CENSORED: comment about article on porn on Ethika Politika (Arrested Development: The Destruction Of Masculinity In A Pornified Culture) by Octavia Ratiu

CENSORED: my comment about article on porn on Ethika Politika “Arrested Development: The Destruction Of Masculinity In A Pornified Culture” by | October 23, 2014

The CENSORED comment:

I very much appreciate and support EP’s continued articles to criticize porn. Well done.

My comment to this article, which has many good points, and we need more of, is that it’s too focused on a narrow construct (male viewer/female sex object). Porn poisons the brain and psychology of women just as it does for men. Also, there was no mention of homosexual porn and other perverse kinds of sexuality. I have no doubt that porn reinforces for quite a bit of women who have a heterosexual psychology, along with other factors, a perverted way of thinking about women due to porn. That is, they receive varied messages that thinking of women sexually is acceptable, desirable, and tiltillating – the normalization of homosexuality and bisexuality. Thus they end up gazing at women in porn in the same top-down exploitative position that male viewers of porn are in.

For many women, who have long lost or never had a psychology of respect and dignity, but are much more involved in dynamics of power regarding sexuality, porn is the kind of content that gives them a green light to sexually harass or make unwanted advances towards other women to pursue in the real world what they like to see on screen. And where have you ever seen a homosexual man railing against porn and homosexuals involved in porn? One more piece of evidence of what garbage of people LGBTs are.


CENSORED: Critique against the BDSM student group at Harvard

Friday, December 7, 2012, 4:00 PM

The Love and Fidelity Network, national umbrella for campus chastity clubs like Princeton’s Anscombe Society, has issued a press release opposing Harvard’s new BDSM group:

PRINCETON, NJ – Harvard University’s formal recognition of the “Harvard College Munch” last week comes as bad news for students seeking a healthy sexual culture and reasoned debated about human sexuality. Munch is a BDSM (short for bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism) club for college students.

“The Love and Fidelity Network opposes Harvard University’s formal recognition and funding of a group that seeks to associate human sexuality with violence, oppression, and humiliation,” Director of Programs Caitlin Seery said. “Universities should foster an environment where the dignity and beauty of sexuality is honored and affirmed – and where reasoned debate is welcomed among those of goodwill who disagree over what constitutes the true dignity and beauty of human sexuality.  Groups like Munch, however, do not seek to participate in that important debate.  Rather, BDSM groups dishonor and degrade human sexuality precisely by associating it with violence and humiliation.”

“Our opposition isn’t about banning groups with whom we disagree or censoring private behavior. We support the recognition of many groups with whom we disagree precisely because we think an honest debate about how best to honor the dignity and beauty of sexuality is needed. It is about whether Harvard University should subsidize the promotion of violent and abusive behavior, which endangers all students, particularly women, both psychologically and physically. Consent does not make a violent, abusive, or humiliating act suddenly non-violent, non-abusive, or non-humiliating,” Seery explained. “The bottom line is this:  If you think there isn’t enough violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should support the recognition and funding of groups dedicated to associating sexuality with these social evils. If you think that there is already too much violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should join us in asking Harvard to reconsider its support for this group.”


ChrisMarks wrote:
December 7th, 2012 | 9:23 pm

The problem with the Love and Fidelity Network’s opposition is that they assume that the things we in the SM or BDSM community do are all violence and humiliation. They do not know nor wish to understand that there can be great love and respect even when there is infliction of pain or subjugation. Humans have a long history of appreciating ritualized pain. The Christian flagellants have for centuries understood the transformative power and consciousness raising experience of repetitive flogging and whipping. Is it ironic that many modern Christian denominations espouse a doctrine of male domination and female subjugation, while being offended by people that put this in to practice? Many people (but not all) in SM communities enjoy these types of Dominant and submissive role play (though the gender roles are not always traditional) and they benefit in their own ways from the special bonds that can be enjoyed through submissive service and loving dominance.

It would be wiser for them to walk a mile a in our shoes before judging us. Or perhaps they might understand better the admonition; “Judge not lest ye be judged.”


Heather wrote (CENSORED)
December 8th, 2012 | 3:21 am

ChrisMarks wrote: “They do not know nor wish to understand that there can be great love and respect even when there is infliction of pain or subjugation.”

With the NAMBLA folks, this kind of rationalizing of abuse is done via the “man-boy love” label. They tell us we just can’t understand how much love is involved in their pedophilic, sexually abusive relationships with boys. It’s all a matter of lack of understanding on our part.

What people who practice BDSM don’t wish to know or to understand is how psychologically deformed THEY are in respect to sex and personal relationships.

They, like people who normalize homosexuality, promiscuity, and pornography, live by one principle only: If I get a sexual kick out of something – no matter how depraved, degenerate, deformed, disoriented, harmful, or violent – that is all that matters.

Other equally important points have already been made by Ms. Caitlin and do not need to be repeated here.

At least compared to homosexual activists, we have to say that the BDSM supporters have spared us so far saying that they were “born that way,” that “reparative therapy” for people who are sadistic and violent is harmful and should be banned, that anyone who questions their ideology is BDphobic and a bigot, and that humiliating and torturing other human beings is a “civil right” and that they will not stand being treated like second-class citizens by people who do not share their deformed psychologies regarding sexuality.

Chris admonishes us (of all things) to understand “better” the words of “Judge not lest ye be judged,” which I am sure he/she twists around to mean: be morally corrupt, unethical, silent, passive, and collusive, thus support all sin when the more preferable option of engaging in it yourself is not available.

But most of all, be corrupt in your minds and in your interpretation of the Bible, in order to do harm and sin in the world, all the while rationalizing to yourself that you’ve done nothing wrong, and wrap it all up in some kind of notion of liberation, progress, and civil rights.


Additional comment made on my Censored blog: Curiously enough, none of the writers at FT have the ethics or the intelligence to criticize the BDSM group.


Heather wrote on Dec 11 2012 (CENSORED)

Nickol wrote: “Let me say that in my opinion, there cannot be a serious, productive discussion of BDSM in First Thoughts.”

The comment section here isn’t for serious, productive discussions or Nickol wouldn’t be given this as his personal platform, simultaneously clearly representing certain FT editors, while the latter censor many of the opposing views.

As we can see, Nickol is the sockpuppet of certain FT editors/censors…

CENSORED: Retort to claim that any therapy related to investigating or resolving homosexuality dynamics is bad

Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 1:32 PM

Heather wrote: There is no one type of therapy. You will find as many types of therapies (regarding homosexuality or any other problem) as there are therapists.

Boonton wrote: This statement is a strong indication that such therapy simply doesn’t work. Therapists are a bit like businesses. If something is discovered that seems to work, others will copy it and it will become quite common. If every therapist who is trying to ‘convert gays’ has ‘his own therapy’, that’s a good sign none of the therapies work.

Heather replied (CENSORED):
Your comment is a strong indication of how little you know about what therapy entails. No therapy is identical – ever – no matter what the issue. I guess in your view then it’s time to throw all therapists in the trash can and burn all psychology books.

You would be making a very ignorant mistake though. For one,  an individual’s psychological makeup is quite unique when you go beyond the surface. People who normalize homosexuality have a reduced and ignorant view of the human mind which does not correspond to reality, especially regarding sexuality. People who normalize homosexuality ignore complexity and delude themselves thinking that the human mind is similar to an ant’s or an amoeba. It’s not.

Second, not  only is each individual psychological makeup unique, so are the circumstances each person finds themselves in, and so is their personal history. So, one could never address profound problems with a simplistic cloned 1-2-3 therapeutic method. Each individual has a need for a different type of therapy, completely personalized, because they are unlike anyone else.

Third, again, unlike the ignorant and reductionist theories of people who normalize homosexuality, there is no one causal factor, nor even the same cloned set of causal factors for homosexuality. Therefore every therapy must be different.

Fourth, just because therapies are not identical doesn’t mean that they are all completely different. And yes, therapists do share with each other their experiences and knowledge.

Fifth, the knowledge for developing appropriate and successful therapeutic methods for any problem can only be obtained by clinical practice. Which is exactly what the ignorant and irresponsible homosexuals against therapy want to outlaw. Homosexuals want absolute ignorance enforced on the mental health and medical sectors. They are anti-science and anti-knowledge.

Sixth, a therapy is sort of like a marriage. It’s not because one fails that all will fail or that the idea of marriage itself is misguided. If the four men mentioned in the article went through harmful experiences, they should seek redress. Just like a any other patient or consumer.

Seventh, there are plenty of real examples of therapies which have provided benefits to people who had developed a homosexuality problem. It appears that you are completely ignorant about all of them – thus you prefer indulging in tabloid-like reports wailing about little gay victims of “conversion therapy” while purposefully ignoring real, successful examples of therapies that prove your views on homosexuality are flawed.

Eighth, many therapeutic experiences are confidential, so this also contributes to the reason why there is less information about what happens in many cases – and that certainly includes many successful cases.


David wrote: “Just because a relatively small number of people have a variant characteristic doesn’t mean “something went wrong” to cause it. ”

Heather replied (CENSORED):

And yet, when therapists investigate cases of people with a homosexual problem or a bisexual mentality, they find so many psychological and cultural problems that generated the homosexuality dynamics. Just like with pedophilia, promiscuity, adultery, etc.

Maybe this is why homosexuals want to ban knowledge and therapy regarding what causes a person to develop a dysfunctional homosexuality problem.

It’s a small number of people with a homosexual problem who adopt boys so they can sexually abuse them, but hey, it’s just like being left handed! All about the similarities…

David Nickol writes:
“Then perhaps you aren’t taking the time to think about what is being said before you send a dismissive response.” He also writes to Heather:     “It is a very basic concept which you don’t seem to grasp or even recognize.” And to Sasha:    ” It sounds like you have an eight-year-old complaint… ”
Heather wrote (CENSORED):
On another recent thread, David claimed the Pope (no less!) would be appalled sometimes at the tone employed on this blog by people who criticized David’s normalization of homosexuality.

I’m just guessing, but I think if the Pope looked at David’s tone, he wouldn’t be too happy – and maybe even quite appalled at seeing that David writes with such tone and then tries to almost speak in the name of the Pope as some kind of standard that only other people must adhere to.


David in Houston wrote: By the way, no one is telling you to “celebrate” homosexuality.

Heather replied: On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality. Not only that, many people who have expressed publicly their objections to homosexuality – because it is dysfunctional – have been vilified.

Your other question regarding superiority is a canard. Are you inferior, the same, or superior to Hitler? This is a shifty question because it does not explicit what is being compared.

If you have a dysfunctional mind, are you inferior to someone who has a wholesome mind? If you are ignorant and unethical, are you inferior to someone who is knowledgeable and ethical? If you have a sexually perverted mind, are you inferior to someone who does not?

These are not questions about the type of superiority that is promoted in racial superiority types of ideology, but a question of interior quality. People are not clones and therefore they cannot have the same quality in regard to every single of their aspects.

Boonton wrote: “How many jobs require you to comment on your views of homosexuality? Political pundit? Director of a Gay Rights group?”

Heather replied: Education, counseling, medical, human resources, public policy, government, military, non-profit, etc.

Furthermore, we can assume from your comment that if one should freely express views that question your homosexuality agenda, they should be persecuted from their jobs; they are not entitled to speaking their views without being persecuted.

Michael PS wrote: “Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by by the state. When people are safe from force applied from above, they require no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level.”

Heather replied (CENSORED):
Are you saying people do not need to eat if they are living in a state where there is no state persecution?


Since SEVERAL of the above post were censored, it was followed up by this one – also CENSORED:

Dear Mr. Reno,

Although you censored my reply to Boonton criticizing his profoundly ignorant claims that any therapy related to investigating and resolving homosexual dynamics is bad, thus allowing your blog to serve as a conduit for the smear of therapists working with such issues, a federal judge in California has reached a very opposite decision, even if the decision is not yet finalized.

“U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in “reparative” or “conversion” therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.”

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Judge-temporarily-blocks-Calif-gay-therapy-law-4088434.php#ixzz2E4yekSw9

It is unfortunate that this blog prefers to endorse Boonton’s basest ignorance on the matter and let it go unquestioned. I hope the  Californian courts will continue on the right track and expose how wrong you and Boonton are, and correctly rule on the matter in a finalized way.