They’re all predators, as shown in this cartoon rendering of the Penn State child rape scandal from Taiwan’s Next Media Animation. So while the haters try to drag homosexuality into this wretched story, just remember that the real predators are straight dudes who are more beast than man.
BAD BEHAVIOR
WATCH: What Do Michael Jackson, The Catholic Church And Lions All Have In Common With Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky?
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Jack
Who is this Daniel Villarreal character blowing to get this job? Every time I see a poorly-written article, he is the author. Every time I see an offensive article, he is the author. Every time I think there must be a better collection of LGB articles on the web, it’s because I just read his article. There are a lot of people complaining about Queerty, but I’m trying to actually be helpful: Daniel Villarreal needs to be fired or –at the very least–have all of his posts closely monitored before publishing. There is specific feedback that can actually help Queerty.
Cinesnatch
The real predators are straight dudes? Or repressed homosexuals who have imposed socialized traditions on their lives and then act out in monstrous ways as a result? Or straight man who were molested by men in their youth and whose internalized victimization and shame has resulted in perpetuating the sick cycle? Or both? Or, in the very unique instance of Michael Jackson, who have the incredibly obscure possibility of a Peter Pan syndrome. Though I don’t necessarily subscribe to it, there is the possibility that Jackson, through a series of poor choices, didn’t harm any children in any way.
Need I remind you by lumping Sandusky in with the Catholic Church, you’re comparing a married (therefore straight, in your opinion) man with a bunch of men who have taken a vow of celibacy (who can’t technically be labeled gay or straight as a general group), and who are, in fact, disproportionately gay to the general populace, as it is a career that tends to attract gay men.
Your spinning trivializes matters as much as conservative organizations who immediately label this as typical behavior of gays.
The matter is so much more complicated than you have unfortunately simplified, Mr. Villarreal. By simplifying it, you don’t do the gay community, nor the community at large, any great service. Thanks for nothing. And I agree wholeheartedly with Jack in Post #1.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Cinesnatch:
From your first post here on Queerty, you were spouting bullshit, and it’s only gotten deeper with each comment you’ve left.
Ignoring your absurd parroting of psychobabble you’ve no doubt heard on talk TV, please provide a citation for this absurd statement:
Need I remind you by lumping Sandusky in with the Catholic Church…and who are, in fact, disproportionately gay to the general populace, as it is a career that tends to attract gay men.
And I’m not asking for your opinion, I’m asking for facts with links to back up this asinine comment.
the other Greg
Has anyone actually watched the cartoon? Aren’t those bears, not lions? And if MJ was in there someplace, he flashed by so quickly I didn’t notice him. Well I’m not going to waste another minute & a half to see it again.
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Looking for an opportunity to pounce on something I said, since you failed to admit you were wrong? You still haven’t addressed MethSux’ Comment #6 from this thread:
http://www.queerty.com/meth-will-turn-you-into-a-creepy-gay-prostitute-20111109/
You want me to own up to things I’ve said, when you don’t demonstrate the same? Can you explain how this works?
Whatever the case, the title of this “article” insinuates that Sandusky, like Michael Jackson and Catholic priests, was a straight man who molested boys. You then trivialize one of the main points I was making: Catholic priests can not be singled out as straight (or gay for that matter). Priests take a vow of celibacy. Sandusky MARRIED a FEMALE (twice). Michael Jackson MARRIED a FEMALE (several times). Catholic priest MARRY the CHURCH, an institution which is not human.
Do I have proof that gays exceed the commonly accepted figure of 10% in the general populace in the world of priests? No. Do I think they do? Yes. Does it matter to the main point I was making? No. So, you ask for proof on a statement I made that is irrelevant to the main point: you can’t compare Sandusky and Jackson to the Catholic Church, as far professed heterosexuality goes, BECAUSE PRIESTS BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION DO NOT PROFESS TO BE GAY OR STRAIGHT. On the plain surface, the only thing that can be construed from their vow to the church is that they are asexual (which some, if not a good chunk of them, are).
Nothing is controversial about that statement. By trying to combat the HOMOPHOBIA conservative “family” groups senselessly perpetuate, Queerty, in their knee-jerk reaction, lower themselves to their intellectual level.
In your quest to try to prove me wrong, I hope you can swallow your pride and just follow along.
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: But, if you insist, not that it matters, here’s something to consider. It’s from wikipedia, though, so take it with a grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests
Riker
@the other Greg: Yes, that is Pedobear.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Cinesnatch:
Looking for an opportunity to pounce on something I said, since you failed to admit you were wrong? You still haven’t addressed MethSux’ Comment #6 from this thread:
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question regarding a white girl, and a black john.
You want me to own up to things I’ve said, when you don’t demonstrate the same? Can you explain how this works?
Very simple–don’t present your opinion as fact. If you’re going to write something absurd, you better have a citation backing up your comment, otherwise, you look like a fool.
Whatever the case, the title of this “article” insinuates that Sandusky, like Michael Jackson and Catholic priests, was a straight man who molested boys.
Sandusky is married to a woman, and has fathered two sons. Nothing in his history indicates that he identifies as anything but heterosexual. Until he states otherwise, he is a straight male.
Priests take a vow of celibacy.
Celibacy isn’t a sexual orientation. Using your logic, gay men can only know they are gay when they have gay sex with another gay man, and not before.
Sandusky MARRIED a FEMALE (twice).
Making him heterosexual, until he states otherwise.
Michael Jackson MARRIED a FEMALE (several times).
Jackson was married twice, not “several times”. Get your facts right.
Catholic priest MARRY the CHURCH, an institution which is not human.
How can a human, marry something not human? That said, nuns marry Christ, that’s why you see so many nuns wearing wedding bands. Priests don’t marry the church. Another load of crap from your diseased mind.
Do I have proof that gays exceed the commonly accepted figure of 10% in the general populace in the world of priests? No.
So why did you write that point as fact?
Do I think they do? Yes.
Your opinion is meaningless.
Does it matter to the main point I was making? No.
Yes it does. You tried to defend the catholic church by claiming they are asexual, because they are celibate, therefore they have nothing in common with heterosexual Sandusky.
So, you ask for proof on a statement I made that is irrelevant to the main point
You clearly believed it was relevant, since you wrote it. Or are you saying you just write anything in your comments knowing those points are meaningless?
you can’t compare Sandusky and Jackson to the Catholic Church, as far professed heterosexuality goes, BECAUSE PRIESTS BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION DO NOT PROFESS TO BE GAY OR STRAIGHT.
Again, celibacy is not an orientation.
On the plain surface, the only thing that can be construed from their vow to the church is that they are asexual (which some, if not a good chunk of them, are).
Asexuality means you’re not interested in any form of sexual activity. One of the things priests must do before being ordained is prove that they can control their sexual appetites. That is not asexuality, since clearly, the church believes they have a sexuality that needs to be put in check. That is celibacy–knowing you want sex, but choosing not to have it.
Nothing is controversial about that statement.
Perhaps. But it is stupid.
By trying to combat the HOMOPHOBIA conservative “family” groups senselessly perpetuate, Queerty, in their knee-jerk reaction, lower themselves to their intellectual level.
If you don’t like what Queerty writes, then don’t read the posts. Very simple.
In your quest to try to prove me wrong, I hope you can swallow your pride and just follow along.
I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I’m showing that you’re an imbecile, incapable of making a coherent, logical point, and prefer posting your opinion as fact, rather than using actual truths, and facts to back up your statements.
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Please provide your facts that priests are straight dudes, which is one of the main points I was criticizing Queerty on. You harp on me for not proving a disproportion in the gay/straight ratio of Catholic priests. Okay, where is your PROOF that they are ALL STRAIGHT? My main point was and still is: you cannot construe any kind of perceived sexuality from Catholic priests, based on the same logic one construes from a man who is married (i.e. heterosexuality). You’ve taken great pains to address my post word by word, while ignoring the main point. So, please, explain how you construe heterosexuality from the priesthood, as Queerty does in the final sentence of this post, which has been the bit that I’ve taken the greatest exception to? I don’t argue that they have NOTHING in common with Sandusky. I am arguing against Queerty’s applying the same logic of “perceived heterosexuality” they use on Sandusky, as they do on priests.
“That is celibacy–knowing you want sex, but choosing not to have it.” Does that vow of celibacy distinguish between hetero and homosexual desires? If you honestly don’t believe asexuality doesn’t exists in the priesthood, then that’s your opinion, just as it’s mine that it does exist.
“If you don’t like what Queerty writes, then don’t read the posts.” It’s not a question of “liking,” it’s a question of questioning flawed logic. Queerty’s logic was flawed. I won’t accept it and pointed it out. And, so far, you haven’t made an argument against this point. And, just a reminder, the main point is bolded.
“You tried to defend the catholic church.” Nope. Please explain how I was defending the Catholic Church. Catholic priests who prey on boys are monsters just like Sandusky.
“I’m still waiting for you to answer my question regarding a white girl, and a black john.” I don’t recall and couldn’t find anything via google. If you provide a link, I’ll address your concerns. Gladly.
1) Just as I provided a link for you earlier in this post: http://www.queerty.com/meth-wi…..-20111109. As a reminder, you asserted the ad was homophobic and posed a challenge that if someone provided evidence of a heterosexual scenario, you would believe it wasn’t homophobic. MethSux provided that example. But, you didn’t stick by your word and admit that the ad was NOT HOMOPHOBIC (as you had set up the parameters yourself of how, by definition, it would not be homophobic). This makes you sound like the boy who cried wolf. A) You cried homophobia. B) You set up the scenario on why it wouldn’t be homophobia. C) Someone showed you said scenario. D) You continued to cry homophobia.
2) I can admit that I wasn’t using facts in previous statements on this thread to back myself. I can admit that it’s my OPINION that a disproportionate amount of priests are HOMOSEXUAL and ASEXUAL. You still haven’t provide PROOF that ALL priests are HETEROSEXUAL, which goes back to my MAIN POINT, which you still haven’t addressed.
astonia
MJ was not a predator, he was prey. If you’re looking for predators around MJ, start with DA Sneddon who seemed obsessed with the man. So what does a white racist DA do when he’s obsessed with a stinking rich, fabulously successful black man (who had the audacity to suffer from vitiligo and become white)? He accuses him of child molestation and takes nude photographs of him, of course. Including buttocks and the lot. And exposes his hetero porn to the world (all gay molesters have hetero porn, right?)
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Cinesnatch:
Please provide your facts that priests are straight dudes, which is one of the main points I was criticizing Queerty on.
I never said that priests are straight. And Daniel V. was comparing Sandusky to the catholic church, because both have child molesters, and both were part of an organization that protected them while they were abusing children. Daniel V. never claimed priests are straight.
Okay, where is your PROOF that they are ALL STRAIGHT?
Again, I never said they are all straight.
My main point was and still is: you cannot construe any kind of perceived sexuality from Catholic priests, based on the same logic one construes from a man who is married
And again, Daniel V. never implied that priests are straight–he correctly pointed out that many are child molesters. You however implied that child raping priests are “disproportionately” gay men.
explain how you construe heterosexuality from the priesthood, as Queerty does in the final sentence of this post
Neither I, nor Daniel V. did any such thing.
which has been the bit that I’ve taken the greatest exception to?
So you don’t like the idea of child molesting priests being straight?
I am arguing against Queerty’s applying the same logic of “perceived heterosexuality” they use on Sandusky, as they do on priests.
And gain, Daniel V. didn’t write anything about priests being straight. he said nothing of their sexuality. You however claimed that most priests are gay, therefore implying that most child molesting priest are gay.
Does that vow of celibacy distinguish between hetero and homosexual desires?
If you bothered to read the wiki link you posted, you’d have learned that the catholic church has a dim view of homosexuals, and homosexuality.
If you honestly don’t believe asexuality doesn’t exists in the priesthood, then that’s your opinion, just as it’s mine that it does exist.
I’m sure you’ll be able to find another wiki link to back up your opinion.
It’s not a question of “liking,” it’s a question of questioning flawed logic. Queerty’s logic was flawed.
That’s rich, considering the source.
Nope.
Yep.
Catholic priests who prey on boys are monsters just like Sandusky.
Monsters don’t exist. Priests who molest boys are pedophiles, and rapists.
I don’t recall and couldn’t find anything via google. If you provide a link, I’ll address your concerns. Gladly.
http://www.queerty.com/meth-will-turn-you-into-a-creepy-gay-prostitute-20111109/#comment-507284
But, you didn’t stick by your word and admit that the ad was NOT HOMOPHOBIC (as you had set up the parameters yourself of how, by definition, it would not be homophobic).
That’s funny; I don’t recall issuing a challenge to anyone. I didn’t specifically write that if someone shows me an ad showing a girl prostituting herself to a het male, I’d change my mind. I didn’t ask anyone to go out hunting for said ad.
More importantly, you didn’t uncover said advert. In fact it was MethSux who mentioned it. And frankly, I haven’t seen it. As I wrote, “When I see an ad…”. Since I haven’t seen it, I don’t have to retract anything I may have written, that would give you the impression that I was issuing a challenge.
You still haven’t provide PROOF that ALL priests are HETEROSEXUAL, which goes back to my MAIN POINT, which you still haven’t addressed.
I never stated that ALL priests are heterosexual. I’ve never mentioned anything about the supposed sexuality of priests. You however claimed that most priests are gay.
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: what part of
“just remember that the real predators are straight dudes who are more beast than man.”
do you not understand?
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: When Queerty writes, “So while the haters try to drag homosexuality into this wretched story, just remember that the real predators are straight dudes who are more beast than man,” in a post which the title wrangles in the Catholic Church, yes, Enemabag Jones, they are asserting that all priests who molest are straight dudes. I can’t explain it to you any more clearly.
You write “I didn’t specifically write that if someone shows me an ad showing a girl prostituting herself to a het male, I’d change my mind.” And you wrote “When I see an ad of a young girl in a hotel room with some fat ugly het male, then I’ll believe the ad isn’t using anti-gay bias.” If you don’t see how these two statement contradict each other, I can’t take the blinders off your eyes.
I was arguing on a nuance you can’t see. I can’t make you see it. Not when you’d actually think I was standing up for the Catholic Church. You’ve twisted my words around and you appear to take pleasure in it (the word-by-word assessment … oh, wait … scratch that; some of my words were conveniently left out). All you care about is being right in your mind. Congratulations. You are.
Kev C
Why this video is nothing but a melange of offensive stereotypes.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Cinesnatch:
When Queerty writes
Queerty didn’t write anything. Daniel V. wrote this post.
in a post which the title wrangles in the Catholic Church, yes, Enemabag Jones, they are asserting that all priests who molest are straight dudes.
What Daniel V. wrote was this:
WATCH: What Do Michael Jackson, The Catholic Church And Lions All Have In Common With Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky? They’re all predators, as shown in this cartoon rendering of the Penn State child rape scandal from Taiwan’s Next Media Animation.
Do you not understand that he is simply explaining what appears in this Taiwanese made video? The video shows perpetrators as animals–beasts–and Daniel V. is stating what the video showed–child molesters are beastly.
If you don’t see how these two statement contradict each other, I can’t take the blinders off your eyes.
Yes, I wrote that when I see an advert; I didn’t request anyone show me one. And no one has. It was alluded to, but not shown.
the other Greg
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Editors write the headlines at most publications; the author doesn’t get to write the headline. I don’t know why this is, that’s just the tradition. (Readers get confused by this so often, it would be worth explaining.)
Daniel V. probably did not write the headline, and it seems a little disconnected from the article.
Peter D
You sad girls have much too much time on your hands! Please, go, volunteer somewhere where you can actually help someone instead of spewing silly BS that no one really cares about on a second rate gay blog….
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@the other Greg:
Daniel Villarreal is the editor.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Peter D:
Thank you, Peter, for posting a comment, telling the rest of us to stop wasting time posting comments.
Cinesnatch
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
EBJ: “When I see an ad of a young girl in a hotel room with some fat ugly het male, then I’ll believe the ad isn’t using anti-gay bias.”
I don’t know what your standards are on ugly and fat (I’m sure they change to suit your needs, as does your arguing style), but the following het male leaving a hotel room is old enough to be the subject’s father.
http://www.methproject.org/ads/tv/boyfriend.html
“When” you’re ready to “see,” feel free to “believe” the other ad “isn’t using anti-gay bias.” Until then, resume your role as the boy who cried wolf. Keep singing songs in your head and acting like you proved a point other than the fact that I’ve spend a rather SAD amount of time arguing with a stubborn stranger over a few nuances which have lost their luster. Later.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Cinesnatch:
That ad has nothing to do with some fat slob paying a girl for sex. The ad is titled “Boyfriend”, as in her boyfriend is pimping her out, and using meth to keep her under his control.
The central theme of the other ad was that meth will make teenage boys victims of predatory gay men.
The two ads are in no way similar in tone.
BTW–It’s not EBJ, it’s EJ. Enemabag is one word. But you can call me Mr. Enemabag Jones.
spider_orchid
Just here to say that I never thought that Micheal Jackson touched any child in a sexual manner. Were the relationships and actions inappropriate? Yes. Sexual? No.
The rest of this is just proof that all these heteronormative activities are just a big ole bag of bullshit and that people look the other way when something they ~love is involved. Notice how Micheal Jackson, who was considered a freak that had too much plastic surgery and bleached his skin and was skinny and frail looking with a high voice, was trotted out in public and had all kinds of public trials and a fucking media circus when he was accuse of child sexual abuse, but Mr. Straight and married Sandusky had other adult people that WITNESSED HIM RAPING A CHILD not only do the BARE MINIMUM to report his sick crimes to the authorities, but also palled around with him and let him be around them YEARS after the incident occurred and he was stll abusing kids. Hell, two weeks before all this shit hit the fan he was working out in the fucking gym at PSU. Its all BS.
B
No. 5 · Cinesnatch wrote, “@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Looking for an opportunity to pounce on something I said, since you failed to admit you were wrong? You still haven’t addressed MethSux’ Comment #6 from this thread:”
You can’t post Comment No 5 if Comment No 6 has already appeared – unless (of course)
QUEERTY deleted some comments (causing a renumbering) due to a user complaint about terms of service or whatnot, in which case there is no reason to believe that “Mr. E. Jones” ever saw the comments that you claimed he didn’t address.
Cinesnatch
@B:
In the Meth thread way before this one, EJ said (though he has since amended the meaning) that if someone shows him a corresponding hetero ad, he’ll accept the male-on-male predator Meth ad wasn’t homophobic (Meth Thread Comment #5). MethSux referred him to the site (Meth Thread Comment #6) where EJ could have discovered for himself that he had to eat his words for supper. And as it went at that thread, as well as this one, EJ proved he was just making things up as he went along. The comment #5 you quoted from is part of this thread, separate from the comment #5 and #6 from the Meth Thread.
As it stands, I provided the direct link for EJ in Comment #20 of this thread. And, he continues to make things up as he goes along. (And we’ll continue to do if we’re treated to any further responses after this one.)
13Zeroither
I think pedophiles are just in their own group. Not Straight, not LGBT, just pedophile.