Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPIA

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    In my 20 gay years I have had at least 1000 partners - most of the guys' faces remained totally unfamiliar to me thereafter, obviously.

    Comment


    • #17
      To "Sorry!"

      You are a Fool.....

      "The majority views the minority as freaks."

      So White people view african american people as freaks? Wow what year were you time warped from, it's obviously warped you're point of view too, I suggest you get back in you're time machine and disappear back to the dark ages, where you point of view fits in....

      Fool..........

      Comment


      • #18
        Guys:

        I was caught in the forest. By an undercover cop. What did I do? I grabbed his balls. Arrested. Charged. Discharged. Ordered to cumplete a psychosexual evaluation. What is that? Has anyone done it so far? What does it involve? How much does it cost? Thanx.

        Comment


        • #19
          My friend had the same problem....
          He said it was humiliating... Be prepared to TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR..... All questions designed to guide you into admitting you are a perv, child molester, or sexual freak... Dont even go down that path in the slightest way.

          You never come in contact with children....

          This incident was a one-time freak-experience that was a big mis-understanding....

          You never go to the woods or Parks on a regular basis...

          Swear that you will never go again.....

          You do not live near schools or have ANY reason to be near schools....

          Be ready to answer all questions as if you've never had sex with anyone before and you are not compelled to ever explore it again...
          **** how much it cost...This incident can pop-up on every credit application for the rest of your life if you're not careful...

          Comment


          • #20
            Judges may court order that an adult who is found guilty of a sex offense receive a sex offender evaluation or psychosexual evaluation as a condition of his probation, and that the offender follow any treatment recommendations given by the evaluator. In many states, offenders are required to receive a psychosexual evaluation after they have been found guilty but before their sentencing hearing. In these cases, the psychosexual evaluator may be asked to assess whether the offender's risk for reoffending is low enough for him to be placed in the community on probation. Probation officers may also request that an adult sex offender who is on probation take a psychosexual evaluation in order to assess his treatment needs and risk for reoffending.

            When a psychosexual evaluation is usually ordered?

            - When you have been found guilty or pled guilty to a sex offense of any kind.
            - When a person is deemed to have shown inappropriate sexual behavior such as: exposing oneself, peeping into others' windows, inappropriately touching others against their will, engaging in sexual activity with children, engaging in sexual activity with family members (his children or step-children), engaging in sexual activity with a non-consenting partner, engaging in sexual activity with animals, engaging in unusual sexual practices (cross-dressing or stealing women's underwear.)

            A psychosexual evaluation includes: an interview with the offender, review of court documentation and records, collateral contacts as appropriate,and psychological testing (MMPI-2, Millon Clinical Inventory, and Multiphasic Sex Inventory). The psychologist provides a general description of psychological and social functioning as well as recommendations regarding treatment needs and goals.

            The above assessments can be enhanced by combining them with psychophysiological assessments such as the polygraph, the penile plethysmograph, or the Abel Screening for Sexual Interest™.

            Comment


            • #21
              Just curious: what are all these, "MMPI-2", "Millon Clinical Inventory", "Multiphasic Sex Inventory" ... judging from the other cases when one is supposed to take this exams it looks like courts consider gay cases as being pretty serious...man, even ploygraph ... and I don't know what these two others are, penile plethysmograph and Abel Screening..?

              Comment


              • #22
                The last couple of messages are absolutley Ridiculous....I'm from the UK and have never heard of such trite...I mean ok I can understand the court hearing and a fine, but physcosexual evaluation? Ridiculous....

                Comment


                • #23
                  MMPI-2
                  ----------

                  The MMPI (oe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) is one of the most popular clinical psychology personality inventories in use today. The test was revised in the early 1990s, hence its new incarnation as the MMPI-2. There were some changes made in the question/items, but the primary change was in the standardization sample used. There are 567 items on the test. The scoring generates 6 validity scales and 10 basic clinical or personality scales. The latter are: Hypochondriasis, Depression, Hysteria, Psychopathic Deviate, Masculinity-Femininity, Paranoia, Psychasthenia, Schizophrenia, Hypomania, and Social Introversion. These scales are interpreted based upon their scored elevation, and also in combination with each other. In addition to the 10 basic scales, 3 "control" scales have been devised. The L or Lie scale was intended to measure the tendency to falsify about oneself by "faking good." High scores on this scale indicate that the individual has endorsed many items that suggest he does unlikely things such as daily reading of all the newspaper editorials or never telling a lie. The K scale, the second control, was intended to indicate defensiveness in the form of a tendency to present oneself in a more socially desirable way. The F scale, the third control, sought to tap the intrusive effects of answering the items carelessly and confusedly, as indicated by describing oneself as having rare and improbable characteristics.

                  Here it is a sample report:

                  http://www.psychscreen.com/singletest/sam_mmpi2.html

                  The MMPI is used in a variety of settings. Its primary use is by the clinical psychologist who is trying to understand the psychiatric symptoms and personality characteristics of his or her patient or test subject. Another use is by researchers trying to correlate personality variables to types of illness, critical life events, habitual behaviors, or other psychological variables. But probably, after its clinical function, the most common use of the MMPI is in forensic settings, e.g., criminal hearings, workman's compensation evaluations, etc.



                  Millon Clinical Inventory
                  -------------------------------

                  The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) is a 175-item true-false inventory which appears to answer the question: "What type of chronic psychopathology does the respondent have?" The MCMI is a direct operationalization of Millon's taxonomy proposed in Modern Psychopathology (1969). The text presents a taxonomy which is to account for (1) severity of the disorder, (2) covariation or clustering of signs, (3) a 4X2 (active-passive) matrix of disorders, (4) a circumplicial set of related pathognomic signs, (5) continuity between the pre-morbid personality and severe impairment, and (6) the separation between biological, situational, and personality factors.

                  The results produce 20 scores: 8 basic personality styles (schizoid, avoidant, dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, compulsive, passive-aggressive), 3 pathological personality syndromes (schizotypal, borderline, paranoid), 6 symptom disorders scales of moderate severity (anxiety, somatoform, hypomanic, dysthymia, alcohol abuse, drug abuse), 3 symptom disorder scales of extreme severity (psychotic thinking, psychotic depression, psychotic delusions), plus 2 additional correction scales which provide a means to identify and adjust possible test-taking distortion.



                  Multiphasic Sex Inventory
                  ----------------------------------

                  Assessment specifically designed to assess persons admitting to or having been alleged to have committed sexual offenses.
                  Assessments are designed to measure the sexual characteristics of sexual offenders, provide treatment direction and for measuring treatment progress.

                  The client's test taking behavior and response set patterns are assessed by 12 separate measures of test reliability and validity.
                  The Molester Comparison and Rapist Comparison Scales compare the client's scores to the scores of known child molesters and rapists. Psychosexual Scales assess Social Sexual Inadequacies, Emotional Neediness and Cognitive Distortions and Behavioral Scales assess Conduct Disorder, Sociopathy, Aggressive Patterns of behavior, Family Violence, and Substance Abuse. Added to the core paraphilia scales of Child Molest, Rape, Exhibitionism and Voyeurism , there are additional paraphilia indices of Sexual Harassment, Net Sex, Obscene Call, Pornography, Transvestism, Fetishism, Bondage/Discipline, Sexual Sadism and Masochism. Further assessment is made regarding Physiologic Dysfunction, Desire Disorder, Premature Ejaculation and Body Image. In addition to the Justifications Scale that was in the Original MSI, there are the added Accountability Scales of Denial, Scheming and Superoptimism. Gender Identity and Gender Orientation are also included in the MSI I battery. There is treatment information provided by the Treatment History and Treatment Attitudes. The Social Sexual History includes information regarding Sexual Development History (which includes past victimization), Marital History, Personal-Family History, Education History and Work History. Finally, a Critical Items List of the most pathological (stop) items are identified. The data has been gathered from a wide geographic area which includes Texas, California, Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Nebraska, Arizona, Utah, Washington and Quebec and includes non-sex offender normal males (normals are those who score "within normal ranges" on all 13 MMPI clinical and validity scales). The MSI II is now nationally standardized using approximately 2,000 subjects (drawn from a pool of 9,000) who have been census matched to the 1990 census on variables of age, ethnicity, education, occupation and marital status and coming from all five geographic regions.



                  Problems
                  ==> MMPI-2

                  The major problem with the MMPI and MMPI-2 is that mental health professionals may give testimony that is far beyond what the test can assess. In their reports, depositions, and testimony these professionals make interpretations and draw conclusions about how an individual's MMPI is in some fashion typical or not typical of sex offenders. The MMPI and the MMPI-2 have no scales that determine whether or not an individual is a pedophile or a sex offender. There has been research on MMPI scale elevations in sex offenders, but there is no typical sex offender MMPI profile. Although mean profiles often involve scales 4 and 8, with 9 and 2 also sometimes elevated, these elevations were also found in murderers, arsonists, and property offenders in a forensic psychiatric facility (Quinsey et al., 1980). Elevations on scale 4 are common in prison populations (Murphy and Peters, 1992).

                  The MMPI cannot establish whether an individual is a sex offender.

                  The MMPI and MMPI-2 can provide information about personality characteristics that can be useful in the overall analysis of a case. It is most useful when there are allegations of highly deviant, low base rate, or sadistic abuse which the individual denies, and a valid, within normal limits MMPI suggests the absence of psychopathology. In such cases, the clinician must pay attention to the discrepancy. MMPIs are often overinterpreted and misinterpreted. Such erroneous interpretations are not simply a matter of a difference of opinion; they are wrong and cannot be justified by the literature. Psychologists making such interpretations should be confronted and required to produce the research supporting their claims.

                  - Scale 5 0verinterpretations

                  A scale 5 (masculinity-femininity) elevation may be interpreted as reflecting sexual conflict and sexual dissatisfaction and thus making it likely that the person committed a sexual offense. A psychologist may testify that a scale 5 elevation meant the person had a tendency to act out sexually with a child. It is mistake to interpret an elevation on scale 5 as reflecting sexual conflicts or as meaning it is likely that the person is homosexual or a child molester, since there are many factors behind such an elevation. The MMPI-2 norms have resulted in much lower scale 5 elevations in males, so perhaps the frequency of this particular misinterpretation will be less in the future. Scale 5 is the least well defined and understood of the MMPI clinical scales (Butcher, 1990). An elevation on 5 in males is believed to reflect an intelligent, tolerant, imaginative, creative, sensitive, and empathic individual with a wide range of interests which do not fit the masculine stereotype. Scale 5 is highly correlated with education, intelligence, and social class and interpretations must take these factors into account (Butcher, 1990). A very high elevation (76 and above) is believed to be found in males who do not identify with the traditional masculine role and such elevations may indicate passivity and conflicts over sexual identity. However, there is no indication in the MMPI literature that child molesters or other sex offenders are more likely to score high on scale 5. Any testimony that a scale 5 elevation is typical of pedophiles or child sexual abusers should be countered by the lack of empirical support for such an assertion.

                  - Overinterpretation of the K Scale in Court or Custody Settings

                  An overinterpretation of a high K (defensiveness) scale in a court or custody setting is a common error. Any conclusions about defensiveness on the MMPI must be qualified in terms of the testing situation. Elevations on the K scale in persons taking the MMPI in custody and court situations are common and must not be interpreted as signifying defensiveness as a personality characteristic. It is a normal and adaptive response to the situation. In numerous forensic cases a K elevation in an otherwise within-normal-limits MMPI was interpreted by the psychologist as "clinically significant." In one case, the psychologist claimed the K elevation meant that the client was defensive and was trying to "present himself in the best light psychologically and emotionally" and was "trying to answer the questions in the direction of looking good." He further claimed that "Sexually, this kind of thing (an elevation on the K scale) is expected." There were no qualifications in terms of the setting in which the MMPI was taken. In addition, this was a professionally and occupationally successful man with college education. The person's social class and educational level must be considered in interpreting K since persons from higher social classes typically produce K scores on the MMPI-2 between 55 and 65 (Butcher, 1990).

                  - Failure to Recognize the Situational Factors in a Scale 6 Elevation

                  An elevation in scale 6 (paranoia) is a common response in persons who have been accused of sexual abuse and who deny the allegations. This is due to the affirmation of such items as he knows who is responsible for most of his troubles, someone has it in for him, he believes he is being plotted against, and he is sure he is being talked about. Rather than reflecting anger, hostility, suspiciousness, and paranoia as a pathological personality trait, the endorsement of these persecutory items reflects the individual's current reality and is a normal response to the situation. It is an error to interpret a scale 6 elevation in such a situation as indicating high defensiveness, anger, distrust, sexual conflict, poor behavioral controls, and tendencies toward acting out conflicts and impulses. In one case, a scale 6 elevation in a person accused of sexual abuse was labeled "seriously abnormal," a "very pathological profile," "scary" and the conclusion was made that the person was very likely to be a sexual abuser.

                  Departing from Standard Administration Procedures. Occasionally, a psychologist will send MMPIs home to be finished, or deviate from the standardized administration in other ways. In one case, the client left several items unanswered and the psychologist called him up and read the questions and recorded the answers over the telephone. Whereas psychologists may sometimes deviate from standardized administrations with therapy clients, it is never acceptable for an evaluation where the results of the evaluation are to be presented in the justice system and are to be used in making decisions about people's lives. Ziskin (1981) warns against this practice.


                  ==> Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI and MCMI-II)

                  When the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, along with the computerized interpretation is used, the psychologist is apt to report significant psychopathology. The computerized interpretation of the MCMI-II may be lifted verbatim and without qualification from the computerized printout which accompanies the test scoring. This practice is a particular problem with the MCMI-II, which is normed on and intended to be used for a clinical population. When used for other assessment purposes, the MCMI-II must be interpreted extremely cautiously because of its tendency to over-pathologize. The result of using these computerized interpretations greatly exaggerates psychopathology. The problem is not in the test, but in its misuse. The test is normed entirely on clinical samples and is only intended for persons who have psychological symptoms and are being assessed for treatment and evaluation. The manual (Millon, 1987) clearly states that this test is "not a general personality instrument to be used for 'normal' populations or for purposes other than diagnostic screening or clinical assessments." Millon has repeatedly warned against using the inventory with people who are not psychiatric patients because the test norms may not be valid if the subject does not fit the standardizing (psychiatric) group (Choca et al., 1992.)

                  The MCMI can provide useful information when interpreted cautiously and conservatively. Choca et al. (1992) state that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using the MCMI to test "normal" people as long as the evaluator is aware that the test was designed for and standardized with a psychiatric population. The user will have to make the appropriate adjustments. But this is seldom done. The computerized narrative must never be lifted verbatim into the report since it may find serious psychopathology and personality disorders in just about everyone. The attorney should vigorously cross-examine a psychologist who does this.


                  ==> Multiphasic Sex Inventory

                  Although the authors report on the use of the MSI in studies of sex offenders, it has not been reviewed in Buros. It is intended to be used in assessing sex offenders to develop treatment plans and to be used during treatment to assess progress. However, it is also sometimes used to assess an individual who denies sexual abuse to determine whether the individual actually is an abuser. This test is not intended for this purpose. It must never be used when the defendant is denying the offense. The manual accompanying the MSI states, "[I]t is important to remember that the MSI is not appropriate for use in the legal pursuit of guilt or innocence. The alleged offender must acknowledge culpability in order for the inventory to be used" (Nichols and Molinder, 1984, p. 39). It must never be used on an individual who denies being a sex offender or as part of an assessment to determine whether someone who denies an alleged sex offense is likely to have actually done it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Polygraph Disclosure
                    -----------------------------

                    You may be required by the psychologist doing the sex offender evaluation to fill out this "problem list" because it is not possible to effectively evaluate the sex offender without knowing the nature and extent of the offending behavior. The problem list is not a complete sexual history. It does not ask you about consenting, non-violent sexual experiences with other adults. This "problem list" focuses on deviant sexual behavior, e.g., on sex with children, violent sex or sexual practices that violate another person's boundaries or their privacy. You will be asked to list every deviant sexual act that you have ever committed. You will be given a polygraph on this information and results will be shared with the psychologist in order to enhance effectiveness of your evaluation. You will not be asked to provide identifying information about victims and you will not be asked to give information specific enough to be used to prosecute you. You can accurately fill out this form and pass your polygraph without giving any identifying information about your victims. You are required, however, to fill out information about the sex and age of victims, degree of force, and so forth. Always remember though, that polygraph does not work, they only want to make you believe that it works...

                    http://antipolygraph.org/


                    Abel Assessment for sexual interest™
                    --------------------------------------------------

                    In some cases a person referred by the court to take a Sex-Offender Evaluation may be required to undergo a test for assessing sexual interest, such as The Abel Assessment. It is noninvasive, does not require stimuli depicting nudity and always yields some response (i.e., there are no "non-responders" or "flat-liners" as one occasionally observes with the PPG) The Abel Assessment may be administered alone or as a complement to the PPG. It can be used to evaluate men, women, boys and girls 12-years of age and older. Developed by Gene Abel, presumed to be one of the country's leading experts in the field of sexual deviancy, the Abel measures an offender's sexual interest in 26 categories: interest in exhibitionism, voyeurism, fronteurism, sadomasochism, and fetishes. The offender is being evaluated by having him look at 160 slides of boys and girls, men and women and, after he has gotten familiar with them, rating them on a 7-point scale on a computer, the ratings being how disgusted or aroused he was by what he looked at. When the offender has completed the above step, which he easily does within 20-30 minutes, the results are sent over the Internet to Dr. Abel's clinic in Atlanta, GA and the results are faxed back. In addition to viewing the slides, the offender also completes a lengthy questionnaire which asks him about his interest in a variety of sexually deviant behaviors. The information is also sent to Dr. Abel's clinic and the results are faxed back. Both instruments present a wealth of information, information that is -- according to these psychologists -- objective. The questionnaire (there are specific questionnaires for men, and women) tells you how honest they were in responding to the items, to what extent they rely upon cognitive distortions (rationalizations), what deviant acts they are admitting to and how many times they have committed them, and concerns about the individual the ther apist should have.

                    21 Deviant Sexual Behaviors Tested For

                    1. Exhibitionism
                    2. Public ************
                    3. Fetishism
                    4. Frottage
                    5. Voyeurism
                    6. Bestiality
                    7. Obscene Phone
                    8. Necrophilia
                    9. Masochism
                    10. Coprophilia
                    11. Pedophilia
                    12. Rape
                    13. Sadism
                    14. Transvestism
                    15. PSM
                    16. Prostitutes
                    17. Sexual Affairs
                    18. Sex w/ Strangers
                    19. Telephone Sex
                    20. Pornography
                    21. Transexualism



                    PPG (Penile Plethysmograph)
                    ---------------------------------------

                    By means of this method you are measured changes in the circumference of your dick. A stretchable band with mercury in it is fitted around your dick; the band is connected to a machine with a video screen and data recorder. Any changes in dick size, even those not felt by the subject, are recorded while the subject views sexually suggestive or pornographic pictures, slides, or movies, or listens to audio tapes with descriptions of such things as children being molested. Computer software is used to develop graphs showing "the degree of arousal to each stimulus." The machine costs about $8,000 and was first developed in Czechoslovakia to prevent draft dodgers from claiming they were gay just to avoid military duty. Farrall Instruments Inc., of Grand Island, Nebraska, manufactures the device and in 1993 had sold most of the 400 units then in use in sex-offender treatment centers in some 40 states. Two uses have already been mentioned: to weed out false gays and to treat of sex-offenders. The latter is sometimes done in conjunction with aversion therapy, which involves subjecting patients to electric shocks or foul odors while being shown sexually suggestive pictures. The hope is that the treatment will dull the patient's interest in **** materials. Psychologists use the PPG to measure the success of the therapy.

                    Submission to a PPG has been made a condition of parole for certain sex offenders. The PPG has been used in child-custody cases to determine that a father is or is not likely to abuse his child, and in sentencing decisions for sex offenders. It has even been given to children as young as 10 who had abused other children. The latter was done in Phoenix, Arizona, with no evidence either that the test was useful or that it would not be harmful when given to children. Not everyone submits quietly to the PPG requirements, however. Officials in Old Town, Maine, had to pay nearly a million dollars to a policeman who was threatened with firing for refusing to submit to a PPG. Apparently, it is assumed that the more quickly aroused and the greater the engorgement the higher the "arousal level." Apparently, it is also assumed by many practitioners that any "arousal level" when viewing or listening to descriptions of naked children or adults having sex with children is "deviant." Yet, according to studies done by the inventor of the PPG, Dr. Kurt Freund, " many so called normal men who have not committed illegal sex acts show considerable arousal to stimuli depicting naked children or children involved in sexual activity." And, in one court case, Dr. Michael Tyson, a clinical and forensic psychologist specializing in the field of sexual criminal behavior, testified that "the vast majority of individuals who commit sexual offenses against children are not sexually aroused by stimulus material involving children."

                    The reliability and utility of the device have been argued in court and PPG evidence has been declared inadmissible because of its "questionable reliability." Nevertheless, there is a whole industry of therapists who treat sex offenders and think the PPG will assist them "in determining whether someone who has committed a sex crime has a pattern of deviant sexual interests." Therapists use the PPG to help them devise treatment programs and to measure the success of their treatment. All this is done without any concern, apparently, that there is no compelling evidence that sexual arousal or non-arousal from pictures or sounds significantly correlates with criminal deviant behavior. There is no compelling evidence that a person who gets aroused by pictures or sounds is significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than one who does not get aroused. On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence that a person who does not get aroused by pictures or sounds is significantly less likely to commit sex crimes than one who does get aroused.

                    Still, the PPG can provide some information which might prove useful to a sex-offender therapist. The computer software used with the PPG enables the tester to develop graphs that indicate whether the subject is more aroused by males than by females, by children than by adults, by coerced than by consensual sex, etc. The therapeutic controversy begins, however, as soon as the therapist tries to convert "arousal levels" to anything meaningful, such as claims that a sex- offender is "cured" or is "responding positively to treatment." This is in addition to the controversy already mentioned over using the PPG in conjunction with aversion therapy. One glaring problem with the use of the PPG is the lack of standardized materials to use as stimuli for subjects, a factor which clearly biases the data. Therapists vary greatly in the kind of materials they use to arouse subjects. Some materials are rather tame, e.g., nude adults, children in underwear or bathing suits. Others use hardcore pornography, including depictions of rape and pedophilia.

                    More objectionable than the questionable scientific validity of the device, however, are the moral and legal questions its use raises. Some of the materials would probably be illegal on the open market because they constitute child pornography. Much of the material is morally objectionable. Some of the uses of the device raise constitutional issues. For example, submission to the PPG test as a condition for employment, for enlistment into the armed forces, or for granting custody of children. Some penal institutions have made submission to the PPG a condition of parole, even though the device's usefulness as a predictor of behavior is unproven. The practice has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Many of those who treat sex offenders swear by the PPG even though there is no compelling evidence that PPG readings validly indicate a tendency to commit or not commit sex crimes.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hey guys, regarding psych evaluations: it's not gays only who may be required to undergo them, I read about a man who pleaded guilty to a charge of public indecency, a misdemeanor in Illinois and was ordered to pay a monetary fine, undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and write a letter of apology to the offended party. The neighbor through the back yard was able to observe him, undressed, in one of the rooms of his home. He admits that he should have drawn the shades, but like many of us, he thought the privacy of his own home gave him some latitude about what he wore or didn't wear. The neighbor, instead of talking to him about what she was able to see, reported him to the local police. The local police, instead of telling the neighbor to either mind her own business or talk to him, pressed the issue into a formal charge. What began as an issue easily settled between neighbors escalated into a scandal seized by the media in St. Louis and beyond. This was sensationalized to the extent that he and his family have been humiliated, the Illinois Conference was embarrassed, and in the end the man was no longer the Conference Minister of that Conference.



                      http://www.kocucc.com/musings/Jan%2028,%202002.htm

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        So, "Not Just Gays", what do you wanna say? That gays should endure state persecution and you're trying to comfort them by showing some lame example when even straight people have been prosecuted and ordered to complete sex-offender evals?

                        And after all, that just demonstrates how Nazi American government is when sends cops to bust a guy who is walking around naked in his own house!!! That just shows that this government does not respect the privacy of the indiviual but wrongfully interferes in the private lives of its citizens! Shame on America and its Nazi government!

                        It's unbeliavable how in the 21st century hypocritical America sends people who are, or are presumed to be homosexuals, to shrinks -- after arresting and humiliating them -- to be evaluated whether they are sexually-dangerous people or not! If I would happen to be gay and would have been caught in a situation like this, I would have much much more hate in my heart than even what a terrorist already has in his!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Cities are awash with the potential for sex. Shady backrooms, bathhouses, public toilets and car-parks are all possible semi-public locations for the act itself; while malls, shopping centres, railway stations, even the city streets themselves are spaces for flânerie and discreet (or indiscreet) gazes. Many of these spaces hold dualities of sexual narratives "” secret geographies where the queer is unseen by the straight, where erotic displays may be acted out in public places unbeknownst to the casual or uninitiated observer. Or, a public space by day can be busy with monogamous couples and happy families, yet by night very different brands of lifestyles may emerge. For example, parks and rest areas after dark can be sites where society's spurned congregate in search of sex, drugs, pornography, or all three. The act of gay sex in these spaces, while often derided, can be a performance of defiance, pure sexuality, or both. Its ANONYMITY provides a perhaps less threatening setting for many gay men to meet like-minded people than in nightclubs and bars, and may have had a part to play in the formation of various 'gay movements.'

                          ==> These spaces and the act of public sex itself should be celebrated or at least acknowledged as being non-harmful. <==

                          The use of the terms 'public sex' and 'public sex space' throughout this text is admittedly misleading "” many theorists agree that what happens in rest areas, toilets, and so on, is often neither public or technically sex (Hollister, 1999; Califa, 1982). 'Public' implies it is there for all to see and become involved in, yet there are almost always systems in place to ensure the acts are not seen accidentally or by police looking to make arrests - whether it be a designated lookout person, car door, woodlands, or whatever. Additionally, discriminations that disallow truly public 'access' are certainly evident. The term 'public sex' also does not adequately describe the acts that occur in bathhouses, which as businesses are technically private. However, for convenience's sake (and for want of something more appropriate) the term will be used in reference to all sexual acts that take place anonymously in bathhouses as well as semi-public spaces such as toilets and so on, as they share many characteristics.

                          The actual ritual of cruising for public gay sex is probably the least debatable aspect of this discussion - however, many sources document the ritual down to the smallest detail, for example Hollister (1999). Bech (1997), meanwhile, writes several chapters on the topic with apparent relish. A recurrent theme within these two texts is the

                          - lack of speech,
                          - the importance of body language and
                          - 'the gaze'.

                          A common conception of the act of public sex is that it is an 'easy option' for those who are - for whatever reason - unable to participate in 'regular' activities such as going to bars and night-clubs to seek out sexual partners. However, it becomes clear from the elaborate and complicated descriptions of the ensuing games of cat-and-mouse described by Bech and Hollister that sex acts and cruising in these spaces are in no way 'free-for-alls' - there are discriminations in place that can be very distinct. Modern discussions of so-called "queer space" often revolve around the class-based exclusion of individuals from spaces of consumption such as bars, nightclubs and 'ghettos.' In public sex spaces, exclusions are also very much in effect. To begin with the seemingly obvious, gay public sex spaces are almost always EXCLUSIVELY MALE SPACES. As the only purpose for being there is 'getting off' - according to Hollister women are seen as an uninvited threat to what 'should be' a male-only domain. He writes that if a woman is spotted, the place will empty even more quickly than if a policeman is spotted (1999). Indeed, Hollister even likens it to the "gendering of adventure and of rape", and notes that "hunting is a common metaphor when cruisers do talk about their experience". He writes that the reason for the lack of women-only 'tea-room sex' (antiquated slang for 'toilet sex') is not because of an innate difference between women's and men's sexuality, but because the female identity is not deeply rooted in that history of active "adventure" and "rape". Similarly, van Lieshout's writings on a Dutch highway rest area document a highly masculinised sex culture of leather, adventure and (not always just simulated) sexual violence (1997). Furthermore, in the public sex space (at least, in Hollister's observed spaces) there are distinct hierarchies in place determined by body shape and size, age, and a person's 'newness' to the site. In other words, fit young men who are 'fresh meat' (those who have not been spotted before) are the most actively sought after partners. The hierarchy related to 'newness' can be as extreme as number plates and car descriptions being remembered by users of a particular space, and the subsequent avoidance of recognisable cars (Hollister, 1999). The anonymous space of the bathhouse is similarly discriminatory, with body shape being a major factor involved in an individual's inclusion/exclusion (Tattelman, 1997).

                          The arguments that public sex spaces exclude certain individuals are not nearly as effective at reaching an audience as ones that play on Western society's sense of 'moral decency.' During the mid/late 1980s bathhouses and public toilets were closed down en masse in many European and North American cities, as the AIDS epidemic swept the globe. In New York alone, 16 bathhouses were known to exist in the decade before AIDS, while today there are only 3 remaining. It was the belief of many that the anonymous sexual encounters these sites permitted were the primary vectors of the disease "” an argument that pervaded straight as well as gay communities (Tattelman, 1997). This was further fuel to the fires of gay activists and straight upholders of 'common decency' who had been calling for the closure of these spaces for years. Gay activists felt that the existence of such 'offensive' spaces were a large obstacle in the way of acceptance by straight society (Califa, 1982), while others argued for their closure purely out of moral objection to semi-public acts of gay sex. Tattelman argues, however, that the AIDS related closure of the bathhouses and public toilets was unnecessary, as AIDS was spread more through unsafe sex practices in private - this is certainly a debatable point, as no statistics seem to exist as to where HIV was spread in the mid 1980s. For different reasons, Lindell agrees that the closure of these sites was unnecessary. For all their recognised and debatable failings, many describe public sex spaces as NECESSARY SITES OF RESISTANCE and even FREEDOM.

                          Sometimes people just want to survive and lead a relatively happy life, and public sex spaces can offer potential for this also. Ingram, e.g., describes sites such as parking lots and parks as crucial for "erotic contact between individuals who cannot have guests at home and for people in heteronormative households who have needed somewhere "to get some space"" (1997). Bell takes this idea further in discussing the act of an individual simply being in public and being themselves in that space (1997). The mere presence of a sexed body in space acts as a personal resistance to the "dead weight of heteronormativity". For people who are closeted, married, homeless, or unwilling to accept their sexuality in other areas of their life, the act of public sex can be an expression of sexuality not available in its more 'acceptable' forms within the privacy of the home. Still, ANARCHIC DEFIANCE may still be the most important here -- in the Australian film "Head On," warring against cultural tradition and the expectations of the family are played out in acts of violence, gay public sex, and drug use.

                          Bell and Binnie (1998) discuss Andrew Holleran's idea of the city streets as a queer utopia - Holleran's ever-popular queer novel "Dancer From the Dance" describes the New York City night as a scene where inhabitants live for the city streets and the night itself, on a backdrop of derelict buildings and poverty:

                          "They were the most romantic creatures in the city ... If their days were spent in banks and office buildings, no matter: their true lives began when they walked through this door "” and were baptized into a deeper faith, as if brought to live by miraculous immersion. They lived for the night." (Holleran, 1978; in Bell & Binnie, 1998)


                          The darkened city streets allow for secret gazes and chance encounters in an otherwise hostile world, forming a CORE FOR THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE SEXUAL DISSIDENT. However, Bell and Binnie write that to merely walk the city streets is to "enunciate queerness itself", that the streets are "yellow-brick roads on the path to sexual self-realisation" through the act of flânerie. Tattelman writes of the bathhouses of the 1970s as similarly identity-forming:

                          "While sexual relations may have been the main reason people went to the baths, not everyone took advantage of the situation. There were other ways to participate in one of the few spaces that openly catered to gays ... In this enclosed space, safe from homophobic attacks, COMMUNITY and IDENTIFICATION flourished." (1997)

                          Thus, public sex spaces can be scenes of identity formation and, certainly in the days that Tattelman describes, organisation towards attempts at empowerment. Although in many ways the anonymity of the situations in the bathhouses created extensions of the closet, the shared rituals and behaviour were a defiance of the outside world. Indeed, the bathhouse was in many ways a completely different world, Tattelman writes that "ideally the bathhouse tried to ERASE THE BOUNDARIES THAT DIVIDE people; clothing was removed, and issues of class were left at the lockers". This provided a space where, as trappings of the real world were removed, common identities of sexuality were allowed to flourish. According to Tattelman, in the 1970s this led many men towards a strong identification to the label of 'gay' and a desire to emulate the sense of community in the 'real world.' This may have aided the spread of the gay movement in Europe, North America, and presumably Australia and other countries. Although not specifically linked by Tattelman, it is feasible that similar feelings were and perhaps still are generated in more public sex spaces than bathhouses. Yet, Hollister (1999) argues that THE VERY NATURE OF PUBLIC SEX DEFIES ANY LABEL, that it is a purer form of sexuality where the words and connotations of 'gay,' 'straight,' 'bi,' ˜queer' are not necessary. The ACT OF SEX SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, and no participant cares what the other does in their everyday lives. Monogamy, marriage, family and the closet become unimportant in the public sex space - everyone in that space is looking for one thing, and at that moment it is all that matters. Furthermore, Hollister argues that public and anonymous sex goes beyond, and stands IN DEFIANCE AGAINST THE POSTURING AND THEORISING OF 'GAY ORGANIZATIONS' AND ACTIVISM. It is, in itself, sexuality "” after all, is not 'gay' simply about when a man is attracted to another man?

                          ANONYMOUS SEX IS ANTI-ORGANIZED -- SPONTANEOUS AND ANARCHIC -- AND A BETTER VIEWPOINT FROM WHICH TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF SEXUALITY.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            If sodomy -- consensual gay sex (oral and/or anal) done in private -- is still considered a crime in 15 states of the U.S.A that shamelessly still have sodomy laws in their books, it remains no other option that to venture out there in the open...

                            1) Alabama -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $2,000 Fine

                            2) Florida -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: 60 Days & $500.00 Fine

                            3) Idaho -- Felony. Maximum Penalty: Life in Prison (HAPPY HOLIDAYS!)

                            4) Kansas -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: 6 Months & $1,000 Fine

                            5) Louisiana -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 5 Years & $2,000 Fine

                            6) Maryland -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 10 Years & $1,000 Fine

                            7) Michigan -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 15 Years (Repeat Offenders: Life in Prison) (JINGLE-BELLS, JINGLE-BELLS - SING IT!)

                            8) Mississippi -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 10 Years

                            9) Missouri -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $1,000 Fine

                            10) North Carolina -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 10 Years & Discretionary Fine

                            11) Oklahoma -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 10 Years

                            12) South Carolina -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 5 Years & $500 Fine

                            13) Texas -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: $500 Fine

                            14) Utah -- Misdemeanor, Maximum Penalty: 6 Months & $1,000 Fine

                            15) Virginia -- Felony, Maximum Penalty: 20 Years

                            Sodomy laws applies to *homosexuals only* in Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas.


                            * * *

                            A nice little detail: When George W. Bush was running for governor of Texas he was asked whether he favored retention of Texas' sodomy law (currently in legal limbo). He said, 'yes', he thought the state should keep the law, chiefly for its symbolic value.

                            A symbol of what? A symbol, I think, of social disapproval. A symbol that society regards gay sexuality as defective, inferior and distasteful, tolerates it only contingently, and reserves the theoretical right to prohibit gay sexual expression because it is something we have no natural right to do. It is a symbol that not only our pleasures, but our deepest relational commitments are shallower and less deserving of respect than those of heterosexuals, and, in short, that we are simply inferior human beings, not to be accorded the full autonomy, dignity or esteem granted to other citizens.

                            It follows from this that sodomy laws not only express social disapproval and lesser regard for gays, but they also serve the conservative function of reinforcing existing social disapproval and giving it a stamp of legitimacy. One has to wonder why some bright young reporter did not speak up to ask the young Bush,

                            "Do you mean to suggest, sir, that in your view the superiority of heterosexuality is not sufficiently evident to the public without the support of such legal symbols?

                            "And, sir, a follow-up question if I may? If the social superiority of heterosexuality is not readily evident to people, then wherein does its non-evident superiority lie?"

                            Bush's statement, however, suggests he believes it is legitimate to devalue some people in order to bolster some other group of people. This is an odd claim to make in a country dedicated to either liberty or equality, though it may have a certain intelligibility in the Confederate South.

                            * * *

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Wow, I moved to the US 3 years ago, I am so suprised at how backward thinking the government of this country is.....

                              The UK embrases same sex partnerships and couples...Non of the bullshit about sodomy laws, I mean what two consenting people want to do in the privacy of thier own home whether neighbours are spying or not is up to them....I mean people pay enough in taxes, the police and government should be doing more with their time....

                              Look at some of this stuff, I don't know sometimes how people are not shocked by the level of discrimination in this country against gay people....We have many states, one of which offers life inprisonment should you be could in a consentual homosexual act....We have lawmakers on the hill who are trying to make constitutional changes so that the constitution reads that only a man and women may "marry", we have other law makers who catagorize being gay with being a bigot etc....How on earth do people like this get into the positions they are in?

                              You guys also have a president who himself is discriminative, never approaching gay issues, along with a man who is HEAD OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT that is supposed to protect peoples rights and liberties preventing employee's of that department celebrating gay pride becuase the president did not "sanction it"......

                              It's a sad day, I hope some day America catches up with the rest of the world, and opens it's mind to accept people who are not you're usual christian white people...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I agree "UK view" -- America is 200 yrs behind....


                                AUSTRIA
                                1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 18 for gay men and 14 for lesbians and heterosexuals.
                                2. Allows homosexuals in its military.
                                3. The city of Bludenz, has a non-discrimination "declaration" which includes "sexual orientation".
                                4. The 1993 Police Security Act, requires the police to refrain from any actions that could create the impression of bias or could be
                                perceived as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
                                - Austria's Constitutional Court in July 2002 ruled unconstitutional a law allowing prison sentences for men having gay sex with men younger than 18. The court said that making sex between two men over the age of 14 illegal was discriminatory. Remember that Austria has the strictest rules (!)governing gay sex in the European Union. The Constitutional Court gave legislators until Feb. 28, 2003, to revise the law.

                                DENMARK
                                1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 15 for all, but
                                it is an offence to "induce" a person under 18 to sexual acts "by gravely abusing superior age or experience".
                                2. Allows homosexuals to register their partnership and gives them (with some exceptions) the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual married couple.
                                3. Allows foreign partners of its homosexual citizenry to receive residency permits.
                                4. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay discrimination.
                                5. Allows homosexuals in its military.
                                6. Allows homosexuals in registered partnerships to adopt their partners' children, but not other children.

                                FRANCE
                                1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 15 for all. (!!!)
                                2. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay discrimination including employment, service, public or private.
                                3. Allows homosexuals in its military, but homosexuals may be excused from compulsory service if they make a case for being (adversely psychologically affected).
                                4. Has a partnership law that grants registered couples, gay or straight, romantic or not, many of the rights of marriage. The law applies in areas such as income tax, inheritance, housing, immigration, health benefits, job transfers, synchronized vacation time, responsibility for debts, and social welfare. It does not grant equality in the areas of parental rights, adoption or medically assisted procreation. Unlike heterosexual couples who get married, registered partners will tie the knot before a court rather than at the town hall. They also will not be allowed to file a joint tax return until they've been together three years. Married people can do so immediately.

                                - Andre Labarrere (Socialiste)(Pyrenees-Atlantiques), member of the French Senate, is openly gay.
                                - Bertrand Delanoe (Socialiste), Mayor of Paris, is openly gay.

                                GERMANY
                                1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 14 for all. Sexual activity with a person over 14 and under 16 by a person over 18 exploiting a vulnerably placed minor or for payment can be punished with up to 5 years imprisonment, and sexual activity with a minor in the same age group by a person of over 21 if he or she takes advantage of the victims incapability of sexual self-determination can be punished with up to 2 years imprisonment.
                                2. Allows same-sex couples to register their partnerships; gives them hospital visitation rights; grants German resident status to foreign partners; extends to gay and lesbian co-parents some parental rights with respect to their partners' biological children; gives couples status identical to married couples for purposes of tenancy, inheritance (excluding inheritance taxes), pensions, and health insurance; and requires a formal legal process for dissolution of partnerships, and provision for one partner to collect support from the other afterwards if necessary.
                                3. Allows homosexuals in its military, but not as officers.
                                4. Berlin, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.
                                5. Hamburg offers a domestic partner registry for same-sex couples, it allows hospital visitation rights, and federally subsidized low-rent housing to registered partners.

                                - Christina Schenk and Volker Beck both are openly homosexual members of the German Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament).
                                - Klaus Wowereit (Social Democrat), Mayor of Berlin, is openly gay.

                                - On 7-17-02 Germany's high court upheld a law that gives same-sex couples some marriage like benefits. Judges at the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe voted 5-3 to back the law, which was challenged last year by Bavaria and two eastern states. The court rejected a lawsuit by conservatives who argued gay marriage violates constitutional provisions protecting marriage and the family. The law, in effect since August, allows same-sex couples to "marry" at registry offices and requires a court decision for divorce. Same-sex couples also receive rights given to heterosexual couples in areas such as inheritance and health insurance. The legislation brought Germany in line with countries such as Denmark, which was the first to grant rights to same-sex couples in 1989, France and Sweden. The Netherlands remains the only country that extends equal marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

                                --- NETHERLANDS ---
                                1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person's parents. The question remains whether the public prosecutions department would proceed to prosecute if the young person themself had consented and their parents filed the complaint.
                                2. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay discrimination, including labour, housing, medical care and access to goods and services.
                                3. Allows homosexuals in its military. Dutch laws permit members of the armed services to engage in consensual homosexual relationships when off duty and away for military premises, be it with a civilian or a member of the armed services of the same or another rank.
                                4. The Royal Dutch Air Force requires everyone entering the force to undergo an innovative training program to increase sensitivity to Gays in the Air Force. The Dutch armed forces appear to be the most sensitive to gays in the world, although the Army and Navy do not have similar training programs.
                                5. Allows foreign partners of its homosexual citizenry to receive residency permits.
                                6. Allows homosexuals to adopt children.
                                7. Allows same-sex couples to marry, granting gay couples complete parity with married heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples can marry at city hall and adopt Dutch children. They will be able to divorce through the court system, like heterosexual couples.

                                Comment

                                Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                                Home Page

                                Immigration Daily

                                Archives

                                Processing times

                                Immigration forms

                                Discussion board

                                Resources

                                Blogs

                                Twitter feed

                                Immigrant Nation

                                Attorney2Attorney

                                CLE Workshops

                                Immigration books

                                Advertise on ILW

                                EB-5

                                移民日报

                                About ILW.COM

                                Connect to us

                                Questions/Comments

                                SUBSCRIBE

                                Immigration Daily



                                Working...
                                X