Gay Conversion: I Slept With Over 200 Men, Now I'm a Happily Married Heterosexual Dad

I guess I became straight by accident. It was never a grand plan; the therapy was an attempt to resolve commitment issues, rather than sexual identity. I never had any desire to change my sexuality. But that's what happened – in fact I changed everything.

Having had hundreds of homosexual partners, I eventually married a woman and had a child. And my whole outlook on life changed. I grew from a loud and arrogant person, trying desperately to mask my deep insecurities in group situations, into a strong, assertive guy who loved sports and war films. At the age of 46, I've never felt better in my own skin.

But before we get into the details of my conversion, let's go back to the beginning.

I knew I was gay at about 10 or 11. My cousin himself had come out and I realised my own attractions were the same. At the age of 10 or 11 boys start getting interested in girls, but I was only interested in boys. I was definitely a number six on the Kinsey Scale – an exclusively homosexual male with no heterosexual desires whatsoever.

Teenage years were hell. I often thought of suicide, occasionally self-harmed and had a growing problem with alcohol and gay porn. I came out to my parents when I was 17, in floods of tears. But mum and dad were amazing; they said they had known I was gay and then affirmed their unconditional love for me. My mates at school also told me they had known for some time and supported me. The 'coming out' process wasn't tortuous or traumatic.

At 18 I moved to London from the north of England and fully embraced my gay identity. I became the first person to live openly as a gay man in the section of the university I attended, and even established an LGBT group for other students, actively preaching against those who suggested that being gay was somehow a choice, or even wrong.

I never felt the need to change. I was born gay, it was all I'd ever known – end of. Even though I'd been raised a Christian and attended an LGBT Christian Movement in London, I reveled in the capital's gay scene and led a very promiscuous lifestyle. In fact, I reckon I had 200 sexual partners.

Eventually I settled down with a long-term boyfriend, an ex-soldier and Falklands vet, and we considered going abroad to marry – or at least have a civil-partnership. But around this time I made the decision to enter a relationship with Christ, which allowed me to examine my life more deeply.

I realised I had some issues, centring on commitment. I discovered I had a deep-rooted fear of rejection, I was too anxious, and I used people. I had an innate fear of men – not of their homophobia, but the real thing: a chasm between me and the normal heterosexual male (Kinsey's so-called number ones).

I terminated my relationship with my long-term partner to get a clean slate, and, acting on a friend's advice, I went into therapy to address my commitment issues. There was nothing brutal or harrowing about the help I received; the horror stories you hear from some of those gay-straight 'conversion' documentaries don't apply here. It was simply a mixture of cognitive therapy, to challenge my core beliefs and root out one-sided thinking; behavioural therapy, to change problematic actions trained through years of reinforcement; and EMDR, which uses rhythmic eye movements to dampen the power of traumatic memories.

My therapist and I never focused solely on my being sexually attracted to men, but my "being gay" had to be part of the dialogue, otherwise I'd have been leaving a part of my life at the door. Much of my journey was about forgiving those I needed to forgive, and recognising where I had built walls against significant others in my life, especially my parents and siblings.

I eventually came to realise that as a boy I had failed to interact with other men on any significant level. I had perceived myself to be rejected by men even as a small boy and had made an inner vow never to deeply trust them. People had reached out to me and I had spurned them, including my father and two older brothers. No wonder men had become a mystery to me and even an obsession by my teens, when I began erotically craving men and feeding this through porn.

I also realised I had thrown myself wholeheartedly into a world of the feminine, with no masculine counter-balance, yet I despised women for having the natural ability to woo every aspect of a heterosexual man, which I could not do. I discovered that my natural place was not among women.

A lot of core behaviours were challenged - my looks, my body, my walk – and my therapist challenged me to look at where I wasn't like other men, and where I was. The therapist began to work on things like my voice and my gait - he was giving me permission to think in a different way, to do things differently.

Feeling of acceptance

My fears and anxiety gradually subsided, and I began to feel more accepted around both men and women. I moved from constantly rejecting masculine identity to embracing it; my posture changed, I began to walk straighter and lost my old mincing walk. My voice gained a whole new resonance, such that people would regularly comment on it to me.

I began to see that maybe, just maybe, I was never truly gay and that there was a man as real and as noble as the men I had often admired, worshipped and yearned for hidden deep within me, waiting to be freed and released.

Physical contact with women, even touching a woman's hair, became more enjoyable. I began to enjoy being a man, and enjoy women's company more. This doesn't mean I went out and was attracted to every woman I met; I wasn't an on-heat teenager. But it was a gradual process, eventually leading to dates and relationships.

Today I've been married to a woman for eight years, and we have a five-year-old daughter. I love art and theatre, but I enjoy team sports in a way that frightened me as a child. One of my favourite movies is Saving Private Ryan, because it's about brotherhood and deep male friendships, something I'd never enjoyed before.

Am I now exclusively heterosexual, some people ask? Most of the time, yes. But for most people there are periods where sexuality can be quite fluid. At times this is true for me too. I don't miss the gay lifestyle I left behind –when I visited my ex-boyfriend, five years after therapy, it brought to home to me the drawbacks of that life. His voice had become camp and weak, and he had even contracted HIV.

I know more than ever that my decision to entertain therapy, and at a later stage the therapy which concentrates on repairing malformed sexual orientation, saved my life in the long run. It also saved a lot of taxpayers' money too. I now believe I would have ended up considering, and no doubt requesting, gender reassignment at the expense of the public purse.

But the changes in my life (and my ex-boyfriend's) don't make me want to preach or convert anyone. Therapy can be dangerous, and there's no reason why anyone should feel compelled to 'convert'.

But I now believe people aren't born gay, and anyone can develop the sort of hidden identity I've found.

Source: http://bit.ly/PXt0r7d

Read More

How To Recruit Ladies For The Lesbian "Lifestyle"

So, they do recrut.

Although there's few better recruitment tactics than seeing a previously very publicly straight, publicly unhappy woman (who recently told Harpers Bazaar that she's bisexual but not a lesbian) look happy on the arm of an equally happy lady-partner, the British magazine Gay Times recently asked a number of advertising firms to come up with advertisements to do what the LGBT community has too often been accused of: recruit Breeders for the Gay Lifestyle. 

Unfortunately, they were all focused on straight men — and several of them were about why it sucks to date women. But what about putting some L in the LGBT recruiting agenda?Although a straight woman myself, my prior career was in lobbying — so I pretty much got paid to convince people to do stuff they didn't necessarily want to do. 

That's advertising, right? While I can't quite do the graphic design work that went into Gay Times' man-pussy ad or its "women are all stupid, frightening bitches" ad or even any of its three "get laid more" ads, I can push out a list of talking points like a mofo. 

So, following are the talking points lesbians really need to start using to recruit more women to the Sapphic Lifestyle.

• Breasts are fun. They just are.
• You know how you used to fish for compliments about your shoes from your boyfriend? Yeah, don't worry about it.
• You'll never have to smell schweaty balls again.
• You know you always kiss a guy after he goes down on you, so you can't claim squeamishness.
• When you cry, your girlfriend won't try to make fix the problem, she'll just let you have your feelings.
• Double your wardrobe, double your fun.
• Body hair maintenance really is optional.
• Rachel Maddow. You know you want her.
• No woman will ever try to use her teeth on you during oral.
• And, if you're really one of those girly-girls who is super into the Dream Princess Wedding, there's only one thing to say: two wedding dresses.

Read More

Major Scientific Study Examines Domestic Violence Among Gay Men

By Roy Waller

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of "men who have sex with men" (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

Figures were also compared with studies on heterosexual women who had been victims of violence within marriage or while cohabiting with men, also within five-year periods. Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).

The study, conducted by researchers with the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (University of California, San Francisco), Whitman-Walker Clinic (Washington, D.C.) and Prevention Research Center, School of Social Work (University of Washington, Seattle), examines three specific types of gay male-to-gay male assault: psychological/symbolic battering (verbal threats, ridicule in front of others, forced substance abuse, destruction of property, stalking), physical battery, and sexual battery (forced sexual activity).

Demographic information collected included each respondent's age, educational level, race/ethnicity, employment status, income, sexual self-description (gay, homosexual, bisexual, etc.), HIV status, and city of residence.

The research interviews covered the most recent five years of the respondents' lives, revealing that, within that time frame, 34% of the urban males interviewed had been victims of psychological/symbolic abuse, 22% had been physically victimized, and 5.1% had experienced sexual abuse. Overall, 39.2% reported one or other type of battering, of which 18.2% reported being victimized by more than one type of battering over the five-year period.

In terms of personal statistics concerning the victims, it was found that homosexual males age 40 or younger were much more likely to be the victim of abuse by a same-sex partner than those age 60 or over. Those with graduate and professional degrees were also less likely to be the target of such violence than men with a college degree or lower.

Men infected with the AIDS virus were more at risk for psychological and physical abuse than their HIV-negative peers. HIV-infected men were also more likely to be victimized in a sexual manner.

According to the study, none of the battering outcomes appeared associated with racial or ethnic identity, income level, self-described sexual orientation, or the city of residence.

The study states that the most significant factor in male same-sex partner violence is age: a 3.8% rate for 18-29 year olds, 3.9% among those between the ages of 30 and 39, and 2.7% in the 40-49-age bracket. Men under the age of 40 were found to be six times more likely to report abuse than those 60 or older, with subjects between 40 and 50 being four times as likely.

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships "is a very serious public health problem."

The complete study may be found at

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1964.

Read More

Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?

Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?

By Charles C. W. Cooke

June 10, 2012 6:00 P.M.

In his new Social Science Journal study, Mark Regnerus poses a question: “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?” The answer to this — in both the academic literature and the imagination of the American public — has changed dramatically in less than a generation. “Fifteen years ago,” Regnerus explained at an event at the nonpartisan Institute for American Values, biological, heterosexual families were “reflexively regarded as the best environment for children.”

This subsequently gave way to the notion that there were “no meaningful differences” in outcomes for children raised in non-traditional arrangements. Finally it was suggested that children “might actually be better off being raised by a gay couple.”

Although there is little hard evidence to support such a conclusion, advocates of same-sex marriage and gay adoption have declared the science to be settled. Most famous, perhaps, of such declarations is the 2010 paper by social scientists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, who contended that “based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor.”

This contention — that homosexual parenting is either neutral or better than traditional family structures — has found its way into our academic, legal, and cultural conversation and is rarely questioned. Hence the Ninth Circuit’s declaration: “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted.

The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”

Regnerus’s study was designed to reexamine this question — a difficult task, to say the least — by expanding the sample size and improving upon the methodology of previous surveys. The U.S. Census, for example, collects a lot of useful information but, because it does not ask questions about sexual orientation, much of its contribution to the topic must be inferred. Conversely, many academic studies that use the small-sample-size “snowball technique” — a process by which current subjects of a study recruit others from among their acquaintances to take part in it — can be misleading.

One such study, discussed in Regnerus’s paper, sampled women who frequented lesbian bookstores, events, and newspapers; the problem with this popular approach is that it narrowed down the samples to the educated, probably affluent, and socially similar, and it produced a limited understanding as a result. Such studies have proliferated in recent years.

In search of his answers, Regnerus screened 15,088 people. From these, researchers found 175 people who had been raised for some of their childhood by a mother who was in a lesbian relationship, and 73 people who had been raised for some of their childhood by a father who was in a gay relationship — still a relatively small group.

The first thing that Regnerus found is that gay households with children are located in the same geographical areas as the households of straight couples raising kids. Contrary to stereotypes, there is no real concentration of children where gays tend to live en masse. For example, as there are few children in San Francisco’s households overall, there are also few children living with gays in San Francisco.

In fact, Georgia is the state that has the most children living with same-sex couples. Despite being allegedly less gay-friendly, Middle America is very well represented in the gay-couple-with-child demographic. And consistent with general trends, Latino gay couples have more children than do white gay couples.

Regnerus found that children in the study rarely spent their entire childhoods in the households of their gay parent and partner. Only two of the 175 subjects who reported having a mother in a lesbian relationship spent their whole childhood with the couple, and no children studied spent their entire childhood with two gay males.

The numbers drop off pretty sharply as time progressed, too: For example, 57 percent of children spent more than four months with lesbian parents, but only 23 percent spent more than three years. This is interesting in and of itself, but it has serious implications for the study — implications to which I will later return.

Ultimately, Mark Regnerus set out to answer the question of whether children who have parents in a same-sex relationship experience disadvantages when compared with children raised by their biological, married parents. The answer, contra the zeitgeist, appears to be a resounding yes.

Children with a parent in a same-sex relationship “underperform” in almost every category. Some of these differences may be relatively benign — whether one voted in the last presidential election, for example — but most are decidedly not. One deficit is particularly worrying: Less than 2 percent of children from intact, biological families reported experiencing sexual abuse of some nature, but that figure for children of same-sex couples is 23 percent.

Similarly disturbing is that 14 percent of children from same-sex couples have spent some time in foster care, compared with around 2 percent of the American population at large. Arrest, drug experimentation, and unemployment rates were all higher among children from same-sex families.

What should we take away from this? Well, this is where it gets tricky. To compare children raised by same-sex parents with the “gold standard” — i.e., biological parents who remained married and alive — is problematic. Given the way the study is set up, one could fairly ask whether this is not so much an analysis of homosexual parenting versus heterosexual parenting, but of childhood stability versus instability.

By definition, any child raised by two members of the same sex is going to be missing at least one of their biological parents and will probably have experienced some instability in moving from the biological dyad to whatever arrangement replaced it.

And, as explained above, most of the children studied spent only a few years with their same-sex parents, which makes it likely that their family arrangement changed more than once and, thus, that their childhood was unstable.

Moreover, given that the study is a snapshot of a time period that predated legalization of gay marriage (in some states), one might speculate that social stigma played a role in Regnerus’s data, and that such stigma will have a smaller effect in future surveys.

Indeed, one should concede that people could legitimately employ Regnerus’s study to justify gay marriage on the grounds that societal disapproval of unmarried gay parents leads to the very instability that causes their children to experience negative outcomes: Marriage between gay partners will enhance the family’s stability and therefore be good for the children. I consider this to be a step too far — the high rate of divorce among gays does not suggest that same-sex households will soon be a model of stability — but it is worth consideration.

Regnerus’s study is a success insofar as it answers the fundamental question of whether children raised by same-sex couples end up differently: Clearly they do, and it does not require a conservative viewpoint to see that “differently” very often means “worse.” It is debatable, though, whether this is an indictment of same-sex households or of instability.

Indeed, the major takeaway from the report is less an indictment that same-sex households are a negative thing and more an affirmation that intact, biological households are a positive thing.

Put simply, if you want to give your children the best start in life, you should have children inside of wedlock and stay together for the duration. But then, we already knew that.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate for National Review.

Read More

Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

Source

Book Description

Publication Date: May 1, 2002

Goodbye, Good Men provides the real story behind the sex scandal currently rocking the Catholic church. Investigative reporter Michael Rose has conducted countless interviews and exhaustive research to uncover several out-of-control seminaries as the root cause of the scandal.

While most pundits and critics are calling for liberalization of the Church in the wake of these scandals, Rose presents compelling evidence that liberal influence is the very cause of the crisis. The revelations in Goodbye, Good Men will shock the nation and ignite a firestorm of debate on the subject.

From Library Journal

Written shortly before the current scandal broke upon the Roman Catholic Church, Rose's book seems almost prophetic as he documents the systematic rejection of pious, orthodox seminary applicants in many dioceses and the encouragement of questionable attitudes and agendas.

Rose (Ugly As Sin), who was editor of St. Catherine Review for seven years, is the author of numerous articles, essays, and books that question the wisdom of contemporary liberal Catholicism. Here, he discusses the causes of the chronic priest shortage, including the misuse of psychological screening and what appears to be blatant discrimination against the kind of young men who were once considered ideal candidates for the vocation.

He gives a disturbing glimpse behind the scenes that may go far in explaining the church's present difficulties. Based primarily on interviews, the book is carefully footnoted and contains a bibliography of sources cited and consulted. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this prominent topic, and for public and academic libraries. C. Robert Nixon, MLS, Lafayette, IN
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Review

"Absolutely astonishing... This bombshell book reveals a seminary underworld in which homosexual promiscuity is rampant."

Read More

Gender roles

Read More

By MarcusPorcius

Dan Savage is well known for being a loud-mouthed Christian-bashing jerk, unless you’re a liberal, in which case he’s a hero of the “LGBT community.” He regularly releases vulgar attacks on anyone who doesn’t believe as he does, his most infamous attack being the Google bomb on Rick Santorum. He was at it again Friday, this time attacking Christian teenagers while giving the keynote address at the JEA/NSPA National High School Journalism Convention. Warning: Graphic Language.

Remember, this is supposed to be about bullying. Seems like he’s bullying Christian teenagers, does it not?

Three things immediately come to mind.

1. While some did walk out the majority of the crowd did not, and in fact cheered him on for his Christian bashing. This is the end result of decades of Christian bashing in public schools and pro-gay propaganda in same schools. The objective of course is to raise kids that react this way to Christian bashing and to carry that attitude into their future journalism so that Christians and conservatives are routinely mocked in the press.
2. Where was the Muslim bashing? Do they not execute gays in Muslim countries to this day?
3. Where was the UN bashing when they in fact passed an amendment to remove being gay as a reason to condemn executions?

The answers to the last two questions are obvious. Like all militant liberal activists, Dan Savage is an intellectually dishonest loser whose “principles” extend exactly as far as is convenient to promote the overall liberal agenda. Don’t get me wrong. Dan Savage will bash and has bashed Muslims but not in front of gatherings like this, where he might actually be accused of hate speech and be subjected to disapproval from his liberal ilk. Which brings me to my next point.

Dan Savage is a coward.

Dan Savage is a foul mouthed jerk, but more than that, he is a coward.

I’ve long said that laws used to be about keeping order and protecting the weak, but that they’ve devolved into protecting the jerks and criminals in our society instead. Dan Savage is the poster child of that maxim. In the old days, calling someone a coward meant that you had to stand up for the claim and if necessary fight it out. If you dared people to face you, and they actually did, you couldn’t get away with filing a restraining order or calling the cops.

And you couldn’t stand at a podium, curse at children, call them “pansy assed” and expect to keep your teeth for more time than it took for a parent of one of those children to reach that podium. In the old days you got exactly what you deserved for this sort of behavior. These days you claim to be the victim, and your “attacker” goes to jail, maybe even for a “hate” crime, ironically enough.

By the way, while I would never challenge Dan Savage to a fight or try to incite anyone else to, because he would have me or anyone else prosecuted and probably sue as well (being the previously described coward). Let’s just say in general terms that given a legal and justified opportunity, I would love to see Dan Savage given a chance to prove how tough he really is. I would love, just once, to see Dan Savage prove that he is in fact not the pansy ass he claims teenagers are.

Oh, and please, please, please God let Dan Savage do some Muslim bashing (for a change) to a gathering of Islamic journalists. Go on Dan. I dare you.

The Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association are Christian haters and hypocrites.

Dan Savage of course holds no remorse for his cowardly, may I say, pansy-assed behavior. But the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association should, and they don’t. This was the extent of their “apology:”

We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,” the NSPA wrote. “some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.”

The NSPA said they did not have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech and that wish “he had stayed more on target for the audience of teen journalists.” They also said it provided a “teachable moment” for students.

As for Savage’s attack on people of faith?

“While some of his earlier comments were so strongly worded that they shook some of our audience members, it is never the intent of JEA or NSPA to let students get hurt during their time at our conventions,” they wrote.

Where to begin? How about the line about journalists listening to speech that offends them, for starters? If Dan Savage was a fundamentalist Christian giving a speech bashing gays, would they have expected the kids to sit for that? Somehow I doubt it.

They said they didn’t have a prior transcript of Savage’s speech. Didn’t they ask for one? Of course not, and that’s because they knew exactly what he was likely to say. They booked him as the keynote speaker, did they not? I’m sure he wasn’t picked out of the phone book at random. They knew exactly who he is and exactly what kinds of things he’s infamous for and that is exactly why they booked him. The NSPA and JEA are liberal, pro-gay, Christian-hating organizations and they picked Dan Savage for the specific things they knew he would say to these kids.

“Teachable moment?” Really? Like what, that Christian bashing is okay? That you must accept the gay agenda or be mocked and attacked in front of your peers (true to life, unfortunately)?

Some of his comments were “strongly worded?” Is that would they would have said if he had replaced Christian with “Muslim” and Bible with “Koran?” Again, I think it’s okay to doubt that. Hypocrites all.

They didn’t want students to “get hurt?” No, it’s more that they didn’t expect any students to be hurt, because they assumed that they would be approving of Savage’s Christian bashing, and in fact most of them were. Furthermore the NSPA and JEA didn’t care the least if some of the students were in fact hurt, because those Christian anti-gay bigots deserved it, right?

You people should be ashamed, but I know you aren’t because you did this deliberately. Unfortunately the law protects your teeth as well.

Source

Read More

Dan Savage: 'Tolerant' bully

They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.

You know: “Forward.”

The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.

Creepy stuff.

No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.

Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).

Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.

While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls–t in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls–t in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.

He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).

But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya–ed people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles as “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”

Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f–k himself.”

Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.

Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f–k himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f–king dead.”

Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.

Thanks for proving my point, Dan.

Source

Read More

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship

Source

When Barack Obama was a 19-year-old student at Occidental College, he published two poems in the Spring 1982 issue of Occidental’s literary magazine, Feast. One is the cringe-worthy “Underground” about “apes that eat figs.” The other poem, “Pop,” is much more interesting, biographical, and disturbing.

“Pop”

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies…
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shrink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ‘cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

The poem reads autobiographical — about a young Obama’s relationship with a much older man whom he calls Pop. In his article for WND on March 7, 2012, Dr. Jack Cashill singles out this passage from the poem:

“Pop takes another shot, neat/ Points out the same amber/ Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and/ Makes me smell his smell, coming/ From me;”

Cashill writes that the most innocent explanation for the “amber stain” on the shorts of Pop and young Obama or “his smell, coming/ From me” is that Pop got the teenaged Obama drunk, and they both spilled whiskey (Seagrams) on themselves. But that interpretation does not explain why the spill is specifically on their shorts and not on their shirts or how Pop’s smell is also on (“from”) Obama.

A marriage and family therapist who blogs under the tag “Neo-Neocon” senses a darker relationship. She writes:

“The lines that begin ‘points out the same amber stain…Makes me smell his smell, coming/
From me’ may be describing outright sexual abuse. But perhaps not; we don’t know, and we’ll never know. But there is no question that the poem is describing a boundary violation on several levels: this child feels invaded—perhaps even taken over—by this man, and is fighting against that sensation.

[...] The poem describes a boundary violation that is both physical and mental. The physical is obvious: he is forced to hug the man who repels him, and as he does so he feels himself shrinking. But the violation is mental, too; earlier in the poem, Obama has described “Pop” as a person who has actually gotten into his brain, and whom he wishes to eliminate from it:

as he grows small,

A spot in my brain, something

That may be squeezed out, like a 

Watermelon seed between

Two fingers.

This mental and emotional usurpation of the young Obama is echoed in the last image of the poem, in which the boy sees his own tiny image framed in ‘Pop’s’ eyeglasses.
 The poem describes a struggle against an attempt at identity takeover, a rejection of being reduced to a reflection in the eyes of the stronger, older, more experienced mentor, who has tried to make Obama over in his own image:

I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
…

The sight is chilling to Obama, who is trying to break free. One wonders if he ever fully succeeded.”

So who was Pop?

There were two older men in teen Obama’s life:

1. His maternal grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, with whom Obama had lived from age 10 to 18 in Honolulu. When Obama was ten years old, his mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, had sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents while she remained in Indonesia.

2. Frank Marshall Davis, a black long-time friend of Stanley Armour Dunham, whom Dunham had introduced to young Obama to be the latter’s African-American mentor. Davis was a member of the American Communist Party, a writer of poetry and books, including the pornographic novel, Sex Rebel: Black, using the pseudonym “Bob Greene.” Cashill states that there is no doubt Davis wrote Sex Rebel because Davis admitted as much in his memoir, Livin’ the Blues: “I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.”

During the presidential campaign season in 2008, I read Sex Rebel, which is out of print, by borrowing the book from the library of the University of California, Berkeley. I therefore can testify from having read the book that Sex Rebel is an account of the unorthodox sexual exploits of a black man “Bob Greene”. Those sexual exploits included marrying a white woman (just as Davis himself did, which was uncommon in the 1960s); “swinging” or wife-swapping with other couples; picking up prospective couples in public parks; sexual orgies; voyeurism; exhibitionism; bisexualism (Greene wrote that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual”); and the seduction by “Greene” and his white wife of a 13-year-old girl named Anne.

(It is the pedophilia that has prompted increasing speculation on the net that “Anne” was actually Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother; and that Frank Marshall Davis had sired Obama. That’s the reason why Obama conceals his birth certificate. This is the subject of a documentary movie that will come out this summer. For more information, go here.)

In the introduction to Sex Rebel, an alleged Ph.D. named Dale Gordon goes further. He describes the pseudonymous author, Bob Greene, as having “strong homosexual tendencies in his personality.”

There are those, like Rebecca Mead of The New Yorker, who say “Pop” is a “loving if slightly jaded portrait of Obama’s maternal grandfather.”

But both Jack Cashill and Neo-Neocon point out that Obama, in his memoir Dreams From My Father, called Stanley Armour Dunham not “Pop” but “Gramps.”

There are other reasons pointing to Frank Marshall Davis as “Pop”:

1. “Pop” wrote poetry: Dunham was a life-long furniture salesman whose literary efforts, if any, were confined to making up dirty limericks. In contrast, Davis had written several books of poetry — Black Man’s Verse (1935), I Am the American Negro (1937), Through Sepia Eyes (1938), 47th Street (1948), Awakening and Other Poems (1978).

2. A line in Obama’s poem “he switches channels, recites an old poem/ He wrote before his mother died” also points to Davis as “Pop”. Dunham’s mother died when he was 8 years old, whereas Davis’ mother died when he was 20 and already established as a poet of promise.

3. In his memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama’s description of a seedy and dissipated older man named Frank is strikingly similar to “Pop” in his poem:

“…by the time I met Frank [Obama was around nine years old] he must have been pushing eighty, with a big dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conservation would turn to laments about women.

“They’ll drive you to drink, boy,” Frank would tell me soberly. “And if you let ‘em, they’ll drive you into your grave.”

I was intrigued by the old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand….”

4. Davis fits the “seedy old man” description more than Dunham: Born in 1905, Davis was 56 years older than Obama and would be 66 years old when Obama was ten. Born in 1918, Dunham was 43 years older than Obama and would be a youngish 53 years old when Obama was ten.

Here are some photos I’ve found of Stanley Armour Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Decide for yourself which man better fits the physical description of Pop in Obama’s poem: “dark watery eyes”; “ears that hang with heavy lobes”; “thick, oily neck”; “broad back”; “black-framed glasses”.

Stanley Armour Dunham with child Obama (l); Dunham with 19-year-old Obama (r)

Frank Marshall Davis as a young man (l); as an old man (r)

Whether Pop was Davis or Dunham, this much is certain: His relationship with young Obama, as the latter described it in the poem “Pop,” was creepy and disturbingly suggestive of pederasty.

~Eowyn

Read More

The girly president

Read More