Dammit, I hate it when facts get in the way of slander.
Also, a number of the pedophiles who are only attracted to children (not gay or straight) tend to be sexually indiscriminate. So it's particularly dangerous to assume that a man who has been accused of molesting a boy is gay and only attracted to boys, because you run the risk of never finding other female victims.
Sending this to my mother-in-law - I'm hoping that if I bombard her with enough factual information something will eventually pierce her LDS-inspired veil of ignorance.
This video is inspired by an article at Here's an excerpt:

Dr. W.L. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a similar set of phallometric tests on a sample of gay and straight men, except this time they used more photos of young boys and girls covering a wider age span. They noticed that for those gay men who were attracted to males under 18, they tended to be attracted to young men who were well past the age of puberty (age 15 or older), with fully-developed adult genitalia and other features that were characteristically masculine. But when heterosexual men showed an attraction towards younger males, they tended to be attracted to pre-pubescent males (ages 9-11):

Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth.31

This explains the apparent contradiction of straight men abusing young boys. They really are straight – they’re responding to the feminine qualities of pre-pubescent boys, qualities that gay men didn’t find appealing. After all, gay men are, by definition, attracted to men; the feminine characteristics of young boys were a turn-off to them.…
nicely done.
That's brilliant! I wonder if the homophobe he corresponded with has a rebuttal.
This one goes in the permanent reference file for future use. Rob Tisinai is a hero.
That so explains the existence of the very openly criminal group NAMBLA.

It's also interesting that he cites how one common characteristics of these 'men' is that they seek "soft and smooth" bodies, "not manly". Male but with feminine (soft, smooth bodies) characteristics.

Hmm ... where on Slog have I heard that type of male androgynous preference before?
I vote we hook Peter LaBarbera up to a phallometer and find out once and for all who he really likes.
Jesus, LC. Reread.
Is it just us or does this guy look a little gay?
Loveschild- please assess all the facts instead of cherry-picking like you do with your own religious teachings. The very video you supposedly just watching and the dissertation quoted in the comments already addressed and destroyed your implied argument even before you wrote it. The gay male sexual preference of the "twink" or "youthful teenage male" is very, very different than that of a pre-pubescent boy. A "twink" has already gone through puberty, so while he's young looking and generally hairless he has a fully-developed male form with fully-developed genetalia and masculine musculature. Pre-pubescent boys do not have any of these qualities-save the hairlessness- and are generally seen as more girl-like than boy-like. And it was already spoken of in these studies that the gay men who prefer "twinks" still want a distinctly male body- otherwise they could just as easily go for women and would thus no longer be gay.

So in conclusion your implied argument was wrong before you even alluded to it.
Not to mention that "twinks" can be and often are well beyond their teenage years.

Loveschild has problems with basic reading comprehension.
Asking Loveschild to address facts is futile since Loveschild doesn't deal in facts.

While I've enjoyed Mr. Tisnai's videos for their clarity and intelligence, the problem is he's attempting the reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with, and who aren't interested in facts. I'm afraid he's fighting an uphill battle.
If NAMBLA's existence means all homosexuals are paedophiles, it logically follows that the fact that African Americans make up the largest percentage of the prison population means all African Americans are violent criminals.

Best watch out for the Po Po, LC :)
@12 Honestly, you really believe that the exclusively used by and gay originated label "twink" does not imply feminine looking, underage males? Twink is simply a substitute in name that some gay men have invented for expressing their preference for boyish males since being completely open about it can land them in jail. If some adults can fit into that image they're also labeled as such but they have to model their physical appearance not as adults but in a boyish or teen image. You yourself admit as much, "he's young looking and generally hairless". You never see any of the individuals deemed as "twinks" by gay men as being fully develop men, that would disqualify them from being seen as "twinks". Why do you think the same people have invented other terms like "twunk" for those whose body is fully developed ?

Truth is that no matter how much people like Tisinai denies it, there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. These are unique to the gay subculture.
It is a nice video, on a subject that makes my blood boil. I hope it empowers people.

Its chance of countering the agruments of people such as Loveschild is very small. In order to learn something, one has to be willing to acknowledge that one isn't omniscent. They hold to their beliefs despite contravening facts, their desire to blame child molestation on gays is too dear to them. And yet, they get their backs up when they are called homophobes. They continue slandering despite those pesky contravening facts all in God's love, and remain baffled as to why they are not perceived as loving or Christ-like.
@16: I will see your Twink and raise you the mainstream culture term "jail bait" aka a hyper-sexualized underage girl. Think Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, etc. The pervasiveness of MSM idolizing young girls is overwhelming to think that "twink" is such an anomaly to gay culture.
@14: Yes, it's an uphill battle. But it would be a huge mistake not to fight it. Many people (I imagine) believe that gay people are more likely to be sexual predators because they have heard it, and don't know the facts. Unless the facts are spread as avidly as the falsehoods, those who don't bother to investigate for themselves are likely to believe the falsehoods in the absence of other viewpoints.

It would be easy to think that this only applies to the generally ignorant and uneducated among us, but that's not the case. I think we've all heard something, and then believed it without further research, because the 'facts' presented were reasonable. (Read if you want hundreds of examples of this.) We shouldn't assume that people with these beliefs are not interested in facts or can't be reasoned with. That assumption certainly applies to a portion of that population, but we need to be willing to believe (until having it proved otherwise on an individual basis) that any given person is simply ignorant of the truth, not willfully prejudiced against it.

If we hate people simply for being ignorant, then children deserve our hatred. It we accept that ignorance is a state that we can help to correct, then all of those ignorant people deserve our care and kind assistance. Obviously Loveschild has proven herself a willfully-ignorant troll, so does not fall into this category.
"there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. "

Are you nuts? Why do most men prefer women to be shaved and hairless? Why do almost all women shave their armpits? Why are supermodels usually small-breasted?

In the end, though, given the statistics cited in the video, IF we are going to believe that there's no equivalent in "mainstream" (by which I assume you mean "hetero") culture, we must conclude that there ought to be, because it seems to correlate with LOWER rates of child abuse. And indeed, while some of your assumptions are clearly off, I think there's something to the idea that those who are repressed and unable to talk about (and, perhaps, find harmless outlets for) their darker sexual impulses are less likely to control them, which is to say they are more likely to act on them.
Well, you know, this fellow may have something here; however, he really doesn't take it far enough. Most child sex abuse takes place with friends and family; and most abusers are men. Much abuse is also the result of stress upon the abuser. As the state has a clear interest in preventing children from being abused, here follows my modest proposal.

Only women should be allowed to get married and children must be raised only by women, perhaps with some well-supervised outings to activities with male adults. To prevent as much of the stress of childrearing as possible, the minimum number of women marrying should be four; this allows one woman to be sleeping, one woman to be working, and two to be supervising the children. Sleep, work and childcare duties would be on a 24 hour rotation naturally. A recommendation of five or more women in the marriage would be superior as it would allow more time for marital activities.

This schema would have many advantages.

It would enhance the well-being of the children as they would be monitored twenty-four hours a day, increasing not only their safety from sexual predators, but also from misadventures now common in households with only one or two parents. This would save on the costs due to childhood accidents as well as the costs of child sexual abuse to the child and to society.

In such a household there would likely be many children, such that they could get all the cognitive and linguistic benefits now found in childcare settings, together with the loving attention of parents rather than paid surrogates. It would be the best of both worlds.

Benefits to the parents would be that everyone could get a good night's rest, and a chance to work while being assured that the children would be recieving the best of care from beloved spouses. If one spouse did choose not to work outside the home, then supporting them would be easier with a multi-income family group. This would also be true if one parent became temporarily or permanently disabled.

Other, ancillary advantages to society would also accrue. With many children being raised by a single household, there would be efficiencies of scale to child-rearing that could only have a green effect on the planet. A single bus plus multiple small vehicles could replace the current need for each family to have a mid-size car. (This would not be as large a factor where adequate public transport with facilities for child passengers was available.) Toys, frequently made of plastic, would be shared and passed on from child to child. Clothes similarly would be able to be passed on getting the most use possible from them.

Last but not least, there would be considerably fewer children born (assuming that the government would take the sensible precaution of long-term birth control for women unwilling to take up this lifestyle, and vasectomies for all men after a sperm deposit to a bank of their choice). Only a percentage of the women who today give birth would choose to have such a marriage and only they would have children; so while there would be more children per family, there would be fewer children overall. Thus the population would become reduced more quickly, also reducing the strain on the planet's resources.

What say you?

Is LC pissed because they weren't pretty enough to be molested?
Loveschild writes: "Truth is that no matter how much people like Tisinai denies it, there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. These are unique to the gay subculture."

What do you call the apparent (if you believe what you see on TV) fascination of straight guys with underage girls? The incredible number of ads, TV shows, movies, etc. depicting underage girls in sexual situations is pretty clear evidence of that. Consider the ads for companies like American Apparel showing what appear to be underage girls. The culture of objectification of very young women is exactly the same as the "twink" phenomenon - it's just MUCH more widespread and apparently invisible to you. And I haven't even touched on the huge amount of teen and "barely legal" porn out there - the women in this porn are adults, but they are portraying underage girls.

You seem woefully ignorant and out of touch with the world around you.
#16, a twink is a man who is usually white and often blond, tanned, clean-shaven, usually young, and of slender build. Twinks are not children, nor are they by definition underaged: many are well into their twenties, and the "hairless" aspect usually refers to the chest and does not extend to the pubic or other regions. Nor does "twink" necessarily imply feminine.

As to your argument that "Twink is simply a substitute in name that some gay men have invented for expressing their preference for boyish males since being completely open about it can land them in jail," if this were true and even people like you knew the secret, it wouldn't be a very good secret now would it.

As has already been explained to you, a twink is someone who is young-looking but is a fully developed man, with adult musculature and genitalia. "Twunk" is a little-used term that some people use to designate an older (perhaps late 20s to 30s) twink: the twink stage ranges from late teens to mid-twenties.

And regarding your lies about NAMBLA, there exist SEVERAL pro-pedophilia groups in what you term "mainstream culture," which is to say groups that promote the legalizing of sex between children and adults.
@ 16,

Shall we add "babe", "chick", "kitten", and the annoying "cougar" as mainstream cultural terms. And the pesky fact that youth maintenance is a huge industry in this country, all those anti-aging creams, injections and face lifts, push-up bras, butt shaping panties, waxing, and laser hair removal are all evidence that mainstream culture values "youthful looking", "smooth", and "hairless".

Damn those contravening facts again.

Ps. "Twunk" is a youthful looking, smooth, hairless man that has put on weight, not a physically matured adult.
@21 - SpookyCats, great plan! I especially like the last paragraph, and think that part should be implemented even before the multi-women households catch on.

I am a strong fan of the idea that every child be planned for by his or her parents. Surgical sterilization of post-pubescent people is the most effective way for this to happen - for men especially.

You might want to let gay men on the child-rearing though, as most pedophiles identify or pretend to be straight.
rewind @ 25:

Twink: a youthful looking, smooth, hairless, adult (physically matured, fully developed) man.

Twunk: a "twink" that put on weight.

It's a harsh world out there for those viewed by popular culture as not thin enough.
Peter LaBarbera has used faulty logic by simply imposing an unscientific assumption -- that is, that if men in heterosexual relationships are molesting boys, they are simply closeted gays. This ignores the deeper analysis by the studies' authors, who also looked at the perpetrators' sexual experiences and desires rather than simply slapping on a definition. But even with LaBarbera's own faulty logic, he's saying that it's only closeted gay men who molest boys. And if he truly believes that, then shouldn't he be advocating promoting an environment where gay men can come out so that they can have healthy relationships with other adult men, perhaps in the stable environment of marriage?
This guy is great. I've never heard of him but will have to do some research. He's smart, thoughtful and articulate. And (ahem) really cute. While it's true he won't win over any homophobes on the other side it's essential to provide thoughtful analysis for folks to use on their own. So much ingrained homophobia can be diminished by a thoughtful, clear statement of fact. So much more powerful than screaming matches.
@27 - Two slight additions or clarifications to your definitions.

First, when we say that twinks are generally hairless, we tend to refer to lack of chest hair. They're still fully developed and, unless they choose to shave (which is not part of the definition), still have public hair and underarm hair.

Also, a twunk is usually a twink who has put on some muscle (twink+hunk). A twink who has put on non-muscle weight is often considered a cub -- someone who may become a bear when they're older.
NAMBLA is a discredited organization that has been repudiated by every other LGBT organization, and is essentially out of business. They no longer meet, and simply consists of a post office box where mail collects and is never answered.

In the 1970s, there were plenty of other organizations advocating for lowering the age of consent among opposite-sex relationships. Most of them that focused solely on that issue have faded away, like NAMBLA. Those that continue to exist also deal with other issues -- like the Mormon Church, for example.

"Twink or twinkie is a gay slang term describing a young or young-looking gay man (usually white and in his late teens or early twenties) with a slender build, little or no body hair, and no facial hair."

In some circles the term "Chicken" is "preferred":…)

"stereotypically describing an adolescent youth, usually one with an innocent nature."

So, an adolescent youth. Gee, what would come next in the minds of those who pursue this ....

I guess if there's anything remotely positive ( ? ) in any of these terms that would be that at least when talking about "twinks" these 'men' are referring to "white" male "teens" only ?

I don't think that would be of much comfort to white parents tho.


Thank you. I just used Urban Dictionary @ 27.
@32 - I have met many twinks who are Asian, Latino, and African American, in addition to some who were white. And I met them in bars that card heavily, meaning they were 21 or older. You're trying to impose assumptions of definitions onto a community that you honestly have very little direct experience with. In other words, you're totally wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Oh goddammit. Why don't the fucking <> tags ever work properly for me? Here's the url that was supposed to be in my previous post:…
37 are so tranparently stupid that it's starting to hurt again..

That's dead on. There are plenty of straight men who are uninterested in girls who look old enough to be legal -- I roomed with one in college, and it's still true in his mid 30s. He did eventually get married, but his wife is small/girlishly built enough (and also just has very young-looking features in general) that she has to shop for clothes at the Baby GAP. I'm not making this up.

That's not the only man like that that I've known in my life, and that's a dead on hetero equivalent of twink-lust.
Is NAMBLA a gay organization? I thought NAMBLA was an organization of men who love boys. Aren't pedophiles different than homosexuals? Wasn't that the point of the video?

Is there a psychological difference between people who are fixated on pre-pubescent children and people who are fixated / attracted to post-pubescent children?

These sure seem like two different animals to me.
I'm laughing so hard at LC right now. Two reasons. One, her stupid comment @ 16 was thoroughly DEMOLISHED just two comments later, and by others. Second, she's using wikipedia as a reference when she's already echoed 37's sentiment when wikipedia was used against her.

Wikipedia is a GREAT reference, provided you treat it as a starting point, and make sure you check out the endnotes for their sources. It's foolish to snap-dismiss it without at least checking up on the article first to see if it's well written and well referenced.
@38 - And one more: "Lolita."
Sorry, I said "37" but I meant "35."
Why are supermodels usually small-breasted?

That's for the benefit of the clothes and the natural result of being unbelievably skinny. Note that porn stars are just as skinny but have implants -- to counteract the side effect of semi-starvation (no boobs) and to appeal to the clientele (straight men).

Also, standards of beauty change all the time. Curvy women (that is, women who are obviously past sexual maturity) were the beauty standard of ages past. I think the current cultural standard of ultra-skinny women is a byproduct of our conversely prudish, sex-hating culture. A woman who looks like she's past sexual maturity also looks like a woman who owns her own sexuality. That's threatening to many American men and women.
Loveschild, you are passing judgment on what people desire sexually. This is a complex issue, and to be able to navigate the many seeming contradictions & subtleties, one must not only have access to facts, but to an understanding of human sexual nature. The only way to gain the latter is to begin by understanding your own sexual nature.

DS is a successful sex advice columnist because he clearly understands his own sexual nature, and is able to expand that knowledge to put himself in the shoes of his fellow humans. In all your writings, LC, I have never once gotten the sense that you are likewise. On the contrary, you write like humans are machines, and the sex they have is an easily understandable phenomenon. The act itself may be simple, but the emotional complexities that spring from an even more complex realm of desire is definitely not. Sex is a messy business, and I often get the sense that you have not understood much of your sexual encounters, and are not interested in the slightest in digging very deep to understand your own desires. Maybe your desires aren't that deep, or your libido not that strong. Or you have lingering shame connected to sex & sexuality (like pretty much everyone in a judeo-christian culture.)

These are not accusations, they are what I would guess after reading at least a hundred, if not more, of your posts. This is the subtext you project behind your words. If you want your readers to seriously weigh your written thoughts & opinions, you must be able to project a sense that you have seriously addressed and are comfortable w/ your own lusts & desires. Right now, you are failing miserably.
Unfortunately, the same people who twist Bible verses to support their hateful, homophobic agenda also do not respond to factual evidence.
"Truth is that no matter how much people like Tisinai denies it, there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. These are unique to the gay subculture."

Uhhhhhhhhm. Ever heard of "berely legal" porn?
Oh my god. With all the ridiculousness it took 39 posts before someone pointed out what should have been obvious from the start: NAMBLA was an organization of men who who promoted sex with children, ie: pedophiles. A pedophile is not a homosexual, as this video pointed out.

And in response to #39's question, there are different terms for adults who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (pedophiles) and adults whose primary attraction is for post-pubescent youths 15-19 (ephebophiles), an age range that includes individuals who may themselves be legally adults or over the age of consent.
Crimony, people, we've been through all of this before.

~ Pedophilia (paraphilia for prepubescent children) is not the same as ephebophilia (a natural attraction to breedable adolescents), but is regarded by the media and by alarmist groups as the same since it boosts ratings to do so. Both are still illegal on the grounds that sex is harmful to minors, though evidence of harm is less clear when it comes to adolescents. Still, there's a considerable difference between being attracted to underaged teens and acting on it. Consider that the great majority of sexually active underaged teens are girls with college-age boyfriends. Statutory rape is a far greater problem amongst hets than gays.

~ NAMBLA is, at this point, a joke of an organization, and is about as relevant to the modern debate regarding gays as the Holy Inquisition is relevant to the modern debates regarding the Roman Catholic Church. When NAMBLA was fully active it was part of a larger sex-positive movement (pursuing issues such as sex education, contraception on demand, women's liberation and so on). At the time, we were not fully aware of the dangers of oversexualizing children, just as (to dip into the Godwinian threshold), antiemetic sentiments were popular throughout western civilization during the rise of the German National Socialist Party.

~ The real issue pursued by current activism fronts (though not much in the US) is Age of Consent Reform which, like many issues, bears varying levels of extremism depending on the activist or the agency, from merely decriminalizing the sexual experimentation in which teens typically engage to decriminalizing pedophile activity outright.

~ Loveschild has shown repeatedly not to be stupid but willfully ignorant, probably suffering from an extreme level of attitude polarization (or a generalized version of confirmation bias) because she's literally afraid of the existence of gays. This has nothing to do with her alleged Christian faith which she uses, as she uses everything else when on SLOG, to reassure herself that she is right in hating gays. Loveschild is beyond reason; if you must respond to something she says, do so to advise the rest of us, because she won't benefit from your knowledge (though she'll certainly benefit from your attention).
Lets see, I want to know the definition of a term used almost exclusively by the gay community. Do I go to:

A:a christian homeophobe who posts obsessively on the blog of a known gay man, but does seem strangely interested in said "unnatural" and "unmainstream" behavior.

B:the gay community.


Hm, maybe ill go with, i think it's B.
Truth is that no matter how much people like Tisinai denies it, there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. These are unique to the gay subculture.

Ha ha ha ha ha! I know other people have already addressed this, but it is seriously hilarious. LC, have you honestly never heard of the existence of "barely legal" porn (a HUGE segment of the porn market caters to men who want to see women who look like teenagers). The twink thing is virtually the EXACT same thing as this -- straight men attracted to young-looking women, but (most of the time) smart enough to know that any real sexual interaction (either in person or in porn) must be with legal adults. Replace "straight" with "gay" and "women" with "men" and you have the twink phenomenon.

AND, the existence of NAMBLA does not prove that all homosexual men are pedophiles any more than the existence of straight men who molest young girls proves that all heterosexual men are pedophiles. Please.
The good sir doth protest far too much.
And seeks to bury us under a steaming tall pile of hairsplitting definitional tortured statistical Bullshit.
However it's really quite simple:
Males who have sexual activity with other males are engaging in homosexual behavior. And being homosexual. If their partner is underaged we may enhance the definition to pedophilic homosexuality but it doesn't wash the homo away.
Ernest Rob and the other homomafioso of Queer, Incorporated who oversee the image of Faggotry love to exclude the more deviant elements from the club and restrict the term "homosexual" to disease free Volvo driving clean cut Caucasian Rotarians in stable longterm relationships but - sorry - he doesn't get to say who is in and who is out.
The club is self selected and anyone can join.
Engage in homosexual behavior and "Bing"- you're in!

So Rob's friend is right. The percentage of Men who engage in homosexual behavior who have abused a boy is much higher than the percentage of Men who only engage in heterosexual behavior who abuse underage girls.
The Tisinai Effect.

(btw- Robbie's attempt to exclude homosexual pedophiles who are in a relationship with a woman is laughable. Has he not been following the big Prop 8 trial in San Francisco? Most homosexual men have been in a relationship with a woman at some point. if he kicks them all out of the club his inflated 4% will drop to about .04%...)
@51: DAMN. You sure are stupid if you can't distinguish between homosexual and pedophiliac urges. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexuals who have an abnormal attraction to youngsters of either gender. But if you want to sit around and rail against the queers rather than protecting your kids from those who are actually likely to molest them, well go right ahead, if you must. But you don't seem too likely to reproduce.
"homomafioso of Queer, Incorporated who oversee the image of Faggotry love"

I'm going to have to put that on a t-shirt.

This man does not blink his eyes.
@ 48, Uriel: Still in your fan club. Your use of italics is particularly yummy.

Geez, ppl. Gay haters: get over your obsessive fear of buttsex. Do something useful. Stats prove that most molesters are heterosexual. In the desire to bring down those damn homos, you're ignoring the structures of your own families. For example, most kids who are abused, it's by someone they know. A friend or family member. Instead of blaming 'OOooooOooo EeeEEEvil Mystery gays, they wants our marriages, precious' - why aren't you focusing on the bigger problems? Your own marriages, maybe? Perhaps if kids weren't shuttled back & forth between various caregivers, there'd be less opportunity for them to be in the wrong hands? Hypocrites & Philistines.

These idiots claiming that gays are pedophiles need to talk with the folks helping child prostitutes in Mexico. Many American men who cross the border and have sex with trafficked kids are not just classic pedophiles who mainly desire children; they are opportunists taking advantage of chance encounters with children. Gay guys are not doing this crap to the girls and while a small number may be molesting trafficked boys most of the culprits are straight men. By focusing such an inordinate amount of energy falsely accusing gay men of being natural pedophiles right-wing groups have taken attention away from the horrid abuse of children making the problem even worse. For shame!
so how are you cuming at telling the difference between those urges?
making any progress?

"Truth is that no matter how much people like Tisinai denies it, there's nothing equivalent to the "twink" phenomenon nor groups like NAMBLA in the mainstream culture. These are unique to the gay subculture."

And further more, to the truly awful person with love in their name who wrote this trite dear, straight guys don't need a NAMBLA to advocate for sexual access to underage girls, they have something called the bible.
@57: I believe that the video spells it out quite nicely, but I shall repeat it to you here.

HOMOSEXUALS: feel sexually attracted to people of the same gender.
PEDOPHILES: feel sexually attracted to prepubescents.

The vast majority of men who have pedophiliac urges are attracted by their youthful qualities, not their male qualities; specifically, their hairlessness and smooth bodies, as explained in the video. It's a far cry from homosexuality, and a completely different sort of thing entirely. Homosexuals screw different sorts of people and for completely different reasons than pedophiles.
It's like saying that soldiers are just a type of serial killer because they kill people. The kind of people they kill (enemy soldiers vs. civilians) and their reasons for the killing (war and CO's orders vs. mental illness) separate them. Now, by your kind of reasoning, all the troops defending our freedoms overseas and at home are nothing more than serial killers. You anti-American pig.
Thanks Dan. I just posted it to 323 friends on Facebook.
Thanks Dan. I just shared the video with 300+ friends on Facebook down here in LA.
HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILES feel sexually attracted to prepubescents of the same gender.
It's amazing that the right wing Christian wackos need to rely on lies and misinformation to justify their prejudice.
The "study" Robbie cites was from 1994.
It looked at only 50 cases.
It determined the sexual orientation of the abuser based on a review of the hospital chart of the child.
The information in the charts was not independently verified.
No police reports or other investigative data was consulted.

This is less credible than anecdotal hearsay.

Laughable doesn't begin to describe it.
Above, since I think most of the gay-haters on this thread are one person + Loveschild, here's some info:………

The thing that attracts all molesters to children is their innocence, vulnerability & physically undeveloped qualities. A pre-pubescent boy is not that physically different(barring the sex organs) different from a pre-pubescent girl. Didya see that first link, with the science? The ratio of heterosexual to homosexual child molesters is 11:1. Folks who hate gays use the fact the men molest boys as proof that those men are gay. They're not, & if you asked them, they'd say they weren't. When we're young & then again when we're old, our gender isn't as wildly different.

Since teen pregnancy is back on the rise, there's gonna be more inexperienced parents navigating the minefield of raising a child without proper help. If you gay-bashers really gave a shit about the children, you'd stop worrying about how to hook up agenda A (denying gays right/marriage) w/ problem B (kids getting molested) & start figuring out how to care for kids better overall, so there wouldn't be as many tragedies. 'cause if nothing else will get ppl's attention, OMG, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN..?

Your proofs are crap. Just move on & start putting all that fantastic hatred to better use, if that's possible. Also: you're aging out. The next generation doesn't buy your bigotry. Cheers.

@64 - as much as I hate to talk over the gentle thup-thup-thupping of your jerk-off for jesus, I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of the source material cited in the video before you wrote it all off as anecdotal.

As the Box Turtle article points out, it doesn't actually matter one bit how you personally choose to classify the type of sex that pedophiles are having: the fact of the matter is there are almost zero child molesters who identify *openly* as gay.

Which means persecuting gays for child molestation is counterproductive, and allows the people who are actually out there molesting children - i.e. PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS STRAIGHT - to continue doing so.

So have fun yelling "faggot" at pedophiles while your kids are getting molested by straight guys.
Did you read your first link?

"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

11 hets to one homo.
Not the 25-50 to one seen in the population.

more from the link-"
This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is GREATER THAN that in persons who develop heterosexually."

Five times greater.

Did you read your second link?

"The Reality of Pedophilia
We get often caught in a semantic conflict when discussing the sexual abuse and molestation of children. Depending upon our exact definitions of terms, it can be shown:
that homosexual abuse of children is widespread.
If we define the phrase "homosexual abuse of children" in the first statement to mean adults molesting and abusing children of the same sex, then this statement is true: Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are boys. "
@68 I don't know what you mean by "my first link" and "my second link" - I didn't link to anything. But regarding the phallometric testing, the article I was referring to says:

These phallometric (penis-measuring) tests, while controversial for many reasons, supported the conclusion that as a group overall, gay men were no more likely to respond sexually to male children than straight men. Furthermore these tests supported these sex offenders’ statements when they claimed to be gay or straight... for your second quote, you have corroborated my point: the fact the this abuse is termed "homosexual abuse" does not indicate anything whatsoever about the sexual identity of the perpetrator. Are you illiterate? More likely you're just in the habit of using scare-quotes from articles that actually expressly disprove your views. So you're just pandering to the illiterate.
@68 Hey Eva, I don't hate anyone so keep that label. I believe that man and woman united in matrimony is the best for children and raising them into healthy adulthood. If some gays were not in the business of redefining that institution and using schools and the media to influence kids most americans wouldn't be involved in countering their lifestyle. Live and let live, just happens that some homosexuals don't want that and want to push their agenda on the public.

I don't understand this either, "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. " Doesn't that mean that there are more homosexuals who engage in this?
70, Loveschild, you can never seem to answer how letting gay people get get married is going to harm your marriage and family.
@70 Loveschild. I'm not normally one for writing, but I found some inspiration in your post.

I know that you get put under some heavy assault here, so you're probably steeled up and not able to really hear what it is that people are trying to say. But. Since you won't listen to statistics, let me share some anecdotes. Just consider them, please, for a second, before you post. For a second consider that some of the SLOG posters are thoughtful, considerate human beings and attempt to imagine where they are coming from.

I was raised by a man and a woman united in matrimony. My childhood sucked and I can promise I'd have a lot less cause for therapy if my mother had left my dad and raised us herself. Every time I hear someone talking about the importance of a man/woman upbringing, I wonder if they don't notice that sometimes, regardless of gender, there are some stunted individuals out there that maybe shouldn't be in charge of a young child's development. Being married doesn't make you good. It doesn't do much but give you state protections.

Also, my experience is that gays *do* just want to be left alone. But we're not. I don't know anyone who is visibly queer and older than 23 who hasn't been targeted, whether verbally or physically, by a random stranger.

We exist, loveschild. That's it. We exist. We aren't trying to push an agenda, or screw around with your kids. I really don't care if you think I'm going to hell, or committing a sin against God. I think you're more than allowed to feel that way, and welcome you to it. I just want the state and all the state's power to back off.

The problem is the Conservative Christian agenda to publicize lies and propaganda about the gays, and the fact that good-hearted people then think that we are the devil, and then see me with all my gender-ambiguities, and get scared, and think they know who I am and what I'm capable of. That's why we're in public fighting. We're countering the lies, because we want to be left the hell alone.

That's my experience, anyway.
Loveschild, you can believe whatever you want; it doesn't make it right. Have you been following the Prop8 trial? We've had extensive testimony that utterly demolishes the claim you make below regarding marriage between 1 man and 1 woman being best for children, based on decades of study by people who, unlike you, actually know what they're talking about.

@68 and @67 referenced @65.
That's what the "65" in the upper left hand corner means.

Are you illiterate?

The nets is a dangerous place, don't hurt yourself.....
Some here have commented that Mr. Tisinai's commentary is worthless because those who disagree with him are generally disinclined to listen to logic. This is not true, at least in my case.

I (a straight, impressionable young man) am genuinely interested in his argument. Just as Mr. Tisinai notes, the majority of the American public (including myself, until a few moments ago) seem to assume that most of the men who molest boys are gay. This may strike people within LGBT communities as an appalling assumption, but to outsiders it is superficially reasonable. After all, the 'homo' in 'homosexual' means like is attracted to like, right? So it follows, albeit fallaciously, that gay men would be overrepresented in any given set of male boy-molesters. Mr. Tisinai cogently explains why this reasoning is false.

I applaud and thank Mr. Tisinai for bringing my own prejudices to light. His short lecture is informative, not distractingly incensed, and spoken without confusing references to within-community jargon. It would make a great PSA.
Thank you, Eva. You must let me know how I engage italics that makes them yummy. If it's just that I engage italics, know that you, too, can have this power.

Allegedly (@62, et. al.) believes that anything that quacks and waddles cannot possibly be a goose, a swan or a skilled hunter.

Loveschild believes what she believes because she prays to a Big God while she kneels in the Big Church.
My (male) friend has a preference for slim hipped women with smaller breasts. He is straight, obviously, but he prefers women with a more androgynous, or "youthful" body type. Does that make him a pedophile, since he is the straight equivalent of a gay man into twinks? No? So its just gays who can be pedophiles? Gotcha. Your bigotry knows no bounds.
@70: How are homosexuals pushing their agenda on others? If they get married, THEY get married. If you and your crowd get your way, however, gays can't get married. Let's see, who's trying to impose on whom here? You should be worried less about every child having a mother and a father (who, naturally, are married and praise Jesus continually), and more about helping children have two loving, caring parents. A married heterosexual couple isn't the only answer.
On a completely different tangent, I always wondered what the statistics were of adult men that are sexually assaulted. I mean, it's usually the case that when a man is sexually assaulted, it was perpetrated by another man. I always wondered what the sexual orientation is of the victims and the offenders. I ask this because I remember a couple years back hearing about a young man that was attacked and sexually assaulted by three other men. The victim was gay, and the three offenders claimed they were straight. The attack was clearly hate-related, because y'know, when you rape someone out of the blue, it's usually because you have a hatred for such a person, and you want to humiliate and degrade them in the worst way possible. Sadly, I don't think they were actually charged with a hate crime.

Which always made me wonder ... why isn't rape always considered a hate crime? Especially when the offender is a stranger to the victim (very rare, but it happens, and yet it's hardly ever considered a hate crime). When a woman is raped, the offender acted the way he did because he has a deep hatred for women. In the case I recalled where the young gentleman was raped, it was the same thing. I think rape should always be considered a hate crime in and of itself.
78, Well said! Loveschild can't seem to figure out how to answer such questions.
@78: One argument made frequently by those like you who seek to overturn the repeated vote of the people in California is that not allowing gay marriage somehow harms the children under the care of some homosexuals. And it's a very poor argument to make, because for example, the domestic partnerships in California that are offered to those of the same sex who cohabit together is one of the most expanding and extensive in rights and benefits. So clearly children under the care of some homosexuals (since homosexuality unlike heterosexuality is not conducive to motherhood and parenthood) are not in any disadvantage concerning the benefits or any other protection available to the rest the of children in traditional households in the state. Even the emotional argument of children somehow being socially disadvantaged because their gay caretakers are not married doesn't hold water, because granting a marriage recognition will not keep them or those who they interact with from the reality that their caretakers are not a an opposite sex couple (a mother and a father) but people of the same sex.

The social harm to a child therefore is not made by the state not granting marriage licences to their gay caretakers but by the gays who have made a conscious decision to put their own personal interest before those of the child.

Reality is that natural law has deemed that heterosexuals are the ones who procreate in our specie. While it is true that is no guarantee for appropriate child rearing because other things need to accompany it, children will generally fare better when raised within a stable environment by those adults who model in behavior the same behavior that brought them into this world, a mom and a dad.

Regardless of what your own personal view on homosexuality is, children should not be used for personal agendas. Just because sometimes the less than ideal has been chosen for children due to dire circumstances that shouldn't mean that the ideal and what's best for them (a mom and a dad) should be placed in an equal position with that which is clearly not.

Allow me to preempt Savage and all the other families (that don't fit your bigoted description) that you just insulted by saying, hush your trap! You're a hateful, mean spirited person and a bully.

And, feel free to hammer me. Because if allowing the "truth of God's word to sweep the cobwebs from my hearts" means I'm to become like you and ascribe to your punitive, vengeful, model of God. That I'll become cruel, hateful and mean spirited like you. Then, no thanks. Nope, I'm going to hang with those who understand that the kingdom of God is advancing here and now, the call for peace, justice, compassion and equality has been made and is to be accomplished now. If you haven't figured it out your still dead. I hope someday you'll recognize that you've lost your way.

I just want to add to what Kim wrote:

A marriage is not made by a piece of paper but by a commitment between two people who love each other.
A parent is not just someone who gave birth, but by someone who raises a child to be instilled with good morals (not prejudice, bigotry, racism); someone who can raise a child with love; someone who can raise a child to understand what's right and what's wrong, to be strong enough to be who they are, to be kind and good.
A good person is not someone that strictly adheres to what some old book says or what someone else tells them is right, but a good person is someone who can live a life they're proud of and know that their existence made a positive impact on the world. A good person is someone that spreads love, not hate.
A family is not made by blood and common DNA, but by mutual love and respect for each other, caring about their family member's needs and wants. A family is about putting someone else before yourself. Some of the best and strongest families are the ones that are not related to each other at all.

I'm hurt and saddened by a lot that you have written, and hope that someday you open your eyes and heart, and I really hope that someday arrives before it's not too late.
Regarding the fitness of gay couples to parent, or as you and yours argue, Loveschild, the lack thereof, the burden of proof is yours to bear, and to date the preponderance of evidence has indicated same-sex headed households are statistically as functional (if not more so) as opposite sex headed households. The precautionary principle only applies to environmental concerns, not social ones, especially in a community such as ours where customs are continuously developing.

This, of course, also fails to address the fact that we have a dearth of stable homes for the children we have already, so it is in the nation's interest to promote the development of new ones, even if they don't suit the ideals of a specific opinionated sector. Were it up to the youths in question, I think they'd rather be in stable houses run by single parents or eccentric parents than to be stuck in the foster-care system, halfway houses and juvenile detention until they reach emancipation.

You also fail to acknowledge that marriage is recognized outside a given state, whereas civil unions are specific to that state. A California civil union doesn't transfer, for example, should a couple move to New York. A Massachusetts marriage does, and is even valid in California. Marriages also garner more rights, protections and privileges from the civil sector. California civil unions are only guaranteed matching state protections, not ones that are offered by other entities. You, of all people, as one who prides in awareness of the struggle of the African American community, should be aware of the intrinsic fallacy in separate but equal legislation.

Ultimately, marriage and family are continuing to be redefined all the time, whether towards the inclusion of gays or otherwise. This compulsion you and yours have to cling to the false value of tradition even in the face of obsolescence is at best about your selective adherence to scripture, and at worst about raw xenophobia, neither of which have a place in our nation's government.

Of course, I suspect now that you know these things, but do not care. You would rather children suffer than respect the diverse plurality in which we live. I suspect it's easier when the casualties are mere statistics and not those you know personally.
@81: And rights under federal law? DOMA ring any bells?

You said: "children will generally fare better when raised within a stable environment by those adults who model in behavior the same behavior that brought them into this world, a mom and a dad." Ewww, you fuck in front of your children? Hope you're saving up to get them some therapy.
Number 85!
@78 & @85, I love you both!
@81: Okay, Loveschild, you arrogant asswipe, this time the gloves are coming off. You think that "homosexuality unlike heterosexuality is not conducive to motherhood and parenthood". Where the fuck do you get that? All heterosexual people are suddenly excellent parents waiting to happen? I know a lot of "traditional" families where the parents seem to lack that caring instinct or just seem a little confused as to what to do.
Here's a counter-example to your little spurt of bigotry: my cousin is a lesbian, and she and her partner have been happily together for several years now. They have two adorable little boys (each is the biological mother of one of the boys), and they have both taken to motherhood like a fish to water. And you know what? Their little boys act just like little boys in hetero families; they play with trucks and get obsessive about Batman and dinosaurs. It's a fallacy to think that you need two opposite-gender parents to raise children without gender confusion. My cousin's kids have no shortage of male role models either; unless you have no family, friends, or neighbors, you're not going to see that. And that would socially stunt a kid's development no matter what kinds of parents they have.

I'm pretty sure my cousin is the rule, not the exception. So how are homosexuals putting themselves before their children by wanting to have a stable, cohesive family unit? Ask any kid born into a marriage; they'll tell you it makes them feel better knowing that their parents are married.

Oh, and about the "will of the people of California"? BullFuckingShit. With 100% voter turnout, Prop 8 would be tits up in a ditch. You guys are just a little lucky in that people who want to take rights away from others tend to be pretty vociferous about it.
@81 Obviously I didn't expect anything coherent or intelligent from LC, but this amazes me:

"While it is true that is no guarantee for appropriate child rearing because other things need to accompany it, children will generally fare better when raised within a stable environment by those adults who model in behavior the same behavior that brought them into this world, a mom and a dad.

Regardless of what your own personal view on homosexuality is, children should not be used for personal agendas."

-A blatant lie on the effects of homosexual parenting, brought about by prejudice, followed in the very next sentence with the admonishment that children should not be used to push personal agendas. Incredible.

By the way, LC, many, many comments later, you still haven't addressed the Lolita concept or "barely legal teen" porn. I love how you simply pretend an argument is off the table once someone clearly debunks your idiocy.

...that is, once someone debunks your idiocy with pop culture. Because we can debunk your views on man-woman parenting with facts, expert statistics and personal anecdotes all day, but you will stick your fingers in your ears.

So how about Britney Spears circa 1998, LC?

@89 You regard my comments as "-A blatant lie on the effects of homosexual parenting", but research made concerning the developmental needs of children clearly cite the benefits of natural child rearing ( a mom and a dad ) and the detrimental effect of homosexual parenting due in many cases to the general aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. Especially when it comes to self identified gay men.

What is "the homosexual lifestyle?' I feel as if I'm looking on the map for the location of the moral high ground, but can't find it. As for heterosexual parenting, we've had two shining examples in the Seattle/Bellevue area; the Wallingford toddler wandering near a busy street while her parents slept in the middle of the day, and the Bellevue parents who were starving their baby because she is "too fat." Gay parents aren't perfect, but the ones I know don't become parents by accident or because their parents need grandchildren. I know of a lesbian couple that has FIVE FAS boys. One of the mothers stays home with the kids; the other works full time. God knows where those boys might have ended up if these women hadn't chosen them.
Loveschild, you're going to ignore anything that contradicts your petty, narrow way of thinking no matter how factually-based it is, but here's something for you to consider: during the recent court challenge to California's Prop 8 a witness testified that same-sex marriage would provide several benefits. Those benefits included more stable, committed relationships and better environments for the children of the couples in same-sex relationships.

The witness, of course, was David Blankenhorn, who was called in defense of Prop 8.

In fact every argument you've made has been pretty much demolished not by the opponents of Prop 8 but by its defenders, simply because, when placed under oath, they're forced to admit that they don't have a case.

Of course you have the luxury of not having to be honest.

@90 Let me link you to something a little more reputable than an advocacy group, LC, not that you have any concept of the word "reputable."… That's the American Psychological Association, asserting "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

Hmm. I think somehow that is a little more believable than a page with one anecdote, a few distorted quotes, and the same lies debunked in the initial post and multiple times in the comments.

Oh, and still no word from you on "jailbait."

... will someone explain to me why I'm bothering feeding this troll?
APA is a Liberal Homosexual advocacy group that pushes the Left Wing agenda under the guise of being impartial experts.

also until just a few years ago they classified Homosexuality as a mental disease.

You cannot have it both ways. If they were indeed a homosexual advocacy group, they would not have classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until the 1970s.

Since they did, in fact, list it in the DSM until 1973, we can infer that they are not a "Liberal Homosexual advocacy group."

Or those of us who can read can infer it, anyway.
"Act-Up" style protests bullied the APA into line and they are very loyal dependable parrots of the Homosexual party line. As your link demonstrates.
Every time I read one of LC's posts, this is all I hear:…
Wonder what the Journal of Marriage and the Family, Child Development, Pediatrics, and the American Sociological Review has to say?

Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.

Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Here is more.

A review of 21 studies...

Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66(2): 159-183.

Pdf here:

Damn, there are those pesky contravening facts again.
Hmm ....The American Psychiatric Association is also a reputable group.

In May of 2000 they issued a Fact sheet under the title " Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues " and in it they stated the following:

“Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

Such has not been scientifically refuted to date. But I guess name calling or biased homosexual advocacy group conclusions will somehow deny their findings.
And, there is not scientific data as to why you're acting so mean spirited, cruel, and hateful or why you're obsessed with bullying others and their families, Loveschild. Is there a biological etiology for bigotry? For homophobia? I don't know of any replicated scientific study to support your actions. Yet, here you are. No one is denying your existence or your choice to be here. Without a doubt your presence here is a choice, it is a behavior, a conscience decision on your part. It would seem needlessly cruel to deny your and your family equal protection under the law, or to slander you as an abuser for your actions here, just because you choose to act hateful and there is no science to prove your genetically wired for unkindness. But, that's your justification for denying others equal protection under the law, and slandering others as pedophiles, because science doesn't have replicated studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality? So you think you're in the clear? No, it just shows that you have not found the narrow gate and have, as of yet, failed your greatest test. To love your neighbor as yourself.

By the way, I saw this today and I thought of you.… I hope you'll divorce yourself from the fear that holds you someday. I hope you'll see where you once were blind.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.