Another Great Reason why ? Men should not raise children...
Comments
-
This premise is ridiculous. ? men should be able to raise kids like anyone else. Cut the ? .
-
I can tell by a lot of the responses most of you did not read what has been posted before your homotions on the subject overruled your logical mind and compelled you to post in defense and protest...
-
public acceptance of homosexuality needs to be eradicated ? should be protected under the law but all this extr ? they want like marriage rights and adoption needs to stop for all the reasons stated in this thread.
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »I can tell by a lot of the responses most of you did not read what has been posted before your homotions on the subject overruled your logical mind and compelled you to post in defense and protest...
Your correlation is weak. You opened your argument with a single incident describing sexual abuse of a child by his legal homosexual parents and then showed that 30% of homosexuals have admitted to being sexually abused by homosexuals. You have not done anything to prove how much of this sexual abuse is committed by parents.
Also women are far more likely to be sexually abused as children than men - that does not mean heterosexual men should be forbidden from raising girls -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »I can tell by a lot of the responses most of you did not read what has been posted before your homotions on the subject overruled your logical mind and compelled you to post in defense and protest...
Your correlation is weak. You opened your argument with a single incident describing sexual abuse of a child by his legal homosexual parents and then showed that 30% of homosexuals have admitted to being sexually abused by homosexuals. You have not done anything to prove how much of this sexual abuse is committed by parents.
Also women are far more likely to be sexually abused as children than men - that does not mean heterosexual men should be forbidden from raising girls
My correlation is on point from multiple sources and you just regurgitated part of what I already stated like it contradicts the argument. Not one detractor has produced facts or sources to refute what Women are far more likely to "Report" sexual assault therefore they get assistance with the matter on a higher basis then most men. Paraphilia of any type has almost 80% pf those diagnosed also acknowledging a history of sex abuse. Getting help for and acknowledging these facts is going to help society as it is through education that it can be overcome. Much like the AIDS epidemic has been offset by education so too can Child abuse but ignoring the cycle because it also sheds light on unkind facts about Homosexuality is asinine. What 2 consenting adults due is up to them, but people should at least acknowledge that some of those consenting adults are suffering from disorders inflicted by trauma. I commend those victims that have some moral compass and do not victimize others as they have overcome something major, my admiration is for their choice and willpower to not continue a cycle that damaged them... -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Soloman, any data you can show that can prove this? I've heard this before but never actually seen evidence of it
yes the data is out there but it is not addressed and ignored by the lamestream media...
Here are a couple of articles on the matter...
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482.full
http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/
breif abstract summary of article 2009 jesperssen sexofender research study...Objective: The sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis states there is a specific relationship
between sexual abuse history and sexual offending, such that individuals who
experience sexual abuse are significantly more likely to later engage in sexual offenses.
Therefore, samples of adult sex offenders should contain a disproportionate number of
individuals who have experienced sexual abuse, but not necessarily other types of abuse,
compared with samples of other types of offenders.
Methods: We compared rates of sexual and other forms of abuse reported in 17 studies,
involving 1,037 sex offenders and 1,762 non-sex offenders.We also examined the prevalence
of different forms of abuse in 15 studies that compared adult sex offenders against adults
(n = 962) and against children (n = 1,334), to determine if the sexually abused–sexual abuser
association is even more specific to individuals who sexually offend against children.
Results:We observed a higher prevalence of sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders
than among non-sex offenders (Odds Ratio = 3.36, 95% confidence intervals of 2.23–4.82).
The two groups did not significantly differ with regard to physical abuse history (OR = 1.50,
95% CI = 0.88–2.56). There was a significantly lower prevalence of sexual abuse history
among sex offenders against adults compared to sex offenders against children (OR = 0.51,
95% CI = 0.35–0.74), whereas the opposite was found for physical abuse (OR = 1.43, 95%
CI = 1.02–2.02).
Conclusion: There is support for the sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis, in that sex
offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than non-sex offenders, but not more
likely to have been physically abused.We discuss potential mechanisms for the relationship
between sexual abuse history and sexual offending, including the possibility that a third
factor might account for the relationship.
Practice implications: The most obvious implications of these findings is that the prevention
of sexual abuse of children, either through prevention programs directly targeting
children or through treatment programs targeting individuals who are likely to sexually
offend against children (e.g., known sex offenders against extra-familial boys), may eventually
reduce the number of sex offenders. This implication is dependent, however, on a
causal role of childhood sexual abuse, and on the effectiveness of prevention and treatment
practices.
©
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/?skip_splash=1
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3
the also factor the report rate of sexual abuse period and in particular amongst males...
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/disclosure-statistics
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5525017/k.5115/Justice_Study_Prior_Abuse_Reported_by_Inmates.htm
can give you more if you need it fam but it is not had to connect the dots the info is out there but if you report the facts on it you become a Foxnews loving bigot in the eyes of these poor brainwashed drones...
Damn powerful post.....I'll keep this in mind next time I see a similar topic -
public acceptance of homosexuality needs to be eradicated
? should be protected under the law
-
when i say public acceptance i mean social acceptance. 40 year old men ? 17 years old girls is protected under state law but such behavior is frowned upon by the public at large.
and for the 10th million time what race are you? -
when i say public acceptance i mean social acceptance. 40 year old men ? 17 years old girls is protected under state law but such behavior is frowned upon by the public at large.
but it completely misses the point: how can you have someone's rights protected under the law when they're deemed socially/publicly unacceptable?and for the 10th million time what race are you?
-
Your argument is weak. I took some time aside to do some real research. If your argument is true it is definitely something to consider. In my search online I found this site: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.htmlWhat About Claims That Scientific Research Proves ? Men Are Likely To Molest Children?
Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and ? are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse. [cited by thread starter, written by the FRC]
With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.
In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and ? age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
On average, ? men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that ? men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.
Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (? , heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding ? men.
Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike. -
Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his ? . The tube detected any changes in ? circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (? , straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.
Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.
This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:
refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."
In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or ? ). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):
"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)
Jay & Young. (1977). The ? report: Lesbians and ? men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
This book, published more than 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.
Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.
In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.
-
That discredits the FRC arguments rather nicely. Now moving on to your other sources.
Your claim that "almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children" is based on Cameron.Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?
One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.
In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).
Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.
For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.
It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.
In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.
This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).
A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.
In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about sexual abuse by foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% of the perpetrators had abused a foster child of their own sex, that is, female-female or male-male abuse (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.
Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminished credibility in this area is that his work was not even cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.
Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that ? or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
And if you take note of the above Cameron's work was poorly conducted and is not reliable.
-
when i say public acceptance i mean social acceptance. 40 year old men ? 17 years old girls is protected under state law but such behavior is frowned upon by the public at large.
but it completely misses the point: how can you have someone's rights protected under the law when they're deemed socially/publicly unacceptable?and for the 10th million time what race are you?
there are lots of groups that are not socially acceptable but their rights are protected, for example ? members have the right to march
Race is everything and touches every aspect of the individual and society. European society is intrinsically a homosexual one
-
when i say public acceptance i mean social acceptance. 40 year old men ? 17 years old girls is protected under state law but such behavior is frowned upon by the public at large.
but it completely misses the point: how can you have someone's rights protected under the law when they're deemed socially/publicly unacceptable?and for the 10th million time what race are you?
Race is everything and touches every aspect of the individual and society. European society is intrinsically a homosexual one
Then why didn't they die out? -
when i say public acceptance i mean social acceptance. 40 year old men ? 17 years old girls is protected under state law but such behavior is frowned upon by the public at large.
but it completely misses the point: how can you have someone's rights protected under the law when they're deemed socially/publicly unacceptable?and for the 10th million time what race are you?
Race is everything and touches every aspect of the individual and society. European society is intrinsically a homosexual one
Then why didn't they die out?
I said that european society was at it's core ? , not that every white person was a ? .
it is only the influence of african and middle eastern religion on europe that has moderated their pro-homosexual behavior.
with the influence of christianity weakening in part due to europeans corrupting the image of it, atheism is on the rise in the west. so therefore white society will be slowly reverting to their natural behavior. -
How is it ? at its core if a majority of them are not ? ? What is ? about them?
-
How is it ? at its core if a majority of them are not ? ? What is ? about them?
They don't all have to be ? the majority don't all have to be ? . what i am trying to tell you is that with out the influence of the middle east and africa. European society at it's core is homosexual
All you have to do is read some of their mythology DO some research on the greeks they were faggy as hell the same goes for the vikings they used to ? male captives. -
there are lots of groups that are not socially acceptable but their rights are protected, for example ? members have the right to marchRace is everything
-
there are lots of groups that are not socially acceptable but their rights are protected, for example ? members have the right to marchRace is everything
You are willingly missing the point and trying to be passive aggressive only females act like that, be a man stop being a coward and a ? . RACE influences everything in america what race are you ? why don't you want to answer a simple question ?
just because certain behaviors are PROTECTED BY THE LAW that does not mean it is acceptable to the public at large i only used the kkk marching as an example here is another one.
a man can pay child support and have no contact with his children, to do so is perfectly legal but most people don't support such behavior. what i am saying is that ? can live there lives but the public should not embrace homosexuality and everything that surrounds it as a good way of life.
-
the social world and the legal world are to different things and in every society that has law you will find divergence between each world and what is acceptable in one may not be acceptable in the other. legally i can drink as much rum as i want but socially being a ? is frowned on.
-
How is it ? at its core if a majority of them are not ? ? What is ? about them?
They don't all have to be ? the majority don't all have to be ? . what i am trying to tell you is that with out the influence of the middle east and africa. European society at it's core is homosexual
All you have to do is read some of their mythology DO some research on the greeks they were faggy as hell the same goes for the vikings they used to ? male captives.
Those are only 2 cultures. The Russians descend from the Swedes, and they are one of the least ? countries out here right now. They are also orthodox, and got their religion from the Greeks. If your claims are true they are heavily influenced by two homosexual nations yet have retained none of the homosexuality. Why?
-
How is it ? at its core if a majority of them are not ? ? What is ? about them?
They don't all have to be ? the majority don't all have to be ? . what i am trying to tell you is that with out the influence of the middle east and africa. European society at it's core is homosexual
All you have to do is read some of their mythology DO some research on the greeks they were faggy as hell the same goes for the vikings they used to ? male captives.
Those are only 2 cultures. The Russians descend from the Swedes, and they are one of the least ? countries out here right now. They are also orthodox, and got their religion from the Greeks. If your claims are true they are heavily influenced by two homosexual nations yet have retained none of the homosexuality. Why?
You do not understand what i am trying to tell you because you keep asking the same question
The russians are one of the least pro-? nations in europe because of the influence of non-european religion orthodox christianity is still christianity which means it's not a european religion. Only the adoption of non-european religion and has stopped the greeks from ? little boys pedophila was part of greek and roman culture. By the time the russians learned greek orthodox christianity the greeks had already changed thanks to middle eastern and african religion. If not for this the russians would be similar to sweden which is very pro-? and highly atheist which only proved my point more. The swedes also adopted christanity but as they have slowly moved away from it they have also become more and more ? and sexually perverse because that is there nature.
The european is naturally sexually perverse. -
Seems like you're confounding liberalism with atheism.
At one point the Soviet Union was strongly anti-religion, yet still anti-? . -
Seems like your confounding liberalism with atheism.
Most atheist are liberal.
European culture and society is largely ? ? and sexually perverse period.
before the spread of christianity whites believed in gods and often these gods were bi sexual these gods and religious beliefs were a reflection on the culture.