"Ambrose" <ambrose_meineke@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:102juaen24mehd5@corp.supernews.com...

I don't dissagree with the premise that pedophiles might live ersatz

married straight lives, but as a psychologist I must say they (the
pedophiles) are straight in the same context as gay men married for
convenience to women, they are living in an illusion created for social
acceptance and possibly financial security, but their primary sexual
motivation and desire pattern, is clearly not heterosexual. If they are
pedophiles, their primary sexual desires are for pre-pubescent children.

If

their desire is for female children they are technically heterosexual,

their desires are for male children they are technically homosexual.
A commonly accepted falicy is that pedophiles are gender

indiscriminate.

This is inaccurate. The statistics of gender indiscriminate child

molesters

fall in general balance with the occuraces of bisexuality in the main
population, though it is true that a disproportionate numbers of

pedophiles

show a pattern of skewing slightly towards homosexuality. The major
researchers have explained this skew as an indication not of a greater
number of homosexual pedophiles but because of slightly higher

of

pedophilia among bisexuals. Lenore E Walker's research on abusing males
indicate disproportionate numbers of bisexuals are abusers of women,

abusers

of men when they are engaging in homosexual affairs, and that they are

more

prone to abuse children physically and sexually. No one is certain what
causes this, though research on borderline personalities, who tend

self serving desires suggests that they probably account for the

difference.

This is not to say that all bisexuals are child molesters. Bisexuality
occurs in a well adjusted individuals, as does any sexual orientation,
however their does appear to be a number of indicators that at least

suggest

that bisexuals are more likely to molest children, though again it could

be

an indication of sexual manifestation of certain personality disorder in
which sexual orientation is often a matter of self serving opportunism.

You are talking NON-SENSE!

If you are going to go for the "bisexual factor" I've got news for you:

(The Internet proves all of this. Any porn site shows this REALITY:)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The so-called battle of the sexes, with its ramifications, is not
"natural" - nor, in that context, is fighting between members of the
same sex. Even in the animal kingdom, for example, males do not fight
to the death over the females when they are in their natural state.

I will clear up my meaning of the word "natural" later. However,
when you examine animal behavior even in its most natural-seeming
environment, for instance, you are not observing the basic behavior
patterns of such creatures, because those relatively isolated areas
exist in YOUR world. Quite simply, you cannot have one or two or twenty
officially-designated natural regions in which you observe animal
activity, and expect to find anything more than the current adaptation
of those creatures - an adaptation that is superimposed upon their
"natural" reactions.

The balance of resources, animal travel patterns, migrations,
weather conditions - all of these must be taken into consideration.
Such isolated observation areas merely present you with a distorted
picture of natural behavior, because the animals are also imprisoned
within them. Civilization binds them round.

Other animals are kept out. The hunted and the prey are highly
regulated. All areas of animal behavior alter to fit the circumstances
as much as possible, and this includes sexual activity. To some extent
the animals have been conditioned to the changing world. Now man is
obviously part of nature, so you may say: "But those changes wrought
by him are natural." When he studies such animal behavior, however,
and sometimes uses the sexual patterns of the animals to make certain
points about human sexuality, then man does not take this into
consideration, but speaks as if the present observed animal behavior
is the indication of a prime or basic nature inherent in their biology.

It is not natural, then, for men to fight over women. This is a purely
cultural, learned behavior. In terms of history as you understand it,
the species could not withstand such misapplied energy, nor could it
have withstood such constant antagonism.

Each species is involved in a cooperative venture, upon which
ultimately all earthly existence rests. You project your present beliefs
backward into history, and you misinterpret many of the conditions that
you observe in the natural world. This cooperation that I speak of is
based on love, and that love has a biological as well as a spiritual
basis. Your beliefs, for example, cause you to deny the existence of
emotions in animals, and any instances of love among them are assigned
to "blind" instinct.

To some extent the churches as well as the scientists are
responsible, but priests and scientists are not some foreign people,
thrust upon you. They represent various aspects of yourselves. The
species developed its own kind of consciousness, as it found it
necessary to isolate itself to some degree from its environment and
the other creatures within it. As a result, the religions preached
that only man had a soul and was dignified by emotional feelings.
In its way science went along very nicely by postulating man in a
mechanistic world, with each creature run by an impeccable machine of
instinct, blind alike to pain or desire.

The love and cooperation that forms the basis of all life, however,
shows itself in many ways. Sexuality represents one aspect, and an
important one. In larger terms, it is as NATURAL for a man to love a man,
and for a woman to love a woman, as it is to show love for the opposite
sex. For that matter, it is more NATURAL to be bisexual. Such is the
"natural" nature of the species.

Instead, you have put love into very definite catagories, so that
its existence is right only under the most limited conditions. Love
goes underground, but springs up in distorted forms and exaggerated
tendencies. You have followed this course for different reasons at
different times. Neither sex is to blame. Instead your sexual situation
is simply another reflection of the state of your consciousness. As a
species, presently at least in the Western world, you equate sex and
love. You imagine that sexual expression is the only one natural to
love. Love, in other words, must it seems express itself exclusively
through the exploration (humorously and deeper), in one way or another,
of the beloved's sexual portions.

This is hardly the only limitation placed upon love's expression,
however. There are innumerable books written with instructions, each
proclaiming the said methods to be the proper ones. Certain kinds of
orgasm are "the best." Love's expression is furthermore permitted only
between members of the opposite sex. Generally speaking, these
individuals must be more or less of the same age. There are other
taboos, involving racial restrictions, or cultural, social, and
economic ones. If this were not enough, large segments of the
population believe that sex is wrong to begin with - a spiritual
debasement, allowed by God only so that the species can continue.

(Pause.) Since love and sex are equated, obvious conflicts arise.
Mother love is the only category that is considered wholesome, and
therefore nonsexual under MOST conditions. A father can feel guilty
about his love for his children, for he has been conditioned to believe
that love is expressed only through sex, or else it is unmanly, while
sex with one's children is taboo.

Creativity rides the tides of love. When love is denied its natural
expression, creativity suffers. Your beliefs lead you to suppose that
a natural bisexuality would result in the death of the family, the
destruction of morals, rampant sexual crimes, and the loss of sexual
identity. I would say, however, that my last sentence adequately
describes your PRESENT situation (with dry humor). The acceptance of
the species' natural bisexuality would ultimately help solve not only
those problems but many others, including the large instances of
violence, and acts of murder. In your terms, however, and in your
circumstances, there is not apt to be any easy transition.

The parent-child relationship has its own unique emotional structure,
which survives even those distortions you have placed upon it, and its
ancient integrity would not be weakened, but strengthened, if greater
stress were laid upon your bisexual nature.

Children would fare far better if the ancient parental qualities
were not so forcibly focused upon the mother. This in itself leads to
more dependence upon the mother than is healthy, and forms an
artificial allegiance between mother and child against the father.



Now: Heterosexual love is one important expression of bisexuality,
and sexually represents the reproductive abilities. Heterosexuality,
however, rests UPON the bisexual basis, and (intently) without man's
bisexual nature, the larger frameworks of the family - the clan, tribe,
government, civilization - would be impossible.

Basically, then, man's inherent bisexuality provides the basis for
the cooperation that makes physical survival, and any kind of cultural
interaction, possible. If the "battle of the sexes" were as prevalent
as supposed, and as natural and ferocious, then there literally would
be no cooperation between males and females for any purpose. There
would be none between men or between women either, for they would be
in a constant state of battle against each other.

In the natural biological flow of a person's life, there are periods
of varying intensities, in which love and its expression fluctuates,
and tends toward different courses. There are also individual variations
that are of great importance. These natural rhythms are seldom observed,
however. Tendencies toward lesbianism or homosexuality in children are
quite natural. They are so feared, however, that often just-as-natural
leanings toward heterosexuality are blocked. Instead, the young person
is stereotyped.

Individual inclinations toward creativity often emerge in a strong
fashion in adolescence. If those drives in either sex do not conform
in expression to those expected of the male or female, then such young
persons become confused. The creative expression seems to be in direct
contradiction to the sexual standards expected.

I am not saying that lesbianism and homosexuality are merely stages
leading to heterosexuality. I AM saying that lesbianism, homosexuality,
and heterosexuality are valid expressions of man's bisexual nature.

(Slowly:) I am also stressing the fact that love and sexuality are
not necessarily the same thing. Sex is love's expression, but it is
only ONE of love's expressions. Sometimes it is quite "natural" to
express love in another way. Because of the connotations of the word
"sex," however, it may seem to some of you that I am advocating a
promiscuous sexual relationship with "no holes barred" (smiling).

Instead, I am saying that deeper bonds of biological and spiritual
love lie at the basis of all personal and cultural relationships,
a love that transcends *your ideas* of sexuality. Heterosexual love,
as it is understood at least, gives you a family of parents and
children - an important unit, about which other groups form. If only
stereotyped ideas of female-male relationships operated, however,
there would be no bond or stimulus great enough to forge one family
to another. The antagonism between males would be too great.
Competition between females would be too severe. Wars would wipe out
struggling tribes before any traditions were formed.

In the social world as in the microscopic one, cooperation again
is paramount. Only a basic bisexuality could give the species the leeway
necessary, and prevent stereotyped behavior of a kind that would hamper
creativity and social commerce. That basic sexual nature allows you
the fulfillment of individual abilities, so that the species does not
fall into extinction. Man's recognition of his bisexual nature is,
therefore, a must in his future.

There are, again, obvious differences between the sexes. They are
insignificant, and appear large only because you concentrate so upon
them. The great human qualities of love, strength, compassion,
intellect and imagination do not belong to one sex or the other.

Only an understanding of this inherent bisexual nature will release
those qualities in each individual, regardless of sex. Those same
abilities are natural characteristics of people in each race, of course,
yet you have consistently made the same kind of distinctions in racial
terms as you have in sexual ones, so that certain races appear as
feminine or masculine to you. You project your sexual beliefs outward
upon the nations, then, and often the terminology of the nations and
of wars is the same as that used to describe sex.

You speak, for example, of domination and submission, of the master
and the slave, of the rape of a nation - terms used in war and sex
alike.

Male and female are each members of the human race - or species if
you prefer - so these divisions were made in the species itself, by
itself. They are the result of distinctions arising, again, as the
species experimented with its line of consciousness, and brought into
being the appearance of separation between itself and the rest of the
natural world.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The
sociopath for example sees others no with empathy and understanding, but

as

object to manipulate for their own purposes. It's hard to get acccurate
studies on pedophiles because as a criminal behavior, psychologists who

are

told of a patients pedophile desires, are required by law in many

to

report it to the police, so the numbers are extremely uneven.
Though Kinsey is still quoted, no reputable research has come close

to

duplicating his research statistics and no psychologist with any

scientefic

integrity would use Kinsey's shabbily done research as a basis for
additional study.
Unfortunately Kinsey's work has aquired a political power within

certain

misguided communities, including some homosexual and heterosexual

Sadly for abused children behavioral and genetic markers which indicate
potential molesters have fallen vistim to political correctness, and

such research has been suspended because the nature-versus-nurture

research studies on criminal tendencies in children are now seen as
stigmatizing, and disprotionately slanted against certain socio-ethnic
groups, so most of the studies done seeking criminal markers including

those

indicating a tendency toward pedophilia have been defunded or suspended
because of fear of social and political ramifications. There is also the
danger that, for example, if there is a genetic or behaviorla marker for
criminal behavior, the fear is that if pedophilia has definate markers,
there may well be markers for other sexual orientations, and this has

danger of creating a brave new world scenario, wherin genetics programs

that

could identify genes for organically criminally oriented children, or
potential pedophiles, but might also be used to do away with

or those with any sort of sexual or social behavior which occurs in a
statistical significant variance from the majority.
I'm no defender of criminals or child abusers but their orientation

may

be something which society may ultimately have to put up and treat with
behavioral or legal remedies instead of genetic ones, in the interest of
maintaining genetic diversity. A pretty ugly thought, but not much

than the thought of a world where everyone is genetically programmed for
identical behavior. Talk about the pods.
Ambrose