Who is Wade Englund?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Since access to Kevin Graham's wonderful site, "Mormon Think Tank," has been limited lately, on account of FAIR's shenanigans, many have perhaps missed the opporunity to learn about the Wonderful World of Wade Englund.

Who is Wade? you may ask. Well, Wade is a friendly apologist who enjoys flying airplanes and kayaking in his spare time. He is also the founder, president, trustee, CEO, and apparently the only member of an organization called "The Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders." Wade describes this center as a "quasi organization" that is meant to "re-frame many of the confounded and convoluted issues surrounding homosexuality" and to place them on "intellectula [sic] common ground."

So what does this mean for us? Does Wade manage to establish himself as a top-dawg in the realm of the gay activism debate? See for yourself:

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/sad.htm

What's most noteworthy about Wade's approach is his insistence upon using a "lock and key" metaphor to discuss human sexuality. Observe:
The sexual attraction disorders, and sexual disorders, delineated

1. Given what has been established above, do you agree that homosexuality is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike two keys, or two locks, trying to unlock each other)?
2. If not, why not?
3. Given what has been established above, do you agree that pedophilia is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a large key trying to unlock a small or undeveloped key, or a large key trying to unlock a small or undeveloped lock, or vice-versa)?
4. If not, why not?
5. Given what has been established above, do you agree that bestiality is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a house key trying to unlock a car)?
6. If not, why not?
7. Given what has been established above, do you agree that necrophilia is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a key trying to unlock a permanently broken or destroyed lock or key, or vice-versa)?
8. If not, why not?
(bold emphasis ibid.)

In case anyone is interested, Wade has also issued a "call for papers," though it is unclear whether he has received any yet. Further---just in case anyone is interested---the ironically named FAIRboard has been quite impressed with Wade's apologetic work, and even saw fit to crown him with one of their "Liahona" awards. It is this, apparently, which prevents Wade from criticizing the MB which kicked him to the curb. Or into his kayak. Or whatever.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Well Wade, I might concede those points if you'd concede that an old heterosexual couple that is still attracted to each other has a sexual attraction disorder (the woman in menaupause) not unlike a key with a permanently broken lock.

Go ahead and add other infertility problems to that list and call them sexual attraction disorders too. And what about being attracted to a lock that is pregnant--I mean that is currently unavailable for the next 9 months?

Wade, is it a sexual disorder if a brother and sister key and lock are attracted to each other? What if they're both developed? What if they're married to another lock and key?

Is it wrong for one key to open different locks? What if the old lock got a divor--I mean moved away? What if the old lock died?
Last edited by Analytics on Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Wade, it looks like you are becoming a popular fellow around here. What's all this stuff regarding spelling about?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

one insight

Post by _beastie »

I missed this until someone else referenced it, but wade stated on Kevin's board that he has been diagnosed with dyslexia and an auditory processing problem.
You are making a common mistake in assuming that one's imperfect spelling is an indicator of level of education. It isn't. As a special educator, I can assure you that poor spelling is often a function of learning disabilities, and is no more an indicator of IQ or level of education than dyslexia and auditory processing issues (both of which I have been diagnoses as having).
http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewto ... sabilities

While wade is correct that poor spelling has no correlation to intelligence, an auditory processing problem certainly affects verbal comprehension, including reading comprehension. This does help me understand some of Wade's behavior and responses.
What are the symptoms of possible auditory processing difficulty?

Children with auditory processing difficulty typically have normal hearing and intelligence. However, they have also been observed to

* Have trouble paying attention to and remembering information presented orally
* Have problems carrying out multistep directions
* Have poor listening skills
* Need more time to process information
* Have low academic performance
* Have behavior problems
* Have language difficulty (e.g., they confuse syllable sequences and have problems developing vocabulary and understanding language)
* Have difficulty with reading, comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/auditory.asp
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Who is Wade Englund?

Post by _wenglund »

Mister Scratch wrote:Since access to Kevin Graham's wonderful site, "Mormon Think Tank," has been limited lately, on account of FAIR's shenanigans, many have perhaps missed the opporunity to learn about the Wonderful World of Wade Englund.

Who is Wade? you may ask. Well, Wade is a friendly apologist who enjoys flying airplanes and kayaking in his spare time. He is also the founder, president, trustee, CEO, and apparently the only member of an organization called "The Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders." Wade describes this center as a "quasi organization" that is meant to "re-frame many of the confounded and convoluted issues surrounding homosexuality" and to place them on "intellectula [sic] common ground."

So what does this mean for us? Does Wade manage to establish himself as a top-dawg in the realm of the gay activism debate? See for yourself:

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/sad.htm

What's most noteworthy about Wade's approach is his insistence upon using a "lock and key" metaphor to discuss human sexuality. Observe:



The sexual attraction disorders, and sexual disorders, delineated

1. Given what has been established above, do you agree that homosexuality is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike two keys, or two locks, trying to unlock each other)?
2. If not, why not?
3. Given what has been established above, do you agree that pedophilia is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a large key trying to unlock a small or undeveloped key, or a large key trying to unlock a small or undeveloped lock, or vice-versa)?
4. If not, why not?
5. Given what has been established above, do you agree that bestiality is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a house key trying to unlock a car)?
6. If not, why not?
7. Given what has been established above, do you agree that necrophilia is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike a key trying to unlock a permanently broken or destroyed lock or key, or vice-versa)?
8. If not, why not?
(bold emphasis ibid.)

In case anyone is interested, Wade has also issued a "call for papers," though it is unclear whether he has received any yet. Further---just in case anyone is interested---the ironically named FAIRboard has been quite impressed with Wade's apologetic work, and even saw fit to crown him with one of their "Liahona" awards. It is this, apparently, which prevents Wade from criticizing the MB which kicked him to the curb. Or into his kayak. Or whatever.


I welcome the scrutiny, and I would hope that if there are those who may wish to challenge what I say, that they actually address what I day, and do so reasonably. Simply tossing out the canard of "homophobe", while a cheap trick of gay activists and supporters, won't suffice.

May I also suggest numerous other online material authored by me (See: my home page. Contrary to what Scratch may imply, my one-page article, written more than a half-decade ago, that comprises the CSSAD, does not give much of a perspective of me. It would be like reading Scratches banal FAIR blog and getting a measure of the man therefrom.

On that website you might find where (particularly my apologetic page), contrary to Scratches current claim, I explicitly declared that I had left apologetics (over a year and a half ago), and so it would be incorrect to now consider me an apologist.

Anyway, also contrary to Scratches flawwed mind-reading, my lack of criticism of FAIR is not because of my "Laihona" award that I was given nearly a decade ago, but because I, unlike Scratch, prefer personal accountability, and for the most part reasonable and fair and positive views of others--particularly those who don't personally attack me or my faith, and I wish to avoid being reactionary, judgemental, gossipy, back-biting, teeth-gnashing, conspiratorializing, whining and complaining, and other dysfunctional and/or self-discrediting behaviors embraced at MTT and Scratch's blog. ;-)


But, I am amused and delighted that Scratch and others would take such a personal interest in me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

asbestosman wrote:Well Wade, I might concede those points if you'd concede that an old heterosexual couple that is still attracted to each other has a sexual attraction disorder (the woman in menaupause) not unlike a key with a permanently broken lock.
If you are talking about impotence, then it is not uncommon for men and women to be sexually attracted, yet for psychological or physiological reasons, their sexual "plumbing" may not perform. That is not a sexual attraction disorder, but a "plumbing problem". So, the key analogy doesn't exactly apply.

Now, in cases where there is no sexual attraction, I don't consider that as a disorder or as an order because by defintion, there needs to be some level of attraction in order to be classified one way or the other. If we use the Key/lock analogy, it is like saying that there is no key or lock. Having no key or lock doesn't fit the catagory of disorder (where the key and lock are caused to be used in ways that defy their evident design and function and purpose) nor can it be classified as ordered (where the key and lock are caused to be used in ways that are consistent with their evident designed and function and purpose). There is no causation one way or the other.
Go ahead and add other infertility problems to that list and call them sexual attraction disorders too.
They wouldn't logically fit. Other infertility problems are not a result of sexual attraction (disordered or otherwise).
And what about being attracted to a lock that is pregnant--I mean that is currently unavailable for the next 9 months?
No. (see above)
Wade, is it a sexual disorder if a brother and sister key and lock are attracted to each other? What if they're both developed? What if they're married to another lock and key?
No. Those are not SAD's, but issues of social mores and morality.
Is it wrong for one key to open different locks? What if the old lock got a divor--I mean moved away? What if the old lock died?
I choose not to speak to whether it is "wrong" or not (since I intentionally tried to avoid adding moral issues into the mix, and determined to approach the question on a rational basis only), but neither is a SAD. (see above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: one insight

Post by _wenglund »

beastie wrote:I missed this until someone else referenced it, but wade stated on Kevin's board that he has been diagnosed with dyslexia and an auditory processing problem.

You are making a common mistake in assuming that one's imperfect spelling is an indicator of level of education. It isn't. As a special educator, I can assure you that poor spelling is often a function of learning disabilities, and is no more an indicator of IQ or level of education than dyslexia and auditory processing issues (both of which I have been diagnoses as having).


http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewto ... sabilities

While wade is correct that poor spelling has no correlation to intelligence, an auditory processing problem certainly affects verbal comprehension, including reading comprehension. This does help me understand some of Wade's behavior and responses.

What are the symptoms of possible auditory processing difficulty?

Children with auditory processing difficulty typically have normal hearing and intelligence. However, they have also been observed to

* Have trouble paying attention to and remembering information presented orally
* Have problems carrying out multistep directions
* Have poor listening skills
* Need more time to process information
* Have low academic performance
* Have behavior problems
* Have language difficulty (e.g., they confuse syllable sequences and have problems developing vocabulary and understanding language)
* Have difficulty with reading, comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary


http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/auditory.asp


It depends on the nature of the auditory processing issue. Since there are two sides to auditory processing (receiving and sending auditory signals), the issue may be with one side or the other or both. For my part, the issue isn't so much on the receiving end. In other words, I don't have issues with reading comprehension--as my test proved out (I scored very high there), though I do have some minor issues with hearing (not to be confused with listening issue), but my processing issues more affect the sending side. While I can process large and sophisticated chuck of information in rapid succession, it takes me an inordinate length of time to express myself (which is more evident when I speak than when I write--since the reader is often unaware of how long it take for me to write something), and the expressions are often unusual in their phraseology, dyslexic in nature, and spiced with spelling errors.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

wenglund wrote:
asbestosman wrote:Well Wade, I might concede those points if you'd concede that an old heterosexual couple that is still attracted to each other has a sexual attraction disorder (the woman in menaupause) not unlike a key with a permanently broken lock.
If you are talking about impotence, then it is not uncommon for men and women to be sexually attracted, yet for psychological or physiological reasons, their sexual "plumbing" may not perform. That is not a sexual attraction disorder, but a "plumbing problem". So, the key analogy doesn't exactly apply.
Then why isn't necrophilia a plumbing problem?

If someone's spouse apears to be too young to reproduce but is actually fully developed and capable of producing children, is that a sexual attractoin disorder?

What is the objective difference between a plumbing problem and a sexual attraction disorder?

If you are not approaching the question on the basis of whether or not is it wrong, then why should a sexual attraction disorder be fixed any more than someone who has synesthesia?

Why does bearing children have to be the purpose of the key and lock? Why can't it be companionship and fun? Two keys and two locks seem perfectly capable of the latter. Now if you're talking about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I'd agree. So is drinking tea. (Well, they're sins for those who make promises not to anyhow).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

re

Post by _beastie »

It depends on the nature of the auditory processing issue. Since there are two sides to auditory processing (receiving and sending auditory signals), the issue may be with one side or the other or both. For my part, the issue isn't so much on the receiving end. In other words, I don't have issues with reading comprehension--as my test proved out (I scored very high there), though I do have some minor issues with hearing (not to be confused with listening issue), but my processing issues more affect the sending side. While I can process large and sophisticated chuck of information in rapid succession, it takes me an inordinate length of time to express myself (which is more evident when I speak than when I write--since the reader is often unaware of how long it take for me to write something), and the expressions are often unusual in their phraseology, dyslexic in nature, and spiced with spelling errors.


Whatever your tests may have said, you have pretty consistently demonstrated difficulty processing other people's comments on these boards. You are particularly resistant to those comments when they address your OWN comments, which, as you now point out, took you a very long time to produce. I suspect that due to the fact you have taken a very long time to write your comments/web pages, you have a very large emotional investment in the results, and have difficulty processing critical or analytical comments of others regarding those results. This probably heightens your disability and produces the blocks the rest of us see very clearly.

Given the fact that you know you have disabilities which may realistically affect your performance in verbal areas, I suggest keeping an open mind in regards to the suggestions others give, and a dose of humility as well. So far, you have instead demonstrating an extremely defensive posture and relied on finding "something wrong" with your critics instead.

Not that I expect you to actually process this beyond a superficial level, due to the very issues I just outlined, but it has helped me understand your past behaviors.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Over on MTT, I posted some more of Wade's sexual attraction disorders that Mister Scratch didn't see the first time:

9. Given what has been established above, do you agree that blow-up dolls are a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a balloon)?
10. If not, why not?
11. Given what has been established above, do you agree that fellatio is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into your mouth)?
12. If not, why not?
13. Given what has been established above, do you agree that condom use is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a balloon over a key)?
14. If not, why not?
15. Given what has been established above, do you agree that abstinence is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike refusing to put a key into a lock)?
16. If not, why not?
17. Given what has been established above, do you agree that birth control is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a lock but refusing to turn it)?
18. If not, why not?
19. Given what has been established above, do you agree that frigidity is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into a rusted lock)?
20. If not, why not?
21. Given what has been established above, do you agree that sex with the elderly is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting a key into an antique lock)?
22. If not, why not?
23. Given what has been established above, do you agree that cunnilingus is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike putting your tongue into a lock)?
24. If not, why not?
25. Given what has been established above, do you agree that Will Schryver's favorite topic, the circle jerk, is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike standing around pulling each other's keys)?
26. If not, why not?
27. Given what has been established above, do you agree that ejaculation is a sexual attraction disorder (not unlike spraying WD-40 into a lock)?
28. If not, why not?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply