Lars Eighner's Adult Homepage
rainbow ruleLars Eighner's Adult Homepage Text Section

Skip to: Main Menu or page information.

Gay Cosmos

From the Information Superhighway

Some considerable time after I found the Dumpster System 2000—as I called the computer I found in a Dumpster—and after I had used it to complete Travels with Lizbeth, I obtained a modem for it, which is a device that allows computers to communicate over ordinary telephone lines. With the modem I soon discovered electronic bulletins boards. I could not gain access to the quasi-official InfoNet and I could not afford the commercial information services, but I discovered several highly sophisticated networks of private electronic bulletin boards which are maintained mostly by amateurs as a hobby. The numbers of such bulletin boards and the networks connecting them were astonishing. Some of the amateur networks reached Bahrain to the east and Japan to the west, and almost all of them maintained a number of discussion areas, sometimes called forums and sometimes called echoes.

In virtually all of the forums where the subject was appropriate, and in some where the connection was difficult to see, the discussion of homosexuality came up, as did virtually every other subject that was to any degree controversial. Most of the forums allowed the use of pseudonyms, called handles, and even where handles were not allowed the faceless quality of electronic communication led to especially frank discussions. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other form of communication that has quite the quality of the debates on the electronic forums. A voice from Montreal may interject itself in an exchange between a voice from Spain and a voice from Austin, Texas. Voice is a metaphor that is inexact. You cannot know the gender, color, or age of the person who has posted a message to a forum. Because it is impossible to tell a remark made in humor from one that is meant literally, most of the forums have informal systems for conveying expressions. In some a colon and a right parenthesis, which looks in computer type rather like a smiley face turned on its side, indicates good humor, the left parenthesis then is a frown, a semicolon stands for a wink, and a right brace is a wry smile. Some beginners who do not type so well send messages in all capital letters and are soon reprimanded for doing so because capitals are interpreted as shouting.

Of course, some of the exchanges in such an anonymous medium hardly get above the level of name calling. But many are quite thoughtful and exhibit a strange sort of intimacy. Here then are a few excerpts from my correspondence on the bulletin boards. I have changed the handles and a few of the circumstances of my correspondents to protect their identities and have paraphrased some of their remarks. I have also translated some of the symbols and conventions, such as those for smiley faces and italics.

Date: 09-07-93 07:39
From: Lars Eighner #33 @xxxxxxx
To: Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x
Subj: Re: Great Explanations

Quoting Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x to Lars Eighner #33 @xxxxxxx

Alpha: In all seriousness, I think that homosexuality is neither exclusively sociological or genetic. I believe that it is both. Are you saying that you believe homosexuality to be exclusively sociological in origin?

Lars: I think the capacity for homosexuality is inherent in the facts of human biology. That is, on the basis of human biology alone, one would predict that human beings would be sexual in a very general way, so general that "bisexual" hardly begins to describe it. And indeed, we do observe that the range of human sexuality is enormous. But the problem in explaining things is that few—or no—individuals exhibit the whole range.

We know that some people definitely develop a preference for members of the opposite sex and others a preference for members of the same sex. Faced with this problem Freud developed his Oedipal theory to explain the development of heterosexuality in men. Not many people are happy with this theory—and were I heterosexual I wouldn't think it a very flattering picture either. But there are not very many other theories, and there isn't much evidence on either side.

I mention this because the burden nowadays is always put on homosexuals to explain themselves. But given the facts of human biology, heterosexual development is at least as mysterious. People who want to "cure" homosexuality had better have a very solid understanding of what heterosexual development is—and if anyone has this understanding, he or she has not made it clear to the rest of us.

Theories of homosexuality are many and varied: hormone imbalance, Oedipal failure, intrauterine hormonal influences, brain structure, and genetic predisposition. These last three theories have arisen in my lifetime, and have largely been matters of science by press release. The samples are small, scientific controls are lacking, measurements are subjective, etc.

There is the theoretical framework to handle a gay gene if it exists. The studies so far would serve as pilot projects, but they are hardly conclusive. Some of the other theories (Oedipal failure, etc.) suffer for seeming to explain some part of the data, but failing miserably on other parts.

My surmise is that homosexuality is not one phenomenon, but many.

The idea of same-gender sexual relations seems so striking, that it overshadows distinctions that are possibly more useful. It is as if we put all things with two legs in one box and everything with four legs in another. In one box we have men and birds. In the other we have dogs, tables, chairs, and turtles. We look at the box of four-legged things and try to decide what they have in common; but we must fail because all they do have in common is that they are four-legged. We should have a box for nonliving things, a box for living things with hair, etc. We have, in other words, overlooked more meaningful distinctions by concentrating on the obvious.

But there are a few facts we do know. Sexuality in our society seems set at a very young age—most authorities say it is set it at four or earlier. Now there is some debate whether highly motivated people in the optimal circumstances can ever really alter their sexuality once it is set. I don't think this happens, but even people who claim it does sometimes can offer only a few dubious examples. When people were involuntarily committed to asylums for homosexuality alone, many of them were TORTURED UNTO DEATH without any appreciable difference in their sexualities being noted in the fatal course of "treatment."

On the other hand, we know from cross-cultural studies that there are a number of societies in which most men are bisexual much of their lives, or in which men appear to change their sexualities at various times in their lives. In our own society, we know some people do "come out" at rather advanced ages—and I find it hard to believe that all of them have been kidding themselves for a number of years. I suspect the situation is that most people have a broader sexual range than they express. Furthermore, the expectation that the husband is the romantic lover of the wife is fairly new in our civilization. Without that expectation, there is no reason that homosexual men (except the very few who are actually impotent with women) should not be husbands (yes, of female wives) and fathers. The present situation of society, it seems to me, encourages exclusive homosexuality. In the past a man who was 90% homosexual might have married (a woman) and fathered children, and had a close male friend on the side. But now that he would have to pretend to be his wife's lover, he casts in his lot with the exclusive homosexuals. If he will be hated, he might as well be in good company.

For reasons such as these I have little sympathy for the pathetic "It's genetic, we can't help ourselves" line of some of the gay movement. I am pretty sure it is no choice that we make when we are of an age of reason. Or if we choose as we please, do we please as we please? I just think it is the right to choose we should be asserting. If liberty does not mean the right to choose whom one will love and with whom one will spend one's life, what other human liberty is there that is worthy of the name?

I believe the capacity for homosexuality, and the practice of homosexuality has played a valuable and productive role in humanity's development, and when the historical aberration of the last 800 years or so is finally put aside, homosexuality will again have its proper social utility, and we will hear no more of "we can't help ourselves."

Date: 13 Sep 93 06:03:34
From: Lars Eighner
To: Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x
Subj: Re: Great Explanations

Quoting Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x to Lars Eighner #33 @xxxxxxx

Alpha: You have confined yourself to the biological perspective. I am waiting for the sociological one. I agree on the above.

Lars: I don't know much in the way of sociological information on the subject, one way or the other. I recall one study in which it was claimed that the attitudes of small-town males seemed to be shaped by those of the male athletic stars of the high school class. When the stars condoned homosexual horseplay, etc. this seemed to shape a lifelong liberal attitude in males of their class and when the stars had homophobic attitudes, the other males followed suit. As the stars varied from year to year, the investigators would often find attitudes in the small towns varied sharply according the graduation year of the males. Moreover the stars seemed to be more influential than parents, teachers, etc. in shaping attitudes.

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "On the other hand, we know from cross-cultural studies that there are a number of societies in which most men are bisexual most of their lives, or in which men appear to change their sexualities at various times in their lives."

What societies… primitive? I don't know of any modern societies where homosexuality or bisexuality receives the same respect that hetero's do.

Lars: First you shift ground on me. I did not say anything about "approved." All cultures have two parts: an ideal and a practice. Yes, indeed, most societies that have been studied are in fact approving or neutral towards homosexuality for some members at some times in their lives. But this says nothing about practices. In some societies which see nothing wrong with homosexuality, the incidence of homosexuality is low, and in some societies which disapprove, the incidence is high.

In fact we know very little about any primitive societies. Most of my information comes from relatively modern societies—societies that have been in existence within the last 100 years, which is about the time systematic anthropological observation has existed. The few ancient societies we know anything about, we know about because of their written language—and if you want to call cultures like the one that gave us Homer, Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras primitive, I won't argue because there are plenty of modern data to support my position.

Traditional cultures seem to divide into two general groups when it comes to homosexuality. One I call serial bisexuality. In a typical culture of this kind, males are expected to be mostly homosexual in their youth and through the ages of military service, until they marry women. The age of heterosexual marriage is often about 25 and not uncommonly older than that. Then the men are expected to be exclusively heterosexual—although a handful of societies expect lifelong bisexuality. Examples of such societies are: Azande, ancient Greeks, public-school educated classes of England, Zulu, Fang, Aswan, WaTutsi, Ngonde. Although the Koran does condemn homosexuality, the fact that it requires severe segregation of the sexes has resulted in a considerable tradition of bisexuality throughout Islam. (Most of my work is on African data, so citing off the top of my head, my far from exhaustive list of examples will be weighted with African examples.)

The other pattern can be called gender-bending. In this pattern effeminate homosexuals are assigned to a socially defined gender. Sometimes they are accepted as women. But other times they seem to be regarded as a third gender. There are never very many of these people. But their sex partners (and husbands) can be any male in the male role. Males who are married to, or who have sex with effeminate homosexuals are not regarded as homosexual, and are thought to be normal in every way. Examples of this pattern are found in aboriginal North American cultures and throughout Latin America—and this was very much the case in the neighborhood I grew up in, in Houston in the Fifties. The male who assumes the penetrating role is not considered homosexual. As a result a male may have hundreds of homosexual contacts and still regard himself, and be regarded by others, as perfectly heterosexual.

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "In our own society, we know some people do "come out" at rather advanced ages—and I find it hard to believe that all of them have been kidding themselves for a number of years."

I seriously doubt it too. They more than likely lied to their spouses, as my father-in-law did, while carrying on various gay affairs.

Lars: Well some men, at least, were lying to themselves as much as to their spouses. When I was young many psychologists and psychiatrists advised men who had some homosexual experience to get married, and assured them that this would straighten them out. However I have had so many tell me, when it would profit them in no way to deceive me, that they suddenly discovered they were gay when they were 35, 40, or even 60, that I think sometimes this change may actually occur. Of course there are pure-D rats who will stick it in anything that moves and who will say anything that suits their purpose at the time.

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "Furthermore, the expectation that the husband is the romantic lover of the wife is fairly new in our civilization. Without that expectation, there is no reason that homosexual men (except the very few who are actually impotent with women) should not be husbands (yes, of female wives) and fathers."

DREAM ON ! With one fell swoop, you would throw women's rights, and monogamy out the window. The reason why marriage, and fidelity are `fairly new' is because women have fought tooth and nail for respectability, and equality. Women for too long were considered property, and thus had no say over any of the activities of their spouses. It is obvious by your statement that you know little about the value that women place on Love. No self-respecting woman would stay married to a gay man..unless she had MAJOR problems, or he had lots of money. There are excellent reasons why gays and straights should NEVER be married to each other. I'm not going to list them because they are much too obvious.

Lars: I do not see that this discussion has anything to do with women's rights. In traditional societies neither the male nor the female partner were likely to be consulted when the marriage was arranged. Moreover, both the male and the female partners were expected to have their love relationships outside of marriage. You seem to think I am advocating a return to those good old days of traditional marriage. Of course I am not doing any such thing. The material basis of traditional marriage was destroyed by the industrial revolution, and there is no way to turn back the clock even if I wanted to which I do not.

OF COURSE now that marriage IS (supposedly) based on romantic love, no self-respecting heterosexual woman would stay married to a gay man. But to think ideas of marriage, the family, and the home have always been as they are now in America is very short sighted.

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "The present situation of society, it seems to me, encourages exclusive homosexuality."

The Gay people themselves look askance at a member who has not committed themselves..heart, body, and soul to the order of HOMOsexuality.

Lars: Well, yes. I should think from the above that you would not want any man who was wishy-washy about his heterosexuality to commit himself to a heterosexual marriage.

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "For reasons such as these I have little sympathy for the pathetic "It's genetic, we can't help ourselves" line of some of the gay movement. Or if we choose as we please, do we please as we please?"

Who was it who said freedom is not to do as you want, but to do as you ought?

Lars: Of course what a gay person ought to do is to be the best possible gay person he or she can be.

Alpha: I understand that (Lars's reference to the source of homophobic ideology) to be THE CHURCH... I'm sorry to say that the day that that goes away, is the day when there will be no more tomorrow.

Lars: Actually, while it is clear the Catholic Church (and its later off-shoot sects) were the principal instruments of the oppression of gay people that began about 800 years ago, it is not at all clear that the church was source. The early church seemed to have reached an accommodation with homosexuality, and early rites of homosexual union have been uncovered.

It is to be remembered that while Paul made it clear he did not approve of homosexuality, he did not think much of heterosexual marriage either. ("Better to marry than to burn." Putting heterosexual marriage down as the lesser of two evils when the alternative is hellfire is not exactly a sterling recommendation.)

I suspect there were other social forces at work. When the church goes with the flow it can be influential, when it goes against the grain it is as impotent as the Pope telling American Catholics to give up birth control. Both John Boswell (Christianity, Homosexuality, and Social Tolerance) and I suspect urbanization had something to do with the development of homophobia. This does not exculpate the church from its zealous excesses.

Date: 19 Sep 93 19:14:00
From: Lars Eighner
To: Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x
Subj: Re: Great Explanations

Quoting Alpha #00 @xxxxxxx*x to Lars Eighner #33 @xxxxxxx

Alpha: (Quoting Lars) "I recall one study in which it was claimed that the attitudes of small-town males seemed to be shaped by those of the male athletic stars… "

Gee, that means that there really is something to peer pressure.

Lars: Well, yes. I think we all knew that tolerance can be taught and so can bigotry. I'm pretty sure we could do a similar study that would show when the football hero expresses racist attitudes, the others will follow his cue.

Alpha: However, when someone says to me that two guys kissing in public has no effect on the audience, and I say `No, the effect is to advocate it as normal and natural… and so will be influential in shaping a child's view of sexuality… '

Lars: Since human homosexuality IS natural and IS within the normal range of human sexuality, what is wrong with children knowing that? What is wrong with little gay children seeing the same loving models of loving gay adults that little straight children have always had available? What is wrong with the little straight child learning that people ARE different, that with all of the differences, he is unique. I should think he would value his own sexuality the more because it one of the things about him—with his language, his color of eyes, his surname—one of the things that makes him himself and not someone else.

Alpha: When I bring up the example of the boy with the Jehovah's Witness mom and the gay dad, and all the rejection that that entails and the influence that it has on the boy, you call him a straw man… as if the example is a mere scare tactic.

Lars: You never told me what you think the effect on the boy was. Do you think it made him homosexual? If this was so bad a situation as you say it was, wouldn't it be logical to try to prevent it in the future?

What way would be more likely to prevent it than to remove the inducements for gay men to enter heterosexual marriages which are bound to end badly?

Alpha: Now, by your very own words, you have admitted that accepted open homosexual horseplay has the effect of advocating its harmlessness, etc.

Lars: No, I believe the study showed it shaped attitudes of tolerance.

Of course the horseplay is harmless, unless someone slips on the soap and cracks his head on the shower room tile.

Alpha: This presumes of course that it is not harmless on my part.

Lars: Yes it does. And what the nature of this supposed harm may be is still a deep mystery to me.

Alpha: Generally most people find homosexuality revolting, or ridiculous. (With a noted exception of the gays themselves and others who advocate open free sexual expression of all kinds.)

Lars: I'm not so sure this is so. I'd guess most people who are not homosexual think homosexuality is none of their business and have more pressing things to worry about in their own lives. All you are saying is that excepting the people who do disagree with you, most people agree with you.

Alpha: I find it dangerous to the family unit.

Lars: Now how is homosexuality a danger to the family unit? Do you mean that homosexual people should be coerced into loveless heterosexual marriages, just to have families—in your narrow definition of the word?

But this would only perpetuate situations such as homosexual men married to Jehovah Witness wives. Could it possibly be that what is wrong with the family is wrong with the family, in other words that problems of heterosexual families are the result of internal flaws and that blaming "those homosexual people" is just a way to avoid confronting the real problems?

Or is that you think heterosexuality is so unattractive and heterosexual marriage is so miserable that most people would choose differently if allowed to do so? If the only thing holding the family together is oppression of homosexuals then I'd say perhaps the family—as you define it—is not so vital an institution as you make it out to be.

Alpha: I don't think that gays should have the right to have custody of their children. Children are a product of a heterosexual union. If an individual decides that he or she would rather be gay, he or she shouldn't have the fruits of the heterosexual union.

I think prostitution, homosexuality, and right beside it child pornography, and exploitation, occur. I have found that when a society starts accepting one form of sexual deviancy the door swings wide open for all forms..and the country goes down the tubes.

Lars: Aha! The SLIPPERY SLOPE rears it's ugly head.

I am not going to recover the ground of why the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You simply cannot show any necessary connection between gay parents having custody of their own biological children, or being awarded custody in adoption of other children and prostitution, the availability of pornography to children, child prostitution, crime, and the disruption of the family unit you envision. You claim there is a slippery slope, you offer no plausible explanation of the mechanism involved.

Does a child in a heterosexual family never find his daddy's PLAYBOY magazines in the basement? Does the child become a sex maniac because he sees heterosexual couples holding hands? Then why would seeing a same-sex couple holding hands have that effect? How is you suppose the child with two mommies will decide to become a prostitute at 14 or to start engaging in drive-by shootings?

Alpha: Crime goes up, the gentleness of people is replaced with a self-serving ugly greed…

Lars: Self-serving ugly greed? Wow, I did not realize John D. Rockefeller's parents were gay. The savings & loan rip-offs—were the guys that deregulated this industry and then looted it all raised by homosexual parents? Hmm… kind of puts George and Barbara Bush in a different light.

Alpha: … harmony and balance is disrupted within the family unit. People become withdrawn and alienated, and this makes it easy for other more powerful factors to infiltrate and exploit the country's resources, and their people.

Lars: Don't forget how fluoridation of water is poisoning our vital bodily fluids. Be sure and check for reds under the bed.

Alpha: I truly believe that each feeds off the other, one to their greater power, and control, and the other to their weakness, and dissolution as a society. People like to hold up Europe as the model for America. I lived there 12 years. I have noticed that America is now catching up with Europe in that the traditional family unit is falling apart. In Europe women don't want to marry men as before.

Lars: So heterosexuality doesn't work? Not my problem.

Alpha: Groups are becoming galvanized against each other. The sex roles in Europe, have been deeply affected. Yet still, it is the traditional family that is preferred overall. It is heterosexuality and not homosexuality that is respected and preferred. Why???

Lars: Could be because there are more heterosexual than homosexuals. No one is denying that.

Alpha: Isn't it because even in open sexual societies people realize that the best possible world is a loving monogamous heterosexual relationship???

Lars: Well, it certainly is for monogamously inclined heterosexuals.

Date: 19 Sep 93 21:46:12
From: Lars Eighner
To: Beta #1 @xxxxx
Subj: Re: Apples and Oranges

Beta: (Quoting Lars) "Gay sexuality is an adaptive trait. Both human heterosexuality and human homosexuality are possible because of changes in human biology that provided for sexuality serving purposes besides that of procreation."

It is true that biological homosexuality exists, but it is an anomalous trait--meaning it's rare. It CERTAINLY doesn't account for all homosexuality in existence now.

Now, just what the hell difference does THAT make? Why, original writer, are you trying to defend homosexuality by saying it's not a choice? That implies that if it were you would choose to be heterosexual. Is that true?

Lars: No.

Given the choice of what to be all over again, naturally I would choose to be me, and my sexuality seems to me to be so integrated in my identity that I cannot imagine what I would be, were I heterosexual.

My original post was in response to a post by Gamma that there could not be a "gay gene" because homosexuals do not produce offspring. I object to that because it shows little understanding of genetics, not because I am wedded to the genetic theory or its implications.

In fact, I have consistently held that homosexuality ought to be defended as a fundamental liberty—that people ought to have the right to choose whom they will love—although I do not know whether anyone really makes such a choice. I am consistently critical of the "We were born that way! We can't help ourselves!" line of gay-rights rhetoric. I do not believe that my sexuality is a handicap except insofar as society chooses to make it one. Call me perverse: I would rather assert my rights than whine for alms.

The truth is that no one knows what causes some people to be more homosexual than others. There is scant evidence on any side of this issue, and I suspect, as you have hinted, that homosexuality is not one phenomenon, but many. Most homosexuals say they did not choose to be homosexual—and I don't doubt that they are sincere in saying so. But it is possible that it is a subtle kind of choice.

I have a friend who is about as muscular as a man can be without steroids. He has trouble finding clothes that fit him, and unlike the wannabees at the gyms, he never desired to be very muscular. But he has worked at heavy labor all of his life. He often says he wishes he were of more normal proportions—he thinks that people regard him as a mindless ape and cannot see him as a person because of his physique. But he chose to support himself and to go to work every day, so in a way he has chosen to be muscular. And some homosexuality may be a choice of this sort.

However there is some evidence that some homosexuality is genetically influenced. The objection to this is that a "gay gene" could not be passed to successive generations, but this objection is based on a simplistic and imperfect understanding of evolutionary genetics.

First, two brown-eye parents can have a blue-eyed child. The reason for this is that not every gene an individual carries is expressed in that individual. The blue-eyed gene is "recessive," a technical term of genetics that does not mean "inferior" or "anomalous," but some people seem to think a "dominant" gene is somehow better, which seems to me an interesting commentary on our culture (smiley face).

Second, even if an individual does not produce offspring himself, if he does things that enhance the survivability of his near kin—his brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews, he enhances the chances that his genes will survive in the gene pool because his near kin are those most likely to share his genes. That is, if the blue-eyed brother throws himself on a live grenade, thereby extinguishing his life and saving that of his brown-eyed brother—though the blue-brother be childless, the blue-eyed trait may survive, being present but not expressed in the brown-eyed brother.

So if it is advantageous for a small, closely related group to have some members who are willing to go on lengthy trading expeditions—and it surely is advantageous to trade what you have in excess for what you lack—then if there is any genetic component to that willingness to go on trading expeditions, that trait will be preserved in the group whether the individual who does the trading has offspring or not. And the group, becoming prosperous through the trade, will soon win out over competing groups that lack the trait that makes some individuals willing to go on lengthy expeditions. This is of course a single example of how homosexuality could be an adaptive trait, for a homosexual male with his male companion will certainly find the lengthy expedition more agreeable and practical than a heterosexual male would—who would either have to forsake the female companionship he prefers or deal with the contingencies of pregnancy and small children on the voyage. I don't elaborate this point or offer further examples as this is already a lengthy post.

Now the preceding was an explanation of how a "gay gene" if it exists could be passed from generation to generation even if those in whom the trait was expressed did not produce offspring at the same rate as heterosexuals. It is still speculation because we do not have certain evidence that there is a particular gay gene. Not speculation, however, is that the capacity for homosexuality is inherent in the special facts of human sexual biology. That this capacity exists and is preserved in the gene pool is rather good evidence that the capacity is adaptive—or at the least no worse than neutral.

Now this post is long enough, so what the special features of human sexual biology are, and how the capacity for homosexuality is beneficial to the species must wait for another time.

Date: 08-25-93 14:41
From: Lars Eighner #34 @xxxx
Replied: No
To: Public Post
Subj: RE: TEEN SEX
Response To: Delta #5 @xxxx

Quoting Delta #5 @xxxx to Public Post

Delta: What kind of satisfaction do pedofiles (sic) get when they molest a child? I cannot understand this kind of behavior.

Lars: Excluding from this discussion "Lolita" type affairs—which seem to me to be a different phenomenon altogether—pedophiles (those who desire to have sex with prepubescent children) seem to fall into two categories:

The first consider themselves "child lovers." In fact, they think they are the only ones who care about children at all. They think parents, teachers—everyone else in society—trivialize children, do not really care about or pay attention to children. This sort of pedophile thinks he (as I have never of a woman who fits in this category) he is the child's best friend. He's likely to want to buy things for the child—not, to his mind, just to get sex, but because he thinks he loves the child.

He sees the child as if the child were a little adult, and he sees the sexual acts AS A FAVOR to the child—rather as if the child were in prison and this were a conjugal visit. This sort of pedophile is very unlikely to attempt to penetrate the child, but the acts involved are those that the perpetrator THINKS are sexually satisfying to the child. Outside of sex, which he thinks benefits the child, this sort of pedophile considers himself the child's advocate and protector. If you ask him what satisfaction he gets out of the sex he says something very like: "Why the same kind of satisfaction you get from satisfying your sexual partner!" for this is exactly what they think they are doing.

I have known and talked at length with this sort of pedophile, and I have no doubt that this kind of pedophile is utterly sincere and self-consistent in his delusional system. This sort is likely to avoid detection for a long time because 1) he tends to like preverbal children, or children young enough that they do not know how to express what is happening to them or that it ought to be expressed; 2) what he does with the children does not leave marks and does not physically hurt them—in a way that would cause them to cry out in pain or evidence soreness; and 3) he seems so nice to the parents. He always has time to baby sit or to take the kids to the zoo or the amusement park—and the children DO seem to like him. They do in fact like the attention and the trips to zoo—but he thinks they like him in the sense of sexual love. These things usually come out not so much for the child's complaint, but by an offhand remark: such as the child getting a medical examination and saying "Uncle Larry touches me there, too."

Unfortunately there is a convention in the movies that evil ought to be depicted in some visible way, so the movie child-molester is a drooling, hunchbacked, snaggletoothed monster. One of these guys I knew from real life—who was apprehended diddling one of the mentally retarded children in his care—was a dead ringer for Jon Boy of Little House on the Prairie. Ninety-nine parents of a hundred would have figured he was a 100% wholesome the moment they saw him.

The other sort of pedophile is sexually excited by helplessness and powerlessness. This sort will forcibly penetrate the child and may kill the child in the attempt to escape detection. He is, in short, a rapist who differs only in choice of target. I have never know anyone of this type, and cannot shed much further light here.

Date: 08-25-93 14:49
From: Lars Eighner #18 @xxxxxxx
To: Epsilon #1 @xxxx*x
Subj: Re: Deadly disease

Delta: Nu made an extremely good point! Does it matter if something is right just so it can be real, religion comforts people gives them hopes and values at least some do but not the christian religion. I think some people get too carried away in logic and all debating weather a brick wall is real or not, logic is not everything!

Lars: I am not unsympathetic to this point. What does it matter in the long run, if a sick old woman with a painful terminal disease finds some comfort in her holy book?

Unfortunately, however, the same irrationality that can comfort the hopeless, can also be used by the priests and rabbis to drive frenzied armies into the field. If their gods said only to the sick: "Rest and be comforted," who could argue? But in fact the gods say also: "Go into the streets and kill the faggots," "Burn the infidels and violate their women," "Who are different from you, my children, I meant to be your servants," "Have faith in me and ravish the earth," and "I will forgive whatever you do in my name."

It is pointless to say, well then we will believe only on the good gods. What god could seem to be better than the christian one? Yet, you need only to read this sub (forum) for a while to see the wickedness inherent in christian teaching—look at the hatred, the prejudice, the murderous intention towards anyone who differs.

A lie, however well intentioned, remains a lie. From a false premise anything—anything, not just the good—follows. This is the problem of a lie, that not even the liar can foresee its consequences. It is therefore better to seek the truth. Of course, we cannot know where the truth will lead us—any more than the liar how his lie will unfold—but at least we will get nearer the truth—while lies can breed only more lies. Would we rather not believe the universe will come to an ignoble end? Why not, if it is true? At least that is better than sending our fellows to the ovens at the whim of a fickle god. If we cannot avoid death and error, at least let us err and die as we seek something better.

Name: Zeta #1 @xxxx
Date: Sat Aug 21 19:27:38 1993
RE: LAWYERS BEFORE THE JUDGE.

Zeta: It seems to me that Lev. 18:22 is directed to men and it says that a man should not sleep with men in the same way that he might sleep with women.

Lars: Exactly. And if a homosexual laid down with a woman, nothing would happen, so if he lies down with a man they ought to have sex.

Date: 09-17-93 14:40
From: Theta
To: Lars Eighner
Subj: Re: Homosexuality

Theta: (Quoting Lars) "Well, after all, a person's religious beliefs is his or her CHOICE. It is not something natural like sexuality, and if people do not want to be identified as religious fanatics all they have to do is not flaunt their theological peccadilloes in public.

"If people want to pray in private in their bedrooms, I may not approve, but that is their choice and none of my business. What I object to is their trying to force their views on me and society in general. They want the schools to teach that religion is a normal and acceptable way of life. They want admittedly religious people to be allowed to teach in the public schools. They parade around in their white sheets and burn their religious symbols—and this has got to have a bad effect on public standards of morality. And all of this would be bad enough, but they make it perfectly clear that they want to involve little children in their religious exercises. I hardly need to point out that this is certain to have an effect on impressionable young minds."

Theta: This is a choice message, Lars. I hope you saved it so you can use it again. (wry grin.)

Re: Re: Great Exploitations

Lars: However bad things seem in my own life, I think I am at least better off than I would be in suburban hell. For a long time I thought "Married with Children" was a documentary.

Alpha: The difference between your observations and mine is that what you observed was fantasy.

Lars: Oh? Gay parents are not yet, and never will be very common.

Contrary to what your particular circumstances might lead you to believe, most homosexuals grew up in heterosexual households, in neighborhoods full of heterosexual families, with friends who had heterosexual parents.

Not many heterosexuals grew up in the Castro.

My information on heterosexual family life is likely to be a lot more accurate than your information on gay households.

Alpha: What I observed (of discussions among gay acquaintances at lunch) was: Nearly all of the talk was regarding poor sexual relationships…

Lars: Sounds like some of the lunches I've been to in which all the other attendees were heterosexual women. You would think from one of those sessions that there wasn't a happily married heterosexual couple in the world.

Alpha: or (the subject of discussion was) discrimination.

Lars: Well, discrimination is a fact of gay life. I suppose gay people are to blame for that? Yeah, that's right, blame the victim.

Alpha: The adulation I saw among members who idolized long lasting relationships..(because there were so few of them),

Lars: Do you really suppose heterosexual relations would do any better if they were not provided with many privileges. Even with the legal and financial advantages heterosexual relationships have, there are often almost half as many divorces in a year as marriages (or is it down to a third now?)

Still it's not much of a track record considering heterosexual marriage is supposed have nature, god, and the state working for it. I don't know of many of my heterosexual contemporaries who have now been married to the same person for twenty years or more. I seriously doubt there will be many thirtieth, fortieth, and fiftieth anniversaries among baby boomers.

Alpha: Military discrimination was justified. They lied to get in.

Lars: So they should have gone on welfare instead? Still blaming the victim.

Alpha: The lesbians who complained about straight women discriminating against them; dressed like men. They were very butch in appearance, you know… chopped up hair, sensible shoes, overweight. These lesbians were (by their appearance) reaffirming the straights view that lesbians deny femininity's validity. It says to the straight female… that lesbian women either want to be men (yuch!) or they have a very poor self image.

Lars: Now this is very curious. You seem to think the lesbians were as they were in order to affront straight women? Did it ever occur to you that they were being themselves and that what you call a "poor self image" might merely be a different self image. Lesbians, of course, don't have to dress to attract men. Why shouldn't they wear comfortable shoes, if it pleases them to do so? You characterize their footwear as "sensible." Doesn't this imply that heterosexual women wear shoes that are not sensible?

I note that you make the point that the validity of femininity depends entirely on appearance. That's all there is to it, huh? Well, in that case I haven't been missing much.

Alpha: He acts like a woman, talks with a lisp, mouth half open, eyelids half…

Lars: This doesn't describe one in ten gay men I know. I am always amazed how effeminate many heterosexual men seem by comparison. (You realize, of course that many mannerisms now associated in the public mind with homosexuality—the lisp, for example—were once associated with "ladies'-men." Older English people when given the American stage fag still think he is supposed to be a masher.)

Alpha: … always defining themselves by their mannerisms…

Lars: Do you really think anyone is conscious of his/her mannerisms? I guess so. I guess you think they all are deliberately adopted. Is this what heterosexuals do: put up a false front?

Alpha: For a woman to reject womanhood is an assault on women.

Lars: Evidently what you mean by womanhood is dressing to attract men as effectively as possible. Rejecting that standard is not an attack on women.

Alpha: Be candid, what is it about women that gay men don't like.

Lars: Okay, okay I admit it! It's the lingerie in the bathroom. I became gay so I would never have to find that stuff hanging in and around the shower.

I often wonder what it is about men that heterosexual men don't like.

Alpha: Is it just that they desire men more, (which I doubt)…

Lars: I am just as dubious that heterosexual men really desire women more.

Alpha: … the insecurity around women (I know homosexuals who have never been with a woman, or a man depending upon the gender in question)…

Lars: I have noticed that some heterosexual men seem to be insecure around men. Many of them reject homosexuality without having tried it even once.

Alpha: … or is it an underlying rejection of women in general?

Lars: Possibly there are gay men who do not like women at all. But there are also heterosexual men who do not like women at all—the evening news is full of them. Is it that you think all women are good for is to be the sex partners of men, and so men who do not accept women as sex partners must reject women totally? Well, I suppose if womanhood means wearing uncomfortable shoes to be sexual attractive to men, then the idea that a particular man does not find one attractive is tantamount to total rejection.

Alpha: I know that there are gay men who think women are dirty, and sex with them is grotesque…

Lars: Funny, that's exactly what some heterosexual men who have posted to this sub (forum) say about the idea of sex with men.

Alpha: And please don't argue the inverse. It doesn't serve any other purpose than to avoid addressing the issue.

Lars: Oh, I see. An argument that serves your purpose is valid. For me to make the same argument is ducking the issue. What is this? You want me to answer your post, but not to use any truthful or effective arguments? If you point out something bad about homosexuality, how is that it is begging the question for me to point out that the same thing is common in heterosexuality?

Alpha: You have probably noticed that I have found one type of lesbian acceptable. That one is the one who accepts that their chosen path is not equal in value to heterosexuality. It is valid, but not equal, nor should it be. Can you believe it? A self-effacing homosexual. They are living in reality.

Lars: Oh, yeah, why can't more black people be like that nice old Uncle Ben and sweet Aunt Jamima? Why don't these new ones know their place? I don't mind 'em, if they'd just stay in their place.

Alpha: A footnote to my other response: Could it be POWER through sex that drives the homosexual?

Lars: Oh, yeah. Gay people find it real easy to be elected to public office, and in private enterprise they rise right out of the art department to the executive suite. That's it. We're all megalomaniacs. That's why we decided to be gay.

You mean in the relationship itself? You think we should model gay relationships on the wonderful degree of equality that has characterize heterosexual relationships throughout most of history? This is too ludicrous for words.


Skip to: Top or Main Menu.