Periodical Political Post *38

milkboys News 20 Comments

Queer News

Other News

Comments 20

  1. Study that claims 20% of millennials identify as LGBTQ has no citation. Would be nice to know where they got it.

    Interesting that this statistic, even if true (and I highly doubt it) comes at a time (generally, the past couple of decades) when boys are having fewer same-sex sexual experiences than ever before in history.

    1. Would appreciate your citation for the “fewer same-sex sexual experiences” claim.

      1. “Would appreciate your citation for the “fewer same-sex sexual experiences” claim.”

        I argued with him about that very thing many months ago and I’ll say today that is the same bullshit now as when he said it then. He’s quick to point out the “feminism” within the very budding same-sex attraction(ism) that’s becoming even more popular (or more correctly, more in the open) than before.

        When it comes to that subject, Woody above is blowing more from his ass than is actually correct.

      2. If you’re seriously interested in this subject, and you’re not aware of this fact, then you don’t know the literature very well.

        I point you to the Kinsey study for what things used to be like, and the Laumann study for something more recent. I also saw a more recent study out of Scandinavia (in the 2010s), the reference which I don’t have handy. It showed a continued decline since the Laumann study.

        Between Kinsey and Laumann, the rate of same-sex sexual experiences among boys went way, way down. I recall that it went to about 1/6th of the older levels in terms of prevalence. But you’re welcome to request the data from the Kinsey Institute, and download the Laumann data (it’s online, called the National Health and Social Life Survey).

        Penboy “argued” with me, refused to look at Kinsey and Laumann – for no reason at all – and in the end he admitted it simply didn’t make sense to him that boys’ same-sex sexual experiences have gone way down. He couldn’t believe that in a pro-gay era there could be less same sex sexual experiences among boys, therefore he didn’t believe it.

        However it makes perfect sense, because we know that in Kinsey’s era and before, most of the same-sex sexual experiences were experienced by boys with a predominant attraction to females and were not gay-identified (why should they be?). Ask anyone who went to a boys’ boarding school what happened as soon as having sex with other boys became “gay”. They mostly stopped having sex with each other because the label didn’t comport to their identity for most of them.

    2. “I point you to the Kinsey study for what things used to be like,”

      Not only is that Kinsey study grossly incomplete, it’s also grossly outdated.

      And if you’re using another “study” in the same light as Kinsey, there’s no way it’s even reasonably plausible in 2010’s, let alone today in 2017, just as Kinsey is no longer plausible (nor was it ever “complete” in it assessment of sexual mores and behaviors).

      Hell, we (which puts anyone/corporation in that category) can’t even get the numbers correctly as to who’s either homosexual, bisexual and even heterosexual because none of those “consensus” can or will ever be correct because of the extremely personal and psychological nature of those studies with humans.

      You can cite “studies after studies” all you want, they don’t mean shit because the VAST MAJORITY WILL NEVER TELL THE HONEST TRUTH about their own very personal sexuality. This is a proven fact when societies will outcast anyone and everyone for their sexual mores if they differ with the “expected majority” (whatever the fuck that is).

      As per: population, what do you make of a very recent immigrant who’s still afraid of the new language, let alone any sexual mores that may differ from that the majority of the press concludes?

      What do you make of the minor children who are just as homosexual as their adult counterparts but: 1) Have NO SAY in said society; 2) are just as afraid of being truthful as any adult because of the [media/social] majority; and 3) Quite frankly, don’t even know if/when they might/will be gay or bi because they haven’t matured enough to understand the concept beyond being called nasty names?

      These are just a SAMPLE of the reasons your “studies” don’t mean shit and are continually OUTDATED in any [religious] society.

    3. Also, Woody, to further prove my points (above), another post in this thread further explains exactly what I said:
      Third of Americans uncomfortable with queer colleagues

      And even THAT study is not only incomplete, it’s more probably incorrect as well. To wit:

      [A simple example:] A “study” is taking a consensus of who is or is not completely comfortable with a homosexual sitting or working next to them during every work day.

      How many do you think will HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY answer this when they KNOW the majority in that workplace is most probably either “personally uncomfortable” [minimally] or outright homophobic by what they say and the jokes they pass around the “water cooler/lunch line”? Especially if they even suspect that this could be “leaked” to their bosses or family (we won’t even mention their church congregation)?

      1. Obviously you still don’t understand what I’m saying. Then again you never did. I’m pretty sure you don’t know anything about these studies and how they were performed. They were not surveys.

        1) The Kinsey study is outdated, yes, and that is exactly my point. How can you not understand this?

        2) Whatever you mean by the Kinsey study being “incomplete” – that’s a good laugh. I imagine you’ve never seen the questionnaire. Whatever might be lacking from it wouldn’t detract in any way from what it found for the frequency of men’s boyhood sexual experiences with other males.

        3) People were more religious in Kinsey’s time than now. By your argument about people not telling the honest truth, people should have been less forthcoming then, compared to now. But men said they had 6x as many boyhood same-sex sexual experiences then as in the more recent Laumann study. And in the Scandinavian study, why would young men in Scandinavia (or all places) not tell the truth about boyhood same-sex experiences?

    4. “Obviously you still don’t understand what I’m saying. Then again you never did.”
      No, it’s YOU who doesn’t understand and never did.

      “The Kinsey study is outdated, yes, and that is exactly my point. How can you not understand this?”
      That’s EXACTLY what I said. RE-read what I wrote.

      “Whatever you mean by the Kinsey study being “incomplete” – that’s a good laugh.”
      When you finish laughing, come to your senses. It was grossly incomplete. That’s a FACT. It didn’t even understand the homosexual/bisexual element of growing up. And every number they used was influenced by either their church or “religion” in general. “Religion” not just wanted, but needed those low numbers of homosexuals so that their now-controlled society wouldn’t attempt to refute those puny numbers. After all, it was reinforced nearly every Sunday in their churches.

      But, notice how, through the decades, it [homosexuality] went from less than 1%, to 1%, to 2%, then slowly crawled it’s way up to now around 10%. The churches can’t do anything about those numbers now, but in fact, it’s noticeably higher. It always was, it’s just now being more affirmed with every scientific study taken recently. Even josh reported on an Iran study (of all places) that hovered around 17% — and that’s from a population that is at least ostracized if not outright murdered if found out to be homosexual. If Iran can report a more accurate number in their closed society, how can you believe the small numbers in the Western world where it’s more accepted?

      No, homosexuality within any given society is easily between 15-20%. And that 20% number is more accurate than the 15% — but I’ll concede that it might not be QUITE that high, but CLOSE. Think about my reasons I gave above for this and it makes total sense. And add to that, a society that is more accommodating to homosexuality than it ever was before. Cultural as well as scientific sense backs me up on this. Our problem is keeping the fucking churches and their religious bullshit OUT of our society enough to actually understand it.

      “People were more religious in Kinsey’s time than now.”
      No shit. That’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying. And what you said after that is completely in reverse of the actual TRUTH. Yes, Scandinavia is LESS religious, but it was and to small extent is still influenced by the HISTORY of religious bullshit if not the actual religions themselves.

      You need to get off that ignorant “feminism” cloak of bullshit and face reality.

      1. I see you still don’t understand. Let me repeat myself.

        The rate of boys’ same sex sexual experiences in the Kinsey study (collected in the 1950s, with most experiences happening in the 1920s) was several times more than a study that was done in the 1990s (the Laumann study at U of C).

        By your logic, there should have been more same-sex experiences in the later study, and even more since then (in the 2010s) but – contradicting your vision of how things work, there were many times more in the earlier study.

        I say one thing, and you read it as something different entirely, such as:

        “That’s EXACTLY what I said. RE-read what I wrote.” I KNOW it’s exactly what you said. That was my whole point. Again, how can you not understand this? About the prevalence of boys’ same-sex sexual experiences over time: it has gone way, way down. The reason is that in Kinsey’s day, the genders were largely segregated and the majority of boys (the majority of which identified as heterosexual) had sex with each other and with older males. That is not happening any more. To the extent that boys are having any sex at all, it’s mostly with girls.

        I have not been talking directly about the percent of people identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual. That has nothing to do with what I have been talking about this whole time.

    5. Woody:
      OK, Woody, I’m going to break down the Laumann study into common sense and show you how much bullshit you’re peddling in the name of “feminism.”

      First, the quote from here discussing this “study”:

      “In particular, the study finds that Americans have less sex, fewer partners and less exotic sex than other, less reliable studies have indicated. Among the findings of the study are the following:

      “Americans have sex about once a week, on average, but a third of adult Americans have sex a few times a year or not at all. The median number of sexual partners over a lifetime for American men is six. For women, the median number is two. More than 80 percent of Americans had only one partner or no partner in the past year and just 3 percent of women and men had five or more partners in the past year.

      “Marriage is alive and well. Almost all Americans marry, and 75 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women say they have remained faithful. The people who have the most sex and are happiest with their sex lives are monogamous couples.”

      Let’s tackle the “fewer/less sex” statements:
      “In particular, the study finds that Americans have less sex, fewer partners and less exotic sex than other … people who have the most sex and are happiest with their sex lives are monogamous couples.”

      If that were even close to being a fact, then WHY is the divorce rate so high in America? Let’s add to that: WHY are married men so quick and so often to find sex with another partner in America?

      By those questions alone, it shows that study is bullshit. From:
      “about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.”

      That blows your [Laumann’s] “faithful” percentages out of the water by a long shot. If you seriously posit that men divorce and find another female partner solely on their personality (LESS SEX), then you’re positing pure stupidity.

      I’m not going to go into each detail of that ignorant study, because it’s meaningless to accept that “study” (and boring).

      Younger people, BOTH BOYS & GIRLS are not only having MORE sex today, but also with MORE partners as well as a MORE VARIED sexual “palate.” PERIOD.

      To not believe that, then one needs to ask, WHY are there so many ways of CONTRACEPTION available to even the young (tweens)? Why is the abortion rate so low today? Because of the methods of contraception therefore, abortion isn’t as necessary.

      1. “More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.”

      2. “Twelve percent of abortion patients in 2014 were adolescents: Those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3% and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.”

      Those facts clearly show that younger people have more sex and with more partners in today’s world. The “stigma” against more sex and more partners very nearly doesn’t exist anymore (except probably at some pastor’s podium, which no one really pays attention to anymore.)

      And for gays/bis? It couldn’t be more simple and obvious: People not only are having a lot more sex and with different partners, but society (for the most part) isn’t castigating the gays as they used to. And overwhelmingly are accepting gay romances beginning from the tween years to senior years. This is a FACT. Yes, there are idealistic areas of America (bible, rust belts) that still “hate” gays (mostly inside their churches/among their ‘congregation’, but once out of them don’t really care that much). And the acceptance goes further once it’s found out (increasingly more often) that a family member is gay.

      Woody, get your head of your feminism ass and pay real attention to what’s going on all around you and your “inner circle.”

      1. You’ve made a whole series of completely indefensible claims which do not follow from each other in any scientific sense.

        “Younger people, BOTH BOYS & GIRLS are not only having MORE sex today, but also with MORE partners as well as a MORE VARIED sexual “palate.” PERIOD.”

        That is simply not true. There is nothing in any modern study approaching the amount of same-sex behavior between boys that existed in the timeframe when Kinsey’s subjects were boys.

  2. Well millennials is usually more like the 22-36 year range, not 17-34, although there is no clear definition, and according to the second graph, it’s not 20% but 16%, and for LGBTQ it’s really 12%, or rather, it’s not LGBTQ at all but LGBQ because being transgender was not polled as a sexual “orientation” in the stats and rightly so. And I suppose only Americans were polled, the article does not report on that either.

    I would also question an unreferenced “study” that seems to include all forms of asexuality as a sexual orientation and contradicts the regular polls that have been running for years, Here’s the Gallup poll that shows that 7.3% millennials identify as LGBT:

    Many of the category names used for sexual orientation and gender identity are really not common language so I wonder if the poll could not be a bit flawed because of it. And who wants to be put in a box anyway? Except for comedians who say Americans now have the choice of their health care plan: pine, maple or oak. This kind of boxes…

    Still, no doubt “it” is on the rise as you get younger. ;)

  3. 20% – 12% > The 20% is possible, since female bisexuality is very common nowadays, but the 12% is ridiculous prima facie. No doubt the millennials surveyed were likely college snowflakes and cupcakes, and thankfully they’re only taken seriously by themselves.

    US CIVIL RIGHTS > Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

    NYC COPS > It’s a dark blue city and all the branches of government are run by Democrats. But I don’t understand these officers – if a guy doesn’t masturbate in public, how will they, and most other people get to see him do it?

    QUEER COLLEAGUES > I didn’t think anybody cared. I’ve had gay employees in all of my businesses, and when I worked for others, I had 2 gay supervisors that I knew of. Bumped into one of them in an adult bookstore arcade. Those were the days ….

    CHURCH OF IRELAND > Protestants are heretics. ‘Nuff said.

    PUERTO RICO BK > Liberal Democrats have run the island’s governments for at least six decades, today the two biggest parties are the Democrats and Progressives, together getting almost 95% of the votes. The electorate gets the government it deserves – welcome to Venezuela-the sequel … the good news it that it happened. We can hope that Left-wing states like Illinois, California, and New York, already circling the drain, will finally get sucked under in turn. Democratic socialism is its own reward. I’m loving it.

    OBAMACARE REPEALED > Relax, we’re a long way from the replacement plan. Hopefully the new bill will not be a doomed-to-fail creature of one side’s ideology like the ACA was, but an effort concerned mostly with healthcare and the sick people who need it. What a novel idea. Don’t hold your breath. Write your Senators!

    EXEMPTIONS FORPOLITICIANS > So, what else is new. Drain the swamp!

    MONEY IN POLITICS > Funny thing, but I was never persuaded to cast my vote depending on which candidate spent the most money, or the least, and I don’t know anyone else who was. I never counted the ads. The Donald proved that you can be elected with no experience in government, and no obligations to big donors and bundlers. Hillary outspent Trump by almost 2-1. In 2014, my Congresswoman was outspent 2-1 by her opponent and won her seat by 163 votes. It is commonplace to see underfunded campaigns win out over big-bucks candidates. Party loyalty is no longer a guarantee of outcomes. My Congresswoman’s opponent, enjoyed an almost 1.5-1 advantage in party registrations.

    RIGHT-WING TERROR > The biggest and most dangerous terror groups are on the Left. Planned Parenthood has sponsored a baby bloodbath that has consumed more lives than Hitler’s Holocaust and Stalin’s purges combined. The Democratic Party bears close watching – its members incited violence and beatings at all of Trump’s campaign rallies – even went to far as to bus in wolf-raised reprobates to cause trouble. Disguised behind front groups like Antifa, they also riot on college campuses. On a smaller, but far more lethal scale is the Black Lives Matter gang that rioted and looted across the country, and whose acolytes were inspired to murder police officers everywhere. Former Attorney General Eric Holder nodded his approval when New Black Panther Party thugs armed with clubs terrorized voters at the polls.
    The Left has fractured the social contract, civility is history. It’s becoming dangerous out there. And on top of it all, we in this community still have to deal with occasionally violent bullies.

    If your state requires a permit for concealed carry, get it. Buy a carry gun. Practice often at your local range. . And carry. Every day, everywhere. Never leave home without it. Guns are like parachutes – if you need one and don’t have one, you’re very likely never to need one again.

    If you’re too young to lawfully possess a firearm, learn a martial art. Shit can go down anywhere, especially at school. Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

    1. “Planned Parenthood has sponsored a baby bloodbath that has consumed more lives than Hitler’s Holocaust and Stalin’s purges combined.”

      You’re a fucking LIAR. You extreme right-wing fanatics will always put out pure stupidity with these SAME FUCKING LIES.

      1. Aw c’mon Penboy, you can do better than this. I baited you on 4 places in my comment and you only bit on one. Read my post again, and really let me have it.

        Thanking you in advance.

    2. Most people will never need a gun. You’re obsessed with crime and random violence. Chances are you don’t live in a place where you would need them. And in the places where you might need them, it is the easy access to guns and ammunition which exacerbates the problem in the first place.

      You should have a right to a gun but you should be force to pay insurance for your gun and your ammunition, just like you do for your car.

      1. You’re right about my probably never needing to defend myself or my home with a firearm. I live in a walled, gated and guarded development. Neither I or any of my neighbors can remember the last time a crime occurred here. When I venture forth into the outside world, the odds of needing a weapon even out there are 1 in the high six figures.

        Except it already happened – once, back when I was a taxicab driver. I didn’t have to fire, just revealing I was armed deterred two passengers from following through what was obviously a set up for a robbery. Nobody got hurt. I reported the incident to the fleet manager, he said “them again!” He called the police and I had to give a complete account of the incident. I guess I was just lucky – two other drivers weren’t.

        As for requiring some kind of special gun insurance – forget it. Driving a car is a privilege not a right, and as such is subject to whatever conditions the government mandates. The right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected, and “shall not be infringed.” Requiring the purchase of insurance would definitely be an infringement, as unacceptable as taxing churches, or levying a poll tax on voting, or requiring insurance for a protest.

        1. “Requiring the purchase of insurance would definitely be an infringement, as unacceptable as taxing churches,

          You really blew it that time, horsey. There’s NOTHING in our Constitution either for or against taxing churches. I guarantee you, after we get this pig out of OUR White House, along with his fanatically religious sidekick, we will be right back on track to continue the processes of new laws to tax the churches and any other fucking religious institution/business/CORPORATIONS. It’s going to happen within some time. “Religion” is falling in membership every day in America and once we get the proper LEFT Congress and President in offices, their privileges will begin to cease as it should. That’s already happened and happening on a very small scale now. And that movement will increase in force as the years go by — and, thanks to Twump & Co., it’s going to happen even sooner. Don’t be surprised that Twump will be OUT of office even before 2018, but certainly I doubt he will finish a 4-year term.

          Americans have seen and are seeing just how CORRUPT churches/organizations are under the “religious” banner BECAUSE OF their tax exempt status. (And don’t look for a very small tax rate against them either — it’s going to be substantial. I just hope they make it retroactive for at least 20-30 YEARS.) I look at them as a pack of cigarettes: Tax the shit out of them!

          1. Regarding religion, the Constitution bars the government from making any law “prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof.” While “free” in this case means the government won’t interfere with any belief, liturgy or dogma, traditionally, religious buildings and organizations have been left off the tax rolls, lest any assessment might be an over-burdening, thus threatening the operation of any house of worship.

            But cheer up – it’s better here than in many European countries, where the citizenry is taxed to provide direct cash support to an established, official, state religion. In many European monarchies, the sovereign is not just head of state, but also head of the church. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is just such a monarch – she is legally both Pope and Caesar to her people. When King Louis XIV observed “L’Etat c’est moi,” he wasn’t kidding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *