Although future behavioral taboos are notoriously hard to predict, it’s clear that within this decade America will end the use of chimpanzees in entertainment. I’ll go much further out on a limb and also predict that within a generation, and for much the same reasons, we will seriously consider banning child stars.
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
64 comments:
Too bad the previous post wasn't titled 'Chimp Change'.
I must be living in the midst of a bunch of former child actors or else everyone got 3 weeks off for christmas. I've also noticed that there aren't enough "real" jobs to go around though there is somewhat of a supply of badly paying jobs that are based on an imagined need (i.e. lots of ancillary policing type jobs they couldn't or wouldn't pay actual police to do) - hence the fact that the job doesn't pay a living wage.
Chimps and child stars best manage their earnings well because there are few job openings for monkeying around in a zoo or teaching drama.
I hate to cavil about an entertaining and rather novel web article like that one but (as the comments there already said) Moore's Law is about microprocessor cycles, not proprietary 3D light-simulation software. Relatively little of the CGI budget goes to the actual machines, vs. programmers for those machines. Weta for one always emphasized their Google-style reliance on off-the-shelf parts.
Still, barring civilizational collapse, the standard of software will continue to improve so I guess your point still stands...?
I am Lugash.
Lindsay Lohan's inevitable tragic ending will kick off the ban.
I am Lugash.
After Chump and Chimps, the next titles should include Chomp and Champ.
Given the topic, it's surprising there was no mention that one of the Tarzan chimps was in the news last month. It died nearly 80 years after it appeared on screen.
Speaking of chimps in entertainment, the best chimp performances ever captured on film were the PG Tips Tea ads that ran in Britain from the late 50s right through to the late 80s.
These featured juvenile chimps dressed in human clothes performing dubbed comic vignettes portraying a variety of mundane human situations.
If you are interested most of them are posted on Youtube.
Classic chimp vignettes include the hilarious Piano Shifter, Tour de France, The Plumber
, The Yachtsman (based on British PM Ted Heath) etc etc.
The chimps were all trained by Molly Badham and were based at Twycross Zoo.
"we will seriously consider banning child stars"
Do you mean like Justin Bieber?
If any child actor should be computer generated, why not every actor. Ah Victorian pruderie.
Who needs a 40 year old Aniston when we can have Rachel forever. She can still make money selling her image (maybe her body image for the incoming generation of sexbots, but I digress).
Or give millions to some Hollywood one when we can do it in Poser for a few cents given to the usual Indian tech guy.
Okay: I'll now hop on the "Steve is Dead" bandwagon. Clearly that piece was written by Peter Singer.
Hitchcock said actors ought to be treated like cattle. Modern technology finally makes it possible.
Goodbye, Mr. Chimps - funniest title for anything Ive read in days. Well done sir!
I loathe monkeys and chimps, the way some people loathe clowns.
They're too much like little retarded humans.
I've always felt that chimps and children too closely resemble humans to be entertaining.
Will petite women play kids of both genders like they often did in Soviet Union? (Which is weird because real children also acted in Soviet films.) Or will certain ethnic groups step up to the plate? Maybe all boys will be played by Mayans and all the girls will be Thai.
I don't think the uncanny valley is going to be sufficiently crossed within 10 years to make child stars obsolete, especially since, more often then adult actors, they have to create the right emotional appeal.
Child actors, child performers will be with us for so long as there are stage mothers. Children groomed intensely for athletics will be with us for so long as there are fathers (and now also the various forms of WNBA-fanatic mothers and stepmothers) who impose their dreams of athletic glory upon their progeny. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, haven't got stage mothers pushing or sports fanatic fathers bent on drilling their offspring for athletic success.
This is a question somewhat related to this post.
The first episode of Season 8 of "CSI Miami" was a flash-back to when the characters first met. David Caruso, in particular, looked much younger. Does anyone know if CG technology was used to make the actors look 10 years younger, or was it all done with lighting and makeup?
It is unlikely Steve that child actors will be replaced. Because there is too much money in Hannah Montanas, the Ravens and so on. Disney makes most of its money from Princess fantasies made cheap and fast. Even with cheaper motion capture, that won't be cheap and fast. Certainly nothing like a simple soundstage set for "Suite Life" or such. Which tweener girls eat up like hotcakes.
On Chimps you're correct. But not kids. There is an endless supply of kid actors, wanting to be in showbiz, unlike say Chimps (who require extensive training by a few animal trainers).
what about mr. popper's penguins? derp!
anyway, depending on the rate of improvement in effects, there may be little need for animals in movies with a big budget. the effects in rise of the planet of the apes were impressive - but you don't want to extrapolate that out like you have in the article.
the stan winston era, from like 1982 to 2008, featured tons of the best physical effects ever - from terminator, to aliens, to predator, to jurassic park, to iron man - but when stan died, those effects didn't simply become industry standard, ubiquitous, and cheap - instead, they died with him. and now really shitty computer effects are the standard. in fact it seems like on average, they haven't improved much in 10 years. large computer generated monsters still look as fake as ever, unless it's james cameron making them.
what i'm guessing is that most movie production companies buy some industry standard effects software for a reasonable price, a few million, and crank out their effects from that, because those effects are "good enough". most studios see no reason to re-invent the wheel, they're just trying to make money, not advance the industry.
the talking animals genre of movies is silly, but harmless. the animals are not meant to fool you. but in other movies you would want the effects driven animals to be hard to detect. one disappointment for me was the 2010 wolfman - not only was the computer generated bear simply terrible, but physical werewolf effects from like 1982 were superior to the computer werewolf effects from a modern movie. there's no reason the thriller video should be so vastly superior to something 25 years later. 80s horror movies had better effects - the thing still hasn't been eclipsed.
nevertheless, animals will still have a place in movies with a small budget, and in television. renting the services of a few trained animals costs much less than the couple million, bare minimum, you would pay for some effects shots.
also check out rick baker for physical effects, who has done a lot of animal work. i need to go back and check out greystoke to see if there were any good ape effects.
too bad we're now in the "Crappy monster generator version 7.2" computer graphics era.
For some reason I'm reminded of Buster Keaton's days as a child actor.
Steve Sailer was kind enough to link to my post on the Rise of the Planet of the Apes on the film's initial release.
Here is the original:
What "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is Really About
The excellent new film purports to be a "re-imagining" of the origins of the Planet of the Apes saga. Set in the modern day San Francisco Bay area, the film is a vast improvement over the muddled mess that was the Tim Burton effort of a decade ago. The acting is fine and CGI apes look great. To placate fans of the POTA series, they pay homage to the original in a variety of fun ways; "Bright Eyes" is what Taylor (Charlton Heston) is called by Cornelius and Zira in the first film, the guard is seen watching Heston as Moses - who sets his people free, in The Ten Commandments (an unlikely film choice for a low IQ guard at a primate facility), but it is the films plot and subversive message that is appealing.
The appeal of the POTA series has always been the subtext.
The original series dealt with the issues of the late 60's: cold war fears of nuclear holocaust, the black civil rights, and protest movement doves (the chimps) versus war-mongering hawks (the gorillas).
These themes played themselves out across all five of the original films. The first two (Planet of the Apes and Beneath the Planet of the Apes) are set in our distant future while Escape From the Planet of the Apes was the only movie with a contemporary (1974) setting, and Conquest was set in the (then) near future of 1991(a fact that is inexplicably obscured in later DVD releases of the film. If anyone out there knows why, I am interested.)
Conquest is the most revolutionary of the series with a full blown radicalism and pretty blatant references to the Black Power movement of the day. Caesar even appeals to a Black man ( it is unclear if the character is living in America ) with the plea "You of all people should understand."
The racial elements are well documented in Eric Greene's magisterial 1996 book Planet of the Apes as American Myth: Race, Politics, and Popular Culture
The series tones down all the race war implications in the final installment, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, by having Caesar join forces with humans against war-mongering, troglodyte mutants and eventually a gorilla general memorably named Urko.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes takes on new subject areas, aging baby Boomers/ dementia specifically, and the touchy subject of IQ and destiny.
Freedom is predicated on intelligence. Being smart, it seems, is a necessary antecedent to freedom.
The stupid are slaves because they are stupid, and not the reverse. The Aristotelian logic of some being "slaves by nature" seems to be the argument.
This is not to say that those who are less intelligent will not have cultures of their own. They will and they do.The scenes of Caesar's incarceration resemble nothing less than that of a prison yard, complete with overly macho posturing and gang-banger attitudes and behaviors.
Caesar's politeness and intelligence are seen as threatening behavior by the low-IQ simians.
Only when the smart chimp uses his superior reasoning to divide and exploit the monkey house multiculturalism does he gain freedom from being a victim.
Some reviewers misinterpret the film to be more liberal happy talk against animal testing. This is simply absurd. The film seems to be an extended paean to the benefits of testing potential Alzheimer cures on apes for the benefit human superiors.
The film continues the science fiction tradition of masking uncomfortable "us versus them" issues in an era of political correctness that marks such discussion as verboten "crime think."
http://elvisnixon.com/2011/08/06/what-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-is-really-about.aspx
I suspect there will be a firestorm of objections as a result of the factual statement that Jerry Sandusky (a male who raped young males) is a homosexual.
For some odd reason that is the new "thoughtcrime" in America.
I am Lugash.
Whiskey- good point. Given that merchandising/red carpet appearances are such a part of the business, it will take a leap in robotics technology for the complete replacement to happen.
I am Lugash.
No more chimps in tuxedos riding bicycles? No movie version of Lancelot Link to look forward too? I'm not sure I want to live in a world where I can't watch a chimp wear a hat and drink martinis.
"I suspect there will be a firestorm of objections as a result of the factual statement that Jerry Sandusky (a male who raped young males) is a homosexual.
For some odd reason that is the new "thoughtcrime" in America."
I've seen someone bring this up before several times. I think I could clarify a couple of things. Calling Sandusky a gay pedophile is, indeed, factual, but irrelevant. It's kind of like calling someone a red-haired pedophile or a left-handed pedophile. Being gay isn't the crime here, being a pedophile rapist is. If Sandusky would have done the same to little girls, he would be just as in trouble with the law as he is now. If he would have done the same with a consenting adult male, he would not be in trouble at all. Do you see? You find homosexuality reprehensible, but the law doesn't, and journalists shouldn't present facts in such a way that suggests a connection between two separate characteristics. (They are not hiding the fact that Sandusky raped boys, btw.) For example, it's shamefully irresponsible to mention that a suspect in a racial crime is a republican in the same breath. Though it could be factually true, and though in that particular case the crime in question could've been directly connected to the suspect's political beliefs, being a republican, in and of itself, has nothing to do with being a racist. So it's fine to disclose that the perp wrote a manifesto calling for the new dawn of the Republican Party and the extermination of all the people of color, but it's not fine to refer to the perp as "the republican racist". It would suggest that the connection made between the two characteristics in the perp's sick mind are generally true. People don't commit crimes because they are democrats or republicans. They commit crimes because they are the types of people who would commit crimes. The connection exists only in their composed identities. Similarly, while being a pedophile and being gay are connected in the case of Sandusky, since the two are primary components of his sexuality, there is no general connection between the two outside of Sandusky's composed identity. Therefore, it's fine to report that the scumbag screwed children and that his choices were of homosexual nature, but it's not fine to plug "gay" into the statements that are used to refer to his crimes. It's wrong for the same reasons that having a separate category for "hate crimes" is wrong.
I don't think the uncanny valley is going to be sufficiently crossed within 10 years to make child stars obsolete.
Actually, it looks like the valley is already bridged. Tintin in the recent movie looks very much like a real boy/young man. Not at all like the scary zombie kids in Polar Express.
If the trailer for Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" is any indication, Jody's points about CGI stand firm.
If anyone should know how it's done,either in Winston/Baker terms or those of today, it's Ridley Scott; and whatever this film is really about, it has a lot to live up to as his 'return' to the mythos of (if not directly a prequel to) "Alien."
It does not look persuasive to the eye. The shot of some astronaut getting sucked out into a vortex by the wind looks like the same tripe we've been watching for 20 years: physically implausible things happening in a plastic, sped-up, unbelievable way. The eye does not believe.
Ayn Rand among the monkeys? Gorillas going Galt?
I prefer Steve's movie reviews to most movies. I can't say I'm a movie buff.
I really can't stand any former child actors, including the brilliant Jodie Foster, though she seems like a lovely person, and the legacy, Drew Barrymore, though she too, seems like a lovely person.
Jodie Foster is probably as beautiful as a woman can be, without being sexy. Is it just me?
Chimpanzees attack the face and testicles. They can hold their own in Hollywood.
Even if Lindsey Lohan were to straighten out, she won't succeed. Inflating your lips is an infallible indicator that you've jumped the shark. Ask Meg Ryan or Melanie Griffith.
Children over 1 and under 18 should be excluded from showbiz.
Once again Steve explores interesting topics that are neglected. Nobody can F'n touch him in the social commentary realm.
Steve, I was excited to see your Dickie Roberts review. Spade is the last of a dying breed.....a funny comedian.
Jody: thank you for the pro-practical effects comments. I wonder what Winston, Baker, Bottin, etc. could do with the bloated "effects" budgets of today. Most have become lazy and just went CGI and grabbed the cash. How standing in front of a green screen and "doing it in post" is more expensive than location shooting with actual craftsman and materials has never made sense to me. It should be dirt cheap.
Maya: I understand what you are saying, but how about another example. Should the media ever mention that Jeffrey Dahmer was a "gay " serial killer of mostly black men.....or just plain serial killer? Those adjectives are pertinent to the discussion. Your argument would be more accurate if the reports said "former Army" serial killer. His time in the military has nothing to do with his later horrific acts. To ignore Sandusky's sexual preference (young boys) in the case of child rape is leaving out a relevant point.
"If any child actor should be computer generated, why not every actor. Ah Victorian pruderie."
There is a movie in which someone goes searching for a computer generated actress thinking she really exists and was murdered: "Simone" stars Al Pacino and Simone who is probably real in real life. It's less that 7 bucks on Amazon right now.
"Therefore, it's fine to report that the scumbag screwed children and that his choices were of homosexual nature, but it's not fine to plug "gay" into the statements that are used to refer to his crimes. It's wrong for the same reasons that having a separate category for "hate crimes" is wrong."
Need some help getting off your soapbox?
So what, no more "Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp"? Horrors.
As for child stars, whenever a cute young girl breaks huge, a la Miley Cyrus, I start the "Skank Clock." Sure as shooting, that same young girl will turn into a trashy skank, usually well before she's 18.
So far, at least, Emma Watson from the Harry Potter flicks seems to have escaped the curse. Maybe because she's not American.
"For example, it's shamefully irresponsible to mention that a suspect in a racial crime is a republican in the same breath"
You'll get better at this with some practice. I will bet everything I own that most racial crimes are committed by democrats. But if you said "hate crimes" you would have won your point because the term is a meaningless political construct of which only whites can be guilty. The rape and murder of an elderly white grandmother by a black male is only a hate crime if he forgets to loot her house or pocketbook after he is done. He rarely forgets.
Hmmm. Homosexual is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is a sexual crime. Asking if people of a particular sexual orientation are more likely to have a particular sexual perversion doesn't seem so far fetched. If sex crimes are irrespective of orientation, then straight women, lesbian women, straight men and gay men should be committing sex crimes at about equal rates according to their taste. Anyone buying that?
Ask yourself, why are there almost zero male preschool and kindergarten teachers? Because the schools discriminate against them, with the unspoken support of almost everyone. This is one of the last areas where even the most open minded people(parents), can tolerate discrimination and not feel guilty.
really glad the justice dept is on the job. does this mean that background checks go away for all of us?
http://news.yahoo.com/pepsi-beverages-pays-3-1m-racial-bias-case-163722194.html
@Maya:
A finer demonstration of sophistry would be difficult to find
Men who rape boys are homosexual because they find males attractive.
That is fundamentally different than having red hair
"I've seen someone bring this up before several times. I think I could clarify a couple of things. Calling Sandusky a gay pedophile is, indeed, factual, but irrelevant. It's kind of like calling someone a red-haired pedophile or a left-handed pedophile."
I don't know if you are a parent of young children, but if you are, I suspect that you'd expend a great deal of effort in keeping your youngsters away from redheads if that trait were as highly correlated with pedophilia as homosexuality is.
"I’ll go much further out on a limb and also predict that within a generation, and for much the same reasons, we will seriously consider banning child stars."
You mean Casting Couch Pedophilia.
Child actors will remain because the masses psychologically need to believe there is a real human behind the blank screen stars provide for fans to project their hopes, dreams and fears upon.
It's as irrationally human as countless anonymous fans crying over the drunk driving death of Princess Di, thinking Clay Aiken was a straight dreamboat or believing Brittany Spears when she claimed she was "saving herself" for marriage when she first broke slut in her videos.
Chimps and animals on the other hand will go and most people view them more as props than charismatic actors they can relate with or aspire to. Plus, they can bite human actors' faces at any time.
Connecting this with the last post, it seems our politicians are more CGI chimps programmed by big donors than human at this point.
Elvis, you're slippery. There are gay and straight rapists. Homosexuality and heterosexuality, OF COURSE, overlap rape as a category of conduct. What is your point?
Recent Charges of Sexual Abuse of Children in Hollywood Just Tip of Iceberg, Experts Say
Matt is wrong about the supposed correlation. There is not a significant disproportion of same-sex peds, but of same-sex violations. Why? That's a good question.
Apparently, the hetero-ped pervs are romantic and hold out for love, whereas their opposite numbers prefer variety and novelty.
So, don't rest so easily on factual distortions to explain your contempt for—or discomfort with—gay men, okay?
Did Sandusky really have a preference for young boys over young girls? Getting young boys was quite easy for him. But getting a young girl was quite easy.
My guess is that a lot of "gay" pedophilia victims are well into their teens or at least well into puberty. I think differently of. Man ho would bang a 14 year old boy vrsus one who ould bang a5 year old. The first is quite certainly gay. The second might just have more opportunity to get to youg boys versus young girls.
"really glad the justice dept is on the job. does this mean that background checks go away for all of us?"
No, only for Eric Holder's people.
Matt is wrong about the supposed correlation. There is not a significant disproportion of same-sex peds, but of same-sex violations. Why? That's a good question.
Apparently, the hetero-ped pervs are romantic and hold out for love, whereas their opposite numbers prefer variety and novelty.
it's because typical heteropedosexual is a stepfather or an uncle doing the same kid over and over; typical homopedosexual is a predatorial serial molester with multiple victims
The gender of a pedophile's victims have nothing to do with his sexual orientation. There are two type of pedophiles: fixated pedophiles and regressed pedophiles.
Regressed pedophiles are pedophiles with a normal attraction to adults, but also sexually gratify themselves with children for psychological reasons. While some are homosexual, they VAST MAJORITY have been found to be straight. They, like Sandusky, may still prey on little boys despite identifying as heterosexual.
Fixated pedophiles are pedophiles, who to children and children alone. They are more likely to be attracted to boys. However, they technically are not gay. Why is that? Its because they do not like adults, meaning THEY DO NOT LIKE MEN.
So in other words, if a man likes men, he has very little chance of being a regressed pedophile and zero chance of being a fixated one. Case closed.
"Matt is wrong about the supposed correlation. There is not a significant disproportion of same-sex peds, but of same-sex violations. Why? That's a good question.
Apparently, the hetero-ped pervs are romantic and hold out for love, whereas their opposite numbers prefer variety and novelty."
So it follows that, by having a higher number of victims, the latter put more children at risk, wouldn't you agree? And isn't the idea of parenting to minimize such risk?
I'm not concerned with some abstract, platonic ideal of predation, I'm concerned with day-to-day safety. You've just made my point.
It would easy to notice if someone was repeatedly engaging in such behavior with your child. If it's more random, if there's a higher chance of it being a one-time, random thing, then that's where stereotypes are helpful
Thanks for making it about me, and not the data, though. That was a rhetorical master-stroke.
I doubt Hollyweird will ever ban child stars.
The place is full of pederasts and ephebophiles.
Scr#w "pedophile" - they are pederasts.
You might as well hope to ban actresses.
Half the Hollyweird power structure likes boys, half likes pretty young women. Banning either would take all the fun out of being a powerful guy in Hweird.
By coincidence I happened to catch an episode of the lawyer show "Harry's Law" last night, and the plot revolved around "Harry" arguing to a judge that a gorilla should be recognized as a person under the law.
In this case, fortunately, the judge declined to rewrite the law. But I thought while watching, "This may be a preview of the next big Cause for the left to obsess about once they've persuaded judges to declare gay marriage a constitutional right".
The Catholic Church was a particularly juicy target for sex-abuse lawsuits due to its two-thousand-year history as a centralized, deep-pocketed organization. In contrast, the entertainment industry is dispersed and amorphous.
Umm, yeah...about that..I'm pretty sure there are other reasons for the contrast in addition to the Catholic Church being centralized and the entertainment industry being amorphous. lol.
Jodie Foster is probably as beautiful as a woman can be, without being sexy. Is it just me?
No, I think there's something to that.
I suspect there will be a firestorm of objections as a result of the factual statement that Jerry Sandusky (a male who raped young males) is a homosexual
It's about as meaningful as the statement that Roman Polanski, a man who raped young girls, is a heterosexual. Not very.
For one thing I think the notion of heterosexual-pedophile or homosexual-pedophile is a category error. There are heterosexuals, there are homosexuals, and there are pedophiles. Pedophiles in turn can be divided into those who like little girls and those who like little boys.
"Fixated pedophiles are pedophiles, who to children and children alone. They are more likely to be attracted to boys. However, they technically are not gay. Why is that? Its because they do not like adults, meaning THEY DO NOT LIKE MEN."
Presumably you are referring to fixated pedophiles who are male. If they are attracted to little boys, then they are indeed by definition homosexual because the word means "same sex".
The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" refer to sexual orientation with regard to gender, not age.
There are heterosexuals, there are homosexuals, and there are pedophiles. Pedophiles in turn can be divided into those who like little girls and those who like little boys.
I think it's simultaneously less complicated and more complicated.
Sexually, everybody puts a high premium on youth, and the younger the better. Enlightened individuals recognize the harm that older, predatory people can inflict on younger, vulnerable pubescents, so we check these impulses with ethical norms. We also want our breeding partner to be around for a while, so the young are generally repulsed by sex with the older.
Pedophiles are just wired wrong. There is nothing sexually attractive about a pre-pubescent child to a normal human. Pre-pubescents are supposed to trigger a parenting response in other pack members. Pedophiles are horribly damaging to the pack, and must be killed or exiled.
I'm speculating Sandusky is a homosexual male, not a pedophile who finds children sexually attractive. When he got old and ugly--like we all do--he couldn't convince the young objects of his desire to have sex voluntarily. So he started going for the soft targets: early post-pubescents who can be physically overpowered and intimidated.
Anti-Gnostic, I find it worrisome that you find this plausible. Don't coach middle-school girls' badminton, mmmkay?
Churches, schools and other entities already devote a great deal of risk management to making sure heterosexual men won't be left alone with adolescent females. What is striking in retrospect is how nobody was nearly as concerned with homosexual men being left alone with adolescent males. Instead we get reactions like yours: no "real" homosexual man would ever exploit an adolescent.
The bias is toward protecting homosexual men from discrimination rather than adolescent males from being sexually exploited. Given the large numbers of homosexual men who report sexual encounters with older men in adolescence--when their psyches and sexual behaviors are in a very nascent state--one hypothesis could be that homosexuals are protecting their means of reproduction by maintaining this bias.
There is such a thing as A SICKNESS OF SOCIETY. When we become immobilized by our own inability to deal directly with what is a COMMONLY PERCEIVED TRUTH AND REALITY, WE'RE IN TROUBLE AS A NATION
(Lou Dobbs 11.10.09)
Sandusky sodomized BOYS- He is NOT having sex with girls
Sandusky shared "gay poet" Allen Ginsburg's lust for young men
Ginberg wrote at length about the virtues of this
Arne Duncan told an underage male to "use a condom" when he was informed that the young boy was being sexually abused by a homosexual
The whole straight men choosing young boys thing rings hollow, like prison rapists who claim not to be gay.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former abortion rights activist turned Catholic Right to Lifer was amazed in retrospect that the media was so unquestioning of his back alley abortion statistics. He made them up and he wasn't even consistent from one interview to the next.
The media is very very pro gay. Don't expect to get any real numbers, they will accept anything any gay activist feeds them.
So, as the evolutionary psychologists will tell you, trust your instincts, they've been honed over thousands of years.
Anti-Gnostic, you're a well-tempered man. I checked your blogs and then felt a twinge of remorse for my badminton crack when I saw that you and I are coreligionists.
I'm willing to meet you half-way again. The number of gay men who report first encounters (with adults, I presume) before they attain majority is high and the community as a whole should address this. I have been on neither side of that kind of transaction, but I hear enough of friends' personal testimonies to affirm this.
I disagree, however, that there is still some kind of double-standard favoring us. Not at all! You refer to the presumption that all men patrolling male youngsters are straight, which results in fewer controls. But if the teacher or coach is acknowledgedly gay, he risks everything, despite the fact that his stupid honesty is itself a filter and assurance. Again, Sandusky had the cover of a (homely) wife and (adopted) children. Somehow that sufficed with your "Don't ask, Don't tell" folkways. And that's a straight problem.
Finally, do you really think that gays "reproduce" through adult-minor seductions? Again, I came out as gay as a young man simply because it was my conviction. I hardly was straight until some wicked elder (himself traduced) sucked me into the sodomitical arts and habits.
This is one very vexing thing I see on HBD sites. Oftentimes, the only straight men who care to address the issue of sexual orientation are themselves compromised by an Aspergery combo of 1) unusual detachment - which makes them engage an issue others prefer to ignore and 2) a lack of common sense about what makes people tick - which is why they get it so wrong.
i have been thinking about steve's topic here some more, and the more i think about it, the less convinced i am.
all you need to do it witness what happened to george lucas. his initial star wars movies were predicated on the magic of practical effects and puppets. his indiana jones movies, the same.
over the next decade, george lucas got lost in a hard drive. put everything else aside about the later star wars movies and indiana jones movie and simply acknowledge - the effects were worse. MUCH worse. instantly identified as fake.
that's backwards "progress". the price of the effects went up 100 times and their result was half as good.
probably the only thing which does not hold up in the original star wars movies, are the puppets which they used for many aliens. most of those look bad now, but they've degraded to a status of quaint, even endearing, instead of becoming hokey. because you can tell, they're real, they're there, interacting with the actors. frank oz's yoda is brilliant, it's genius. one of the all-time greatest puppets. his first appearance on screen is one of the greatest movie moments ever. "Mine!"
conversely, the newer star wars movies and the new indiana jones movie, have computer effect shots which already look FAKE AS F. the "new" yoda is garbage. and let's not get into jar-jar binks, perhaps the most immediately hated movie character ever devised.
i haven't studied this stuff extensively, but the only guy i know for sure who has really pulled off that transition from physical to computer effects well, is cameron. the terminator 2 effects still look pretty good and they're 20 years old now.
robert zemeckis, in fact, lost his career over this. after 2000, he got trapped in a hard disk somewhere with george lucas. we never heard from him again. he spent a decade trying to do what cameron did in 3 years. after 10 years of work, the guy who made masterpieces like back to the future and forrest gump, came up with...the polar express and beowulf.
" Somehow that sufficed with your "Don't ask, Don't tell" folkways. And that's a straight problem."
The real Steve Sailer disappears and spurious reasoning reigns supreme.
Men like Sandusky hide behind the semblance of normalcy on purpose not because society foists it on them. The main reason you are so very wrong is that had Sandusky simply been a repressed homosexual he could easily have limited his encounters to adult males. Extending your logic in this case would be to claim that acceptance of pedophilia would've prevented Sandusky from raping young boys which inevitably leads to the NAMBLA credo: "it ain't rape if you can get him to stay still long enough for intercourse of some sort."
You guys aren't very good at this. I'd find something else to do if I were you.
Pedophilia is a perversion, where one wishes to have sex with children.
Homosexuality is another perversion, where one wishes to have sexual gratification with someone of the same sex.
A homosexual pedophile is someone that wishes to have sex with children of the same sex.
What is so complicated about that?
image source tramadol hcl erowid - tramadol m t7
Post a Comment