

Looking at the issue historically, argues psychologist Robert Prentky, the age for sexual consent used to be age ten in England until about 100 years ago. So when, Prentky asks, is "a child no longer a child?" Certainly there are some 12-year-olds, he says, who are mature enough to give valid consent for sex. Prentky also observes that some of our culture's most beloved heroes were "clearly pedophiles" --including, he says, the authors of the children's classics Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland.

The debate in the Archives provides an eye-opening view into the philosophical reasoning employed in the ongoing debate about what should be the defining criteria for mental illness.

Criteria for Mental Illness

Why should pedophilia not be considered a mental illness? Richard green makes the case by considering several factors.

Distress. One of the criteria for mental illness is subjective distress - and, Green notes, many pedophiles are not distressed about their attractions at all--except, he notes, about being the possibility of being jailed. In fact, "some celebrate their interests, organize politically, and publish magazines or books."

Disability. Considering another marker of illness, "disability," Green says, psychiatry must not let itself be locked into the narrow definition of disability currently dictated by our culture. When we broaden our view to consider other cultures over time, Green explains, we see that many African tribes and even the ancient Greeks considered man-boy pedophilia to be a helpful rite-of-passage into manhood.

Animal Behavior. Looking at normality from the perspective of our animal relatives, Dr. Green looks at a close genetic relative, the pygmy chimp, or bonobo. Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.

Frequency of Occurrence. Green says that contrary to popular myth, pedophile attractions aren't even especially unusual. Studies prove that many so-called "normal" men with conventional sexual interests can, in fact, be sexually aroused in a laboratory setting when they are shown erotic photos of little girls.

Is the pedophile a dysfunctional person? No, Green says; in truth, there appear to be quite a number of "highly skilled pedophiles" - in fact, even some beloved public figures--so a simple explanation of "social inadequacy" doesn't explain their psychological condition.

Taken together, Green says, these findings converge on the conclusion that pedophilia is not a mental disorder - at least "not unless we declare a lot of people in many cultures and in much of the past to be mentally ill."

A Change in Worldviews

Dr. Gunther Schmidt counters that the Western world was once dominated by Judeo-Christian principles, and we used to judge particular sex acts like adultery, sodomy, and sado-masochistic sex as intrinsically wrong. But now those old "prejudices," he says, are fading away.

What anyone decides to do sexually with another person is today considered morally acceptable as long as a valid agreement is negotiated. But because the child is usually too immature to give his "consent," pedophilia must continue to be seen as harmful.

However, Schmidt notes, even though the child is too young to agree to sex, it's certainly not, in fact, true that harm always results from child molestation. Even some boys who were actually forced into sex with a man against their will, Schmidt says, later remember those experiences as having been "favorable to their development" and "interesting and enjoyable."

And because an attraction to children is a basic part of the pedophile's identity--in other words, "who he is"-- the pedophile's self-denial of gratification is, in fact, "tragic."

Others Say the Issue of "Consent" is Irrelevant

Among those writers who opted for retaining pedophilia in the DSM, the majority made their argument against adult-child sex on the grounds of the age and power discrepancy between the partners. But not all of the writers in the Archives agreed that a power imbalance renders a relationship psychologically harmful or even subjectively unsatisfying.

For example, psychiatrist Emil Ng, M.D. of the University of Hong Kong says that in ancient Chinese history, children are described as "natural sexual beings," and romances are portrayed with children as young as ten years old in sexual relationships with each other, or with adults--and "sex play is viewed as beneficial to their healthy development."

Is lack of "consent" a valid reason to call pedophilia harmful? No, Dr. Ng notes, "the seemingly righteous and humanitarian debate on child self-determination" is nothing more than "another game adults play to impose their own values on children."

After all, Ng notes, "How often do the adults [in the West] try to ascertain 'valid consent' from their children before getting them to do most things?" For example, have parents "sought valid 'consent' from their children before baptizing them soon after birth?"

"Unequal Relationships Are Not Necessarily Unprincipled"

Dr. Paul Okami of UCLA agrees that a power imbalance should not be the deciding issue. History is full of examples, he notes, of unequal relationships that "work" for the individuals involved--for example, a professor and his student marry "and live happily ever after." An unequal relationship doesn't violate principles of justice or fairness in sexual relationships, Dr. Okami says, "unless one views sexual relationships as similar to hand-to-hand combat."

Actually, he says, the real problem in pedophilia traces back to Christianity. People "detest" pedophilia because Christianity has given our culture a restrictive attitude toward the "naturalistic" child and his sexual instincts.

Christianity, Okami says, "regards children as sinful heathens who need the devil beat out of them. The end result is a powerful desire to save priceless, lovable, sacred innocents from something dangerous, dirty, disgusting and sinful."

Dr. Bruce Rind agrees with Dr. Ng and Dr. Okami that lack of consent from the child doesn't necessarily mean adult-child sexual relationships are harmful. (Dr. Rind was the lead author of the 1998 study that was attacked in the media by radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The Rind study concluded that there was little or no psychological harm in man-boy sexual relationships.)

Dr. Rind notes that many other societies, today and in the past, have endorsed sex between a man and a boy. And, what is necessarily wrong with a power imbalance?

After all, Rind says, some parents force their children to go to church! And couldn't religious indoctrination, for that matter, be harmful to the child?

Even Man-Boy Incest May Be Remembered Positively, Says Rind

To back up his claim that pedophile relationships can be consensual, Rind describes several cases of men who say they benefited from--and even initiated--their childhood sexual experiences, including a "positive" recollection of father-son incest.

One boy had several relationships with men, starting when he was age 11, "all of which he viewed as very positive. He thinks the sex helped his sexual self-confidence; as he matured, he knew exactly what he wanted in sex, while his peers were still searching."

Another man saw the childhood intimacy he had with a man as the "highlight of his life."

Still another boy started having sex with his own father at age ten, and now (he is 33 years old) he looks back on their incestuous relationship as "beautiful, pure" and full of love. He said he "cherished the intimacy."

Dr. Charles Moser--the clinician who was invited to present a paper at the May 2003 American Psychiatric Conference on pedophilia--supported Rind's observations. Psychiatry, he said, is ethically obliged to help those people who have unusual sexual interests pursue their subjective ideal of personal fulfillment.

"Any sexual interest," concluded Moser, "can be healthy and life-enhancing."


1. Moser, Charles and Peggy J. Kleinplatz, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal," paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual conference, San Francisco, California, May 19, 2003.

2. "Special Section: Pedophilia: Concepts and Controversy," in Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 31, No. 6, December 2002, p. 465-510.



Only 10 percent of the population is actually heterosexual, while 80 percent is "mixed" or bi-sexual.

Wal-Mart Hits Teens with Gay Porn How-To Manual

By Gudrun Schultz

BENTONVILLE, AR, November 15, 2006 - A graphic sex-ed manual promoting lesbianism to teenage girls is now offered for sale by Wal-Mart in the United States.  Called "irresponsible and obscene" and by the Institute for Canadian Values, the material contains explicit directions for engaging in oral/anal sexual acts. The book encourages same-sex experimentation, telling girls that only 10 percent of the population is actually heterosexual, while 80 percent is "mixed" or bi-sexual.

Produced by St. Stephens' Community House in Toronto, the book titled "The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality" caused a storm of controversy earlier this fall when parents and pro-family groups first became aware of the books' content after it was published in September.

The  manual was further condemned for using obscene and derogatory language. Examples include a section entitled "My First Time F***ing a Girl" and the statement "If you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it's a fat black dyke."

The manual contains misleading and dangerous information on "safe" sex devises, assuring teenagers that condom use is 100 percent effective in preventing the transmission of disease. That statement contradicts the World Health Organization's recent admission that condom use fails to protect against HIV/AIDS transmission up to 20 percent of the time, crucial information missing from the manual.

Another section on "safe" lesbian sex acts, entitled "How to use a dental dam," encourages girls to engage in such dangerous behaviour as sewing latex squares used in dentistry into the crotch of their underwear "for added fun."

Wal-Mart says the book, sold for $8.50, is "a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info."

Advertising the manual as "not just a book about sex, but a look at girl culture by teenagers," the book is praised as "No stuffy school textbook," with "No nosy adults" involved.

"It's all stuff that youth need to know…The Little Black Book for Girlz is an important, take--anywhere empowerment guide. Girls shouldn't leave their teen years without it."

Wal-Mart recently joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, which  celebrated the involvement of the corporation as "part of the company's ongoing commitment to advancing diversity among all of its associate, supplier and customer bases."

The company contributed $60,000 in 2006 to the activist group Out & Equal, an organization dedicated to promoting the homosexual lifestyle, including same-sex marriage, in the workplace. Wal-Mart ran a full-page ad in the Out & Equal 2006 Workplace Summit Program Guide stating the company's commitment to supporting the goals of the Out & Equal Summit.

In 2005, Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual activist lobby organization in the U.S., applauded Wal-Mart for adopting a new definition of family that included same-sex partners, where recognized under state law.


2002 Study Shows The Importance Of Social Factors, Cannot Detect Genetic Factors In SSA

2002 Study Shows The Importance Of Social Factors, Cannot Detect Genetic Factors In SSA

2002 Study Shows The Importance Of Social Factors, Cannot Detect Genetic Factors In SSA By N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D., Lower Hutt, New Zealand August 10, 2006 - A study in the American Journal of Sociology by Columbia/Yale researchers Bearman and Bruekner contradicts a recent study by researcher Bogaert of Canada and declares that at least one social factor is important in the development of male SSA. The study shows that males in opposite-sex twin pairs are twice as likely to have SSA as expected -- which is almost certainly a social effect. Parallel calculations for the extent of a genetic effect on SSA gave a result of zero for both males and females, which is similar to, but lower than, two other recent studies. The study entitled "Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction" appeared in 2002, but has received no media attention, partly because its abstract did not show the interesting details contained in the paper. When contacted by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, the chief author Peter Bearman, said that no other researchers had contacted him about the report. A problem with SSA studies has been that they have been based on volunteers rather than being really representative of the population. In contrast, an excellent sample was used in the Bearman/Bruekner study. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) was started in 1994 and surveyed tens of thousands of children who were truly nationally representative. In this survey, 3,139 sibling pairs were specially selected from among this group, including many twin pairs for the genetic part of this study. Although refusal to participate was allowed, 80% agreed, making it probably the highest acceptance rate in any genetic study, and least subject to bias. Included in the study were opposite sex twins, identical twins, fraternal twins, sibling pairs and even adopted pairs. There were generally several hundred individuals in each category. Although the males in opposite twin pairs were twice as likely to develop SSA, statistical examination by Dr. Throckmorton and his colleagues showed that the result was only about as significant as the study by Bogaert in which he claimed development of SSA in adopted males was correlated with number of elder brothers in the original family but not the adopted family. Bearman and Bruecker explained their opposite twin effect by parental influence. They say that demands for unisex equal treatment by opposite-sex twins lead to less masculine influence on the males and greater masculine influence on the females. However, this is far more critical for males and leads to greater SSA. They also did a traditional twin study among their subjects and found the genetic contribution was zero, and chance was a very important factor. In identical male twins, if one twin had SSA there was only a 7% chance the co-twin had SSA, and the corresponding result for females was about 5%. These results, known as the concordance rates, have steadily decreased with time as studies have become more representative, suggesting previous volunteer-related bias. The study joins two previous ones (Bailey, et al. 2000, Hershberger 1997) to give a low genetic contribution for same sex attraction (which might not be exactly the same as sexual orientation). Averaging the three studies, the genetic contributions for male and female SSA are now 10% and 25% respectively. The only literature figure for genetic contribution to OSA (Opposite Sex Attraction) or heterosexuality, is 18% for both sexes combined (Hershberger, 1997). Bearman and Brueckner could find no trace of a fraternal birth order on the males in their opposite-sex twins, although the effect is generally rather well established by other research. Bogaert, contacted by Throckmorton, thinks that the study is a rogue result, mainly a chance finding. He emphasizes it is for unstable adolescents and may not be comparable with studies on adults. However, if this once again points to the instability of SSA in adolescents, it also points to the fact that social factors must play a large part and that adolescents, among others, could seriously consider change of sexual orientation References Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 524-536. Bearman, PS; Bruckner, H (2002): Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 107, 1179-1205. Hershberger, SL (1997): A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research 34, 212-222.

Scotland Forbids Nurses To Use 'Mum' Or 'Dad' In Health Care

Scotland Forbids Nurses To Use
'Mum' Or 'Dad' In Health Care

December 8, 2006 - The Daily Mail of London (Dec. 3, 2006) reported on a new policy booklet from the National Health Service that forbids nurses from using terms such as "Mum," "Dad," "husband," "wife," or "married" under new "anti-homophobia" rules.

The report, "Good LGBT Practice In the NHS," tells nurses that they must use terms like "guardian" or "carer" when referring to parents in order not to offend homosexual parents.

The report was produced in collaboration with a gay group known as Stonewall and was funded by the Scottish Executive.

It warns health care workers that they face disciplinary action if they fail to comply. It says, "Resources will be expended on conflict if there is resistance to required change."

The booklet notes: "Many remarks made by people that appear to be harmless or throwaway may assume only opposite-sex relationships are valid. This is demeaning for LGBT people and they may fear a negative reaction if the assumptions are challenged ... LGBT people can and do have children - sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care."


Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility,

Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility,
Say APA Insiders

At NARTH Conference, APA Past-President
Charges His Association with Stifling Discourse and Distorting Research

By Linda Ames Nicolosi

In a harsh critique of his own profession, a former American Psychological Association president told fellow clinicians at the NARTH Conference that social science is in a state of alarming decline.

Speaking to a rapt audience of about 100 fellow professionals at the Marina Del Rey Marriott Hotel on November 12, 2005, psychologists Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D. and Rogers Wright, Ph.D. had much to say about the profession they had served throughout their long and distinguished careers -- charging "intellectual arrogance and zealotry" within a profession that they say is now dominated by social-activist groups.

Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims -- pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.

When APA does conduct research, Dr. Cummings said, they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."

"'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda," said Cummings. "Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

He described his own experience of oppression and reverse bias: "This was aptly demonstrated," he said, "during an interchange that took place in a large meeting assembled by the then-current president to address the future of the APA. I was just about to agree with one of the participants, when she stopped me before I could speak: 'I don't know what you are going to say, but there is nothing you and I can agree on, because you are a straight white male and I am a lesbian.' Such blatant reverse discrimination was overlooked by everyone else in the room, but I was dumbfounded. This woman is prominent in APA affairs, is extensively published, and has received most of the APA's highest awards. The APA continues to laud her, even though recently she had her license suspended for an improper dual relationship with a female patient! What would be the response had it been a straight white male in an improper dual relationship with a female patient?"

Regarding treatment for unwanted homosexuality, the American Psychological Association has come very close to ratifying a statement which would declare therapy to modify sexual orientation "unethical." But "why does free choice go only one way?" Dr. Cummings asks.

Cummings then discussed a 2004 resolution by the APA in favor of gay marriage, which APA recommended because it "promotes mental health." What was the evidence APA offered? (Such a bold statement from APA, of course, would be used in the courts to decide key social issues.) The references APA cited, it turned out, actually proved only one claim-- that as a general matter, "loving relationships are healthy." "That was one of the worst resolutions," Cummings said.

"When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise," he explained. If psychology speaks out on every social issue, "very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization--just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting."

Cummings' co-author Dr. Rogers Wright (who like Cummings, describes himself as a lifelong liberal) notes that "psychology has been ultra-liberal" and not particularly welcoming to the views of people of religious faith.

Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association since the Association instituted a "strategic decision not to respond" to their book in an effort to avoid attracting attention to it. Initially, the APA prohibited its member-publications from reviewing Destructive Trends. "So much for diversity and open-mindedness," Wright added wryly.

Judicial Malfeasance by Activists

Joining them in yet another stinging critique of the mental-health profession was psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," Satinover offered a long, elaborately referenced description of ethics breaches in the recent legal cases that have set the stage for groundbreaking changes in family-law policy.

Satinover said the mental-health associations had allowed themselves to be used by gay activists who distorted the research findings to serve their own socio-political aims. This distortion of the science, he said, has been so great that it is "appalling beyond imagination."

Dr. Satinover recently taught constitutional law at Princeton University, and is presently doing research at the University of Nice. He showed the legal briefs to his students and told them, "Whether you become a leftist or a rightist, don't hold yourself to such a standard."

Given carte blanche, the activists wrote briefs that were "sophisticated, nuanced" but in many cases, almost entirely untrue. To Dr. Satinover's dismay, the brief-writers' testimony rarely matched the references they footnoted--but almost never directly cited--as corroborating evidence.

Called as an expert witness in court cases and asked to assess briefs being submitted to state and the U.S. Supreme Courts, Satinover had the opportunity to pore over hundreds of research papers offered as evidence by the gay activists who had been invited to represent the views of the major mental-health associations.

He quoted Susan Cochran, Ph.D., a lesbian activist advising the Lawrence v. Texas brief, which claimed that "Research has...found no inherent association between homosexuality and psychopathology." The references she provided were largely self-references -- referring not to corroborating sources, but directly back to her own published work. Paradoxically, in those same studies, Cochran had consistently found more mental-health problems in lesbians and gay men -- and she did not find that "social homophobia" was a sufficient cause for these problems. In fact, Cochran had concluded in one of her own referenced papers that "further research is needed to explore the causal mechanisms underlying this association." In a follow-up paper, she herself showed that the effects of social homophobia couldn't account entirely for the association.

Satinover also offered evidence from the Romer v. Evans brief that evidently came from gay-activist psychologist Gregory Herek, Ph.D., who wrote the brief on behalf of the APA. Herek, he says, distorted the findings of the authors of the research he cited; omitted available contrary evidence; and failed to mention the evidence for spontaneous changes of sexual identity. Herek also defined the term "homosexual" in an arguable manner that worked most effectively to meet the aims of his brief--a definition that was the outcome solely of his own work, and that deviated from widely-used, neutral scientific standards. In support of the argument that same-sex attracted people are as well-adjusted as straights, Satinover said, Herek also referenced the "notoriously flawed and out-of-date Hooker study, its claims long-since and multiple times overturned."

Pedophile Supporters
Offering Family-Law Testimony?

In the Romer v. Evans case, psychologist John Money, Ph.D. was referenced (also by Herek, evidently) as an expert in sexual identity. In an interview published in the Dutch journal of pedophilia (PAIDIKA), Money once said, "If it [man-boy sexual contact] is consensual, it can be constructive."

Another expert offered by Herek was John de Cecco, Ph.D., who has also written affirmatively of man-boy "intergenerational intimacy" in the Journal of Homosexuality, and is an editor of PAIDIKA.

Yet one other frequent contributor to legal testimony, the Lawrence brief included, is lesbian activist-researcher Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., who in a landmark case of same-sex adoption was cited for refusing to turn over her research notes, contributing to her side's defeat. "Her conduct was a clear violation of a court order," said Satinover, "yet she is still writing briefs in current court cases."

In discussing the overall "scope and type of malfeasance," Satinover concluded the following:

1.       "Briefs appear to be authored by a small circle of individuals who are called on repeatedly, with footnoted references that almost never properly substantiate their case."

2.       A common tactic is to reference studies "that are trivial or out-of-date, while ignoring more important, recent, larger, better, and superceding research."

3.       "A substantial portion of the authorities cited [through footnotes] will be themselves."

4.       "The most common pattern is by far the simplest: the overwhelming mountain of contrary evidence is simply never mentioned."

"The malfeasance is relentless," Satinover concluded. "It is appalling beyond imagination."

Other Speakers

During the luncheon, Dr. Dean Byrd offered a rousing address.

"As I reviewed the brief history of NARTH," he said, "it is nothing short of amazing what has been accomplished." To continue this forward momentum, he said, NARTH members should get more involved in the public sphere; work within the national associations, and remember to continually remind those who would silence them, that "diversity includes me."

Dr. Byrd then read from a letter he wrote to the American Psychological Association:

"In your addresses and written messages, you have repeatedly focused on the importance of diversity. Even in the recent Monitor, you noted that APA has demonstrated 'a lack of sensitivity or downright rudeness' toward marginalized groups. While it is not my intent to be offensive, it seems that your response to APA members who are members of NARTH reflects that insensitivity of which you are so critical.

"Client autonomy is central to NARTH's mission. NARTH's official position is that homosexuality is an adaptation. For some men and women, this adaptation is distressful and unsatisfying. NARTH supports an individual's right to either claim a homosexual identity or to pursue change in their adaptation in accordance with the ethical principle of client self-determination.

"Though not all of the patients that NARTH members treat are religious, many are. Is it not a blatant disregard for their religious values and an affront to real diversity to marginalize these individuals by failing to acknowledge their right to choose how they will adapt sexually?

"The focus of NARTH's attention is a 'marginalized group within a marginalized group'--those who feel that homosexual attractions are not who they are and seek help in reconciling their unwanted sexual attractions with their value systems. Would you or APA not find a place at the table for such individuals or would you add to their distress by refusing to acknowledge that they exist? Would you deny the importance of client autonomy and client self-determination?"

"APA's continuous messages of respect for diversity rings hollow if it does not represent different worldviews....either you support client autonomy or you do not; either you support client self-determination or you do not; either your actions reflect diversity, or they do not.

"NARTH members and supporters have impressive publication records in respected journals such as Professional Psychology, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Psychological Reports, Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy and the Journal of Law and Family Studies.

"Listen to one NARTH supporter," he concluded, "and tell me who you think he is. He said: 'I am here as the champion of one's right to choose....It is my fervent belief that freedom of choice should govern one's sexual orientation...If homosexuals choose to transform their sexuality into heterosexuality, that resolve and decision is theirs and theirs alone, and should not be tampered with by any special interest group.' This statement was made by Dr. Robert Perloff -- a former APA President."

Also during the luncheon, attorney Scott Lively noted that NARTH's critics are supported by tens of millions of dollars from foundations on the left, which effectively permits them to "steer the culture through grants." In an effort to begin reversing that trend, he recently created the Pro-Family Endowment, with one of its initial grants being made to NARTH.

On Sunday, Dr. Norman Goldwasser offered an address describing the use of EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing) therapy to help clients overcome the effects of trauma and to actualize their heterosexual potential. Dr. Goldwasser says he had had considerable success using the technique with same-sex attracted clients.

Also offering an address was Nancy Heche, Ph.D., the mother of actress Anne Heche, a former lesbian. In a warm, inspirational and emotionally stirring speech, Dr. Heche offered support for families who have suffered from the discovery of a loved one's same-sex attractions.

On Friday, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi offers a Men's Track workshop for in-depth training of psychotherapists, while a Women's Track training workshop was offered by Mary Beth Patton, M.A., L.P.C., Janelle Hallman, M.A., L.P.C., and Cynthia Winn, M.A., M.F.T.

Other speeches and roundtable discussions were offered by Alan Chambers of Exodus, Dr. Julie Harren, Dr. Jerry Harris, Dr. Ryan Howes, Konstantin Mascher (from Germany), Dr. Christopher Rosik, attorney Arthur Goldberg, Dr. James Phelan, and Dr. Richard Potts.

Doctorate Degree Awarded for Thesis Defending Pedophilia

Doctorate Degree Awarded for Thesis Defending Pedophilia


Doctorate Degree Awarded for Thesis Defending Pedophilia

LONDON, December 3, 2004  - Richard Yuill, awarded a doctorate degree from Glasgow University this week, argued in his doctoral thesis that sex between children and adults is sometimes a positive experience for the children.

The assumption has been challenged by sex abuse experts, who say the work could add fuel to the arguments of pedophiles who say that their abusive acts are consensual, and that they are not harming anyone.

"The conclusions are that in such relationships I think you've got the good, the bad and the ugly, and that's where I stand on that," Yuill said, as reported by the UK's ultra-liberal newspaper, The Guardian.

"Whatever his intention, one of the things we know about sexual offenders is that they seize on this kind of thing and use it to support their position," said Warwick University senior lecturer in social work, Chris Harrison.

Yuill, who referred to himself as a "boylover" in his interviews with pedophiles, says his work could challenge the UK law that prohibits sexual relations between adults and children under 16 years of age. Sex abuse experts and those who created the law say children are incapable of offering consent to sexual relations with an adult.

"The only thing I'm reporting is that the research findings do not concur with that overall picture," Yuill said. "A number of respondents would concur with the law ... but others found positive experiences or at least what I'd call neutral."

Glasgow University defended its decision to award the thesis. It argued that there was nothing criminal in Yuill's views.

Read Guardian coverage:,7369,1364313,00.html



Normalizing Pedophilia Continues: UK Police Chief Says 13-Year-Old in Porn Not Child Porn

By John-Henry Westen

LONDON, November 20, 2006  - Terry Grange, the leading officer on child protection of the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers' has ignited controversy by commenting in an interview with The Sunday Times that pornography featuring children at 13 years of age should not be considered child porn.  Grange also said that the term "pedophiles" should only apply to adults who have sex with 12 and under.

Grange's comments match those of the pedophilia party launched recently, with court approval, in the Netherlands.  The 'Charity, Freedom and Diversity' (NVD) party of the Netherlands formed last Spring introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights.  In a press release, the NVD's spokesman and co-founder, Ad van den Berg said among their goals is lowering the age of consent for sexual activity from 16 to 12 and eventually eliminating it completely.

Grange told the Sunday Times: "Child porn is 12 and under."  On pedophilia he said: "For me, that sort of thing, paedophilia, is [with] prepubescent children."

In the UK where the age of consent for sexual activity is 16, Grange says, "It is much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13.  I think the closer they get to 16 the more it becomes a grey area and I think everyone in the field of dealing with sexual health and sexual activity acknowledges that."

He added: "I don't actually personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year-old boyfriend being paedophilia, or even if the boyfriend is 30."

The ACPO incident is the latest in the ongoing normalization of pedophilia, which has picked up steam since homosexual 'marriage' has been mainstreamed. 

In comments this weekend, Romeo and Juliet director Franco Zeffirelli made positive remarks about homosexual sexual contact with young boys.   In the context of noting that as a boy he was sexually abused by a priest, Zeffirelli said, "(Homosexual experiences) are not always bad for boys. I don't think they make you homosexual. Sexual choice is made for you early on in life anyway - if you like girls, you like girls." reported in June on a poll which found 11% of Canadians did not consider pedophilia immoral.

In 2001, leading Canadian film-makers were promoting the pedophiliac film Fat Girl which featured nude scenes with a thirteen year old.  And in 2004 Nicole Kidman starred in the movie Birth which included a scene which made it appear as if she bathed in the nude with a boy of 10 with whom she was sexually interested.

Also in 2004, Glasgow University awarded a student a doctoral degree for his thesis defending pedophilia. 





The truth about 'gay' pedophilia

Posted: October 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Olivia St. John

Liberals are experts at framing debates in their favor. Since the Foley fiasco hit the news, the emphasis has been on evils lurking within the Republican Party.

Incredibly, political editor Brian E. Crowley of the Palm Beach Post opined, "Rumors that Foley is gay have swirled around him for years. … But on Friday, whether Foley was a homosexual or a heterosexual no longer seemed to matter."

Really? Why would that be considered inconsequential? Could it be because the Democrat Party embraces legalizing homosexual marriage and inserting homosexual material into public school textbooks designed for children as young as grammar school, as demonstrated in recent efforts by the California Legislature to indoctrinate students? That is the real story behind this media blitz that Democrats want Americans to miss.

While the leftist media focuses on the political ramifications surrounding Foley in an effort to gain points for liberal candidates in the upcoming election, the fact that a homosexual rather than a heterosexual preyed on a young male is being oddly overlooked. Few people are talking about it. And the question is "Why not?" The answer is important because to ignore it is to dismiss the real plight of many homosexuals today and their impact upon our culture, our children and our political scene.

Foley admits that he is a homosexual. Dare the question be asked whether homosexuals commit higher rates of molestation than heterosexuals do? Or are the thought police hard at work silencing the possible implications?

English professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and well-educated journalist Allen Young, both homosexual activists, conducted the first major survey on homosexuality in America in 1979. Their work is still cited in academic studies and involved over 5,000 homosexuals from all walks of life. Titled "The Gay Report," the study published data on underage sex, disease, gross promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and more.

One cannot help but applaud the honesty of these two homosexuals in publishing the results of their study, which documented that "23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15, while 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity within this age group." Tragically, 50 percent of the males in their survey experienced their first sexual encounter at age 15 or less.

In spite of the fact that two gay researchers produced "The Gay Report," radical homosexual activists dismiss it as outdated. This is ironic considering they so often cite the much older 1948 "10 percent of society is gay" statistic from the oft-disputed Alfred Kinsey study.

But out of courtesy for their concerns, are there other esteemed elites drawing the same conclusions? Contrary to the homosexual assertion that heterosexual molestations outnumber those committed by homosexuals, Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states that "careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals." Satinover adds, "The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately 36 to 1. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only 11 to 1, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals."

So considering the fact that this type of sexual interest is shown by studies to occur more often in homosexual populations, is it any surprise that Mark Foley admitted he himself was molested as a teenager by a clergyman?

According to a report by Gregory Rogers featured on the website for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, such issues raise "immediate questions … should gay priests be allowed access to Sunday Schools or youth groups?" Instead of asking that question, however, the liberal cohorts shift the spotlight off the homosexuals themselves and onto the church as a whole, just as they're now doing with the Republicans even though they themselves have a stained record in this regard.

While pointing their fingers at Republicans, who may have overlooked gross evil while focusing on political gain, liberals overlook a tremendous evil themselves by ignoring the truth about homosexual behavior. They fail to speak out for the innocent children caught in the path of a rabid homosexual agenda fueled by wounded people who refuse to change.


As David Kupelian states in his groundbreaking best seller "The Marketing of Evil," "The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality."

And all of this at the expense of our children.



Kako je homoseksualnost ukinuta 1973. god. Intervju Dr Nicholas Cummings bivsi predsednik Americkog psihijatrijskog drustva

Pre nego sto bila sta kazem o Dr. Nicholasu Cummingsu preporucujem da prvo skinete njegov intervju sa ovog sajta:

Deo koji se odnosi na intervju nosi naziv:

Podcast on the APA, "Destructive Trends in Mental Health and Politics"

To je i ujedno naziv knjige koja je potresla Ameriku. Velicina intervjua iznosi oko 17,8 mb, i preporucujem da ga skinete sa opcije za ipod, a za one koji imaju dilup takodje postoji opcija za skidanje

Who Is Dr. Nicholas Cummings?

Former APA President, Nicholas A. Cummings, PhD, is a member of the legendary "Dirty Dozen," a group of practitioners that fought for professionalism, licensure and third-party reimbursement. He implemented the first comprehensive psychotherapy insurance and pushed for the freedom of choice legislation that led to third party reimbursement of psychologists. Cummings founded the National Council of Schools of Professional Psychology and the National Academies of Practice-- two institutions that shaped the professional school movement and the psychologist as behavioral primary-care physician.

Dr. Cummings started the first practitioner-managed behavioral health delivery system in the United States. American Biodyne was innovative, successful, and ahead of its time. He is recognized as the foremost expert on the delivery of mental health care. Nick Cummings is a life long advocate for professional psychology and practice

Dr. Cummings is president of the Foundation for Behavioral Health, and chair of the boards of The Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation and the University Alliance for Behavioral Care Inc. Dr. Cummings was born in Salinas, California and earned his PhD in clinical psychology from Adelphi University. Presently, Dr. Cummings is on the Board of Directors of The National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers.

E sada zasto sam prvo dao intervju pa onda njegovu biografiju. Ako ukucate njegovo ime u google naicicete na podatke o njemu kao coveku koji je najzasluzniji zasto se 1973 godine homoseksualizam ukida kao bolest od strane APA (Americke psihijatrijske asocijacije). Slusajuci njegov intervju mozete doci do zakljucka da covek ne pripada konzervativcima ni tradicionalistima, vec kako sam kaze pripada liberalima.U intervju iznosi na koji nacin je ukinuta odluka iz 1973 godine, ali govori i o tome sta se danas desava u APA i drugim slicnim organizacijama koji trpe ogroman uticaj od strane raznih homoseksualnih pokreta, a narocito politicara. Govori o tome kako psihijatrija i psihologija dozivljavaju krizu jer su postali opasan instrument u rukama mocnika. Najbolje da sami cujete. Verujte mi ni malo nije dosadno.

Takodje, ko ima priliku da nabavi knjigu preporucujem mu da je procita.

Is Psychology Losing Its Way?
By Dr. Warren Throckmorton
December 21, 2005

A recent book edited by eminent psychologists Rogers Wright and Nicholas Cummings delivers a stunning indictment of the mental health professions. Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm documents and critiques the ascent of social activism over open-minded scientific inquiry and quality mental health care in the current mental health establishment. This book is a must-read for anyone who cares about mental health care in this country.

The book casts a critical eye on muchof the social activism of the psychological and psychiatric professional associations over the past thirty years. However, Drs. Wright and Cummings cannot be dismissed as disgruntled conservatives. Their deeds validate their claim to be “lifelong liberal activists.” For instance, while president of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Cummings supported the development of the first task force championing the mental health needs of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

In addition tobeingpersonally involved in social activism, the authors have been keen and pragmatic observers of the mental health professions over the past 40 years. My own contact with Nick Cummings made a lasting impact on me. I first met Dr. Cummingsin 1986 when American Biodyne, the first real managed behavioral health care company in America, came to Ohio as a manager of the state employee behavioral health care program. I just started my counseling private practice in Portsmouth, Ohio, and wanted to get on board the managed care train. Biodyne did something very novel for a managed care company: all therapists in the preferred network were required to be trained by the company leaders, including the president and founder, Nick Cummings. In all my years of education, both in school and post-grad, I have never listened to a better trainer than Nick Cummings. He believed mental health therapy could be a powerful influence in a person's life but it was never to be used to gratify the therapist or to promote a political agenda. That same theme permeates this book. Drs. Cummings and Wright believe that modern psychology has been overthrown by forces of social activism and as a consequence faces irrelevance.

As one example, Cummings and Wright demonstrate how political support for gay activism has led to stifling of client self-determination. Consider this quote from the book regarding sexual identity therapy:

"In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA [American Psychological Association] have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate "gayness" on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree are termed homophobic. Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right tochoose the therapistand determine therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so." (From the introduction, page xxx).

Sexual identity therapy is not the only political hot potato tackled by theauthors. They demonstrate how politically correct posturing can serve to obscure research findings. For instance, co-editor Wright cites research by Cummings suggesting that positive male figures in the lives of children are significantly related to a decrease in the number of children requiring medication for behavior problems. However, he laments that such research results are frequently stifled or even dismissed because they offend feminist sensibilities.

Drs. Wright and Cummings express concern over the professional consequences of psychology’s misadventures into social activism. They paint a picture of psychologists being unable to support themselves as psychologists because the profession has become enamored with producing position statements about social change. Mental health care in America is adequate but barely so. Any practicing counselorknows how difficult it is to find quality services anywhere outside of the metropolitan areas of this country. Cummings and Wright predict that psychology’s preoccupation with social activism threatens to make it irrelevant as a force for quality and affordable health care for all people.

So how is the current leadership of the APA reacting to the critique of Cummings and Wright? Not well. It appears the former APA luminaries are getting a cold shoulder from the current leadership. At a recent meeting of National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Dr. Wright noted that the APA adopted a "strategic decision not to respond" to their book to avoid giving it undue attention. Furthermore, the APA initially prohibited its member-publications from even reviewing the book. Observed Dr. Wright: "So much for diversity and open-mindedness."

In my opinion, the current APA leadership will ignore these warnings at their peril. When it comes to trends in mental health care, Nick Cummings has rarely been wrong in his predictions. I don't think he is wrong this time.

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy in The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City (PA) College. Dr. Throckmorton is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and is the producer of the documentary, I Do Exist about sexual identity formation. His columns have been published by over 80 newspapers nationwide and can be contacted through his website at

How America Went Gay

Charles W. Socarides

O njemu pozete procitati na sledecem sajtu:



How America Went Gay

by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.

Charles W. Socarides, M.D., is clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York. He is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and author of Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona).

For more than 20 years, I and a few of my colleagues in the field of psychoanalysis have felt like an embattled minority, because we have continued to insist, against today's conventional wisdom, that gays aren't born that way. We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change. This "adaptation" I speak of is a polite term for men going through the motions of mating not with the opposite sex but with one another.

For most of this century, most of us in the helping professions considered this behavior aberrant. Not only was it "off the track"; the people caught up in it were suffering, which is why we called it a pathology. We had patients, early in their therapy, who would seek out one sex partner after another-total strangers-on a single night, then come limping into our offices the next day to tell us how they were hurting themselves. Since we were in the business of helping people learn how not to keep hurting themselves, many of us thought we were quietly doing God's work.

Now, in the opinion of those who make up the so-called cultural elite, our view is "out of date." The elite say we hurt people more than we help them, and that we belong in one of the century's dustbins. They have managed to sell this idea to a great many Americans, thereby making homosexuality fashionable and raising formerly aberrant behavior to the status of an "alternate lifestyle."

You see this view expressed in some places you would least expect. The Pope says same-sex sex is wrong, but a good many of his own priests in this country (some of whom are gay themselves) say the Pope is wrong. Indeed, in much of academe and in many secondary school classrooms gays are said to lead a new vanguard, the wave of the future in a world that will be more demographically secure when it has fewer "breeders" (which is what some gay activists call heterosexuals these days).

How did this change come about? Well, the revolution did not just happen. It has been orchestrated by a small band of very bright men and women-most of them gays and lesbians-in a cultural campaign that has been going on since a few intellectuals laid down the ideological underpinnings for the entire tie-dyed, try-anything-sexual Woodstock generation. In various ways, Theodore Reich, Alfred Kinsey, Fritz Perls, Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman preached a new countercultural gospel: "If it feels good, do it."

It was all part of a plan, as one gay publication put it, "to make the whole world gay." I am not making this up. You can read an account of the campaign in Dennis Altman's The Homosexualization of America. In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, "in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships." Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that "promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

Heady stuff. Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness.

This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality. Those of us who did not go along with the political redefinition were soon silenced at our own professional meetings. Our lectures were canceled inside academe and our research papers turned down in the learned journals. Worse things followed in the culture at large. Television and movie producers began to do stories promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. A gay review board told Hollywood how it should deal or not deal with homosexuality. Mainstream publishers turned down books that objected to the gay revolution. Gays and lesbians influenced sex education in our nation's schools, and gay and lesbian libbers seized wide control of faculty committees in our nations' colleges. State legislatures nullified laws against sodomy.

If the print media paid any attention at all, they tended to hail the gay revolution, possibly because many of the reporters on gay issues were themselves gay and open advocates for the movement. And those reporters who were not gay seemed too intimidated by groupthink to expose what was going on in their own newsrooms.

And now, what happens to those of us who stand up and object? Gay activists have already anticipated that. They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. And we are bigots besides, because, they say, we fail to deal with gays compassionately. Gays are now no different than people born black or Hispanic or physically challenged. Since gays are born that way and have no choice about their sexual orientation, anyone who calls same-sex sex an aberration is now a bigot. Un-American, too. Astoundingly now, college freshmen come home for their first Thanksgiving to announce, "Hey, Mom! Hey, Dad! We've taken the high moral ground. We've joined the gay revolution."

My wife, Clare, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of things, said one day recently in passing, "I think everybody's being brainwashed." That gave me a start. I know "brainwashing" is a term that has been used and overused. But my wife's casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.

In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money-to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were "just like everyone else." This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.

They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their own "bigotry." Kirk and Madsen wrote:

All normal persons feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack....The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame...when his homohatred surfaces. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths....It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause.

The best thing about this technique, according to Kirk and Madsen: The bigot did not even have to believe he was a loathsome creature:

Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective-if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.

Finally-this was the process they called conversion-Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, "if we can actually make them like us." They wrote, "Conversion aims at just this...conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."

In the movie "Philadelphia" we see the shaming technique and the conversion process working at the highest media level. We saw Tom Hank's character suffering (because he was gay and had AIDS) at the hands of bigots in his Philadelphia law firm. Not only were we ashamed of the homophobic behavior of the villainous straight lawyers in the firm; we felt nothing but sympathy for the suffering Hanks. (Members of the Motion Picture Academy felt so much sympathy they gave Hanks an Oscar.) Our feelings helped fulfill Kirk and Madsen's strategy: "to make Americans hold us in warm regard, whether they like it or not."

Few dared speak out against "Philadelphia" as an example of the kind of propaganda Kirk and Madsen had called for. By then, four years after the publication of the Kirk-Madsen blueprint, the American public had already been programmed. Homosexuality was now simply "an alternate lifestyle." Best of all, because of the persuaders embedded in thousands of media messages, society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed one of those spontaneous, historic turnings in time-yes, a kind of conversion. Nobody quite knew how it happened, but the nation had changed. We had become more sophisticated, more loving toward all, even toward those "afflicted" with the malady-excuse me, condition.

By 1992 the President of the United States said it was time that people who were openly gay and lesbian should not be ousted from the nation's armed forces. In 1993 the nation's media celebrated a huge outpouring of gay pride in Washington, D.C. Television viewers chanted along with half a million marchers, "Two, four, six, eight! Being gay is really great." We felt good about ourselves. We were patriotic Americans. We had abolished one more form of discrimination, wiped out one of society's most enduring afflictions: homophobia. Best of all, we knew now that gay was good, gay was free.

Excuse me. Gay is not good. Gay is not decidedly free. How do I know this? For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life engaged in exercising a kind of "pastoral care" on their behalf. But I do not help them by telling them they are O.K. when they are not O.K. Nor do I endorse their "new claim to self-definition and self-respect." Tell me: Have we dumped the idea that a man's self-esteem comes from something inside himself (sometimes called character) and from having a good education, a good job and a good family-and replaced that notion with this, that he has an affinity to love (and have sex with) other men?

In point of fact, many of my patients had character; they had an education; they were respected ad men and actuaries and actors. But they were still in pain-for one reason and one reason alone. They were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men. They were not free. They were not happy. And they wanted to see if they could change.

Over the years, I found that those of my patients who really wanted to change could do so, by attaining the insight that comes with a good psychoanalysis. Others found other therapies that helped them get to the bottom of their compulsions, all of which involved high motivation and hard work. Difficult as their therapeutic trips were, hundreds and thousands of homosexuals changed their ways. Many of my own formerly homosexual patients-about a third of them-are married today and happily so, with children. One-third may not sound like a very good average. But it is just about the same success rate you will find at the best treatment centers for alcoholics, like Hazelden in Minnesota and the Betty Ford Clinic in California.

Another third of my patients remain homosexual but not part of the gay scene. Now, after therapy, they still have same-sex sex, but they have more control over their impulses because now they understand the roots of their need for same-sex sex. Some of these are even beginning to turn on to the opposite sex. I add this third to my own success rate-so that I can tell people in all honesty that my batting average is .667 out of more than a thousand "at bats."

Of course, I could bat .997 if I told all my patients in pain that their homosexuality was "a special call" and "a liberation." That would endear me to everyone, but it would not help them. It would be a lie-despite recent pieces of pseudo-science bolstering the fantasy that gays are "born that way." The media put its immediate blessing on this "research," but we were oversold. Now we are getting reports, even in such gay publications as The Journal of Homosexuality, that the gay-gene studies and the gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. (The author of one so-called "gay-gene theory" is under investigation by the National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud.)

I was not surprised to hear this. My long clinical experience and a sizable body of psychoanalysis research dating all the way back to Freud tell me that most men caught up in same-sex sex are reacting, at an unconscious level, to something amiss with their earliest upbringing- overcontrolling mothers and abdicating fathers. Through long observation I have also learned that the supposedly liberated homosexual is never really free. In his multiple, same-sex adventures, even the most effeminate gay was looking to incorporate the manhood of others, because he was in a compulsive, never-ending search for the masculinity that was never allowed to build and grow in early childhood.

When I tried to explain these dynamics to the writer who helped me put together a kind of popular catechism on homosexuality, I found he had a hard time understanding what this "incorporation" meant. He said, "Your patient would be more manly if he took in the penis of another man? Sounds a little dumb. Would I run faster if I ate the flesh of a deer?"

I told him, "You have to understand that we are talking about feelings that come from deep in the unconscious mind. They are very primitive. In fact, if you have ever read any Indian lore, you may remember that Indians would, in fact, eat the flesh of a deer in order to become faster afoot. To us, that is a very primitive idea. But it had a mythic significance for a young Iroquois brave. And Madison Avenue still makes use of such mythic meanings. The ad people sell us things based on the notion that we will become what we eat or drink or possess." The point I was making was this: We do not understand same-sex sex until we realize that the dynamics involved are unconscious.

This is one reason why psychoanalysis is the tool that gets us to the heart of everything. Once my patients have achieved an insight into these dynamics-and realized there is no moral fault involved in their longtime and mysterious need-they have moved rather quickly on the road to recovery. Their consequent gratitude to me is overwhelming. And why shouldn't it be? They were formerly caught up in compulsions they could not understand, compulsions they could not control. Now they are in charge of their own lives.

Their former promiscuity may have looked a lot like "liberation." But it was not true freedom. It was a kind of slavery. And it was not a lifestyle. With the onset of AIDS, as the playwright and gay militant Larry Kramer said in a 1993 interview, it turned out to be a death style. I have had some patients tell me, "Doctor, if I weren't in therapy, I'd be dead."

Testimonials from my recovered patients make me feel my work is worthwhile-despite regular demands from the gay rights community for my silence. What would they have me do? Pack my bags, find a new profession, lock up a lifetime of research and analysis, hide my truth under a bushel? It is not my psychoanalytic duty to tell people they are marvelous when they are out of control, much less ask disingenuous rhetorical questions like, "What kind of God would afflict people with an 'objective disorder' in the disposition of their hearts?"

Giving God the credit for their gayness is a persistent refrain in much gay literature today, and I am saddened to see people of evident good will become unwitting parties to the blasphemy. Gays ascribe their condition to God, but he should not have to take that rap, any more than he should be blamed for the existence of other man-made maladies-like war, for instance, which has proven to be very unhealthy for humans and for all other living things. God does not make war. Men do.

And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. An exaggeration? Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or 16 (as they tried to do in England in 1994)? In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, "We're here. We're queer. And we're coming after your children."

What more do we need to know?