A Sid Davis Production: "Boys Beware": 1961 anti-homosexual video

Which thing are homosexuals taking exception to here: 1) men try to get boys to engage in sex with them, as portrayed in the video, or 2) the idea that doing it is symptomatic of mental illness?

What Jimmy didn't know was that Ralph was sick, a sickness that was not visible like smallpox but no less dangerous and contagious, a sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual, a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex.

Well, among other things, Ralph wanted to stick his penis up Jimmy's anus. Now, is that not sick? Did Ralph's penis belong there?

Anatomically, physiologically, and pathologically do penises belong in anuses?

Here's the comment thread on YouTube following my initial comment there "...do penises belong in anuses?:


@TomUsherRLCC Who knows. Men do have incredibly sensitive prostates that can only be stimulated anally, sooo...


@tecaltabiano You don't know that they belong there, but you're willing to suggest that they might because prostates are sensitive & can only be stimulated anally? I don't know that you're correct that they "can only be stimulated anally," but how would that begin to suggest they might "belong" there? Eating stimulates, but some things you don't eat unless you want to get sick or even die. A penis in an anus is a type of poisoning. It's never trouble free that I've ever heard of.


@TomUsherRLCC Poisoning...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I accept that anal sex, if not done carefully, is dangerous, but, still.....


You think that there's harmless anal sex. Earlier, you said that a penis may belong up an anus because the prostate is sensitive. That would suggest that anything may belong there so long as to stimulate the prostate. I've already anticipated that you'll mean things that you don't think do damage, but your vision on this is impaired. Why is stimulating the prostate the condition for belonging? Are you claiming that evolutionarily there's an infinite benefit?


@TomUsherRLCC Who knows? I was just arguing about the whole extreme-Christian Creationist concept that God made us so as to be only a man and a woman, but that argument would be proven wrong by this prostate thingy.

And, again, anal sex can be harmless when the necessary precautions are taken (let's not get into details). Not saying that it always is.


@TomUsherRLCC what are you suggesting?


@sibeliandrift The issue is whether a penis belongs in an anus. The concept of what constitutes belonging is not agreed upon. Defining the term is appropriate. tecaltabiano thinks the prostate can be stimulated that way, so it may indicate that a penis belongs there. I find that more than a stretch. The penis and anus have designed functions. It's not supportable that one of them is anal intercourse just because some hedonists may think otherwise. There are too many negatives.

Consider the difference between vaginal sexual intercourse that ordinarily may be practiced everyday for decades without complication, and anal intercourse, where this "great" care must be taken, per tecaltabiano. A man can be too rough vaginally; but certainly, the same style of intercourse can't be practiced on the same anus day after day after day without finally resulting in major complications.

A man's penis belongs in a vagina. It doesn't belong in an anus. Any child should be able to readily understand that. Unfortunately, the homosexuals get to the children with false propaganda while the children are rightly protected by the doctrine of age-appropriateness.

Let me say that if the age-appropriate doctrine is the only thing standing between the children being duped by lying homosexuals, then the children should never be taught that homosex is anything but mental, physical, and spiritual illness.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.