June 23, 2012

NYT's sexless victims of sexual abuse

Here's the first online page of a two-page article in the New York Time on a case of sexual abuse of children that has garnered a lot of attention in upscale New York circles. 

I've highlighted the Times' monomaniacal use of the sex-ambiguous terms "student" or "students" to denote the victims without mentioning whether they were male or female. Normally, I excerpt, but here's the entire first page so you can see the contortions:
Retired Horace Mann Teacher Admits to Sex With Students 
By JENNY ANDERSON 
Caption: Mr. Lin, in a 1984 yearbook, is a former English teacher at the Horace Mann School who said he had sex with "maybe three" of his students. 
Tek Young Lin was revered at the Horace Mann School. He was different from other teachers — a Buddhist who carefully tended to his elaborate gardens, a chaplain and a cross-country coach. He was so beloved that the English department chairmanship was named in his honor. 
Since the publication of a New York Times Magazine article about sexual abuse at the school, accusations against former teachers who are still alive have surfaced online. 
But there was something else about Mr. Lin: a focus he placed on certain students, a fascination that some said looked like infatuation. 
Last week, in an interview, Mr. Lin, now 88, acknowledged that there was something to those whispers. He said he had had sex with students, “maybe three, I don’t know,” crossing boundaries he said were not so clear years ago. 
“In those days, it was very spontaneous and casual, and it did not seem really wrong,” he said. 
A New York Times Magazine article this month that exposed sexual abuse at Horace Mann, a preparatory school in the Bronx, has spurred thousands of alumni to express their feelings online and a number of victims to reach out to one another. Two law enforcement agencies have opened Horace Mann abuse hot lines. The school has pledged to “work together to understand what may have happened and why,” and last week, after accusations against Mr. Lin began to surface in online postings, Horace Mann removed his name from the English department chairmanship. 
The teachers named in the magazine article, which recounted abuse that occurred 20 or more years ago, are all dead. But since its publication, some graduates of the school have made accusations against former teachers who are still alive, including Mr. Lin. 
Because of New York’s statutes of limitations, it is unlikely that Mr. Lin could be prosecuted or sued for any actions that occurred when he was at Horace Mann; he retired voluntarily in 1986. 
The Times has interviewed three former students who described inappropriate contact by Mr. Lin. One said he refused Mr. Lin’s request for sex; another said there had been physical contact, but no sex. One, who said he was 14 or 15 when the inappropriate contact began, said that Mr. Lin had sexual contact with him several times over several months, and that they had had a relationship that lasted years. 
Mr. Lin, who lives near Santa Cruz, Calif., said no coercion had been used. “The only thing I can assure you of was that everything I did was in warmth and affection and not a power play,” he said. “I may have crossed societal boundaries. If I did, I am sorry.” 
Thomas M. Kelly, the head of school, declined to comment directly on Mr. Lin’s statements, but a spokesman for the school’s public relations firm said: “If what Mr. Lin has told The New York Times is true, the conduct in which he says he engaged was appalling. We urge him to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.” Mr. Lin said no authorities had contacted him. 
In the phone interview, which lasted about a half-hour, he cited his fading memory and his advanced age. He recalled facts like the names of four of his five headmasters and provided details about one particular encounter, most of which were confirmed by the student involved. 
Mr. Lin was articulate in the interview, sometimes philosophical and a bit puzzled by the resurfacing of the past. “I’m surprised they remember,” he said, referring to the students. “It was all so casual and warm.” 
The era had not yet come when a teacher would be viewed automatically with suspicion for inviting a student to his home. Sexual scandals in institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and Pennsylvania State University were still decades away. 
Mr. Lin himself said he had acted “occasionally out of impulse,” adding, “In those days, the ’60s and ’70s, things were different.” 
All three students cited Mr. Lin as a positive influence in their lives, even today, and seemed reluctant to speak, not wanting to hurt the reputation of a man who had opened their eyes to philosophy and literature, and whose strict grammar rules they remembered today. 
Mr. Lin, whose Web site says he was born in the East Indies, came to the United States as a teenager in 1941, enlisted in the Army and served in the Office of Strategic Services, a precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. According to Michael Lacopo, the final headmaster under which Mr. Lin served, he was working at Macy’s after the war and responded to an advertisement for Horace Mann. [Highlighting mine]

Did you notice which words are left off the first page, such as "boys," "youths," "males," etc. Obviously, there was no room for them because they had to squeeze in "student/s" a few more times. 

Why the linguistic gymnastics?

Well, we can't have people thinking this is a gay thing (because it is).

107 comments:

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

A named position for the English department chair at a high school? Even for a private prep school that sounds rather pretentious.

In other news, more SoCal cities show their vibrant civic life:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0623-cudahy-20120623,0,4424020.story

I am Lugash.

David said...

Seems a bit overstated. If the newspaper were really trying to conceal the gender of the victims they wouldn't use the word 'he', would they? As for being a 'gay' thing, I am sure we can all agree that inappropriate contact between male teachers and female students is entirely unknown!

robert61 said...

Not only a named chair, Lugash, but "the school’s public relations firm". I don't recall either at my high school.

Reality butts in. Here in Sweden, the press doesn't usually name criminals. Until 2000 or so, however, they would call an immigrant a "Swedish citizen". Once that bit of code became too transparent, non-Swedes could be identified by the ardency with which the press called them "Swede". Mehdi Ghazali, for example, the Pakistani jihadist with a Swedish passport who ended up at Guantanamo, was always "the Swede".

bjdibbs said...

Boy scouts still not regretting the gay ban.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times is really pushing the gay agenda these days.

Shouting Thomas said...

Big article on Drudge on Friday about gay activists who visited the White House.

They made the news by giving the middle finger to President Reagan's portrait.

Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic, right?

Exactly how did he do that?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't see it. The teacher/student relationship is central to the scandal, and in every case where it occurs here the word "student" strikes me as at least as appropriate as "boy," and usually more so. Further, two of the three students are clearly identified as male at one point by the use of the pronoun "he." (I'll agree though that the Times did not go out of its way to highlight this information, which is certainly of some interest to the reader -- just as they do not go out of their way to highlight information about the race of violent criminals and their victims).

I also have to say that Mr. Lin has a point about the '60s and '70s being different.

Anonymous said...

Steve, it's the Mainstream Media's bias that both men and women in high places prey on young girls and young boys in lower places in all sorts of combinations. That's why they don't mention gender.

I sometimes they would look into

Anonymous said...


Sexual scandals in institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and Pennsylvania State University were still decades away.


Ahhh, a teachable moment where we can be induced to forget the sexual scandals that seem set to rock a certain religion.

Peter said...

If the use of the word "students" was a deliberate attempt on the Times' part to hide the gender of those involved, it was a rather inadequate attempt, as the article also uses the word "he" in reference to two out of the three interviewed students.

A few minutes' research also reveals that Horace Mann School was boys-only until the 1970's. By the teacher's own statement some of the alleged contact took place in the 1960's.

Christine said...

I have the Gay Men Press' 1996 edition of James Purdy's novel, NARROW ROOMS, and the ads for other books in the back pages are fascinating.

For example:
Rudi van Dantzig - FOR A LOST SOLDIER
"During the winter of 1944 in occupied Holland, eleven year old Jeroen is evacuated to a small fishing community on the desolate coast of Friesland, where he meets Walt, a young Canadian officer with the liberating forces..."

Joseph Geraci- LOVING SANDER
"An American photography scholar working in Holland has befriended the ten year old son of colleagues there."

Mike Seabrook - OUT OF BOUNDS
"When handsome seventeen year old Stephen Hill joined the cricket club it was only a matter of time before young schoolmaster Graham Curtis fell head over heels in love."

Funny thing is, last year's super hyped literary first novel, THE ART OF FIELDING, touches on similar themes, but reviewers and even the long Vanity Fair article about its road to publication of were mostly squeamish about spoiling it for the reader.

Stacy said...

Liberals use "students" to hide the fact that its gay males being predatory on teenage boys but they use "youths" to disguise the fact that its blacks and latinos committing crimes. Typical pack of leftist lies. Here's a tip:

Students is a codeword for gay teenage boy fixation. Gay "pedophilia" is in reality ephebophilia (post-pubescent teenage boys, e.g. think 13 to 19 year olds).

Youths usually is a codeword for minority crime.

Anonymous said...

Good eye Steve, I wouldn't have marked this. Side note, I have noticed that the media insist on calling sodomy "sex" even in the Penn state case. If that wanted to call it gay sex, ok fine, but please do not equate woman+man sex with sodomy! A not so subtle way to further normalize a deviant act done by people with brain damage (Greg Cochrane hypothesis).

-Hank the Plant

Anonymous said...

Hey Lugash,

Tell the FBI to stop being so racist.

Locking up city officials for corruption has disparate impact.

Garrett said...

This is the part that is the most stupid aspect of all of it:

"Because of New York’s statutes of limitations, it is unlikely that Mr. Lin could be prosecuted or sued for any actions that occurred when he was at Horace Mann"

So in other words, they likely have sufficient evidence that he committed a long, Sandusky-esque string of crimes against children, but will do nothing nor even permit the victims to sue for civil justice. Those liberals sure do set up some wonderful justice systems.

International Jew said...

It wouldn't be as big a deal if he'd had sex with 17-year-old girls. Unethical yes, but alot lower on the scandalometer. So I'm a little surprised the gay rights people haven't taken notice of this lingering corner of still-respectable "homophobia". Maybe it's a strategic decision...

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

"(Because it is [a gay thing].)"

Jerry Sandusky might beg to differ after spending some time in the pen.

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

So, Mr Lin claims that homosexual high school student-teacher relationships were no big deal in the 60's and 70's....

OMG! We have become such a nation of prudes in the last 20 or so years! The Puritanism! The repression! The horror! The horror!

Anonymous said...

Yeah there are contortions there but it is not totally outlandish. For one, even a cursory read quite clearly reveals the gender of the students, what with the clear references to he and him.

I suspect the ostensible rationale here, such as it is, is that all sex with underage kids is bad, and equally bad whether gay or straight. If one believes that, then a story should deal with the offense and not an ancillary issue.

Is that all there is to it? Surely not. No doubt the editors also felt that a gay angle would anger the yahoos, and they may who knows be animated by a gay is good ideology. But I don't see the contortions here as all that unreasonable.

Anonymous said...

The primary way the media lies is by omission. That is why alternative voices, such as blog-sites are so vitally important.

JI said...

I didn't know the media was hiding the gay thing. I'm used to them hiding the race of perpetrators of crimes unless the perp is white. Wonder what else they hide like this...

MattW said...

One paragraph talks about three students interviewed, and all three are guys.

Anonymous said...

When Israel attacks Iran with cyber virus or bombs, it's not called terrorism.

Sheila said...

Spot on, Steve. While gays constantly harp about the preponderance of male-female pedophilia, this is not pedophilia at all. This is standard man-boy attraction, homosexual grooming, and generally entails "children" who are at least school age, if not entirely those of early adolescence. It's a gay thing, and we do understand - that's why all those liberal parents who adore all their gay friends may find, someday, that their children got some unwarranted attention. That's why one vets any male teacher or youth group leader very carefully. Because my children are too old to be the victims of a pedophile - but just at that age to fall victim to ephebophilia.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but they stumble. Read carefully, young padawan.

One, who said he was 14 or 15 when the inappropriate contact began, said that Mr. Lin had sexual contact with him several times over several months, and that they had had a relationship that lasted years.

Mr. Anon said...

"Tek Young Lin was revered at the Horace Mann School. He was different from other teachers — a Buddhist who carefully tended to his elaborate gardens, a chaplain and a cross-country coach."

A buddhist and a chaplain? Note how the term "chaplain" has become divorced from any association with christianity or even with any kind of religious belief at all. Perhaps in future, "chaplain" will simply mean "chicken-hawk".

Presumably a lot of the people who send their kids to these kind of schools are yuppie anglophiles, who wanted them to have that english public-school experience. Well I guess their kids got the full english public-school experience, complete with all the weird homo stuff.

Mr. Anon said...

"Why the linguistic gymnastics? Well, we can't have people thinking this is a gay thing (because it is)."

Funny how the normalization of homosexuality (championed by such super-gay media outlets like the New York Times) has once again led to the notion of "The love that dare not speak it's name".

.. .. ... .. . ... .. . .. said...

@Lugash, or anyone - has anyone correlated corruption by racial makeup of those who hold power? Cuz G--, it would be depressing if this is early signs that we're turning into Mexico.

Anonymous said...

It's like trying to find the words gay or homosexual attached to Mr. Sandusky in the MSM. Sure, they rightly label him a pedophile, just never a gay pedophile.

Anonymous said...

No doubt Steve posted this story because th e teacher was yellow. If he were a white teacher he never would have posted this.

MacWhiskey's head is gonna explode over this... said...

URGENT MACWHISKEYBAIT:

Historian David Starkey branded a 'racist' and a 'bigot' after saying Rochdale sex gang had values 'entrenched in foothills of the Punjab'
By Jill Reilly
24 June 2012
dailymail.co.uk

Historian David Starkey has once again provoked controversy after speaking out about the Rochdale child exploitation ring who raped vulnerable teenage girls.

The broadcaster was branded a 'racist' and a 'bigot' following a heated exchange with a journalist yesterday at a panel event at Wellington college in Berkshire.

He incensed audience member journalist Laurie Penny, when he said the sex gang, who were jailed last month for grooming white girls for sex, had values 'that were 'entrenched in foothills of the Punjab or whatever it is.'

He added that the gang needed to be 'inculcated in the British ways of doing things.'

Miss Penny, 25, who writes for the New Statesman, later joined him on a panel discussing Britishness and accused Mr Starkey of 'playing xenophobia and national prejudice for laughs.'

As she spoke the audience shouted 'keep going, keep going'
as she moved on to speaking about about his tax status.

Once she had sat down, the historian walked over to her, jabbed his finger in the columnist's face and declared 'I will not be lectured to by a jumped-up public school girl like you.'

As Miss Penny continued speaking, Claire Fox, director of the Insittue of Idea think tank stood up and told the journalist who has written for The Independent and the Guardian, that she was a disgrace to both women and the left...

Anonymous said...

Wonder what else they hide like this...

EVERYTHING.

Do you think we ever even would have heard of Fast-n-Furious if it hadn't been for the whistle-blower and Fox News?

Be for real.

Hell, if it weren't for Jack Cashill and the American Thinker, we would never have learned that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams.

PS: Cashill just caught Maraniss in a whopper of a pro-Obama editing job.

jody said...

network television news went into serious gymnastics to avoid saying sandusky picked 12 year old boys every single time.

Anonymous said...

Hank the Plant


sod·om·y/ˈsädəmē/
Noun:
Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if he taught Plato's Symposium....

Anonymous said...

it's the Mainstream Media's bias that both men and women in high places prey on young girls and young boys in lower places in all sorts of combinations. That's why they don't mention gender.


Really? There's a Mainstream Media bias about women in high places preying on boys and girls? What country do you live in?

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's a gay thing which is why many of those students don't want to criticize him--they are gay.

Gay men don't have much trouble indentifying gay boys (or "pre-gay" boys, if you prefer)--- actually, straight people don't have much trouble either. This is why studies show that a higher percentage of gay men report having been approached sexually or abused sexually by men when they were boys.

Many people mistakenly think it's this abuse that made young boys turn gay. Hogwash. They were simply easier targets.

Rachelle said...

Can the NYT explain to us again why homosexual Boy Scout troop leaders are a good idea?

Anonymous said...

...the Rochdale child exploitation ring who raped vulnerable teenage girls...

Pics here.





[Pictures of the Punjabis, Albertosaurus, not of the white chicks in schoolgirl costumes...]

bjdibbs said...

Contrary to some of the posters here, it's an open question whether paedophiles are gay. Hebephiles OK, gay. In other words, Lin is gay but Sandusky is not so clear. He does have a wife. I've done some googling and there doesn't appear to be any consensus (how is that for rigorous, exhaustive research?)

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should forbid men from teaching people under the age of legal consent- put the current male staff in non-contact positions until they retire, or let them go. Forget about female teachers' abuse (do you ever hear about any suicides related to it); policy should address significant problems.

The left is always looking for root causes for everything, but this issue makes them a little reticent. Most of the teenage victims are probably gay or gayish. It is rarely reported whether the victim is now a professed homosexual, or whether force was used at the time of the crime. I was a pretty timid kid with a very unsophisticated background, but no amount of sweet talk or salesmanship would trick me into a weird sex act with a man. Are privileged kids so gullible? Parents should be especially wary of teachers, smart people are much better at concealing their appetites.

Anonymous said...

Hank at 6:50 made a reference to brain damage.

That made me think about how I felt when the Sanduski verdict came in and all the guests on all the shows kept speaking of "evil" Thye weren't religious types. They were anchors and the usual lawyer guests that populate the networks and cable shows when such stories hit the news.

Whether it was Jeffrey Dahmer or whether it's Jerry Sandusky, it seems to me the press NEVER ever asks the question that I ask all the time: "Wonder what's wrong with these people's brains? When will science determine the neurological or developmental or epidemiological reason behind sexual deviance that leads to such behavior? What's going on biologically?"

Son of a gun. With science exploding with new technology you'd think at some point you'd hear ONE person say something like, "Maybe soon we can find out what causes such behavior and ultimately be able to eradicate it."

But no, we get "Just an evil person who did an evil, evil thing."

Yeah, okay, evil thing, evil behavior, but IT'S CAUSED BY SOMETHING we ought to be able to identify if we devoted some funds to finding it.

The same people who would feel squeamish in a discussion with Steve about HBD are, I guess, the same people who never think to ask about using science to solve the problem that leads to such misery caused by such behavior.

I know these people would never equate Sandusky's behavior with the behavior of homosexuals, even though of course they both result from something that has gone wrong in identifying a mate, both evolutionarily unfit conditions, but if they don't want to get into the homosexuality thing, they could at least be reporters enough to ask, on behalf of their audience, questions about what science might think about the brain in such people. At least tell their audience if any research on such people has been done or is in progress.

Instead, we get "evil" while the the audience members check the county website that lists sexual predators living in our neighborhoods by our kids.

riches said...

While this post concentrates on the Times' Herculean effort to hide the homosexual nature of the acts, the post also notices that the Times piece avoids words like minor(s) or charge(s) - words that would make the case for irresponsibility and criminality. Compare that with the abandon and glee that the same press plastered (illegitimately) the term pedophile in its stories when Catholic clergy was involved.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps in future, "chaplain" will simply mean "chicken-hawk""

My Catholic high school chaplain was ostensibly homosexual (stuffed animal collector, sibilant Ss, drama teacher) and even as a freshman, I asked myself WTF? He had an isolated office of his own, much more secluded than any of the administration. Everyone knew he was gay, but I never heard even a rumor of abuse. He was a nice guy, but why put this poor soul in such a tempting spot.

Truth said...

"No doubt Steve posted this story because th e teacher was yellow. If he were a white teacher he never would have posted this."

Powerful comment, Stephen; what say you?

Anonymous said...

bjdibbs - You're completely wrong. Pedophilia can be gay OR straight. Gay pedophilia is men touching little boys. Straight pedophilia is men touching little girls. Cleared it for you. Don't be PC please.

Anonymous said...

“The only thing I can assure you of was that everything I did was in warmth and affection and not a power play,” he said. “I may have crossed societal boundaries. If I did, I am sorry.” 

He's not too old to put on a good offense, he is saying in other words, "evil xenophobes, stop judging me by your western standards, I'm not a closeted gay Catholic priest, scratching a itch, this was pure one-with-the-universe tantric abuse.". The reporter is glaringly apologetic for Lin, implying assent.

Simon in London said...

I think this is the most soft-focused, rose-tinted account of pederasty I have ever read. It takes real talent to craft words with such malevolent skill.

candid_observer said...

Some of the comments here strike me as absurdly off the mark.

Yes, the gender of the students WAS eventually revealed by the use of pronouns.

But for Christ's sake, the use of the pronoun "he" didn't occur until FAR into the article. And OF COURSE the correct gender of the pronoun had to be used -- nor would there have been ANY natural way in which a pronoun could have been avoided, when offering up quotes.

Moreover, does anyone think that an entire article like this could possibly have passed muster had NO reference to the gender of the victims been made? As distorted as the article is already to minimize the question of the gender of the victims, how do you think the Times might have even possibly explained away NO reference to the gender whatsoever?

Steve seems to be right here: the Times in this article did everything it thought it could get away with in hiding a fact that virtually any reader of the article, of any background or inclination, naturally wishes to know: what was the gender of the victims?

Anonymous said...

The Seattle media are notorious for leaving out race when covering crimes. It's much more important to adhere to the P.C. agenda than to properly identify criminals and save lives in the process. It's hard to believe but it's 100% true.

Whiskey said...

Why would my head explode? That's what I've been saying for years. White women HATE HATE HATE ordinary people, make excuses for non-White crime, and protect Gays? Check.

The NY Beta Times (tm Heartiste/Roissy) is basically a female-oriented upper class publication instructing proper group think. Basically the Queen Bees telling the other girls what to think and say. Lest there be any confusion. That's profoundly female.

Of course the NY Beta Times won't say "GAY" because their female readers LOVE LOVE LOVE gays. Gay is what they wish all beta males were, and their love of gays is the flipside of the HATE HATE HATE for beta males which simmers ill-conceived below the surface. I will caveat they have their reasons: abstract Bill James type thinking is not particularly sexy, socially dominant, cocky-funny. But its also immature. And yes "NAWALT" but far too many are, watch any commercial on HGTV.

The reason Gays get away with molesting teenage boys, unless they are "icky" and somewhat conservative like Sandusky, is women want that. Just like they want mass Third World immigration. You don't see guys flocking to "Eat Pray Love" or "the Help."

Rochdale's treatment was just exactly what most (not all but most) White middle/working class women feel. His response was excellent, and ultimately the prejudices and petty sexual grudges of your standard NYT/Guardian reader run up against their daughters being "groomed" for gang rape and prostitution and their sons being molested by gay teachers.

anony-mouse said...

Its interesting to note the huge difference in the coverage of the very similar events at Horace Mann and at Penn State.

Not just the media but the people at the schools and the parents are acting differently, too.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 6/24/12 11:34 AM makes a great point.

If there is a disease related component to this abuse, it explains why victims so often become abusers. This has been discussed in a previous post and has been commented upon extensively. But, because, as Joe Sobran once said, the most successful parasite is the one that makes you believe it is a part of you, there will be political resistence to its discovery.

Anonymous said...

To all those pointing to the masculine pronouns in the story as identifying the "students" as male, please bear in mind that the Times maintains plausible deniability. In grammatically correct English, when one does not know (or does not wish to state) the sex of a human being of whom one wishes to speak, one uses the masculine pronoun, not the feminine and not the plural. Yes, of course, the feminists pitch a fit about this, and the Times normally bends over backwards to cater to their every idiotic whim, but the facts of life are pretty "racist," very "sexist" and extraordinarily "homophobic."

Lucius said...

As a "Buddhist" and a "chaplain", shouldn't this Lin fellow understand something about asceticism? To most people, casual sexual relations with teenagers (leaving all other objections to the side) smacks a bit of libertinism and self-indulgence.

Yet discourse about gay men--I'm thinking of all sorts of things, from Iris Murdoch novels to Camille Paglia's essays--highlights some sort of supposed monasticism in intellectual gay men. This is not the sort of way one thinks about, say, the Vicomte de Valmont.

This can't be laid at Plato's door, since the "Symposium", a night of drunken revelry on the spiritual pleasures of ephebophilia, culminates in Alcibiades' confession of his failure to seduce Socrates, one teacher at least who knew how not to sate his lusts (or his proteges' vanity) with consummation.

An unbiased reading of the Roman satirists suggests to me that "inherently" (define or deny it as you like, but I at least assume there are teenage males who, subjectively, are very convinced of their homosexuality) gay youths are as axiomatically slutty as any humans in creation, such that it's very hard to speak seriously of their being "corrupted" since they are such proudful and heedless wantons.

On the other hand, parents might fairly expect that their children, eagerly wanton or not, won't become partners to the grown-ups paid to educate them.

In the cosmic scheme of things, assuming these lads were reasonably approximate to sentient adults, I see no good in throwing this man to the penal wolves [at least as the dens are presently established--maybe if they were a bit more monastic, it might've edified Lin, back in the day, to try a more authentically Theravada lifestyle, even under society's direction]. Yet the article strikes me as delicately but deliberately attempting to highlight a "see no evil" attitude here. Jenny (can a "Jenny" ever be taken seriously?) might well think that gays would never ever attempt a return to those carefree 60s and 70s when everything seemed so different (bathhouses were a paranoid Reaganite delusion, correct?), but I daresay she finds Lin a bit sweet. I can't help but highlight, however, that wistful note of abject terror in his ruminating that he's surprised they even remember . . . .

Anonymous said...

Dear 9:04 am,

When a Palestinian kills an Israli invaider it's terrorism. When the USA incinerated 300,000 women and children in one night in Dresden or 1 hr in Nagasaki in WWII it's, "Punishing evil and helping to win the war."

Svigor said...

I think a lot of the comments pointing out to Steve the use of the male pronoun are missing the point: the Times is protecting sodomites to the extent possible in the English language.

A lot of people (HBDers? Conservatives?) seem incapable of distinguishing some of the psychological aspects of disinformation, propaganda, and media indoctrination.

not a hacker said...

re Pro Obama editing job:

In the passage Cashill cites for lack of noun/verb agreement, Obama wrote, " ... remote and far removed." What about the pretentious pleonasm?

Douglas Knight said...

Yes, but it seems dishonest to me to bold all those instances of "student" but not the the two instances of "he" in the ninth paragraph. Let the actual frequency speak.

The change in language on the second page is interesting.

JSM said...

"Can the NYT explain to us again why homosexual Boy Scout troop leaders are a good idea?"

Exactly.
I mean, it's not like that heterosexual Dads are encouraged to be Girl Scout troop leaders.

Anonymous said...


NYT: EEOC says it's now racist for employers to do criminal background checks because of "Disparate Impact"


Paging Steve Sailer. Is this going to be the moment when John Q. Public finally realizes how insane "disparate impact" is?

Judging from the internet reaction to this, no. The only response is an op-ed by Hans von Spakovsky.

Spakovsky: felons are now a protected class

Marlowe said...

Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic, right?

Exactly how did he do that?


Reagan's image had a powerful erotic effect. The late English writer J. G. Ballard once wrote a story (during the late 60s when the man reigned as Governor of California) titled 'Why I want to fuck Ronald Reagan' and he wasn't even a homosexual. The gay club scene of the '70s emerged quite naturally from the promulgation of Reagan's image by the mass media.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

David, I think you missed a piece in equating teachers having sex with female HS students. No one would question for a moment that those acts were heterosexual. The contortions come in that specific 13-17 group of boys, on whether it should be called homosexuality or not.

Anonymous 11:10 - You realise that evidence for your premise is lacking? Retrospective self-analysis is unreliable in such matters.

Anonymous said...

I think we need to stop child abuse and let Gays into the Boy Scouts.

Cause that just makes sense.

Anonymous said...

bjdibbs said...
Contrary to some of the posters here, it's an open question whether paedophiles are gay. Hebephiles OK, gay. In other words, Lin is gay but Sandusky is not so clear. He does have a wife. I've done some googling and there doesn't appear to be any consensus (how is that for rigorous, exhaustive research?)
I made the same point the last time this topic came up and got flak for it by one particularly snarky commenter. IMO Sandunsky is a typical non-gay --but definitely homosexual-- pedo. His sexual targes were boys between the ages of 7 and 13. (See this link). I consider people like Sadunsky to be essentially heteros with a twist (i.e. they desire prepubescent boys instead of females). That's why I sympathise with gay men who don't want to be identified with them. OTO I don't sympathise with gay men trying to persuade people that guys into sexually developed teenagers (like Lin and most of the Catholic priests charged with homosexual sex crimes) aren't really gay. That's just PC nonsense.

corvinus said...

Gay men don't have much trouble indentifying gay boys (or "pre-gay" boys, if you prefer)--- actually, straight people don't have much trouble either. This is why studies show that a higher percentage of gay men report having been approached sexually or abused sexually by men when they were boys.

Many people mistakenly think it's this abuse that made young boys turn gay. Hogwash. They were simply easier targets.


A chicken-or-egg problem. It's true that one would expect straight boys, even fairly naive ones, to be more likely than gay ones to run away from a perv's creepy behavior, just as they would keep gay boys who hit on them at a distance.

On the other hand, I suspect that the trauma associated with that kind of abuse can turn a boy, or even a grown man, gay. I've heard of that kind of thing happening. If his intrinsic loathing of homosexuality is strong enough, it would just make him depressed and mentally unstable, but for the more liberal, effeminate ones, they could become turnouts.

vinteuil said...

"Well, we can't have people thinking this is a gay thing (because it is)."

Well, no, Steve, my friend - not exactly.

To be more precise, it's a *closet-case* thing.

Mr. Lin? Closet case.

Coach Sandusky? Closet case.

Abusive priests? Closet cases, every one.

Lots of people on the right seem to think that the way to end such stuff is to re-stigmatize homosexuality and drive guys like me back into the closet.

They're just not thinking very hard.

Anonymous said...

bjdibbs said...
"Contrary to some of the posters here, it's an open question whether paedophiles are gay. Hebephiles OK, gay. In other words, Lin is gay but Sandusky is not so clear. He does have a wife. I've done some googling and there doesn't appear to be any consensus (how is that for rigorous, exhaustive research?)"

My "rigrous" retort? Of course, he's gay, meaning no attraction to females of any age. Look, Sandusky worked in a field noted for alpha male behavior, worked in it all his adult life and he's no spring chicken. Jocks, coaches, come on.

While his coaching colleagues expressed utter shock at the notion that he molested boys entering puberty, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM added to their expressions, "But Jer chased skirts along with the rest of us!" Okay, no colleague would have said THAT because of self-incrimination, but there would have been someone who expressed knowledge of Sandusky's interest in women, even through seemingly innocent anecdotes, IF they had seen such interest.

They hadn't.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, I suspect that the trauma associated with that kind of abuse can turn a boy, or even a grown man, gay. I've heard of that kind of thing happening. "

Yes, you've heard of it because it was hypothesized at one time....and never substantiated by any research.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:13 : "To be more precise, it's a *closet-case* thing"..."Lots of people on the right seem to think that the way to end such stuff is to re-stigmatize homosexuality and drive guys like me back into the closet."


Yes, Sandusky's remained in the closet because it's against the law to do what he did with minors.

He's a pedophile, a pederast, a homosexual pedophile or homosexual pederast, call him what you will, but his sexual appetite was for emerging pubertal kids, not adult-aged males, whom he could have had had he wanted.

So, you think "re-stigmatizing homosexuality" and "driving guys like" you back in the closet would cause you to pull a Sandusky?

Gee, I thought if that happened you'd just hook up with a gay adult male and do your thing in private.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lin? Closet case.

"Coach Sandusky? Closet case.

"Abusive priests? Closet cases, every one.

"Lots of people on the right seem to think that the way to end such stuff is to re-stigmatize homosexuality and drive guys like me back into the closet."

Wow, so you, a homosexual yourself, are arguing that gay men will indeed sexually abuse kids because they've been raised in an unjust society that has stigmatized them.

You just made every fundamentalist happy and made every GLBTs groups go stark raving mad with your characterization of gay men as pervs and pedophiles.

Might I ask? Why don't the gay priests you refer to simply get it on with all the other gay priests--they are there for the taking, no need to go for little boys.

Anonymous said...

For a mere 2% of the population those with a same sex attraction sure seem to engage in a lot of sex with young people. Our betters seem to think this isn't a disorder though.

Anonymous said...

Journalist: "Men who target teenage girls? Totally straight. Men who target teenage boys? Let me think about their sexuality for a minute..."

I'm like WTF?!?

It's all so PC. People have called me "homophobic" for pointing this out. All of these leftist rags are only interested in one thing: protecting their LGBT cliente and all of the deviants, minorities or freaks of society.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you've heard of it because it was hypothesized at one time....and never substantiated by any research.
not true.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you've heard of it because it was hypothesized at one time....and never substantiated by any research.
so how to people develop fetishes and the like? Genes? Ha ha ha.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

""No doubt Steve posted this story because th e teacher was yellow. If he were a white teacher he never would have posted this.""

Powerful comment, Stephen; what say you?"

No, it's a lame comment. I suppose it seems "powerful" to people - like you - who are not very bright, or who have the perpetually heightened sense of grievance so common to blacks.

pat said...

I'm preparing a research proposal to test my hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by a T. Gondii infection in the mother. I'll assume for now that that hypothesis is true.

Normal men who are attracted to women are generally the initiators. Women tend to moderate sexual advances from men.

In the Catalogue Aria Leporello sings "Ma in Espana son gia mille e tre". Giovanni (Don Juan) has had a thousand and three conquests in Spain alone. Among heterosexuals this is a very big score. But it is quite common among homosexual men. Ask your gay male friends about what goes on in the bath houses. Do the math.

Gay males are unmoderated. They therefore have a lot of sex. And so it should not surprise anyone that those gay men who pursue age inappropriate partners should account for the lion's share of child molestation cases.

Part of advancing the gay agenda is to conceal that gays have all this sex, that gay males account for much (or most) of the child molestation cases, and that most of the really extreme sex crimes are usually done by gays. By extreme I mean cannibalism.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXamW2hf_w&feature=related

sarris

Anonymous said...

I consider people like Sadunsky to be essentially heteros with a twist (i.e. they desire prepubescent boys instead of females).


Why not just say " I consider homosexuals to be hetros with a twist - that they prefer men to women"?

Preferring members of the same sex for sex is what makes a person homosexual. How difficult is this to wrap your head around?


IMO Sandunsky is a typical non-gay --but definitely homosexual-- pedo


Ground control to Major Tom - the word "gay" is a used as a slang term to mean the same thing as "homosexual". A person cannot be non-gay and definitely homosexual.

Anonymous said...

Gay men don't have much trouble indentifying gay boys (or "pre-gay" boys, if you prefer)--- actually, straight people don't have much trouble either.


People - whether gay or straight - have considerable difficulty in identifying whether other people are gay or straight.

That goes double or triple for children.

Anonymous said...

Hell, if it weren't for Jack Cashill and the American Thinker, we would never have learned that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams.

Which would have been good, since Obama obviously wrote Dreams. Endorsing whacked-out conspiracy theories like birtherism and the idea that Obama is a front for some kind of Bill Ayers conspiracy just makes conservatives look like fools.

jody said...

"Contrary to some of the posters here, it's an open question whether paedophiles are gay."

perhaps the dumbest post ever made on isteve, and that's saying a lot.

sandusky was deliberately sticking his penor up 12 year old BOYS bums, every time, but it's an "open question" whether of not he's gay? he didn't select a girl ONE SINGLE TIME.

lots of gay men get married to women. some even had kids. how does this change the fact that they're raging homos? if putting your penis up boys bums over and over is not the standard of evidence required to demonstrate homosexuality i'm not sure what is. it's like the difference between serial killers who kill mostly at random versus killers who target a specific victim. and the specific victim here is EXTREMELY CLEAR.

by the way, i note that jerry sandusky has no biological children. but 6 adopted children. has he ever even had sex with his wife? obviously one, or both of them, may be infertile. but that's still a potentially glaring sign of homosexuality. the guy who coaches football players never wanted to make a little baby sandusky to grow up to be his own football player son?

with gays, we're getting to the point where the police already find themselves with respect to africans. having video evidence on africans yelling and swearing racial insults at the people they are beating, then saying, whoa there, not any evidence this was racially motivated.

vinteuil said...

@anon 10:40 & 10:45 p.m.:

Were you by any chance a little tired, last night? A bit emotional?

But yeah - I do think that gay guys who are *in* the closet tend to be quite a bit more messed up, and cause a lot more trouble, than those who are *out*.

Do you disagree?

Anonymous said...

"Gay" in conventional usage denotes a conventional male homosexual. Conventional male homosexuals aren't just like straight guys, except for their attraction to males. Gays (i.e. conventional homosexual males) differ in many respects from straight guys, which is part of the reason why a gay community exists and gay culture exists and gay film, etc. Genuine pedophiles like sandunsky simply don't fit the "gay" pattern and if you look around you'll see that time and time again. You'd never find Sandunky in a gay bar, a gay bathhouse, reading gay web sites, watching gay movies, or even associating with self-identified gays. The only thing that connects Sandusky (and others pedos like him) with gay men is the fact of his homosexuality.

MQ said...

I consider people like Sadunsky to be essentially heteros with a twist (i.e. they desire prepubescent boys instead of females). That's why I sympathise with gay men who don't want to be identified with them.

Wouldn't people agree that true pedophilia -- attraction to pre-pubescent kids -- is a separate sexuality that is neither gay nor straight, as such are defined with reference to adult objects of attraction? I mean, there are a certainly males out there who molest young girls; surely the straight people here would not want to say that they were 'straight like us' or driven by a normal straight sexuality.

Attraction to post-pubescent but under the legal age of consent (say, 17, whatever) is another matter...moral disapproval but the purely physical attraction is more similar to adult attraction.

jody said...

"Genuine pedophiles like sandunsky simply don't fit the "gay" pattern and if you look around you'll see that time and time again."

seems like we're starting to play word gymnastics now. he's not "gay", he's "homosexual". well, at least somebody can admit that.

despite lots of evidence that there are plenty of gay men who are in the closet, married to women, and who put their penises up other male's bums in private. which is EXACTLY, EXACTLY how jerry sandusky lead his life for, apparently, 2 decades at least...sandusky is "not gay".

in reality jerry sandusky fits the pattern of an in the closet homosexual to a T. if he just plain liked 12 year olds, he would have eventually picked a girl by random chance. he never picked a girl, not once, not ever. and now even one of his adopted sons claims sandusky went after him.

"But wait a minute, they were not 22 year old studs at the gay bar." SO WHAT. were they the same gender as sandusky or not, every single time? they were, case closed, game over, goodbye.

again i ask, has he ever even had sex with his wife? where are his biological children?

Anonymous said...

Which would have been good, since Obama obviously wrote Dreams. Endorsing whacked-out conspiracy theories like birtherism and the idea that Obama is a front for some kind of Bill Ayers conspiracy just makes conservatives look like fools.

Where was Komment Kontrol on this post?

Even Steve himself knows that Ayers wrote Dreams.

It's not even debatable any more.

Anonymous said...

Those who oppose the gay agenda are now in the closet in most high places.

The gay Shitzkrieg has so many people reeling.

Anonymous said...

"Gay" in conventional usage denotes a conventional male homosexual.


What precisely is a "conventional" male homosexual?


You'd never find Sandunky in a gay bar, a gay bathhouse, reading gay web sites, watching gay movies, or even associating with self-identified gays.


Do you have a source for any of these claims? I know a good number of homosexual men who do not frequent gay bathouses and bars. Are you going to tell me that they are homosexual but not "gay"?


The only thing that connects Sandusky (and others pedos like him) with gay men is the fact of his homosexuality.


You're a laff riot! Apart from that trivial "homosexual" thing, Sandusky and "gay" men have nothing whatsoever in common!

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't people agree that true pedophilia -- attraction to pre-pubescent kids -- is a separate sexuality that is neither gay nor straight, as such are defined with reference to adult objects of attraction?


If that were the case the I'd expect that the pedophiles in question would be indifferent to the sex of their victims. A child is a child, right? And yet, that's not the way it works.


I mean, there are a certainly males out there who molest young girls; surely the straight people here would not want to say that they were 'straight like us' or driven by a normal straight sexuality.


That's a peculiar line of argument - "let's all of us get together and define words so as to make us feel good about ourselves".

Male child molesters who exclusively target female children are drive by a heterosexual impulse. A warped and distorted heterosexual impulse, but still a heterosexual impulse.

Male homosexuals are very reluctant to say the same thing about themselves because they know that the percentage of male homosexual child molesters is so much greater than that for straights.

Svigor said...

I consider people like Sadunsky to be essentially heteros with a twist (i.e. they desire prepubescent boys instead of females).

You're right, you don't deserve snark. You deserve candor: you're fucking nuts.

jody said...

i also want to point out that the stereotype of a pedophile is of a creepy old man chasing underage GIRLS. i can't think of a single instance in which their stereotypical portrayal was framed as picking up underage boys, until the michael jackson case. the media worked overtime to avoid calling him gay, and turned the discussion of his inappropriate sexual behavior into a discussion of pedophilia instead of a discussion of homosexuality.

as with jerry sandusky, i note michael jackson the homosexual had no biological children, despite being married to a woman.

on the internet there is a meme called pedobear. in years of seeing goofy pedobear jokes, i have NEVER seen him employed in the act of picking up 14 year old BOYS. it's ALWAYS 14 year old GIRLS.

on the unedited, uncensored part of the internet, where the enemies of america are not monitoring your comments, 99% of people are openly, and correctly, revolted by the idea of adult men picking up 14 year old BOYS for sex, and they say so. the insults fly fast and are merciless. nobody would post a meme of a man in a bear suit picking up boys for sex and expect people to have a laugh about it. disgust is the automatic, overwhelming reaction.

attraction to youthful 14 year old girls is not only normal for some men, it's BIOLOGICAL. that's why females hit puberty first, before males. so they are ready for older males to impregnate them. tens of thousands of years of human evolution have shaped this system. the other "system", of gay homosexual men going after boys, is not ambiguous in it's nature. it is certainly deviant and not normal.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

vinteuil - Yes, I've heard that theory of hushing up gay sexuality being the real cause of the problem sexuality.

I haven't seen any evidence for it.

Here's the major confounding factor: people who are hiding sexually criminal behavior are not otherwise "just like everyone else, except for that one thing." They have a much wider range of sexual experiences - fetishes, paraphilias, varieties of partners. To conclude from this that they are "really" closeted gays who have been warped thereby is mere confirmation bias.

Truth said...

"No, it's a lame comment. I suppose it seems "powerful" to people - like you - who are not very bright, or who have the perpetually heightened sense of grievance so common to blacks."

C'Mon Grasshopper, why are you picking on me? I didn't write the original comment.

Truth said...

"also want to point out that the stereotype of a pedophile is of a creepy old man chasing underage GIRLS. i can't think of a single instance in which their stereotypical portrayal was framed as picking up underage boys, until the michael jackson case."

Are you feeling OK, Jody?


"the media worked overtime to avoid calling him gay, and turned the discussion of his inappropriate sexual behavior into a discussion of pedophilia instead of a discussion of homosexuality."

Well I'm not sociologist, but that may have something to do with HOMOSEXUALITY NOT BEING A JAILABLE OFFENSE IN 21ST CENTURY AMERICA.

MQ said...

Male child molesters who exclusively target female children are drive by a heterosexual impulse. A warped and distorted heterosexual impulse, but still a heterosexual impulse.

OK, I agree with that, but just like I wouldn't want to be associated with a pedophile who molests young girls just because I'm straight, gays don't want to be associated with pedophiles who target boys.

Truth said...

"attraction to youthful 14 year old girls is not only normal for some men, it's BIOLOGICAL."

Well, I would say that it was normal and biological at some time, oh, when our lifespan was 45. Due to the wonders of steroid aided beef and genetically modified foods, it is becoming normal again, but only because 14 year olds are looking like 19 year olds did, when I was 14.

A grown man hitting on any 8th grader I grew up with would have been a little gross. Even if he was 19 he would have been ridiculed for it.

Udolpho.com said...

Truth prefers women of a certain age (50+).

Anonymous said...

"You'd never find Sandunky in a gay bar, a gay bathhouse, reading gay web sites, watching gay movies, or even associating with self-identified gays."


Well, at least he had that going for him. After all, those things are just so darned indicative of mental health.

Anonymous said...

"But wait a minute, they were not 22 year old studs at the gay bar"

Gay stud = oxymoronic adj. noun combo on a few levels

Studs are biologicially fit: they breed.

Studs are attractive.

You can be gay. You can be a stud. You can't be a gay stud.

Londoner said...

There is a useful distinction between "homosexual" and "gay". The literal meaning of gay is appropriate for a large proportion of homosexual males, which is probably why it was adopted in the first place. But for those homosexuals who are not extroverted/flamboyant/talkative/camp, it doesn't fit. As Steve pointed out many years ago, lesbians aren't gay, and equally not all homosexual men are. My impression - I have no evidence beyond anecdotes and casual observation - is that male paedophiles - i.e. bona fide child molesters - tend to fall towards the non-gay end of the homosexual spectrum. Fairly obviously, homosexuals at all points on the spectrum are heavily ephebophlic and hebephilic.

P.S. is it biologically correct to describe any form of deliberate homosexual activity as "sexual"? "Quasi-sexual" is surely more accurate.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-gay-rights-advocate-arrested-over-child-porn-3662138.php

Anonymous said...

To the gay guy who thinks the closet makes for fewer messed up homosexuals---stories like from today's SF Chronicle, illustrate that being out of the closet doesn't act as a brace against perverted tastes. (S.F. gay rights advocate arrested over child porn-Rachel Gordon, Published 09:21 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2012)

Perversion into this kind of stuff crosses orientation lines, but I've no doubt the brain disturbances that cause it are more common among the homo community than the hetero one:

Key paragraphs: "San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography.

"Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night. He spent the night in jail before he was released on bail, according to a spokeswoman for the sheriff's department.

The district attorney's office will decide Tuesday whether to file charges. "We're still reviewing the case," district attorney's spokeswoman Stephanie Ong Stillman said Monday.

Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police."

Some "human rights" advocate, huh? Of course, that's what infamous Harry Hay, he of the man-love persuasion, often called himself. Good old Harry had been out of the closet since very young. He was just a sick, perverted bastard, although over the last years lionized as a heroic pioneer by the GLBT community .

Link:
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-gay-rights-advocate-arrested-over-child-porn-3662138.php

Anonymous said...

These child abusers couldn't be gay. They must instead be Satanists.

Anonymous said...

There is a useful distinction between "homosexual" and "gay". The literal meaning of gay is appropriate for a large proportion of homosexual male


What? A large large proportion of homosexual men are cheerful and merry? Get real.


for those homosexuals who are not extroverted/flamboyant/talkative/camp, it doesn't fit


The proportion of homosexual men who are "extroverted/flamboyant/talkative" is about the same as that for the general population.

"Camp" is just another word for "effeminate". Females are not known for their extroverted and merry dispositions either.

If you knew any gay/homosexual men in real life you would not make these mistakes.

Anonymous said...

"Camp" is just another word for "effeminate".

This comment made me think about a comment a friend made some years ago about effeminacy and homosexuals. His comment concerned what we think of as "effeminate" mannerisms and speech patterns.

It went something like this: "Young boys who are effeminate as well as gay men who are don't act so much like girls or women as they act like old grandmothers or little old ladies."

I thought about that and after a while realized it was pretty accurate, especially concerning the speech patterns and the fussiness. If you've ever been around many little old ladies, maybe you'll understand what I mean. They certainly contrast in speech and mannerisms with the young mothers of those gay boys.

Truth said...

"Blogger Udolpho.com said...

Truth prefers women of a certain age (50+)."

After a lengthy and protracted absence, so nice of you to chime in with such a an englightening and informative comment.