Questions for Wade

[_beastie]

If Wade really did that, he's nuts. But then I'd probably need to hear his side of the story first.

I’m suffering from insomnia tonight, so found some old links. Surprisingly, I believe the alt.homosexual links still work. I thought they were defunct. So I’m going to provide the bare bones of what Wade did, with some links.

1. Wade created a website in, I think, the year 2000. He called the website CSSAD – Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders. On the website, he consistently used the word “we” as if the “center” consisted of numerous individuals who had devoted quite a bit of time studying the topic. In reality, the “center” consisted of one person – Wade.
Wade advertised his website on a board made for homosexuals, at alt.homosexual. This is what the advertisement said:

Hello,
Please visit the Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders
where you can become involved in the new discussion on such disorders
as homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. The web
address is:
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/sad.htm
Let me know what you think (either here or there).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.homo ... %26hl%3Den
2. As in the advertisement, the home page of his website, which is no longer available, listed homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia as the “disorders” being studied and discussed.
3. A poster named sparky helpfully provided links to the threads on alt.homosexual wherein Wade was discussing his website with the gay posters. http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8619?page=11 You do have to sign in for the link to work. If you do not have an account, here are the alt.homosexual links:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=1&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=2&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=9&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... m=15&hl=en

On these threads, one poster responded quite positively to Wade. This anti-gay poster was named “peter cointreau”, and heavily laced his posts with references to anal sex and feces. The gay posters objected to Wade’s presentation, which included statements like this:

I am thinking about starting a Center for the study of Sexual
Attraction Disorders (SAD), where papers and discussions can be had as
to whether or not such a disorder exists, and if it does exist, what
evidence is there for its existence, what forms does it take (i.e.
homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc.), how
prevelent is it, what may be its cause(s), can it be corrected, and if
so, how, etc.

Despite repeatedly linking homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, Wade also repeatedly lectured the posters on “civil” dialogue.

Productive civic dialogue is, in part, a function
of simply and accurately framing the issues. And,
the simple and accurate framing of issues is, in
part, a function of exacting and descriptive
terminology.
With these axioms in mind, may I suggest
abandoning the use of the relatively non-descript
terms like "gay" and "lesbian", and use instead
the more exacting and descriptive term "SAD",
which stands for Sexual Attraction Disorder.
Try it out and see if it doesn't help better
frame the issues and make civic dialogue more
productive.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once again, I ask you: if a poster created a website called CINNRS, or CULTS, and then listed Mormonism along with the other groups I referenced – suicidal, homicidal, or sexually predatory groups – and went to a Mormon board advertising this website and inviting discussion – what would the reaction of LDS be? And if those same LDS discovered the “center” consisted of that sole person, what would their reaction be? And if those same LDS discovered a decade-long obsession with this topic, what would their reaction be?

Note the extreme irony in Wade’s words:

Productive civic dialogue is, in part, a function
of simply and accurately framing the issues. And,
the simple and accurate framing of issues is, in
part, a function of exacting and descriptive
terminology.

So, in Wade’s world, I could engage in productive, civil dialogue by accurately framing the Mormon issue with the websites CINNRS or CULTS. What do you think?

[_beastie]

If Wade really did that, he's nuts. But then I'd probably need to hear his side of the story first.

I’m suffering from insomnia tonight, so found some old links. Surprisingly, I believe the alt.homosexual links still work. I thought they were defunct. So I’m going to provide the bare bones of what Wade did, with some links.

1. Wade created a website in, I think, the year 2000. He called the website CSSAD – Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders. On the website, he consistently used the word “we” as if the “center” consisted of numerous individuals who had devoted quite a bit of time studying the topic. In reality, the “center” consisted of one person – Wade.
Wade advertised his website on a board made for homosexuals, at alt.homosexual. This is what the advertisement said:

Hello,
Please visit the Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders
where you can become involved in the new discussion on such disorders
as homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. The web
address is:
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/sad.htm
Let me know what you think (either here or there).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.homo ... %26hl%3Den
2. As in the advertisement, the home page of his website, which is no longer available, listed homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia as the “disorders” being studied and discussed.
3. A poster named sparky helpfully provided links to the threads on alt.homosexual wherein Wade was discussing his website with the gay posters. http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8619?page=11 You do have to sign in for the link to work. If you do not have an account, here are the alt.homosexual links:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=1&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=2&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... um=9&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... m=15&hl=en

On these threads, one poster responded quite positively to Wade. This anti-gay poster was named “peter cointreau”, and heavily laced his posts with references to anal sex and feces. The gay posters objected to Wade’s presentation, which included statements like this:

I am thinking about starting a Center for the study of Sexual
Attraction Disorders (SAD), where papers and discussions can be had as
to whether or not such a disorder exists, and if it does exist, what
evidence is there for its existence, what forms does it take (i.e.
homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc.), how
prevelent is it, what may be its cause(s), can it be corrected, and if
so, how, etc.

Despite repeatedly linking homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, Wade also repeatedly lectured the posters on “civil” dialogue.

Productive civic dialogue is, in part, a function
of simply and accurately framing the issues. And,
the simple and accurate framing of issues is, in
part, a function of exacting and descriptive
terminology.
With these axioms in mind, may I suggest
abandoning the use of the relatively non-descript
terms like "gay" and "lesbian", and use instead
the more exacting and descriptive term "SAD",
which stands for Sexual Attraction Disorder.
Try it out and see if it doesn't help better
frame the issues and make civic dialogue more
productive.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once again, I ask you: if a poster created a website called CINNRS, or CULTS, and then listed Mormonism along with the other groups I referenced – suicidal, homicidal, or sexually predatory groups – and went to a Mormon board advertising this website and inviting discussion – what would the reaction of LDS be? And if those same LDS discovered the “center” consisted of that sole person, what would their reaction be? And if those same LDS discovered a decade-long obsession with this topic, what would their reaction be?

Note the extreme irony in Wade’s words:

Productive civic dialogue is, in part, a function
of simply and accurately framing the issues. And,
the simple and accurate framing of issues is, in
part, a function of exacting and descriptive
terminology.

So, in Wade’s world, I could engage in productive, civil dialogue by accurately framing the Mormon issue with the websites CINNRS or CULTS. What do you think?

[_beastie]

I can't resist a couple more quotes from alt.homosexual.

Remember, Wade framed his discussion by listing homosexuality along with pedophilia, bestiality, and nerophilia. Posters predictably reacted quite negatively to this. He chastised them for their negative reactions.

I had hoped that we could keep the discussion on an intelligent level.
I am disappointed (though not suprised) that you were not capable of
doing so.

Bye. -Wade Englund-

Again, is this the best you have to offer in the way of a response?
Coming from community that decries bigotry and descrimination, your un-
called for ridicule of me, and your persistent requests that I leave,
certainly reach the hieghts of hypocracy.

Thanks, -Wade-

Wade's website, along with some quotes, was discussed at length on this thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8734?page=1

One of the strangest parts of that discussion was Wade's assertion that homosexual acts do not necessarily indicate homosexual attraction.

[_asbestosman]

One of the strangest parts of that discussion was Wade's assertion that homosexual acts do not necessarily indicate homosexual attraction.

I'm not going to pretend that Wade was right in his thinking, but I have heard that sometimes homosexual acts are a way to assert dominance rather than a result of homosexual attraction, e.g. prison rape.

[_beastie]

I'm not going to pretend that Wade was right in his thinking, but I have heard that sometimes homosexual acts are a way to assert dominance rather than a result of homosexual attraction, e.g. prison rape.

The context of his comments were in regards to homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

However, even if there is an overlay of other issues - like power, which is a big part of any rape - sexual attraction still has to be part of the equation, at least for a male. A female, of course, can have zero sexual attraction and still be forced into a sex act.

[_asbestosman]

The context of his comments were in regards to homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Seems undeniable to me that it exists there. But then again, so does a lot of stuff.

sexual attraction still has to be part of the equation, at least for a male. A female, of course, can have zero sexual attraction and still be forced into a sex act.

Males can be forced into a sex act in similar fashion to females although not when he is the one asserting dominance. Males can also be stimulated physically without actual attraction or as a result of who knows what with the awkward moment coming when he is not even thinking sexy thoughts. I could be wrong, but I understand that these same prison rapists prefer females like normal heterosexuals once released from incarceration.

That doesn't mean homosexuality is a conscious choice--evidence suggests otherwise at least for the majority of cases.

[_asbestosman]

I don't see anything morally wrong with having sex with a chicken outside of some minor public health concerns. A chicken in this instance is just a biological sex toy.

If someone wants to choke chickens I don't want to know about it. I especially don't want to know if he thinks the KFC catch phrase applies.

[_beastie]

Males can be forced into a sex act in similar fashion to females although not when he is the one asserting dominance. Males can also be stimulated physically without actual attraction or as a result of who knows what with the awkward moment coming when he is not even thinking sexy thoughts. I could be wrong, but I understand that these same prison rapists prefer females like normal heterosexuals once released from incarceration.

Yes, of course men can be raped. That wasn’t the context of Wade’s statement. We were talking about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.

Seems undeniable to me that it exists there. But then again, so does a lot of stuff.

Wade was trying to make the point that the purpose of sex is reproduction. Well, of course. However, it’s just one purpose, not the only purpose by which the normalcy of the sexual act is measured. The reason he belabored this point was to eliminate homosexual sex as being within the possible range of “normal” sex, in terms of, as he specified here, “most all of the animal kingdom”.

(quotes from the linked Z thread)

Wade

Also, the QUESTIONS were intentionally designed to address general notions that applied across the board for most all of the animal kingdom, and not just to humans. They also were in referance to sexual ATTRACTIONS, and not to sexual behavior.

I posted as seven of niine, and this was the information I shared with wade:

Seven of niine

Wade,

Are you unaware of the fact that masturbation and homosexuality are common in the animal kingdom? What have you read on this subject?

www.blockbonobofoundation.org/

meet the bonobos


Quote:
________________________________________
Females are in heat for three-quarters of their cycle, and many of them copulate even when not in heat, a sexual pattern more like human females than that of any other mammal. Though common chimpanzees only partake in basic reproductive sex, bonobos share all kinds of sexual pleasures, including cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, massage, bisexuality, incest, body-licking, sex in different positions, group sex, and lots of long, deep, wet, soulful, French kissing.
________________________________________



Quote:
________________________________________
But that's not all that makes our kissin cousins, the bonobos, so worthy of our attentionworthy enough to be our official mascots here at the Dr. Susan Block Institute (we even call our staff the "Bonobo Gang" . Its not just how they have sex, but how they use sex-- to maintain friendly relationships, to ease stress (e.g., don't be nervous, come here and sit on my face), as a form of commercial exchange (e.g., Ill give you a blowjob if you give me a banana), and to reduce violent conflict. That is, they seem to use sex to make peace. And that, in a coconut shell, is why we love bonobos.
________________________________________


The page is well worth the read. Sex works quite well for the bonobo, supporting my private opinion that if more people engaged in healthy, enthusiastic sex, we'd have less war and hatred in this world.

Wade:

I was aware of instances of homosexual-like BEHAVIOIR among a select few animals. Can you provide documentation that demonstrates that the homosexual ATTRACTION is "common in the animal Kingdom" (hint: the web material you quoted does not qualify)?

Wade was determined to not admit that homosexuality – including the desire for sex with the same sex – exists in the animal world. He wanted to pretend that all these sexual interactions between animals such as bonobos were the equivalent of a dog humping a leg. It was sheer denial.

Interestingly, even more evidence has accumulated since that exchange of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The gay male penguins raising their chick is a recent one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31123391/

Anyway, this point isn’t the main reason I shared Wade’s history, I just thought it was a good example of his capacity for denial.

[_Daniel2]

My interest (not to be confused with "obsessed") is in helping to avert further degredation of social morays and to protect the foundational institution of society from devolution so as to provide a better future for our children.

Unless, God forbid, your children happen to be gay.

Or... unless the parents of the children in question happen to be gay.

I struggle to understand how people can fight marriage for LGBT couples raising children (thereby undermining the stability of such families) while proclaiming that they are actually "providing a better future for our children." To quote a familiar refrain, "The thought makes reason stare."

Darin
(oh, and: yep... my appearance here also coincides with MAD's moritorium on the topic of homosexuality... though I'm not a latent about it, at all! ;) )

[_harmony]

Or... unless the parents of the children in question happen to be gay.

I struggle to understand how people can fight marriage for LGBT couples raising children (thereby undermining the stability of such families) while proclaiming that they are actually "providing a better future for our children." To quote a familiar refrain, "The thought makes reason stare."

Darin
(oh, and: yep... my appearance here also coincides with MAD's moritorium on the topic of homosexuality... though I'm not a latent about it, at all! ;) )

I think the issue is the possessive pronoun "our".

If the thinking is that homes of gay couples, whether married or not, are tainted, the children of those couples would perhaps be better off not in those homes.

I'm not sure the thinking you mention has anything to do with reason.