To: pierre@virtualcity.com


Search
for

Get a Search Engine For Your Web Site

Search This Site Via Google:

This free script provided by JavaScript Kit


This Page Is For Printing Purposes: Part B - Part A
Go To Title Page For Access To Interlinked Sections

THE HOMOSEXUALITY FACTOR

IN SOCIAL VIOLENCE

Presented to
The Action Committee Against Violence
City of Calgary

Pierre J Tremblay  -  Copyright, 1992, 2000


A Serious Problem With Professionals

The part of gay history related to psychiatry and psychology contain a strong warning. Great caution is advised with respect to anything produced by these professionals, even if they happen to be gay. For similar reasons, women should beware, even though there are exceptions to the rule. Freud was such an exception because he had believed women who reported having been sexually abused, mostly by their fathers and stepfathers. In 1896, he orally presented a paper on the subject to his colleagues who told him that he would be ruined if his ideas were published (57: 9-10). He did and psychiatrists then treated him as if he "was losing his grip on reality" (57: 135) because he "was at odds with the entire climate of German medical thinking" (57: 137).

The great lesson to be learned from Freud's experience is related to the collective almost always winning out over the individual. To be acceptable, or be great and successful, and to make money, any truth to be denied is not to be spoken. As it was so well embodied in the title of Dr. Alice Miller's third book, the unspoken commandment has been "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE." Although this was highlighted with respect to the sexual abuse of children, it applies to almost every significant sexual reality targeted for understanding by psychiatrists and psychologists during this century.

Freud is great because he taught us that the denial of truth is not only rewarded, but that it may even be used as a form of therapy. Up to the 1970s, the traditional treatment given to women reporting sexual abuse as children was have them deny the experienced reality. Basically, the denial of truth was the cure for their psychiatric problems and the therapy was made possible by a widely accepted theory Freud published in 1905. All little girls apparently wanted to be sexually penetrated by their fathers (or stepfathers) and, because some little girls desperately wanted this, they had related fantasies and grew up believing that their fantasies had been real events.

The denial - or destruction - of truth has been an important part of the history of psychiatry and psychology, but Freud didn't deny all truths. For example, he kept the idea that all males are at least bisexual, as I recognized to be a fact of life as a child, and there is considerable anthropological knowledge supporting the conclusion. This truth, however, was to also to be destroyed, and the feat was accomplished by psychiatrists after Freud died because our society has believed that homosexuality should not exist; for some people, it must not exist! It was therefore very important that bisexuality not be as common as Freud asserted, and many were probably hoping for bisexuality's non-existence.

From the 1930s to the 1960s, a psychiatric war had been intensifying against homosexuality, leading to the formal "mental disorder" label for homosexuals in the early 1950s, and to cures for homosexuality. Attempting such cures, however, was against Freud's advice. He believed that society should accept homosexuals, that they were not mentally disordered, and that professionals should not seek to cure them because it was not possible. According to Lewes (1988), psychiatrists proposing cures for - the destruction of - homosexuals were essentially "hate-mongering" individuals as rendered in their writings (50: 116).

Well known psychiatrists described homosexuals in every negative term imaginable, such as accusing "passive homosexuals" of "trying to extinguish the race," thus justifying society's "violent feelings towards him and... [society therefore] taking steps against him" (50: 115). Homosexual males were compared to the Nazis by one psychiatrist (50: 116) and another went as far as comparing the Nazi hatred for the Jews to the homosexuals "'notorious' hatred for women" (50: 149). Another psychiatrist firmly believed homosexuals to be involved in a "conspiracy" and that homosexuals recruited children (50: 154). As these accusations were being published, psychiatrists who may have objected to such "unprofessional conduct" remained silent; Lewes deemed this to be "shocking" (50: 114) and "entirely antithetical to the ethical basis of psychoanalysis as a humane discipline" (50: 116).

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, evil feminists were demonstrating against all the abuses men inflicted on females, and they were also documenting the reality of child sexual abuse. This was the first significant attack on psychiatrists who had been denying an important reality and it soon led to the general acceptance of yet another common male abuse of females beginning at a very young age: child sexual abuse. Gay males and lesbians were also demonstrating against psychiatrists in very direct ways. They were requesting an investigation of THE FACTS and wanted psychiatrists to end their general blind acceptance of homosexuality-related information and ideas produced by the hate-mongering psychiatrists who had effectively guided the policies of psychiatric and psychological organizations.

Since the 1930s, psychiatrists had embarked on a mission to destroy homosexuals but Kinsey (1948) had put a kink in their objective. His extensive data revealed that 37 percent of males reported having had sex to orgasm with a male, and that another 13 percent had related desires not yet acted on. This admission rate could have been used to validate Freud's belief in universal human "bisexuality" but the opposite occurred. Not one professional stated something like: Given the high level of homohatred in our society - probably producing high levels of lying, denial, and repression - having 50 percent of males admit to such a taboo self-reality is an incredible accomplishment because it was well known that such an unwelcome reality could be totally repressed. Kinsey had therefore established the degree to which males may be repressing the "homosexual" component of Self, but this conceptualization of the situation was ignored.

The professional discourse CENTERED on destroying Freud's bisexuality theory and professionals like Ovesey (1955) participated in the process. He managed to change Freud's "homosexual anxiety" to "pseudohomosexual anxiety" (54: 15). The message was: Yes, men do have homosexual fantasies but it doesn't mean they are homosexual in any way. These fantasies simply represent other conflicts being expressed in sexual language. Later, similar logic would be used to fabricate the Rape is not a sexual act! ideology. Apparently, rape is only the expression of other non-sexual problems.

With this new conceptualization of apparently non-sexual sexual activities and manifested desires producing intense orgasms for males, a proverbial "killing of two birds - two truths - with one stone" was being accomplished, and it produced gems like Nancy Friday's 1980 book MEN IN LOVE. Its subtitle, "Men's Sexual Fantasies. The Triumph of Love Over Rage " embodied the revelation that "RAGE" - reflecting an intense hatred for women - was the rule in male sexual fantasies, but that men's [assumed] love for women somehow triumphs! Yet, if we tallied all acts of hatred men have inflicted on women over the centuries, such as wife battery and rape, other rapes, various sexual abuses, plus all of men's social, legal, and religious abuses of women, a state of near insanity would be required to conclude: "This is the triumph of love over rage." Furthermore, Friday also made it clear that the numerous males reporting homosexual fantasies, but believing themselves to be 100 percent heterosexuals, were 100 percent heterosexual because such fantasies were insignificant! On the other hand, heterosexual fantasies, representing [normal] desires for women were always significant.

This activity reeks of "heterosexual recruiting" possibly motivated by the belief that male homosexuality in our society should be reduced to a minimum, or maybe even exterminated as a recognized reality. Dr. Marmor (1980) ventured into this direction by giving a high degree of credibility to Ovesey's "pseudohomosexuality" theory without acknowledging the experiences of many gay males. If there is a "pseudo" sexuality possible in our homohating and heterosexist society - characterized by compulsory heterosexuality - it would be the many pseudoheterosexualities I and others gay males have experienced, and the heterosexualities of other males described in this document. Being apparently unaware of this fact, Marmor noted that the Kinsey data obviously refutes Freud's bisexuality theory because the homosexual element existed in only 50 percent of Kinsey's large male sample (54: 14-15). To make this conclusion, however, Marmor had ignored the obvious. The 50 percent was an admission rate and a body of psychiatric knowledge would define the 50% to be a minimum. Therefore, Freud had not been proven wrong by the Kinsey data.

By the early 1970s, there were people wanting to know if anything had changed since Kinsey revolutionary research work. Playboy had money to pay for such research and approached the Kinsey Institute. The Institute gave 'a lack of time and human resources' as reasons for refusing (38: XII), but the real reason may have been a wish to avoid repeating the Kinsey study which had almost caused the destruction of the Institute. To this date, the Institute has not repeated such a study, and the American government has also repeatedly refused to allocate money to do a Kinsey-like study, even if the knowledge has been desperately needed to better understand the spread of AIDS. As an alternative, Playboy hired Morton Hunt - a homophobe - to do the work. Such people, however, will inject bias in their research so that, if they feel that homosexuality should not exist, they will somehow create the desired results. This outcome was accomplished with the sampling method used in 1972 when homosexuality was a crime in most American states and it was still deemed to be a mental disorder by psychiatrists. Most gay males at the time were living in fear and in well sealed or guarded closets.

Potential study subjects were telephoned and "asked to participate anonymously in small, private, panel discussions of present trends in American sexual behavior, for the benefit of a group of behavioral researchers." If we now assume ourselves to be a closeted gay male living in terror of being discovered, or even being afraid to discuss sexual matter with strangers, and especially with people from our own city we could be meeting again, we would probably decline the offer and therefore become part of the 80% of people contacted who refused to participate in the study (38: 17). Thus, most homosexuals, and probably most bisexuals, were weeded out of the study sample, as reflected in the results. Only about 11 percent of males reported (admitted to) having sex with a male, compared to Kinsey's 37 percent, and only 1 percent reported being homosexual compared to Kinsey's 10 percent estimated on the basis of the Kinsey's sexual orientation scale (38: 312-313).

The results caused Hunt to have some credibility problems, thus producing an interesting explanation. He first acknowledged the likelihood that "hard-core homosexuals [were] missed," something like "2 percent of the adult population," but this outcome was not deemed important. He then cited a researcher stating that Kinsey's 10 percent should be more like "2 to 3 percent" and Voilà! His one percent was therefore very close to reality! Reading this made Hunt's "agenda" quite transparent and his results would make it almost impossible to conceive the possibility that in some American communities, as discovered by Kinsey, almost all adolescent males were involved in homosexual activities. I was brought up in such a neighborhood, have met other gay males who had similar experiences, and similar information is also reported in studies of gay males. Unfortunately, research even worse than Hunt's endeavor was later produced in Canada and published as The Canada Youth and AIDS Study (1988).

Their wonderful whole-class samples produced a total of 38,000 Canadian youths studied but researchers didn't ask one question about homosexual activity to adolescent males in grades 7, 9, and 11! They only asked anal and oral sex questions to first year college students,, but forgot to solicit the information needed to establish if these sexual activities were heterosexual or homosexual. Furthermore, they only asked college students the question: "Are you heterosexual? Bisexual? Homosexual?"
All researchers familiar with homosexuality know that, for many gay males, the "homosexual" self-label often comes only years after an individual has been engaging in homo-sex. For example, in first year university, and after having had hundreds of homosexual experiences, I would have answered "heterosexual" to their question. Using Kinsey's method, however - given that it is largely based on one's sexual activities and is the most important information needed if researchers are claiming to be concerned about AIDS - would have correctly classified me to be homosexual years before I would have ever accepted the homosexual label. This modern Canadian study therefore reported, with vague apologies, that only one percent of the adolescent male population is homosexual and one percent is bisexual (43: 86-87).

Given such created 'facts' - a delusion - it in no wonder that I discovered educators and other professionals interviewed in 1991 were not looking at any social problem, including youth suicide, in "homosexual" or "repressed homosexual" terms. Who, however, is going to pay for such a gross denial of reality? Who benefits? Who benefited when the sexual abuse of little girls was a denied reality? What was the cure for these women? It was to have them accept that reality was unreal, just like reality denial was also to be the cure for homosexuality. Ditto for the cure women often administered to themselves when they were raped and/or battered by their husbands. Russell (1982) reported that many of these women repress the memory of the event(s) so that it wouldn't interfere with the lie to be believed: they are 'loved' by their husbands. Nancy Friday was also in this category, and so were most female psychiatrists and psychologist of the past.

One of the greatest reality denial occurring in the 1980s, however, is still to be recognized. It was being accomplished by the researchers who were exposing average [self-defined heterosexual] university males to rape pornography. The objective was to document the effect(s) exposure to rape pornography would have on these males because certain social groups, such as feminists and right wing religions, wanted pornography (especially the violent, abusive, and degrading kind) to be banned. The research, carried out in Canada, the United States, and West Germany, always produced one consistent result: average young adult heterosexual male university students are highly sexually stimulated by depictions of men raping women. Therefore, these men are internally rewarded - with sexual stimulation and orgasms - when they see men performing rapes ("unfinished murders") on women.

Schmidt (1975) also reported an interesting result. Some heterosexual males had a very low know thyself level made apparent with his documentation of their responses when they discovered their sexual natures via being highly sexually stimulated while viewing abuse-of-women pornography. They experienced "guilt and dismay that they were stimulated by aggressive sexual activities incompatible with their conscious ideas of sexuality" (84: 359). They had discovered an unwelcome self-reality, and such discoveries do have predictable effects. Many of the studied males would have likely given a "0" rating to their "likelihood of raping a woman" before exposure to rape pornography, but how would they have rated their rape potential after they had acquired more knowledge about their real sexual selves? If they were asked to be honest?

Another result is also expected after men have made self-discoveries at odds with their conscious beliefs about themselves. It is interesting to see wife batterers, for example, increasingly re-label acts of hatred as acts of love, because hating women is a threatening idea with "homosexual" implications, and these men must therefore do everything possible (even if completely illogical) to keep believing they love women when the evidence indicates otherwise. The imperative, however, also produces what researchers call "rape myths," such as believing that "Women want to be raped!" or that "A woman will end up enjoying the rape!" Therefore, as expected, rape pornography researchers reported that, after males were exposed to rape pornography, there was an increase in their beliefs in rape myths. There were also decreases in the penalties these men would give to men convicted of rape! The results, however, would likely be the consequence of more males in the tested samples seeing that they could be rapists and, as batterers and rapists typically do, a woman is to blame when men do such things. Sadly, and on a repeated basis in magazine articles and on television, Canadian researchers like James Check stated that males, after viewing rape pornography, manifested more callous attitudes toward women; their reported likelihood of raping women had also increased. No explanations, however, were given to explain these results, not even in their research papers - except for the insinuation that exposure to rape pornography was responsible for this..

In the end, the only theory to be inadvertently proven by rape-pornography research results was the firm Freudian belief that the average heterosexual male is a sexual sadist, because only males harboring a sadistic sexuality would be highly stimulated by watching films of women being raped. In our society, however, such knowledge - greatly threatening the belief that men love women - comes under the "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE" commandment dominating  the fields of psychiatry and psychology; and it was therefore only a matter of time before social psychologists doing the research would act in accordance to the law. The same law also caused the media - ruled by heterosexual males and closeted gay males often pretending to be heterosexual - to never give front or back page coverage to the discovery: "FREUD CORRECT! AVERAGE HETEROSEXUAL MALES ARE SEXUAL SADISTS! MEN'S LOVE FOR WOMEN MAY BE A LIE!"

Predictably, such knowledge was to be destroyed and I wondered how these socially indoctrinated researchers would be orchestrating the funeral and burial! Their work had been done to find a cause for the "banning porn" advocates who successfully used such research results to increasing the censorship of pornography, including gay pornography! As a gay individual, however, I know that most (all?) gay males would laugh at the suggestion that they became homosexual because they watched gay pornography. Yet, gay sex has traditionally been an infinitely greater taboo - and even a greater evil - than raping a woman ever was. Why then have so many people acquired the notion that males would rape women because they watched pornography?

Pornography (including rape) is a great teacher, but not because it could ever cause a male to rape women. In fact, pornography is only what June Callwood and other feminists noted it to be in the 1985 Canadian book, Women Against Censorship, edited by Varda Burtsyn. Pornography is simply the messenger bringing bad news, and "the bad news" has been the discovery of the type of pornography many men enjoy (given their high sexual stimulation), but the same scenarios (rape to rape-torture and even rape-murder scenarios) may also be present in men's sexual fantasies when masturbating. Furthermore, many men will not tell their wives they are fantasizing about raping her, beating her up, or even killing her (or another woman), when they are pretending to be "making love." A significant numbers of males, however, do make their "rape-of-women" sexual fantasies into reality.

By 1988, the rape pornography researchers had met for a major conference in Montreal and there was a press release titled "Flaws revealed in porn theories" in the Calgary Herald.  There certainly were FLAWS in the research! In fact, everything they had sought to prove was a grand deception! The fact that most heterosexual males were highly sexually stimulated by rape pornography, however, was not a flaw! Nor was their reports of being troubled by the discoveries made about themselves. Sadly, but predictably, most researchers usually did not bother to record such feelings, nor explore this most important aspect of their research work. Yet, the research had produced results duplicating what I had observed from 1981 to 1983 while working at a mine in the Arctic. In the recreation hall, pornography was often viewed, but it had to be ordered and shipped in. When males watched the previews, they would most loudly request the pornography depicting rape or rape-like scenes.

It is tragic that many women, including many feminists, have believed that censoring pornography - or even hiding pornography from view - will somehow lessen the violence and sexual violence so many men have traditionally inflicted on women.  In fact, given all the interrelated factors implicated in men's violence toward women - and there are more of these than the ones  noted in this document - it is likely that violence against women will continue to escalate as reflected in the fact that we now produce about 100 times more serial murderers of women than we did about 50 years ago.

Understanding some of the major reasons why men are violent with women would certainly help, but the best understanding women have produced to date essentially replicates what "prohibition women" understood about men: NOTHING! They had accepted the grand delusion that men battered their wives because they drank alcohol! Now, men sexually-related violence toward women was believed to be caused by viewing pornography. Obviously, the "THOU SHALL NOT BE AWARE" commandment is powerful, especially for women, and it has certainly dominated the twentieth century, especially in the social sciences.

In the war men have traditionally waged against women, as in all wars, the first and most consistent casualty has always been "the truth." Therefore, history is telling us to be vigilant and suspicious of all therapists, even if they are women. What may appear to be "helping someone," especially if human sexuality is involved, may be having the opposite result. These modern horrors, however, will be for the future generation to document and WE will be asked: "How could you have done such horrible things?" By then, maybe, people will understand, and WE will hopefully have stopped repeating our history.
 

Conclusion: Socially Constructed Blindness and Bias.

The gay philosopher and writer, George Santayana, is often quoted to have said that, if we don't know our history and do not learn from it, will be condemned to repeating it: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.". Our recent history is, in fact, riddled with great horrors perpetrated on individuals by "mental health" professionals, and by the societies who created these 'professionals'. It must be said, however, at least for the psychologists and psychiatrists who have collected information about people, that we should appreciate their existence. The information (knowledge?) collected is priceless even though it's often lacking, and even if so little is understood about humans,  especially if the understanding sought would violates acquired social (personal) beliefs.

We still construct a society manifesting very high levels of overt and covert violence against gay people, but women are also paying a very high price for this. All women should be appalled with the male prisons situation: men raping and sexually abusing weaker males apparently "because" women are not available to them. They should also be troubled by the fact that males who are "like females" are being insulted, abused, and even physically assaulted as children and adolescents, and that they are likely to also be assaulted (maybe murdered) as adults. Yet, women have generally (totally?) been silent about this, almost as if they were rendered incapable of seeing that these acts are rooted in men's hatred for women. The great enigma and tragedy, however, is to observe women degrading men who are female-like. These women are probably manifesting a self-hatred which has not yet been recognized (nor studied for its monumental implications) by social scientists.

Without doubt, gay and lesbian youth need help, but silence has dominated the issue. These youth should be given an education needed to help them accept their sexual orientation, but educators have other concerns. They generally recognize that help is needed but they follow the socially learned imperative in a homohating society. They will do everything possible, at least at the passive aggression level, to harm (destroy?) gay youth. They therefore commonly pretend not to see the hatred, self hatred, the homophobia related violence, and even the suicide problems, thus guaranteeing one hate-related outcome: a maximum casualty status for the hated ones. Their highly destructive operating principle, however, can be ferreted out, as researchers in education discovered when daring to formally study the gay and lesbian youth problem in the world of education. Harbeck (1992) reports on the chilling reality these professionals experienced, and the fear they were (are?) experiencing.

All too often, both the scholars who might have undertaken such studies ant the potential participants in that research have been dissuaded by threats to their tenure, promotion, reputation, and personal safety ... [Former researchers] spoke of the hardship they had to endure once their research had been published, including one's threatened loss of custody of her children during a bitter divorce. Every contributor to this volume is aware of the potential professional and personal harm that might result in being affiliated with a homosexuality and education project. (33: 2)
If women were to study what was done to homosexual people in the 1960s, only one conclusion would result. Politicians, church leaders, psychologists, psychiatrists, educators, parents, the police, movie makers, the anti-sissy boys WE created, etc. - including the murderers of homosexual males - were all working collectively according to a learned prime directive commanding them to maximize the harm being done (even destroy) the ones they were taught to hate. Unfortunately, our society is still very sexist, meaning that women are still hated and must also be kept in their place.

With respect to women, history reveals that church leaders, politicians, the police, psychiatrists, psychologists, wife batterers and rapists, other rapists, men who just slapped their wives now and then - and most women themselves - all work collectively to keep women in their place. The most interesting observation made while growing up, however, was that men (including adolescent males) had many ways of telling each other they were behaving as expected. Therefore, as much as their abuses of homosexual males was not an accident, the same applied for their abuses of women. My grandfather, for example, had told his son not to marry my mother because she was educated and she could therefore dump him if she didn't like what was to be inflicted on her. By the age of 67, however, she had divorced him. Another woman, referring to her educated status, reports that "there weren't too many men who would put up with a woman like me in those days. They didn't want any independent women ... It was better to live with him than not having married at all ... He beat me right up to the end [his death] you know" (90: 182).

As a young boy I did not like The Male Collective, but enormous social pressures - with penalties - were being applied to produce conformity, or at least to pretend I was conforming. Nonetheless, I kept my sensitivity like more males have been doing, and some of them have been writing (as traitors to the male race?) about their observations, experiences, and their questions. Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey (1990) offer the following insights:

The ultimate proof of power / masculinity is violence. (47: 10).

Violence is the accepted masculine form of conflict resolution. Women at this time are not powerful enough in the world situation for us to see mass overt violence being waged against them. But the violence is in fact there; it is hidden through its legitimization by the state and by culture. (47: 11)

The situation in a working-class tavern is described:
Gayness is never defended.  In fact, the worst thing you can call a man is homosexual. A man so attacked must either fight or leave the bar. Notice the importance of violence in defending 'yourself against the charge of being a 'pansy.' Referring to your income or academic degrees or size of your car is no defense against such a charge. only fighting will establish your respect as a masculine male. Because 'gay' appears to mean 'powerless,' one needs to go to the masculine source of power - violence - for adequate defense ... In prison, for example, men can be respected if they fuck other men, but not if they are themselves fucked. (47: 12)

But for a man to be entered sexually, or to use effeminate gestures and actions, is to invite attack in prison and hostility outside. Effeminate gay males are at the bottom of the totem pole because they are most like women, which is nothing less than treachery to the Masculine Cause. Even many gay men shudder at drag queens and vigilantly guard against certain mannerisms because they, too, have internalized the masculine dread of effeminacy ... A ticket to admission to masculinity, then, is sex with women ... Exclusively gay men let down the Masculine Cause in a very important way - those gays do not participate in the control of women through sexuality. Control through sexuality matters because it is flexible; it usually is mixed with love and dependency so that it becomes quite subtle. (47: 13)

Lawrence J. Cohen (1990) reflects on only one of the ways men speak to each other about The Prime Directive in The Masks of Rape:
I was riding an exercise bike in the gym one day, and the man next to me nodded towards a woman across the room.  'She's really fine,' he said, and then added, 'I hope she's not your wife or anything.' It took me two years to figure out what bothered me so much about this comment.  Two years of reading, research and clinical work in the area of rape, incest, sexual stereotypes and male-female interactions.  What I finally figured out was that the second part of this man's statement made it clear that the first part was not a compliment to the woman or even an observation on her physical attractiveness.  Rather, his comment was hostile, an insult, a 'petty rape,' a statement of possession and control. The fact that he had to clear the statement with me, so as to not trespass on another man's possession, was the tip-off that we were both (he by his comment, I by my silence) participating in rape-supportive behavior. The comment by the man in the gym was hard to recognize for what it was because it was disguised as a compliment.  Similarly, but less convincingly, catcalls and pinches and leers wear the mask of compliment. Underneath the mask is a rather hideous face of domination and control of women, of hatred and fear of women Male domination and women-hating wear other masks as well. All of these masks serve to make invisible the face behind the mask. This invisibility succeeds because of the rigidity of our beliefs about the world. (19:21) The major belief is that average males love women.
In men's traditional war against women, however, their most lethal weapon may well be repressed homosexual males who have not only effectively kept homosexual-identified males in their place, but have also been most deadly with women. In this document, many of these monsters have been noted, especially wife batterers and rapists. How difficult, however, would it be to locate wife batterers blatantly reflecting the model presented in this document?

On September 18, 1992, I was at Calgary Gay Lines; a few males were present and the conversation turned to the "Take Back The Night March" ending about a block away. I stated: "Well, at least it's not gay men who are assaulting women." A French Canadian, Martin, was there, waiting to get information for an independent television documentary he was working on. He objected to my statement and responded with: "That's not correct. I know three gay males who were wife batterers because they were in denial that they were homosexual." I looked at him, smiled, thought about how easy it was to obtain such information, and then qualified my statement. Of course, if "X" equals 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6..., we must now ask: "For what percentage of men who are violent with women is repressed homosexuality an associated factor?"

Unfortunately, women can't expect help from professionals to explore this idea, although there would be exceptions to the rule, like there are exceptions with respect to professionals who will dare do something to really help gay and lesbian youth. Tragically, gay males or women can sometimes be their own best enemies and it is sad to see that, since the early 1970s, numerous feminists have gravitated into the denial of truth abyss or black hole, thus duplicating the 1920's feminists event: they were beginning to blame wife battery on the male consumption of alcohol.

For all women who believe they can "see" and even "understand" - and do not believe they were socially indoctrinated to be incapable of seeing or understanding what would threaten men the most - the following exercise is recommended. Observe women in real life, or as depicted on television and in the movies. Use your "imagination" skills to substitute the women with males, while performing the following exercise. All socially constructed female attributes such as long painted fingernails, hair styles, jewelry, make-up, mannerisms, shoes, dress, etc., including how they relate to men which is socially learned, are to be kept. Make an evaluation of these "feminine males" and determine the implications with respect to your own acquired evaluation of self.

If, as a rule, you feel like labeling these men "bimbos," you have been accessing an internal self-evaluation system you were to remain unaware of under the "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE" commandment. You may even be troubled, or offended that the "exercise" request was made, because you think I'm not playing fair. That, maybe, I'm thinking that "being male" is superior to "being female." That, if we were not biased, we would fully accepted women as they are. That "being female" is perfectly acceptable. I don't, however, even accept men as they are, although our professionals did this in a dramatic way.

Scarf (1980) reports on an interesting study done about 20 years ago. A large sample of male and female mental health professionals were studied to determine how they processed mental health information related to men and women. As expected, the mentally healthy male had stereotyped male attributes, and mentally healthy female had stereotyped female attributes. What happened, however, when these professionals were asked to choose the attributes defining a mentally healthy person without any reference to gender? The winners were male attributes and Scarf concluded with: "As far as a general standard of mental health is concerned, the feminine role apparently implies pathology!" (82: 392) This observation essentially replicates men's traditionally beliefs about women, but what else could a man who batters a woman conclude if she keeps believing that be loves her? These men know, however, that WOMEN ARE MADE, NOT BORN. That women were always created so that men could make such conclusions, because men's delusion of supremacy has history been associated with the fabrication of the evidence needed to also confirm their intellectual supremacy relative to women.

Gender roles are social constructions making possible "The world is a stage" Shakespearean truism also recognized by all closeted homosexuals who credibly ACT a role most observers would believe to be real. The task at hand is to now discover and understand the writer(s) of the script(s) so well played out by many male inmates who repeatedly have been confirming the fact that WOMEN ARE MADE, NOT BORN. That "being a woman" - or sex roles - has precious little to do with biology, but everything to do with proper attitudes and behaviors demanded by "dominant" males who were somehow taught the belief that women are inferior to men. Although "being males" is artificial, it is also very REAL. "Being male" is, in fact, as real and deadly as were the Nazis, or the white supremacy intimately associated with enslavement and lynching of Black people in the United States.

Given the facts of the case, Craig Lucas appears to have been correct when asserting that gender related "homophobia and misogyny ... are the same," after he had stated: "The effeminate man has been, and remains, the laughing stock of our movies, our most successful comedians" (49). There was a time when I, like others, laughed at these feminized males, but the laughter stemmed from the highly threatening inner knowledge that "being a woman" is not only a possibility for all males; it is their greatest fear. Therefore, men's often obsessive "Up yours!" and "Shove it!" statements reflect a very conscious awareness of their always possible "anal receptivity." For women, however, the laughter was more restrained but most have lived up to the "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE" commandment. They were not to recognize the message even though they may have been feeling it. As very young boys learn so well, "being anything like a female" is a degraded status. It warrants ridicule, insults, and contempt, thus duplicating men's traditional responses to women. Present-day males have therefore not changed much, except for now lacking their forefather's remarkable honesty. I often advise women desiring to know what a particular man really thinks of women:

Set up a situation where you can observe how he responds to effeminate males. Ask him related questions in a casual way to avoid indicating that an evaluation is taking place. You will then discover how he really feels about women, including you, but men generally deny the conclusion, even when confronted with the facts.
The greatest danger for women and gay males, however, are the researchers (including gay-identified ones) who are attempting to prove that sexual orientation is biologically determined; the quest has always involved the search for evidence that gay males are somehow women. The 'force' fueling this research is the social construction also responsible for the famous gay Magnus Hirshfeld having similar beliefs at the beginning of the twentieth century. History is therefore repeating itself, as driven by a learned obsession acquired at a very young age. We were taught gender roles by adults who failed to note the socially constructed "non-absolute" nature of these roles. Generally, we learned that males (heterosexual males) are all-powerful, and superior to women. Most psychiatrist, psychologists, and parents also have a history of advocating that children who refuse to accept their socially decreed (and enforced) sex roles are in need of therapy, so that they may be cured of their apparent "gender dysphoria" mental disorder! Or failing with such ‘therapeutic’ intervention, others have advocated surgery so that, for example, a feminine boy will be transformed into a biological more female-like human being.

Sadly, the medical profession has a history of abusing gay males, lesbians, and other women, and it has especially been neglectful of female health issues. This reality was not an accident; it is expected (predictable) in a sexist, heterosexist and homophobic society. Such abuses have also been occurring in a society still actively discriminating against women at the wage level. Furthermore, corporations ruled by men have also developed the infamous "glass ceiling" because men may still not want women to share in the power they have traditionally enjoyed. These facts, combined with our great reluctance to treat gay males as equals, even if - like it was done for women - they will be granted formal legal equality with heterosexual males, produces troubling questions. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, still denies women any position of authority, and it also advocates that its members should - must - discriminate against gay people. Yet, it has been estimated that about 30 to 60 percent of priests are homosexuals, thus suggesting the existence of a serious "malignant homosexual" problem in the Roman Catholic Church. The problem may also be intimately related to an intense "hatred of women" problem.

What therefore is the difference between the above, all other abuses of gay males and women, and the work of males who physically assault and kill women and gay males? The difference is certainly not one of kind, but one of degree, much like the general discrimination by Whites Americans against Black American was very fertile ground for the creation of white males who physically assaulted and murdered black people. Is it not obvious that males who discriminate against women - by paying them less than men, or by denying women promotions - are essentially complementing the work being done by men who rape, assault, murder, and rape murder women? All these men are certainly working "to put (keep) women in their place," just like a Calgary heterosexual male employer I worked for revealed when he said that I was acceptable, as a gay male, but only because I was not visibly gay. He then noted that he would never hire a male who was like a woman, and he was also opposed to hiring or training a woman for all the best paying jobs in his company, except for having a female secretary. I quit working for him and later worked for a similar company owned by a gay male, but the situation was worse for women. The same ideology applied except that he only wanted a male to be his secretary.

Gay males can therefore be women's enemies, and this attribute was becoming more noticeable in the late 1970s when gay males who were "like women" were being denied entry into many gay clubs in North America. In most interesting ways, the world ruled by heterosexual males was telling gay males: We'll accept you if you are not visible, and especially if you are not like women! We'll also appreciate you beginning to discriminate against such men in your group. Since then, gay males have been granted more legal equality by the male powers-that-be, the same powers which had not long ago decreed that all homosexuals were criminals and mentally disordered.

Men, including a significant number of gay males,  have behaved in accordance to a learned cultural prime directive similar (identical?} to the one manifested by men who rape, assault, murder, and rape-murder women. What, however, is that great war so many men have been waging against women? As I see the situation, numerous men have essentially been at war with their own inner "feminine" selves, and the war is projected onto women. Generally, men have been obsessive about MAKING women become what men demand them to be - which varies in different cultures - because men need women who closely approximate their own inner woman. Men often tell women: "You are the woman of my dreams!" The statement should read:

You closely resemble the woman existing in my mind: the one I was not able to destroy. Welcome to my nightmare! I need you to act out - sexually - the murder I could never accomplish. I need you to experience the murder-related great sexual experience, as Norman Mailer explored in his novels.
This conceptualization of the situation is reflected in the expression French men have used to describe their "orgasm" experiences: "La petite mort!" For numerous men, however, their orgasms are more like "little murders!" than "little deaths!" thus describing more correctly (in terms of inner, often denied perceptions) what is being done to the "penetrated" females. Heterosexual male orgasms are therefore more like a BIG DEATH, or even "THE ULTIMATE MURDER" so well illustrated by the status of "turned out" males in prison. Unfortunately, as revealed by the "dominant" males and most (all?) heterosexual males, the sexual act appears to be a never-ending repeated MURDER compulsively acted out to possibly maintain what heterosexual males have deemed to be mental health.

The "projection" sex war so many men have waged against women has also intensified over the last 50 years, given that we were producing about one mass/serial murderer of women per decade and that we now produce about one per month. If population increase is corrected for, the production rate of such men has increased by a 50-times factor. Because nothing happens in a vacuum, it would therefore be wise to suspect that the male abuses of females have also increased by about the same factor. Yet, the information produced by professionals, with only rare exceptions, would create the belief that men are now nicer to women than they have ever been. Could this be a LIE? Is it possible that a major illusion has been created in the past 50 years?

It is possible, however, that we are changing - even torturing - data to make it fit the LIES we were indoctrinated to believe, just like our forefathers did when they believed it was the sun moving in the sky, when it was our planet moving relative to the sun. Because of our beliefs, it has been very difficult to recognize that men in prisons who rape and sexually abuse men, because women are not available, do have an intense hatred for women. Difficulties also exist with respect to seeing that men who batter, rape, and murder women also hate women, and we have therefore avoided asking obvious question such as "Who do these men love?" The answers to these questions lie within ourselves and will become apparent when we recognize what is being satisfied when men experience orgasms.

Contrary to popular opinion, understanding the male orgasm is not all that difficult, if we are willing to face reality; this is what all adolescent boys - and adult males - do when they have orgasms. Yet, there is a great male resistance to touch the subject, almost as if there was an important truth to avoid at all cost. This terror has been manifested by men in the sciences, thus producing gems like: "Evolutionary biologists have shied away from tracing orgasm's lineage," or even shied away from discussing orgasms as they now exist. An anthropologist reports his experience among professionals: "I can't remember any serious discussion of male orgasm at all" (92: 56). This is not science, defined to be a quest for knowledge and understanding of all things. Such behavior is therefore the opposite of science: the avoidance of all information (knowledge) potentially threatening the LIES we were taught to accept as truths by our culture. Infortunately, these LIES became an integral part of our identities, thus compelling us to make these LIES into realities.

In North America, The Homosexuality Factor In Social Violence is so evident and significant that it should be almost impossible to not see it. Not long ago, however, a similar blindness also existed with respect to almost all the violence men inflicted on women. As is still the case for gay males, women were generally blamed for being assaulted, raped, and even murdered. Therefore, the fact that the average gay male has been verbally and physically assaulted is not likely to be addressed at any conference on "Social Violence." The same applies to the fact that gay youth continue to experience incredible physical and/or emotional abuse - often leading to suicide - in their families, in school environments, and in society.

Someday, maybe, individuals apparently concerned about Social Violence will recognize their own violent attributes and contributions to the problem given that it is an act of violence against gay people to pretend that the violence they experience does not exist. Tragically, anti-gay violence is not really being addressed (at least not effectively) because, in an unspoken way (spoken by many males), we want this violence to continue as demanded from within. Doing this, however, is unethical, even immoral, and the perpetrators of the violence will pay a heavy price for denying reality, as will the victims of the violence. For women, the price may be that - in great part - the violence men inflict on them will not be understood. Ignorance will therefore continue to guide all proposals to end anti-women violence and all men still working to "keep women in their place" will be happy. Nothing effective will have been done to interfere with their prime directive and violence against women will not only continue but it will likely escalate.

Our minds are socially programmed - even as children - to deny truth, as so many females have done (often with the help of therapists) when they were sexually abused by their fathers or stepfathers. Denying reality (or avoiding it), however, can only impair our ability to understand anything related to our major problems. If we can't see, and therefore cannot understand, we will certainly not solve our problems. Shelters for battered women do not address the cause of battery, much like prisons do not address the causes of criminal activity. Even the covering of porn magazines will only cause boys to desire such items more than they did. As a result, the porn industry will be given a boost, but this development is not the reason why men are violent with women, or why men's violence against women has been increasing.

Men don't degrade, assault, and/or murder women because they were exposed to pornography. Men do this for the same reasons that gay males are degraded, abused, insulted, physically assaulted, and even murdered. For the same reason that white Americans degraded, abused, insulted, physically assaulted, and even murdered people of color. When people acquire a delusion of supremacy - the firm belief that others are inferior to them - whether it has been the lethal supremacy status Roman Catholics manifested when they first came to the Americas, white supremacy, Aryan supremacy, the male supremacy status, the heterosexual male supremacy status, or all other supremacy delusions people have manifested in human history, the results have always been predictable.

What must now be understood at all cost is how men's traditionally learned delusion of supremacy over women - and over all males deemed to be like women - becomes linked to their great internal reward system producing sexual stimulation and orgasm. When we discover this link - which researchers have so conspicuously avoided investigating (at least intelligently) - women may have the information needed to understand the high level of violence men have traditionally inflicted on them and on all males defined to be "like women." Understanding the latter, however, is much easier because average modern males - including many self-hating [homosexual] males - are infinitely more honest with respect to their hatred for men who are "like women" than they would be about their hatred for real women.

Most men now recognize that it is dangerous - not "politically correct" - to admit having acquired an intense hatred for women - except when they are drinking (maybe not so evil) alcohol. To uncover the truth, it is important  to not only be "male," but one must also credibly project being part of "the team" - as done in major spectator sports - and therefore behave appropriately as an integral member of the "I-fuck-women" male collective. The fathers and forefathers of these modern males, however, were much more honest, and using such anthropological techniques were not needed to discover the truth about them. They were so confident that their socially acquired delusion of supremacy was "real" - even granted by a God - that they (including males who would eventually be labeled "saints") openly spoke and wrote about the fact that women were inferior to men in all ways. Women were to be men's slaves, including being men's sex slaves: a dominant theme in heterosexual male pornography. To implement their inner vision of women, men had also enacted laws giving husbands - each other - the legal rights to physically assault and even rape their wives. Furthermore, as the situation once existed for black slaves and even Native people:
Killing wives, men who were like women, or dogs, 
was just not murder.

Epilogue: More Biases and Insights. Repressed Homosexuality Is Not To be Underestimated.

Other "homosexuality" factors in men's traditional violence against women could have been explored in this document, and I may do this someday if the time and the money is available. Important relevant information is located in anthropology papers, sex role research papers and essays, feminist writings, essays about prison life, and even in writings about traditional military training and the high level of sexual aggression - rapes of women - men have traditionally manifested in war situations.

The available information suggests that, in patriarchal societies such as our own, males subjected to the "You are a female!" treatment - whether it be sexual or a nonsexual sublimated version of the same thing - may manifest a high level of aggression and violence; they may also manifest a high likelihood of being violent with women, including rape. Although I have much information related to this phenomenon, more is available, and it would take about 6 months of work to collect, integrate, and present the information.

On August 22, 1992, The Calgary Herald devoted a full page to child sexual abuse, with a focus on four victims who were cycling across Canada to raise money and make people aware of this major social problem. Two important statements were made:

From eating disorders to alcoholism, prostitution to murder, many of society's worst problems and crimes are acted out by people who were molested in childhood.

The four [activists/victims] are convinced that as many as 90 percent of inmates in Canadian penitentiaries were sexually victimized as children (58).

In the 1990 essay Rape: Prisoner of My Sexual Fantasies written by a male victim of paternal anal penetration, the author's highly problematic life is reported to have persisted until he discovered the repressed memory of his sexual abuse. The essay ends with:
Statistics tell us that about 70 percent of battering men either witnessed violence between their parents or were brutalized themselves. I can't prove it, but I know viscerally that most, if not all rapists have been raped themselves (02: 30).
If this is true, it would certainly explain why, in our prison systems, inmates convicted of child sexual abuse have the highest probability of being assaulted, injured, or even killed. For some males, the rage motivating such behavior may be the result of repressed memories of child sexual abuse. Their RAGE may also be similar to the RAGE some male victims of child sexual abuse direct at gay males because they are believed to be the sexual abusers of boys.

It is likely that many of these enraged inmates are also the ones raping and/or sexually abusing physically weaker younger males. Although most people distinguish between an adult male raping a boy, and the same adult male raping another physically weaker (usually younger) adult male, both acts are quite similar. Some of the inmates wanting to kill child sex abusers may not fully recognize their own desires to do something remarkably similar: sexually using and abusing others as they were once used and/or abused.

There are potentially very negative consequences when adult males are raped and/or sexually abused, as many men have done to females of all ages. In this document, only one quotation (p. 23) was used to indicate the likelihood that such abuse may be producing males with a very high potential for violence, especially for being sexually violent with women. Unfortunately, the professional world has avoided the study of these men, mostly because the ones working with inmates have traditionally blamed them for having been raped or sexually used and abused. The victim blaming may also have been more common than it has been for victimized women.

The first group to address the issue of prison rape "People organized to Stop Rape of Imprisoned Persons" was formed in 1979 by Russell D. Smith, "a black prisoner who bad been raped throughout his life in reform school and later in prison." The director of the group, Tom Cahill, who was himself beaten, tortured, and gang-raped in prison, begins his essay with:

U.S. taxpayers are funding a criminal justice industry that is mass-producing rapists among other criminals. more than 26,000 adult males are raped daily in U.S. jails and prisons and even more boys are sexually abused in reform school. And the by-product of prison rape are murder, suicide, AIDS, psychosis and a cycle of violence that is spilling over walls of 'correctional' institutions. The overwhelming majority of males raped behind bars are heterosexual and many victims become rapists themselves in a demented attempt to regain what they consider their 'lost manhood.' If they continue the cycle of violence upon release, they are most likely to victimize women as preferred and easier prey. Thus sexual assault behind bars may be a major root cause for an increasing rape rate of women in free society. It may be the quickest, most cost-effective way of producing a sociopath or even a psychopath (17: 31).
Many male victims of rape and/or sexual abuse as children, adolescents, or adults, have recognized the potential highly destructive consequences of such abuse. Therefore, all people concerned about social violence, and especially about male sexual violence against women, should be listening attentively. They should also be asking important questions and demanding that professionals produce unbiased research in this area.

A major problem, however, is recognized when we scan the research indicating that the psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and social workers entrusted with the task of understanding and addressing social violence issues are generally not equipped with the sexual knowledge (68) needed to begin understanding related problems. They still do not understand the sexualities manifested by men who rape and/or sexually abuse boys and/or men, nor do they understand what the male victims of these socially created homosexualities will become. If many of the male rape victims eventually do to women what was done to them by men, it is possible that their sexual assaults on women are sublimated homosexual acts. Professionals, however, still do not understand how the mind works well enough to even understand why the victims of child sexual abuse are often more angry with their mothers than with the fathers who sexually abused them.

Tragically, the most profound lack of sexual knowledge is related to homosexualities (68), and this state of affairs is related to a professional history of constructing and believing the lies once needed to justify their socially created desire to cure - harm/destroy - homosexual people. They also placed incredible homophobic pressures on the few professionals daring to objectively study homosexuality, and they made sure that the few professionals concerned about gay and lesbian youth would feel threatened, even with respect to their careers. Therefore, much professional time and energy was wasted instead of being used to produced needed knowledge, and here we are in desperate need of understanding homosexualities, especially the homosexualities implicated in many forms of social violence.

At printing time, the results of an important Canadian study carried out by University of Guelph researchers were reported on in the Calgary Herald (December 3, 1992, p. A-15) under the title: Study reveals treatment gap. It was concluded that "male survivors and perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Canada are getting the short shrift when it comes to treatment..." Many reasons are given to explain the problem, ranging from that fact that "two-thirds of treatment professionals are women" who "may be more sensitive to female survivors than to males," to the fact that professionals have been poorly trained. "[L]ess than half of the treatment professionals received specific instruction in child sexual abuse in their professional education."

The problem is also compounded by the fact that most professionals do not have a good education in human sexuality, and they have little to no knowledge about male homosexuality as it now exists, or as it has existed in our culture and in other cultures. Yet, they are the ones dealing with the sexual abuse of boys, which is usually a "homosexual" experience. They are also dealing with the "homosexualities" possibly resulting from this, such as the sexual abuse and rapes of weaker males by "dominant" males in prisons, and the highly abusive corresponding heterosexualities these males may also manifest.

There is much more, however, that professionals must learn if they are to effectively address the results of child, adolescent, and adult sexual abuse and rape in males. They will certainly need a good education about human sexualities from a cross-cultural perspective. Once acquired, they may then eventually realize that, for boys, a good part of the trauma caused by sexual abuse often has little to do with the sexual acts, themselves, but more to do with how these boys were socially educated (indoctrinated) to interpret what happened.

One of the most important factors determining what "dominant" males do in prisons is their social indoctrination. At all cost, they must behave - homosexually - in ways not producing the socially taught dreaded homosexual self-label. What, however, would their homo-sexual behaviors be if they had not been taught a hatred-of-women gender-based homophobia? Would they then be producing so many male rape victims? What about the men who sexually abuse boys? How many of these victims would not exist if their abusers had not been homophobic? If they had perceived men having sex with men to be acceptable?

There are numerous questions to ask, and we now have the knowledge available to answer most of them. Unfortunately, from my studies, it is evident that most professionals dealing with sexual abuse are not equipped with the required sexual knowledge. Furthermore, as it existed not long ago with respect to gay males and lesbians, professionals could also be harming victims of child sexual abuse or rape much more than they are being helped. The help they are apparently receiving (or have received) may also be a deception.

On the surface, what mental health professionals do - labeled "therapy" - may appear to be positive. Not long ago, however, homosexual males and females could be observed crying about their sexual experiences, and they would later be seen joyfully praising therapists for having cured them of their homosexual affliction. Similarly, women who bad been sexually abused by their fathers could also be observed praising therapists for having convinced them that a real event was unreal, thus claiming to be cured of their psychiatric problems, when the opposite had occurred. Psychiatrists and psychologists do not appear to have leaned much from their history, making it likely that their historical blunders will be repeated in new ways, now with respect to many individuals who were sexually abused or raped as children, adolescents, or adults.

Tragically, with respect to the sexual abuse of boys, professionals and the media are now making serious mistakes by linking the criminal activity of these boys to their apparent sexual abuse. The previously noted CBC program, Sunday Morning (p. 21), was doing this. The interviewed boy - a victim of child sexual abuse - was being used to justify "the link," but an exploration of his highly active homosexual sex life in the juvenile detention center was avoided, or censored if it was explored. Typically, these boys have not been revolting against their sex abuser(s), but against all society. Why? What did society do to cause such a significant revolt?

The answer to the enigma may lie in knowledge of so-called "sexual abuse" located in gay communities and gay books. Someday, I may write about the knowledge the experts in child sexual abuse have often rejected or censored. Furthermore, the mainstream media has also refused to explore and report on well documented realities as I discovered in 1991 when I spent six months making related requests to media authorities. Our laws have also been used to destroy a Canadian gay news magazine which dared to address a fact society denies. The operating principle continues to be: "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE!" and we will therefore certainly not solve some (all?) our major problems until we abandon this highly counterproductive and destructive aspect of ourselves.

Our history reveals that ongoing highly critical evaluations of what therapists are doing with clients should be mandatory. With respect to wife battery, for example, feminist professionals have been very critical of mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists. Their common victim-blaming attitudes have been attacked, and the same applies for their neglect of the fact that wife battery occurs within the context of patriarchy. Such criticisms were repeatedly made in FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE edited by Kersti Yllo and Michele Bograd and published by Sage Publications (96). A major theme in this 1988 book is that "power and control" is a fundamental factor in wife battery (96: 19,115, 191,...), but it is also emphasized that "distinctions between 'sexual' and 'physical' assaults are considered false and/or arbitrary..." A "continuum" exists in the sense "that physical, verbal, and sexual coercion and assault are employed by men against women" (96: 115).

Male and female professionals who have a "feminist perspective on wife abuse" present serious challenges to traditional social scientists by suggesting, for example, that scientific "objectivity is the name men have given to their own subjectivity" (96: 36). Considerable evidence - also found in gay history - is available to support this assertion, except that the assumed "objectivity" psychologists and psychiatrists manifested with their acceptance that all homosexual people were "mentally disordered" was not exactly "male subjectivity." It was heterosexual male subjectivity rooted in their socio-religiously learned hatred for homosexuals, and especially for homosexuals who were "sexually passive," or "like women." Therefore, gay males have very good reasons not to trust mainstream social scientists, and feminists have also responded to these professionals in similar ways. One reason for this is explained:

Oddly, when assessing the impact of these [feminist] approaches today, it is sometimes difficult to observe their effect on the current practice of social science. Certainly, critical perspectives such as feminism have made significant inroads in the new academic scholarship, yet much social science, especially in the United States, proceeds as if nothing has changed. (96: 55)
The social science establishment had also attacked feminism. "Feminist perspectives are often dismissed as one-dimensional, biased, irrelevant, extreme, and unworthy of consideration" (96: 65), and the same applies in terms of media's treatment of feminists. "Representatives of the Women's Aid Federations have experienced similar problems in having their vast cumulative experience and expertise often ignored by the media" (96: 68).

Feminist perspectives, like gay perspectives on various socially sensitive issues, are very challenging and often embody remarkable insights, but these new perspectives may not be entirely correct. As a rule, in these minority groups, like in the more mainstream groups, the concept of "being politically correct" applies, even though all these professionals must know, or should know, that being politically correct has generally been very detrimental to the human understanding potential and, therefore, to the solution of problems.

As a rule, feminist scholars who study wife abuse demand that the phenomenon be studied within the context of patriarchy, and that battery be viewed only as one of the ways men implement their power and control over women. I agree with this but, for feminists, the perception causes bias problems such as dismissing "pathological" factors used by some professionals to explain wife battery. As gay history teaches us, however, serious inner personal problems - often resulting from socio-religious indoctrination - may be so common in a society that we can end up believing that gay bashing, wife battery, and the many forms of rape must surely be a heterosexual male plot. Although there is considerable evidence to support this hypothesis, we still must not dismiss the varied socially induced 'pathologies' possibly present in the minds of men committing the worst crimes against women and gay males.

In this document, I not only proposed that "repressed homosexuality" is a significant factor in the minds of some (many? most? all?) wife batterers and rapists, but I also explained how this element can be operating in the minds of these men. Yet, according to feminists, such ideas belong to the "politically unacceptable" Insight Model (96: 178-181). What, however, are these feminist professionals dismissing? A part of the model is presented:

Implicit in this approach is the notion that men have a very fragile sense of self that must be therapeutically bolstered before they can be expected to give up violent and other 'overcompensating' behaviors. This conception of abusive men derives in large part from sex role identity theory that holds that exaggerated, hypermasculine behaviors are rooted in men's unconscious anxiety about the 'psychologically feminine' parts of their personalities (Biller & Borstelman, 1967; Winick 1968) (96: 179).
Although I do not agree with the proposed therapy for these men, the underlying concept is valid, and there is a predictable avoidance of equating an "inner repressed feminine nature" to "a homosexual problem" which should be addressed. The available research nonetheless reveals that for males, if a gender nonconformable (feminine) nature is present (meaning that it is not repressed), the probability is high they have consciously accepted their homosexual desires, will behave accordingly, and will have given themselves the "gay" or "homosexual" label. Unfortunately, feminist and mainstream professionals are probably not equipped with the knowledge needed to produce such insights, and the following conclusion is made:
The fallacy of such explanations is revealed by the fact that many men who are insecure, emotionally dependent, and afraid of intimacy do not batter their wives (96: 180).
In response to this argument, I would say: No, they all don't batter their wives, but gay males who are "coming out," and the ones not even at this stage, do manifest traits like "insecurity" and "emotional dependence." Many will also exhibit hypermasculine attributes as a defense against the inner femininity possibly related to their denied homosexual desires. One of the major problems noted to exist in the gay community has also been "a fear of intimacy?" But how can a person ever be intimate with anyone if they are dominated by socially induced self-hatred? Furthermore, is it really a "fear of intimacy" problem when men manifest the non-love (non-intimate) sexuality they have acquired? Is it a "fear of intimacy" problem when a woman experiences a lack of intimacy with her husband, if he is in denial of his homosexual desires and if it is really not a woman he wants?

Feminists have manifested a great "politically correct" passion for rejecting "victim-blaming" with respect to wife battery and rape and, in this document, I have not blamed women for being battered and/or raped by men. Nonetheless, I have proposed that men who are violent with women are also victims, but feminists generally refuse to accept such ideas and the mind-set results in a serious blindness to the important knowledge needed to arrive at their major objective: the end of men's traditional violence against women. For example, such unrecognized relevant knowledge was given to challenge the idea that battered women are to be blamed for their experiences:

The kind of victim-blaming that says that women are passive recipients of violence is belied by the finding that the women did not score as stereotypically feminine (passive), nor did they have high mean scores on acceptance of passivity. In other words, these women neither described themselves as passive, nor were they willing to be passive.
Feminist therapists have therefore been looking a gift horse in the mouth but fail to see the gift. They have also failed to postulate that numerous men who end up battering and/or raping their wives may have chosen women who are gender nonconformable, as implied in the above citation. This knowledge, combined with the informed suspicion that many batterers are repressed homosexuals, therefore yields the conclusion that these men, as could be expected, may have essentially chosen wives to use as substitutes for the males they would have preferred, and really want, although most wife batterers would vehemently deny this, as I would have probably done in my heterosexual stage. Yet, I was only attracted to females with certain gender nonconformable attributes. One gay male I know, for example, married a woman who was much more masculine than he was. Although people knew he was gay, it took him years to accept this fact about himself, to then get a divorce, and to end up having sex with males instead of a female substitute for the males he really wanted. [The battered women I know and reported on in this document are also gender nonconformable, but this fact may not be immediately apparent to an observer.]

Although it could be said that feminists have not recognized the "homosexuality factor" in wife battery, there are exceptions to the rule. Del Martin, who authored the first book on wife battery, BATTERED WIVES in 1976, did note this factor, but only as an addition in the 1981 edition of her book. Martin, most probably because she is lesbian and is therefore aware of the incredible power of learned homophobia, was influenced by Letty Cottin Pogrebin's book GROWING UP FREE: RAISING YOUR CHILD IN THE 80s. Martin describes the knowledge acquired and her related insight:

[Pogrebin] suggests that the compelling force behind sex role rigidity is homophobia - fear and intolerance of homosexuality. She says this fear, which inhibits pro-child attitudes in the most well intentioned parents, is based on the fear that sex roles determine sexuality, that specific ingredients make a child homosexual, and that homosexuality is one of the worse things that can happen. Pogrebin analyses these assumptions, compares them with research findings, and concludes that they are unsubstantiated myths. She also shows how homophobia forces us into conformity, emphasizes differences and divisions between men and women, and contributes to men's contempt for everything feminine.

Taking Pogrebin's analysis a step further, I make the connection between homophobia and domestic violence. Homophobic men, who repress traits that may in any way be labeled 'feminine,' become obsessed with male identity, and power with the masculine ideal. They must constantly prove their manhood and lash out whenever they feel it is challenged.

[Authors note: This is exactly how the dominant males in prisons who batter, rape, and/or sexually abuse other males behave when they are reproducing the relationships they were having with women in society.]

While men are socialized to be powerful, the reality is that few of them really get to exercise power in our society. Consequently many of them are like pent-up volcanoes ready to erupt. Wives, who are supposed to meet all their needs, are easy, available targets for their rage. Pogrebin says we should stop worrying about how to raise a heterosexual child. By using stereotypes as a vaccine against homosexuality, we try to mold children into ill­fitting behavior patterns which can be psychologically damaging and sometimes inspire just what the parents are hoping to avoid. The entire system of male supremacy makes it harder to love the other sex. It actually conditions boys against heterosexuality because society is so relentlessly for 'masculinity.' It fosters the Battle of the Sexes - a war no one ever wins (56: 260-261).

These ideas are rooted in sex role research and are generally rejected by feminist for an assortment of reasons, including political ones. It is, however, difficult to accept these ideas when their authors, like Martin, do not spell out what it really means when she writes: "It actually conditions boys against heterosexuality..." The suggestion here is that homosexuals are being produced, but Martin may not want the reader to make this conclusion because the word "against" is in italics. Yet, she does state that the process involved may "sometime inspire [cause???] just what the parents are hoping to avoid," which is homosexuality. Obviously, Martin is being careful, mostly because she is entering the domain of having to be "politically correct" in the gay world to which she belongs. [She co-authored the 1972 book, LESBIAN WOMAN with her longtime companion Phyllis Lyon, and both were very active in the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s.]

Martin is also being politically correct when she gives a sort of 'equality' to "the Battle of the Sexes," instead of stating that this is the battle men have been waging against women, the evidence suggesting that women are still losing the war. Martin also does not state that these men hate women, as anyone would certainly conclude if they were dealing with white people who were manifesting "contempt for anything black or native." Therefore, Martin cannot move to the next and most important question. "If these men hate women, who do they love? What can be expected from men who love each other so much?" How about a strong male bonding desire (drive?) which has been manifesting itself since early childhood?

In this document, I postulated that many men who batter and/or rape women are homosexuals whose repressed and denied homosexualities are linked to purged, repressed, and denied "feminine" attributes. Such males hate femininity (females) and love masculinity (males), and they would therefore be expected to have a great affinity to bond with the only ones they love: MEN. In FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE, it is noted that wife batterers in group therapy have such an incredible affinity for male-bonding that male-bonding will inevitably occur in therapy groups for wife batterers, and that this process will also totally subvert all therapeutic objectives. It is therefore requested that therapists do everything possible to prevent it (96: 244-46). This observation of male-bonding also confirms the perspective of "feminist activists" who have noted that "male-bonding (is] solidarity in the oppression of women." Nothing, however, is written about the "hatred of women" and "homosexuality" components involved in male bonding, although the hatred of women is somewhat implied.

In gay scholarly work, on the other hand, and especially because "homosexuality" is not a taboo item for many gay-identified males, great insights into male bonding have been articulated. Jonathan Dollimore, in his 1991 book SEXUAL DISSIDENCE, renders one very insightful perception written by Mario Mieli in 1977:

As for male bonding, this is a grotesque expression of 'paralysed and unspoken homosexuality, which can be grasped, in the negative, in the denial of women, whom [males] speak of phallocratically ... reducing them to a bole, i.e. to something that does not exist. The suppression of homoeroticism is here always bound up with the oppression of women by men. The negated homosexual desire makes its emergence via the negation of women' (p. 211).
Sadly, when dealing with wife batterers and rapist, most therapist, even if they are feminists, are still not at a "perspective" stage where they will fully accept that these men hate women. The therapeutic objective is therefore to apparently turn wife batterers and/or rapists into men who supposedly love women, thus failing to recognize that these men should be encouraged to bond and see how much they love each other, and also recognize their incredible hatred for women. Unfortunately, such therapy would receive the infamous politically incorrect "You are promoting homosexuality" label. What is so unacceptable, however, with helping men recognize and accept their inner homosexual desires, when such desires exist?

Doing this is, in fact, exactly what our society - parents, educators, and religious leaders - should have done with all gay males, including the ones who married women only to later come to terms with their homosexuality. All these men have been victims of socially taught homohatred: self-hatred for these males. Wife batterers and rapists are also revealing similar attributes but no one is asking: "If they hate women so much, who do they love? The answer to this question is obvious but, as so many gender conformable - even gender nonconformable - gay males report about their "coming out" experiences:

You tell people you're gay and they don't believe it! They don't want to believe it! Especially if you are very masculine.
This phenomenon, however, is not surprising. Many gay males - the ones who have been the most knowledgeable about inner homosexual desires - also spent years in denial, which may have included the sexual use - abuse - of women as just "holes," and this applies for about 60 percent of self-defined gay males. The rate should be close to 100 percent for most males still in the infamous closet and playing the infamous and often mandatory heterosexual game.

Given our history of teaching homophobia and homohatred, we could therefore not blame homosexual males ending up in one or more of the many closets they report to have been part of their history. Yet, most homosexual males are still in some kind of closet, most often an intra-psychic phenomenon characterized by various degrees of denial, the sexual use (abuse) of women, male bonding, and the very common "homohatred" projection phenomenon.

Pierre J. Tremblay
December, 1992

NOTE: In this document, I have not addressed battery in gay and lesbian relationships, which is a little known aspect of the "social violence" problem. There is much to be learned from this phenomenon, especially about the relationship of learned sex roles to violence. This includes how acting out dominant and passive roles sexually may lead to the initiation of battery and/or rape by dominant males in some gay relationships. Such an analysis would shed more light on wife battery, and it will both supplement and complement the thesis presented herein. About 50 pages of writing and some research, however, would be needed to insightfully explore this "social violence" problem.

 I thank you for taking the time to read this document. If you have benefited from the information and ideas presented, please write me a note. If you wish to discuss concepts presented, I would be willing to do this. Additional information is available and many of the concepts presented. I am also seeking criticism to be included in a future CRITICISM AND RESPONSE section of the document.

I thank Richard Holman for his help with my work. He gave me the support I needed to keep studying major social problems so that, as I often told him with great optimism occasionally tainted with pessimism: "If I keep working at this, I'll understand it! The human brain can understand anything and everything."
 

'Final' Thoughts For The 2000 Internet Edition

In the preface to the 2000 Internet Edition, the result of a study was written as follows:

Mandel Laurie (1996). Heterosexism, sexual harassment, and adolescent gender Identity: a social and sexual curriculum in junior high. ED.D. Thesis, Hofstra University, 180 pages.

From the Abstract: First, this study suggests that students’ assumptions about heterosexuality perpetuate a norm of heterosexuality and constrain adolescent gender identity. Not only do students believe that a heterosexual identity is central to their gender identity, but stereotypic notions about femininity and masculinity largely inform their beliefs about who they are and who they cannot be...  Students’ descriptions of masculinity are also stereotypic and are largely defined by an anti-feminine norm. Unlike the ways in which girls can and do value masculinity, boys do not and cannot value femininity.

Second, this study asserts that there is a social and sexual curriculum in the culture of middle and junior high schools by which girls and boys construct their gender identities. This heterosexist curriculum, it is argued, perpetuates gender role stereotypes, limits gender identities, empowers masculine boys and disempowers girls, less masculine boys, lesbians, and gay males. The most pervasive indicators of this curriculum - due to heterosexism - are illustrated in the amount of gender disrespect, peer sexual harassment, homophobic language, and the highly (hetero)sexualized nature of adolescent gender relations in these middle and junior high schools. (Bold emphasis mine.)

The proposition that an intense hatred of the feminine - and females - underlies the social construction of traditional male heterosexuality has dominated in this document, and I add the following in response to the Mandel (1996) study - first written for a 2000 presentation on another subject. What was written by Mandel was rewritten to highlight the underlying concept.
"White boys' descriptions of Black People are also stereotypic and are largely defined by an anti-black norm. Unlike the ways in which 'Black People' can and do value White People*, white boys do not and cannot value anything 'Black'... The most pervasive indicators of this curriculum - due to racism - are illustrated in the amount of White disrespect for Black students, anti-Black harassment, White racist language, and the highly white racist  nature of adolescent relations in these middle and junior high schools."
Conclusion: Would you say that White boys love Black people, or is it hatred? 'Niggar Lovers' were also not appreciated. For them some of the meanest wrath of white racists could be expected! Who, however, have been the 'feminine lovers' in our society? Who were the males who would / could sit down with women, treat them as equals, and for which they were immediately suspected of being fags? Who have been the real male lovers of females? Are they not the sissy boys? Are they not the boys who are still often said to "over-identify with females" and are therefore apparently on their way to becoming homosexual? What has been the fate of these boys who seem to be lovers of women?

A report on the fate of boys daring to be feminine in a [heterosexual] male world - where anything feminine is to be considered inferior and also deeply hated - was articulated by Rofes (1995) in a paper titled "Making our schools safe for sissies."

"I knew I was queer when I was a small child. My voice was gently and sweet. I avoided sports and all roughness. I played with the girls... Heresy was a boy who cried a lot when he got hurt..., a boy who couldn't throw a baseball..., a boy putting on girls' clothing. Heresy was me. As I got older, and fully entered the society of children, I met the key enforcer of social roles among children... He was... like an evil spirit entering different bodies in different occasions... In any group of three of more boys, the bully was present. I know a lot about bullies. I know they have a specific social function: they define the limits of acceptable conduct, appearance, and activities for children. They enforce rigid expectations. They are masters of the art of humiliation and technicians of the science of terrorism. They wreaked havoc on my entire childhood. To this day, their handprints, like a slap on the face, remain stark and defined on my soul...

As I entered adolescence... I saw other sissy boys become neighborhood toughs. They formed gangs of bullies that tormented us... Watching the powerless take on the trappings of power, I would shake my head and withdraw into deeper isolation... The abuse I suffered in American public schools, from kindergarten to my senior year of high school, created deep psychic scars with which I have struggled throughout my lifetime. These same scars are shared by many others. We will never forget that we were tortured and publicly humiliated because we refused to be real boys, acted 'girlish,' or were simply different. This was the price we paid for being queer" (pp. 79-80).

Rofes was most troubled about the "sissy boy" reality being ignored not only in mainstream society but also by gay and lesbian individuals advocating for an end to the wholesale abuse of their adolescent counterparts. In this respect, he emphasized that "to say sissies = gay male youth is considered offensive by many in the gay community" and suggested "that little attention has focused on the plight of the sissy [because] gay male activists and educators alike carry unresolved feelings about their own sissy pasts... These barriers must be examined, challenged, and overcome because - regardless of future sexual orientation - sissy boys have become contemporary youth's primary exposure to gay identity" (p. 81).

"...[I]nterviews with gay men of all classes, races, and educational backgrounds reveal a strikingly large percentage who acknowledge a sissy past when asked. This is true of gay men who exemplify American ideals of masculinity, as well as hypermasculine men in the gay ghetto. Some sissy boys grow up to be nontraditional adult men - androgynous, "effeminate," transgendered, or simply gentle - while others transform themselves into traditional versions of masculinity... Some gay men have talked and written candidly about their struggles as sissy boy" [with many example of this fact of life supplied] (Rofes, 1995, p. 81-2).

The inability to "be" who one "is" also results from external pressures which, for all boys manifesting a "feminine" self, is operating via "the bully" and his allies: average adolescents, teachers and other adults who, though their silence, tacitly give their approval to the "masters of the art of humiliation and technicians of the science of terrorism" (Rofes, 1995, p. 80).

For a discussion of femininity in gay and bisexual males, the over-representation of femininity in these males, anti-femininity attitudes in and outside gay communities, the increasing hatred of femininity by gay males as demanded by their 'creators', and related negative consequences (such as incidences of attempting suicide for the most feminine gay/bisexual male youth compared to their most masculine counterparts: 48% vs. 11%), see the section on "feminine males" by Tremblay and Ramsay (2000).

There are people who would think that the situation de la Torre (1999) described for the "machos" in Cuba - as reported in the Preface to the 2000 Internet Edition - is very different than the one existing in the remainder of the western world, but beware. Our own "hall of mirror" - as the analysis in The Homosexuality Factor in Social Violence illustrates - reveals a 'hidden' reality not much different from the Cuban one. I now requote some parts of de la Torre's 1999 paper, with an important addition:

"History is forged through one's cojones (balls)... [Meaning: like phallus is to penis.] 'El colmo' (the ultimate sin) is to be called a "maricón" (a derogatory term meaning queer or fag), the antithesis of machismo. We white Cuban elite males look into Lacan's mirror and recognize ourselves as machos through the distancing process of negative self-definition: 'I am what I am not.' The formation of the subject's ego constructs an illusory self-representation through the negation of cojones, now projected upon our Others, whoever identified as non-machos...

Unlike the United States, sexual identity for Cubans is defined in terms of masculinity, not in terms of gender...  The phallic signifier of machismo is located in the cojones. For Cubans, cojones, not the penis, become our cultural "signifier of signifiers." The Other, if male, may have a penis, but lacks the cojones to use it. I conquer, I subdue, I domesticate por mis cojones (by my balls)...

As our Mexican friends Octavio Paz and Carlos Fuentes point out, the feminine is screwed beforehand . . . [Machismo's] negative hero is the dictator (one of Batista's motto was "Batista is the Man"), and its positive hero is the rebel. They are at odds in politics, but they both love power. And both despise homosexuality, as if every macho had his hidden gay side . . .

When the macho looks at himself in Lacan's mirror, he does not see a maricon hence he projects what he is not into his Other so as to define himself as a white, civilized macho. The power of seeing becomes internalized, naturalized and legitimized in order to mask the dominant culture's position of power. Our task as Hispanic ethicists is to move toward dismantling machismo, to go beyond machismo, by shattering the illusions created in our hall of mirrors.

Who then is this 'masked stranger' called Lacan known for warnings about the "hall of mirrors" in what we believe to be 'reality'? Jacques Lacan? Some references related to Jacques Lacan are given in a Note.  The following information highlights a major difference between Freud and Lacan:
"But Freud hoped that, by bringing the contents of the unconscious into
consciousness, he could minimize repression and neurosis - he makes a famous declaration about the relation between the unconscious and conscious, saying that "Wo Es war, soll Ich werden": Where It was, shall I be." In other words, the "it," or "id" (unconscious) will be replaced by the "I", by consciousness and self-identity. Freud's goal was to strengthen the ego, the "I" self, the conscious/rational identity, so it would be more powerful than the unconscious.

For Lacan, this project is impossible. The ego can never take the place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for Lacan, the ego or "I" self is only an illusion, a product of the unconscious itself. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the unconscious is the ground of all being."  (Jacques Lacan)

The not so insignificant problem here, however, was rendered in the document with this quotation:
"You think you can determine your actions with free will? Far from it! Your conscious action is only a drop on the surface of the sea of unconscious process, of which you can know nothing about which, indeed, you are afraid to know" (Wilhelm Reich, 1948: 33).
My 'adventures' into the world of the 'conscious' / 'unconscious' are reported in the "STW" files. Index page at: - http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/sathewo.htm . The 'conscious' has its "hall of mirrors," but the 'unconscious' also has its own but quite different "hall of mirrors." Furthermore, the 'unconscious' does NOT appear to be a singularity,' and what is called "consciousness" is more likely the opposite of what the word implies. Related comments are located in The Save-The-World Factor in Anorexia: The Miriam Case Study: Introduction (http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/sathewo6.htm).

Finally, the asterix encountered above in "Unlike the ways in which Black People can and do value* White People, White boys do not and cannot value anything 'Black'... " was used to highlight an important upcoming concept to be noted. In this respect, I was most fortunate on one of my journeys to encounter an African American male brave enough to speak on what would likely be highly taboo in his culture having its own "hall of mirrors":

"I recall a conversation several years ago with a black university administrator (in charge of shepherding Negroes through the institution, as most are) in which she cut me off in the middle of some peroration about my hatred of white people to point out, 'You don't hate them... You love them. We all do. We're just angry that they don't love us back.' Indeed, I have all my life harbored an intense an unabated desire to be those privileged, pretty white boys I have always desired..." (Shepherd, 1999: 138).
This situation is much like the one which seems to exist for females and males believed to be like females - gay males - in many cultures, and the price of these similar psycho-social constructions has been enormous. The highest price paid, however, has been our ongoing non-understanding of ourselves and our interrelated "halls of mirrors" from which we yet have to emerge.

À La Prochaine!

Pierre

References

Rofes, Eric (1995). Making our schools safe for sissies. In Gerald Unks, Ed. The Gay Teen: Educational Practice and Theory for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents, pp. 79-84. New York: Routledge. Also published in The High School Journal, 77(1/2), 1994, 37-40. Google Books.

Tremblay P, Ramsay R (2000). The Social Construction of Male Homosexuality And Related Suicide Problems: A Research Agenda For the Twenty-First Century. Available at: - http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/gay-youth-suicide-san-diego.htm - or - http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ptrembla/homosexuality-suicide/construction/gay-youth-suicide-san-diego.htm .

De La Torre, Miguel (1999). Beyond Machismo: a Cuban Case Study. The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 19, 213-33. Internet Availability: - http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/delatorre/articles/macho.html N/A (Archive Link) New Link: http://www.libertadlatina.org/Latin_America_Machismo_p3.htm.

Jacques Lacan. - http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/lacan.html N/A (Archive Link).

Shepherd, Reginald (1999). Coloring outside the lines: an essay at definition. Callaloo, 22(1), 134-40.  Extract.

.
 

Notes (Added in 2000 Edition):

(Will be under construction for some time.)

Foreword

1. The 52-page document, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Need Our Help, was written soon after a two-part investigative report had been published in the Alberta Gay and Lesbian Press (AGLP) magazine. The report is available at http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/1991.htm.

2. In most North American jurisdictions, indifference continues with respect to the welfare of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgerder youth. For example, even after a major report had been done about the situation existing in Rhode Island schools,  the 1998 Rhode Island school situation continued to be negative. Teachers also continued to be a major part of the traditional anti-homosexuality problem in schools. Creating safe schools for GLBT students. - Rhode Island: Still a tough life for gay students. -  In Providence, forum yields horror stories for gay youth; Teachers often a major part of anti-gay problems. [2011 Note: See information related to 2010 situation in North American Schools: http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/links4.htm.]

3. It was later revealed that the welfare of Mayor Duerr - including that of  his children - had been threatened. As a result of behaving as the ones who treatened him and his family wanted, however, Mayor Duerr essentially told all Calgarians that he would abide by the wishes of these people. To 2000, even after having received many requests for a Gay Pride Week proclamation since 1992, the requests were rejected. Furthermore, as I recall, there was talk about ending the proclamation tradition in Calgary if gay and lesbian Calgarians insisted on having such a proclamation; the unspoken message was: "If you think you are hated now, just imagine how many Calgarians will hate you if - because of you - the city does away with proclamations so much appreciated by so many groups!"

Many politicians are still fearful of doing anything which may indicate the approval of the traditionally hated ones, as the following excerpts from a September 6, 2000, Associated Press article (by Ross Sneyd, Williamstown, Vt - Circulated via email by Channel Q News) reveals for Vermont: "State Rep. Marion Milne knew her vote to create "civil unions'' for gay couples last spring might lead to her defeat... A backlash has set in against some of the lawmakers who created the closest thing in America to gay marriage... In many of those contested races, civil unions are the only issue. The approval of marriage-style benefits for gay couples is what prompted Sylvia Kennedy to challenge Milne, a friend, in next week's GOP primary... In many of those contested races, civil unions are the only issue. The approval of marriage-style benefits for gay couples is what prompted Sylvia Kennedy to challenge Milne, a friend, in next week's GOP primary. The poll, which had a margin of error of 4 percentage points, gave [Governor Howard] Dean a 41 percent favorability rating, down from 63 percent in February."

4. The Los Angeles Project 10 Handbook (abstract). - Project 10 addresses needs of gay and lesbian youth. (Education Digest)  Throughout California, however, progress in providing safe environments for GLBT public school students - if any - has been slow, and not without controversy.  Battle Rages Over Gay-Friendly School Policies (San Francisco, 1997) N/A. - Gay/Lesbian and Bisexual Youth: An Invisible Minority by Kevin R. Gogin, MFCC, San Francisco Unified School District.- Rampant homophobic and 'racism' at San Ramon Valley High School. - Gay Teens in School Focus of Weekly Newsmagazine Segment.

A similar situation has existed in the State of Massachusetts - the home of the only Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth - as the following references indicate. Making schools safe for gay and lesbian youth: Executive Summary.  - Full Text Document. - The Executive Order which created the Governor's Commission in Gay and Lesbian Youth. - Recommendations of the Commission. - Massachusetts: 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results N/A. [Results of this study and other studies.] -  The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth: Related Articles. Problems? - Few schools offer support to gay students (1997): some positive results in student attitude survey. - More gay bias reported at school: 161 attacks were reported last year. - Gay/Straight Alliance. - Despite receiving high marks for having policies to protect gay students and teachers from harassment, Boston Public Schools fail to provide a safe learning environment.

5. Calgary's GLB community was notorious for not doing much in terms of educating the greater population about GLB issues. This state of affairs was most troubling and began doing something about it by 1991. After I had met with Mayor Duerr, I was most troubled that there had been a Mayor's Task Force on Violence but that no one in the GLB community had submitted information at least about the high levels of anti-gay violence known to exist in Calgary. This violence, however, was not the only violence I had recognized to be linked to homosexuality. Interestingly, a lesbian had been closely associated with the ones in charge of Calgary's Action Committee Against Violence - as a secretary, I think - but she had not advocated to have anti-gay/lesbian violence issues addressed. She did, however, attempt to cause problems after I had met with Alderman Longstaff and Mary Jane Amy, as I was informed by Stephen Lock who was then in charge of Calgary Gay Lines. The community lesbians would have loved to muzzle me which became one of their first agenda items when they essentially took over Calgary Gay Lines in 1996. I was summoned by Carolyn Anderson - the president - and advised that I was to be silent about the males realities addressed, for example, in this document. Furthermore, I was also to not speak about boys who become sexually involved with men - usually gay-identified males (a tradition in the history of male homosexuality), even if these boys are the most at risk for contracting HIV at the youngest age.  Furthermore, if I did not abide by the muzzling order, there would be consequences. A few months later, I was advised that GLB community services - such as having access to the GLB library - would be denied to me.
 

Introduction

6. From: Prison Rape: Our Wake-Up Call  @ http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/losch.html .  "The most rigorous study was conducted by researchers Wayne Wooden and Jay Parker, in 1980. They found that 14 percent of the inmates had been "pressured into having sex against their will," a figure the researchers said was probably an undercount... It is possible to extrapolate from these small studies and hazard a guess about how many prisoners across America are victims of sexual aggression. Start with a conservative estimate of 14 percent. Multiply that by the 1.3 million men sitting behind bars right now (1993). You end up with a staggering total: 182,000 victims a year. That's 15,166 a month; 3,500 a week." (Henican 1995:26) Keep in mind these figures represent first time occurrences. According to Stop Prison Rape, "Once 'turned out', a victim is earmarked for constant further assaults. With a repeat rate very conservatively estimated at every other day, and counting gang rapes as a single incident, this give at least 7,150 sexual victimizations a day in jails." (Donaldson, 1995:1) To put this into perspective, the total number of  "Forcible Rape Offenses" in the United States for 1992, according to the World Almanac, was 109, 060 (World Almanac, 1994). These numbers, however, may be inflated.

7. The concept of "projection" -  well known to psychiatrists (especially psychoanalysts) - is manifested when an individual (or a group) accuses others of being what one is but denies. Men who are sexually active with other males but condemn other homosexual males are in this category. The same applies to the Nazis. In the final analysis, they were much more evil than the ones they accused of being evil and sought to exterminate.
 

Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide and Related Problems

8. Remafedi et al. (1991) reported car accidents to have been a method used by some gay/bisexual males in their attempt to kill themselves. As a rule, such deaths are not reported to be suicides, and survivors of such suicide attempts would likely not report that the accident was, in fact, an attempt at ending their lives.  (Remafedi, Gary; Farrow, James A.; and Deisher, Robert W. Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth. Pediatrics, Vol. 87, No. 6, 1991, pp. 869-875.)  AbstractFull Text. Full Text.

9. Note related to early sex for lesbians, therefore risk of pregnancy.

10. Gilbert Herdt's 1989 book Gay and lesbian Youth. Table of Contents & Introduction. For a comprehensive paper on the gay, bisexual, and lesbian youth suicide problem: - The Homosexuality Factor in the Youth Suicide Problem (1995).  An update of the information on gay/bisexual male youth suicide problems is available at Youth Suicide: Focus - Gay/Bisexual Male youth.
 

Physical Violence Against Gay people.

11. Frank van Gemert (1994). Chicken kills Hawk: gay murders during the eighties in Amsterdam. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 26(4), 149-174. The study notes that about one out of eight murders in Amsterdam (approx. 12% of murders) involved a gay male, usually advanced in age, who was murdered by a young male prostitute usually not defining themselves to be gay or bisexual. As a rule, the two had been sexually involved before the murder happened, each having 'traded' something in an attempt to solve the problems caused by marginalization: rejection in gay community because of advancing age for the older gay male, and a lack of money for the male youth. In some cases the murders occurred when the older male sought to impose sexual activities (or interpretations) threatening the heterosexual identity of the male youth. Similar murders have also been happening in North America - even in Calgary - but I am not aware of any studies of the phenomenon. Abstract.

12. Supplementary information related to anti-gay/lesbian violence was supplied in follow-up letter to the Action Committee Against Violence.
 

The Homosexuality Factor in Prison Violence
 
 

The Homosexuality Factor in Males Youth Gangs
 
 

A Violent Social Construction: Homosexual Closets
 
 
 

The Sexual Abuse of Boys
 

An Understanding of Male Sexual Violence

Note: Information related to the Hanky Code is available on the Internet at: http://www.thedoghouse.org/members/bandanna.htm  -   http://www.fc.net/~zarathus/other/consummate_hanky_code_list.txt
 

A Gay 'Wife Batterer'
 

An Understanding of Wife Battery
 

A Serious Problem With Professionals
 

Conclusion
 

Epilogue
 

'Final' Thoughts For The 2000 Internet Edition

Note: Jacques Lacan Internet References

Who Is Jacques Lacan? A Primer for Pre-Post-Structuralists. At - http://www.haberarts.com/lacan.htm .

"Jacques Lacan " Internet Links: - http://web.archive.org/web/20010413055718/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/2967/Lacan.html .

El Web de Lacan (Spanish): - http://www.psiconet.org/lacan/ . In French: - http://www.psiconet.org/lacan/indexfr.html .
 

Bibliography

01.  Abbott, Franklin ed. (1990).  MEN & INTIMACY. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California.
02.  Anonymous (1990).  Rape: Prisoner of My Sexual Fantasies. In: Abbott, Franklin, ed.. MEN & INTIMACY. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, pp. 24-30.
03.  Bagnell, Janet (1986).  Killing wife just not murder. Southam News. Calgary Herald, Jan. 15, 1986, p. A-5.
04.  Banner, Richard (1992).  Stop the bashing. Angles, October, 1992, p. *
05.  Bayer, Ronald (1981).  HOMOSEXUALITY AND AMERICAN PSYCHIATRY: THE POLITICS OF DIAGNOSIS. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, N.Y..
06.  Berube, Allan (1991).  COMING OUT UNDER FIRE: A HISTORY OF GAY MEN AND WOMEN IN WORLD WAR TWO. The Free Press, New York, N. Y., Plume Edition, 1991.
07.  Bell, Alan P, and Weinberg, Martin S (1978).   HOMOSEXUALITIES. Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y..
08.  Bell, Alan P, et al. (1981). SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
09.  Bell, Alan P, et al. (1981). SEXUAL PREFERENCE: STATISTICAL APPENDIX. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
10.  Black, Claudia (1990).  DOUBLE DUTY. Ballantine Books, New York, N.Y..
11.  Boyd, Malcolm (1986).  Price of The Ticket: Baldwin's Prophetic Prose Exposes American Myths. Book Review, OUTWEEK, May 27, p. 53.
12.  Boyd, Robert N (1991).  Sex Behind Bars.  In: Leyland, Winston, Ed. (1991). GAY ROOTS: AN ANTHOLOGY OF GAY HISTORY, SEX, POLITICS & CULTURE. Gay Sunshine Press, San Francisco, California.
13.  Boyer, Debra (1989).  Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity.  In: Herdt, Gilbert (1989). GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, 1989, 151-184.
14.  Briere, John, and Malamuth, Neil M (1983). Self-Reported Likelihood of Sexually Aggressive Behavior: Attitudinal versus Sexual Explanations. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 315 - 323.
15.  Brownmiller, Susan (1975). AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE,.Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, N. Y..
16.  Bull, Chris (1992).  Homosexuality makes God Vomit.  The Advocate, October 20,  42-43.
17.  Cahill, Tom (1990).  Prison Rape: Torture in the American Gulag.  In: Abbott, Franklin, Ed. (1978), MEN & INTIMACY, The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 31-36.
18.  Caron, Roger (1978).  GO-BOY!  Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario, 1979.  First published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1978.
19.  Cohen, Lawrence J (1990). The Masks Of Rape." In: Abbott, Franklin, Ed. (1990).  MEN & INTIMACY. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 21-23.
20.  Cooney, John (1984).  THE AMERICAN POPE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN.  Dell Publishing Company inc., New York, N.Y..
21.  Crepault, Claude, and Couture, Marcel (1980).  Men's Erotic Fantasies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 9, No. 6, 565-81.
22.  Figes, Eva (1970).  PATRIARCHAL ATTITUDES.  Faber and Faber Limited, London, England. Edition used: Panther Books. Quotation of St. Augustine from CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE Translated by R. S. Pine-Coffin, p. 32.
23.  Freedman, David H (1992). The Aggressive Egg. Discover, June, 61-65.
24.  Freud, Sigmund (1962). THREE ESSAYS ON THE THEORY OF SEXUALITY. (Trans. and edited by James Strachey.) Basic Books, New York, N.Y., 1962.  Edition used: Discus Edition, 1972.
25.  Freund, Kurt (1977).  Should Homosexuality Arouse Therapeutic Concern? Journal of Homosexuality, 2(3), p. 26.
26.  Friday, Nancy (1980).  MEN IN LOVE - MEN'S SEXUAL FANTASIES: THE TRIUMPH OF LOVE OVER RAGE.  Delacorte Press, New York, N.Y..
27.  Gornick, Vivian, and Moran, Barbara K. Eds. (1971). WOMEN IN SEXIST SOCIETY.  Basic Books Inc., New York, N.Y..
28.  Greenburg, David F (1988).THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY.  The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
29.  Greendlinger, Virginia, and Byrne, Donn (1987).  Coercive Sexual Fantasies of College Men as Predictors of Self-Reported Likelihood to Rape and Overt Sexual Aggression. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(1), 1-11.
30.  Griffin, Kevin (1992).  Police urged to hire open gays, lesbians. Calgary Herald, May 14, p. A-8.  Reprinted from Vancouver Sun.
31.  Groth, A. Nicholas, and Burgess, Ann Wolbert (1982). Rape: A Sexual Deviation. In: Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982). MALE RAPE: A CASEBOOK OF SEXUAL AGGRESSIONS.  AMS Press Inc., New York, N.Y..
32.  Groth, A. Nicholas, and Gary, Thomas  S (1982).  Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia: Sexual offences Against Children and Adult Sexual orientation. In: Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982).MALE RAPE, 143-152.
33.  Harbeck, Karen M (1992). COMING OUT OF THE CLASSROOM CLOSET: GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND CURRICULA. Harrington Park Press, New York, N.Y..
34.  Herdt, Gilbert, Ed (1989).GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH.  Harrington Park Press Inc., London, England.
35.  Hippler, Mike (1990).  SO LITTLE TIME.  Celestial Arts, Berkeley, California.
36.  Hoffman, Nicholas Von (1988). CITIZEN COHN: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ROY COHN.  Doubleday, New York, N.Y..
37.  Hunt, Morton (1959).  THE NATURAL HISTORY OF LOVE.  Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, N.Y..
38.  Hunt, Morton (1974).  SEXUAL BEHAVIORS IN THE 1970s.  Playboy Press, Chicago, Illinois.
39.  Jay, Karla, and Young, Allen (1979).THE GAY REPORT.  Summit Books, New York, N.Y. 1977, 1979.
40.  Johnson, Pat (1992).  What makes bashers hate? The meaning of Homophobia. Angles, Vancouver, B. C., May, p. 1.
41.  Jultry, Sam (1979)MEN'S BODIES, MEN'S SELVES.  Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York, N.Y..
42.  Karlen, Arno (1971).  SEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY.  W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York, N.Y..
43.  King, Alan J. C., et al. (1988).CANADA YOUTH AND AIDS STUDY.  Health and Welfare Canada.
44.  Kinsey, Alfred C., et al. (1948).SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE.  W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
45.  Kinsman, Gary (1987).  THE REGULATION OF DESIRE: SEXUALITY IN CANADA.  Black Rose Books, Montreal, Canada.
46.  Kleinberg, Seymour (1980). ALIENATED AFFECTIONS; BEING GAY IN AMERICA. St. Martin's Press, New York, N.Y.. Edition used: Warner Books, 1982.
47.  Kokopeli, Bruce, and Lakey, George (1990).More Power Than We Want: Masculine Sexuality And Violence. In: Abbott, Franklin, Ed. (1990). MEN & INTIMACY.  The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1990, 8-15.
48.  Leyland, Winston, Ed. (1991). GAY ROOTS: AN ANTHOLOGY OF GAY HISTORY SEX, POLITICS & CULTURE.  Gay Sunshine Press, San Francisco, California.
49.  Lucas, Craig (1990). Why are so many people in the theater gay? Frontiers, Nov. 9, 44-47.
50.  Lewes, Kenneth (1988).  THE PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY.  Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, N. Y., 1988.  Edition used: Meridian Book, New American Library.
51.  Mailer, Norman (1971).  PRISONER OF SEX.  Little, Brown & Company, Boston, Mass..
52.  Malamuth, Neil M. and Check, James V. P. (1985). The Effects of Aggressive Pornography on Beliefs in Rape Myths: Individual Differences. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19. 299-323.
53.  Manso, Peter (1985).  MAILER: HIS LIFE AND TIMES.  Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y..
54.  Marmor, Judd, ed. (1980). HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR: A MODERN REAPPRAISAL.  Basic Books, Inc., New York, N.Y..
55.  Martin, Damien A (1988). The Stigmatization of the Gay or Lesbian Adolescent. - Chapter 7. In: Schneider, Margaret S (1988).  OFTEN INVISIBLE: COUNSELLING GAY and LESBIAN YOUTH, Central Toronto Youth Services, Toronto, Ontario.
56.  Martin, Del (1976).  BATTERED WIVES.  Volcano Press, Inc., San Francisco, California.  Edition used: Pocket Books, 1983.
57.  Masson, Jeffrey Moussieff (1984). THE ASSAULT ON TRUTH.  Viking, Penguin, Inc., 1985.  First published by Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, Inc., 1984.
58.  Mayes, Alison (1992). The stark legacy of sex abuse.  Calgary Herald, August 22, 1992, p. D-5
59.  Miller, Alice (1988).  BANISHED KNOWLEDGE.  Doubleday, New York, N.Y., 1990. First published in German in 1988.
60.  Miller, Alice (1987). Interview published in Omni Magazine, March, 1987, 73-83.
61.  Millet, Kate (1969).  SEXUAL POLITICS.  Doubleday and Company Inc., 1969, 1970.  Edition used: Avon Books.  Mailer quotations from THE NAKED AND THE DEAD (1948), ADVERTISEMENT FOR MYSELF (1963), AN AMERICAN DREAM (1965), BARBARY SHORE (1951), and WHY ARE WE IN VIETNAM? (1967) as quoted by Millet.
62.  Minton, Henry L (1986).  Femininity in Men and Masculinity in Women: American Psychiatry and Psychology Portray Homosexuality in the 1930's.  Journal of homosexuality, 13(l), 1-21.
63.  Mishima, Yukio (1960).  CONFESSIONS OF A MASK.  Peter  Owen  Limited, Great Britain, 1960. (Translated by Meredith Weatherby.) Edition used: Panther, Granada Publishing Limited, 1977.)
64.  Canadian Press (1992).  MP in court on sex charges. (Shawinigan, Quebec.) Calgary Herald, May 6, 1992, p. A-12.
65.  Money, John (1988). GAY, STRAIGHT, AND IN-BETWEEN: THE SEXOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y..
66.  Moore, Cynthia (1992).  Conservatives keep information on sex and AIDS out of reach of teenagers. The Advocate, April 22, 54-55.
67.  Morningstar, Lasha.  Revealing homosexuality often traumatic for kids. Calgary Herald, May 7, 1992, p. C-10.  Reprinted from Edmonton Journal.
68.  Murphy, Bianca Cody (1992). Educating mental Health Professionals About Gay And Lesbian Issues.  In: Harbeck, Karen M (1992). COMING OUT OF THE CLASSROOM CLOSET: GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND CURRICULA.  Harrington Park Press, New York, N.Y., 229-246.
69.  Murray, Linda (1983).  Daring Pioneers of Sex Research.  Science Digest, October, 86-88, 108.
70.  Oosterhuis, Harry, and Kennedy, Hubert (1991).  HOMOSEXUALITY AND MALE BONDING IN PRE-NAZI GERMANY  Harrington Park Press, New York, N.Y..
70.  Reich, Wilhelm (1948). THE FUNCTION OF THE ORGASM.  Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1961.  First published in 1941, 1948.  Edition used: Bantam, 1975.
72.  Reiss, Jr., Albert J (1961).  The Social Integration of Peers and Queers.  In Gagnon, John H. and Simon, William, eds.. SEXUAL DEVIANCE,  Harper & Row, New York, N.Y. 1967, 197-228.  First published in Social Problems Vol. 9(2), 1961, 102-120.
73.  Reiss, Jr., Albert J. (1960)  Sex offences: The Marginal Status of the Adolescent. In Gagnon, John H. and Simon, William, eds. (1967). SEXUAL DEVIANCE  Harper & Row, New York, N.Y. 43-77.  First published in Law and Contemporary Problems 25(2), 1960.
74.  Richards, Joanna (1992).  How many men feel the same as David? Calgary Herald, August 30, 1992, p. B-4.
75.  Rideau, W. and Sinclair, J (1982).Prison: The Sexual Jungle. In: Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982).MALE RAPE, 3-29.
76.  Ross, Michael W (1989). Gay Youth In Four Cultures: A Comparative Study. In Herdt, Gilbert (1989).GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, 299-314.
77.   Russell, Diana E. H. (1982). RAPE IN MARRIAGE.  Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, N.Y..
78.  Russo, Vito (1987).  THE CELLULOID CLOSET: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE MOVIES.  Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y.
79.  Rutledge, Leigh W (1987). THE GAY BOOK OF LISTS.  Alyson Publications, Boston, Mass.
80.  Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982). MALE RAPE: A CASEBOOK OF SEXUAL AGGRESSIONS.  AMS Press Inc., New York, N.Y..
81. Scacco, Jr., Anthony M (1982). The Scapegoat Is Almost Always White. In Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982). MALE RAPE, 91-103.
82.  Scarf, Maggie (1980).  UNFINISHED BUSINESS.  Random House,Inc.. Edition used: Ballantine, 1981.
83.  Schneider, Margaret S (1988). OFTEN INVISIBLE: COUNSELLING GAY & LESBIAN YOUTH, Central Toronto Youth Services, Toronto, Ontario.
84.  Schmidt, Gunter (1975).  Male-Female Differences in Sexual Arousal and Behavior During and After Exposure to Sexually Explicit Stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 4(4).
85.  Tieger, Todd (1981).  Self-Rated Likelihood of Raping and the Social Perception of Rape. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 15, 147-158.
86.  Tremblay, Pierre J. (1991). GAY, LESBIAN, AND BISEXUAL YOUTH NEED OUR HELP. Copy available from author, Mayor Al Duerr, and at Gay Lines, Calgary.
87.  Troiden, Richard R (1989). The Formation Of  Homosexual  Identities,. In: Herdt, Gilbert (1989).  GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, 43-73.
88.  Troxler, Allan (1990).  I. In Abbott, Franklin, Ed., MEN & INTIMACY, The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1990,  217-230.
89.  Tucker Donald (1982)A Punk's Song: View From The Inside.  In: Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982).  MALE RAPE,  58-79.
90.  Walker, Lenore E (1979). THE BATTERED WOMAN. Harper & Row, Publishers,Inc., New York, N.Y..
91. Williams, Tennessee (1976).  MEMOIRS.  W. H. Allen & Company, Great Britain.
92.  Wright, Karen (1992). The Evolution of the Big O.  Discover, June, 1992, 53-58.
93.  Ziegler, Stan W (1991).  Why we hate ourselves? The Advocate, Dec. 3, 1991.
94.  Zion, Sidney (1988).  THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ROY COHN.  Lyle  Stuart,  Inc., Secaucua, New Jersey.
95.  Sandy, Peggy R (1981).  The sociocultural Context of Rape: A Cross-Cultural Study.  Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37(4), 5-27.
96.  Yllo, Kersti, and Bograd, Michele, Eds. (1988).  FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE. Sage Publications.
 
TO: Epilogue - More Biases and Insights. Repressed Homosexuality Is Not To be Underestimated.
A GLBT Internet-Based Education with InfoSearch Pages
TO: Bibliography - The Homosexuality Factor in Social Violence.
To The Top Of The Page!
TO: pjtremblay@hotmail.com
To: Home Page - Gay and Bisexual Male Suicidality Studies
Visitor Numbers