The film appears to wrongly suggest that sexual predation is prevalent among homosexuals, as though being a homosexual predisposes one to these behaviors. The next step in the sequence of this errant logic is to state that homosexuals are sexual predators.

The film makes no mention of sexual predation among heterosexuals which represents much more of a threat to children as the incidence of sexual assault among this group is far greater and often goes unreported.

Approaching a conversation as important as this one by employing stereotypes focused on just one or two marginalized population segments, at the expense of all others, plays into people's fears and prejudices.

Dubious political figures engage the public in this way to spread fear and foment disgust and anger with no consideration given to the spread of hate and violence or the damage caused to innocent individuals.

The film is relevant today as these same tactics are being used to stereotype members of our community who self identify as being queer.

A safe and inclusive society maintains vigilance for such malicious approaches to power and their downside.

Keeping our government free of disreputable thugs who stir up trouble is the responsibility of every adult in a society composed of educated people who remain aware of such harmful and divisive political tactics. Working together, we are able to avoid the temptation to surrender our better judgement, power and decision making to a charismatic, autocratic leader.

While the comment section is upset, I actually love the video and it shows how far this country’s good ethics and morale has declined. It’s very sad. It’s like the devils increased evilness starting at 9/11.

Faggots preying on babies... an outrageously preposterous "jewel" of typical kike bigotry - Sid Davis, Art Swerdloff, Ib Melchior, Russian and Eastern European Jews and their fantasies - same as at the State Department and Biden administration now, same people, different fantasies, but on the other hand the sordid piece is so bad, it's actually good: What Jimmy didn't know was that Ralph was sick—a sickness that was not visible like smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious.... You see, Ralph was a homosexual.

This is also a very good article that I really enjoyed reading. It's not every day that I get to see something like this. Hope you will have many more good articles to share with us. If you have more time, please visit: poppy playtime

This film is propaganda. It's full of outright falsehoods.

Point of fact for all of you freaking bigots commenting here. More than 90% of adults who commit sexual crimes against minors identify themselves as straight men, regardless of the sex of their victims. Educate yourselves. You don't seem to grasp that YOU are the problem in this country.

It's a good video to teach people how to stay safe from homosexuals. And it's nice to see that at least in the olden days they understood that homosexuality and pedophilia are inexplicably linked. And you can't have one without the other

Love is in the air.

This short film has promotes healthy way to stay safe and is really more important to girls than boys...
The constant homophobia is completely in-factual and completely undermines the whole thing
being a Homosexual does not mean being a paedophile two very different things that should never be put in the same category

"The man has a sickness, and that sickness is HOMOSEXUALITY."

Ehh, no. The sickness is pedophilia. And all children should beware of it. More girls are molested than boys if we're going by statistics, so this could've more accurately been called "Beware the Heterosexual."

Just who has an agenda again?

A refreshingly honest PSA that accurately depicts the degeneracy and dangers of sodomite behaviour, and how most of these sodomite child predators operate and groom young boys.

This film would never be made today, because we in the modern West love to deny reality, love to turn a blind eye, and love to convince ourselves that degenerate behaviour is all right. Often at the expense of our own children and their well-being.

Boys Beware is a 1961 dramatic short social guidance propaganda flagle film released through Sid Davis Productions.

The importance of warning someone of possible dangers is being overlooked because of individuals agendas this about safety. All children regardless of gender beware.

Dr. Umar Johnson, in whom I have great respect, clarifies his position on homosexual relations, of which he does not condone. He clarifies that he does not hate anyone, or is afraid of anyone, who engages in homosexual relations. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. He, nor I, am afraid of homosexuals.

Moving on, when responding to a question, Umar asked that all emotion be removed from the discussion, or they wouldn't be able to dialogue. As a psychologist, an educator, a therapist, his research revealed that there is sufficient evidence that 95% of gays and lesbians, who he personally knows, were sexually abused as children. It's a pathology born of childhood sexual victimization. He goes on to say that denial is at the root of all mental illness. It's easy to say, I was born like this, so they don't have to deal with the pain that triggered it.

He goes on to ask, is there a strong case of homosexuals who prey on on children? Yes, look at the Roman Catholic Church! Gay men have the highest suicide rate in American.

en este corto se demuestra como un hombre hace que varios muchachos suba a su automóvil y los lleve con el a un destino o conocido para los muchachos, quiero utilizarlo en mi pieza como una manera de ver como es que el depredador sexual no solo se mueve entre los niños sino también entre adolescentes y adultos

Hi

Are you the director of the movie? If yes is it Public Domain as mentionned? How to verify?

Thanks for your help

Typical of the vicious right wing hate mongers propaganda still used to this day. To the paranoid right wing mind anyone who's different is a threat that must be destroyed.

It's a good thing to inform teens to not mingle with strangers, but this movie portrays homosexuals as stereotypically dangerous. It's a bad image. But I guess not a lot of good homosexuals were around in the 60s, so 4 stars. No relevance in today's society.

in 1966 i had my first encounter with a very nice looking guy who was about 25 and looked like James Fransiscus. it was the best time of my life..and i was 12 years old too. but i was the one that had a crush on him. he lived down the block from me alone in a house he rented. he worked on Wall Street and took the LIRR to work...he moved away about 3 weeks after our fun in the shower...I was so depressed when he left...he name was David..did not know his last name..he was looking to get rid of his salt water fish tank..That is how we ended up together..

Inglewood was an amazing place back then. If they could have killed all the goddamn child molesters and kept the city free of pavement apes, it would still be a great place to live today. What a fucking waste!

This is an educative equipment for growing teenagers of today's interactive or social activities environments.

Worst episode of "Flipper" EVER!

I agree with that guy that said everyone leaving comments are fools of one ilk or another (as he was leaving a comment), and need to go to a ball game or fly a kite maybe?

All Earthlings are horrendously inept at every single thing they endeavor, I include myself among their arrogant ranks and the "YER FOOLS!" guy is a member as well.

This will all be over soon -- try not to worry.

Loved the film by the way -- another Top Shelf example of how cruel the human race can be -- that shit always makes me laugh.

Sweet 1960 Galaxie Sunliner the villain had. Who wouldn't wanna go for a spin in that beauty? I mean, if the guy starts puttin' the moves on ya, poke him in the eye and walk away. He didn't resemble a "healthy" man to me -- any 8 year old I know could dispatch him with ease.

the reviews of this piece display idiocy of all stripes, from illiterate teen queer to bigoted "christian." like many online reviews, this collection demonstrates that there are clods and fools of all persuasions, and that some of them spend way too much time online when they should be doing something worthwhile, like drowning themselves.

Hi there

I am making a BBC documentary in the UK and am interested in getting a original copy of this short film, can anyone advise where I can get it?
I just think the version that is on the internet won't be broadcast quality. Unless this is the highest quality it can be produced in?!

I hope someone can help.

Thanks,
Mary

Now imagine if you were a gay high school boy in 1961... who was forced to view this film at school with the other males in your class. And you have to factor in that this scenario surely had to have happened... in fact, probably every group of boys it was showed to included at least one gay kid.

What a drag to sit there and take in the distorted ideas in this film, and not be able to say anything or comment upon it. That's the real perniciousness of this film... the unquestioned assumption that no gay kids were in its target audience.

Stripped of the "explanation" about homosexuals, the content of this film is no different from "Girls Beware" (or other, similar firms), which noone complains about.

We are told to essentially avoid risky situations like being in strange or deserted places alone and unknown, being too trusting of people we don't know well, and similar lessons.

Viewed as a teaching tool, it would be very useful except for the totally erroneous claims about homosexuality. As a historical display of views, it's definitely highly valued. I'm hesitating between a 4 and a 5, but will leave it at five as that was my previous review.

As with most Sid Davis films, the music deserves special notice. It's alternately highly integrated to the storyline and completely inappropriate.

While I would perhaps agree with anyone who may have commented already that any person that would have sex with another person against their will, in particularly a child, is basically evil, this short has more to do with homophobia than it does anything else. A product of it's era no doubt, many films from this era would associate ideas that have nothing to do with something, and in this case pedophilia, with things that have realistically little or NO connection with whatsoever, such as communism. And that is largely still done to this day.

Don't believe me?! Do a video search, YT for example, for communism, evolution, sexuality, etc., and you will no doubt find videos that try to associate things that have nothing to do with one another. Religious fundamentalists, in particularly Christian fundamentalists in my experience, try to equate ideas that they have disdain for, communism for example, with homosexuality, pedophilia, evolution, pornography, gambling, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, socialism, interracial relationships, non-Christian religions, Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, etc.

It just goes to show the historical, religious, political, and social ignorances of the past still reside today in the minds of ppl today. Perhaps these things ignorances don't permeate the way that they used to. But, the fact that they are more obscure and less common in a way makes them more dangerous, more insidious, and more nefarious!

@kimpunkrock
While I agree that this was a relic of its time, I'd also say that it was mostly about homosexuality. Had it been mostly about avoiding strangers, then the male aspect is unnecessary. The movie would have been called "Children Beware" since the dangers for boys and girls are pretty much the same. Likewise for the preventive advice. Heck, they could have even thrown in a line about gay pedophiles. Instead, they called it "Boys Beware," which by default implied that the victim's gender is important. And that is generally true only in sex crimes.

The fact that there is good advice about strangers is what made this so dangerous. Children, with their limited attention span and nonexistent information on homosexuality, will automatically assume that it's all true since parts are intuitive: Don't go with strangers. Worse, this was a work of non-fiction with police data, no less! It simply can't be wrong. One may critique a movie like Reefer Madness as goofy and exaggerative, but this was a documentary. And in 1961, one simply didn't question authority like the police. That came later in the Vietnam era.

Imagine how a gay kid felt being forced to watch this in school. Imagine not only feeling that you're mentally ill, but that you'll probably grow up to victimize others. It it any wonder the suicide rate was so high among gay teens? Not only did they want to escape the pain, but many probably thought that killing themselves would prevent another kid from being molested.

BTW, Sid Davis updated this movie in 1973. The new version was identical in story and narration, but it was color and multiracial. You now had a white and black gay molesters as well as victims. That same year, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Yet despite these experts and mounting evidence, schoolchildren were still subjected this film for many years to come. You can see the 1971 color multiracial version, now inexplicably retitled, "Boys Aware!" on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cuUTLnzzbk

This film is less about homosexuality and more about not excepting rides or gifts from strangers, which is an important thing for kids to know. The fact that it treats homosexuality as a disease is just a sign of the times it was made in.

Actually, some of the former MST3K people are still coming out with shorts from this site and others. I don't want to give an ad here, but you can find it if you search for the subject above.
I don't know if they would do this one, since it is a little more out there than most.

First off, Assam? Thank you for the history lesson and for pointing out the fact Jimmy was essentially hustling Ralph.

Also, the way "homosexuals" are described in this film sounds more like a modern news piece on child molesters. Which, if I have my facts right, are more likely to self-identify as heterosexuals.

On a lighter note: Is it just me, or does anyone else out there think this could be turn into an MST3K short? Given the overblown scare tactics, the long pauses, and the deadly earnestness of the narrator, this film seems ready made to have somebody add in snarky commentary.

I address my post to MikeManners, because the fact that he viewed and posted a message in this forum is very paradoxical. What's your point? And why are you here?

I posted a tongue-in-cheek comment a while back, directed primarily at those viewers who took this dated material as Gospel. I suppose at this point I had better identify myself as a heterosexual female, although I am not quite sure why this is necessary. Probably so I won't be added into this vast category as a gay pedophile, which, by the way, is inaccurate. Statistically speaking, the 'average' male pedophile is not gay. In this context, the gay man is just a convenient scapegoat perpetuated by homophobic zealots.

Why would a 50 year old movie about molesting kids attract so many gays? Why did it attract you?

Why on Earth would archive.org allow user comments on historical documents? It only detracts from the film. I planned to send a link to this video to someone who is interested in 1950s/60s attitudes, but it seems rude to send someone a link with nasty comments from people with bad manners.

I find is VERY amusing and ironic that this film as caused a lot of Queer men to come out of the woodwork and comment on it.

The fact that Queer men would come onto this page and make fun of and mock Child Molestation and Rape speaks volumes about what kind of people are after your kids.


Why would a 50 year old movie about molesting kids attract so many gays?

Think about it.

HEY GANG!

I'M 99 PERCENT SURE THAT THE NARRATOR OF THIS FILM IS TIMOTHY FARRELL. THE ONE AND THE SAME TIMOTHY FARRELL WHO NARRATED, AND PLAYED THE PSYCHOLOGIST IN ED WOOD'S GLEN OR GLENDA.

ANYBODY HAVE MORE INFORMATION? GIVE BOTH FILMS A LISTEN, AND GET BACK TO ME ON THIS.

This dated stertyped film is focused only on the homosexual, although there were a few films during that era which were more progressive. Of course in reality, both boys and girls should take extreme caution of any stranger who starts acting too familiar with them. There are many types of deviants aroud - unfortunately, it's always in the news now.

I remember renting this film to show at an Xmas party in 1972 because of it's patently ludicrous viewpoint. It is a product of it's time and should be viewed as such. Assessing it solely by contemporary standards will likely obscure what the film says about the society for which it was created. And regarding contemporary standards, I have no doubt that some of our modern unfounded but steadfast beliefs will also be reviewed as horrifying in 50 years. So I find it impossible to view the film as either offensive or factual. It is a marker of where we've been.

BTW there was a companion film for girls. The intent was that each film would be shown only to the appropriate sex. Therefore the boys film says nothing about girls and vice versa. Which was how sex education was done at that time.

The film of course doesn't mention anything about the evil Catholic Church, because the pedophiles have constantly been swept under the rug by Catholic Cops, Catholic Judges, and Catholic politicians until recently. The genie with pedophile Priests is finally out of the bottle after centuries of abuse!

I certainly can see the homophobic intention this film generated, as a gay man I have never initiated sex with a person that was not of legal age. I found the film to be offensive. More than the films offensiveness to me as a gay man!
I found some of the heterosexuals’ explorative comments to be very misguided, and even more offensive then the film its self!
(1) There is a very small percent of gay men that would initiate this sort of action towards a child. I am a gay man not a sexual predator, or do I consider myself to be sexually deviant. Perhaps the predators featured in this film are not even homosexuals-but simple predators.
(2) Sexual misconduct happens more in the heterosexual homesteads then the homosexual male, you and society have lost the most important lesson of all, straight fathers, and straight or so called straights commit atrocities on children as well.
(3) I will stress being a predator has not a thing to do with being gay or straight, it has to do with being a sick individual that needs to inflict ones power over another. Which has very little to do with a person’s sexual orientation.

In conclusion it is up to you as a parent to protect your children from harm, you do not have to single out and entire group and say that we are all sick individuals, most of you have no clue that being a homosexual is not a choice. By the way I have raised two children they are very well adjusted, and have never been a victim to a sexual predator.

The homosexual lifestyle is a cancer, and if moral people don't do something by voting for the right politicians and speaking up against this abomination, God will do something out it (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah). I hate the lifestyle, just as I hate pedophilia, rape, and beastiality.

I was in a coffee house one time where gays met and socialized, because I was investigating some books they were selling inside. There was a book there, teaching gays how to molest little boys without getting caught!!! Homosexuality is a sickness, not a birthright. NAMBLA is another example of the sickness of homosexuality.

There have been many, many former homosexuals who are now Christians, whom now have spouses of the opposite gender, and have children. This kind of change is possible... with Jesus!!

rrrrrrrr watch out you heteros! i never knew we homos had so much control over you and how afraid you were of us! i never bothered before but now i WILL recruit! bwhaaahaaaaa!

idiots.

sgt. friday whoohoo!

In reply to Eric M. Brame...

I understand and applaud your faith, I do, but I would like to point out that, for something so dated, it would be most prudent to not take an exact translation of The Bible.

The entire "laying with men" bit was not gay sex, per se. It was about a very common practice, that being to sodomize another man in a show of domination and power; to rape someone. Obviously, said act would be an abomination.

Now, I don't know why you included the lines from 1 Timothy, probably to support the point you failed at making, but, considering that around 90% of the people actually replying to Sid Davis' movie are either gay, such as myself, or gay-friendly (?), quoting Bible scriptures is not going to have us all up in arms, begging for forgiveness from a bearded, omnipotent being.

I was going to make another point, now what was it... ah, yes.

Given that I know my request will not be heeded, I still feel some obligation to say something about it.

Most of the people that seem to be leaving negative comments about homosexuality are, I am relatively sure, just being rude, not caring one way or the other for the plight of the gay man or woman. They enjoy stirring trouble so that they can watch as we tear our hair out over negative comments and the like, though said comments had me quite... "annoyed", would be the polite thing to say, as well.

On the subject of the movie, though, I believe that Sid Davis did what he knew. He spent $1000 making a movie warning children and young teens about the dangers of the world. No matter that this movie in particular was quite misguided and poorly researched (is it really so bad to just ask a gay man what he does in his off time), he did what he could with what he had, and, though he seemingly confused "homosexual" with "pedophile", the movie still stands as a good warning about using common sense i.e. don't accept rides from strangers, tell your parents if a 40-year-old man shows you porn while fishing, don't accept any gifts from people you don't know, etc. You know, the basics.

This film is a big lie. Made in 1961 which homophobia was common. Back then Christian people unfortunately dominated society with pushing their agenda of hate and violence and lies. They continue to do so to this day. A majority of Christians are pedophiles and have stacks of porno in their homes right behind their bibles. They molest children and lie to them as well. I am sick of you fucking moronic moral crusaders telling lies and then doing them yourself. You aren't great. You believe a fake and hateful malicious "GOD" that doesn't really exist.
Quit pretending your damn better than everyone else and stop being so holier than thou. You aren't. Jesus never existed, God never existed, the Bible was obviously written and rewritten to spread lies and hatred yet you continually profess to loving thy neighbor. BULLSHIT. You are all hypocrites and liars.

So...most homosexuals carry pornographic playing cards, tell off-color jokes, wear bow ties AND drive GM cars.

"Why are 99% of all child molesters heterosexual?"

Assuming your statistic is correct, it's because homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population. Duh!

Apparently the pro-homosexual majority here isn't aware that there's a subsection of the homosexual counterculture which consists of "chicken hawks," that is to say, homosexual men who prey on boys. These "chicken hawks" habitually lobby for the age of consent to be lowered in their jurisdictions.

Even a cursory glance at the pornography produced for male homosexuals will tell you that men seducing teenaged boys is a popular fantasy within that counterculture.

MANY male adult homosexuals report having been molested or raped by men when they were children or teenagers.

One of the first male homosexual couples in the UK to be approved as foster parents were recently convicted and imprisoned after having molested the boys in their care. The saddest part is, social workers KNEW the abuse was taking place, but were afraid to blow the whistle for fear of being accused of "homophobia."

Then there's NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), who have openly taken part in homosexual "pride" marches.

Sure, perhaps not *every* claim in this film can be substantiated, but the comments in this thread strike me as extraordinarily naive. As a parent, I would not leave my child in the care of a homosexual, and I regard parents who would as downright irresponsible.

This is not a religious bias on my part; I'm an agnostic. Having known many homosexuals throughout my life and being acquainted with how they operate, it's not a question of religion, but simply a matter of common sense. Discrimination is not a bad thing when it keeps us and our loved ones safe.

"Ralph shows Jimmy some porn, which Jimmy doesn't respond negatively to; as the narrator puts it, 'he was curious.' Now, this means either one of two things: either the porn is heterosexual porn (as Jimmy is supposedly straight) which means that Ralph is not in fact a homosexual as they've been alledging, or it's gay porn and since Jimmy doesn't seem creeped out by it obviously he has some gay leanings. Yet they just tiptoe around this."

Suppose a heterosexual man were to show some heterosexual porn to a teenage girl, and she got turned on by it. Would you be making similar excuses for him?

What I find creepy is that the politically correct are willing to accept behavior from homosexuals that would never be tolerated from heterosexuals. It almost sounds like the person quoted above is trying to justify the homosexual molestation of boys by claiming that some boys "ask for it." Again, if a heterosexual man had sex with a 12-year-old girl, no one would try to excuse it by saying "she liked it." Why the double standard?

"Homosexuals are not mentally ill (just ask the APA)."

The decision to strike homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was the result of pressure from the homosexual lobby, not of any scientific or medical breakthroughs.

If 70% were heterosexual that would mean 30% were not? Wouldn't that be an awfully high ratio per capita? I don't think they are any more or less likely to be pedophiles but your "facts" are either wrong or prove your argument invalid.

Overall it's historical propaganda of a by gone era... it is what it is.

This is the kind of film and thinking that has caused so much homophobia right down to today. It's like saying all Catholic Priests molest boys. It's just not true about homosexuals.

Over 70% of pedophiles are heterosexual!

Homosexuals are not mentally ill (just ask the APA).

I am not sure why this film should be preserved. It is more harmful than helpful but I guess it does show the thinking of the time and how wrong a people can be.

After reading the reviews for this film I just had to view it. I want my 10:12 back, LOL. What struck me most with this film was in all these segments there were no crimes committed.

Ralph seems like a good father figure and all around nice guy. I guess going fishing, playing miniature golf, generally hanging out are illegal. Perhaps Jimmy's father should spend time with him and he won't be looking for a father figure.

In the basketball segment we still didn't see any crime. We didn't even see the "violence" or the homosexual. Although the officer speaking to us said Mike made headlines, we do not know what those headlines were. It could be "Mike Wins Basketball Competition."

According to the third segment it must be illegal to help someone capture thieves who stole some bikes. We still didn't witness a crime.

Ah the beach scene. The odds of finding someone walking in the same direction as you on a public beach is very high. Although the guy looks like a crazed zombie it doesn't mean he is out to do mischief.

It is movies like these that created the problems we have in American society. We are to trust no one and everyone is out to hurt you.

Pedophilia is much worse nowadays than it was 50 years ago. Now with the sexualization of youngsters and more access to child pornography, pedophiles just don't lure kids into sexual acts anymore and pedophiles aren't just conists of obsessed homosexuals but also obsessed heterosexuals.

And not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Well, that is the only flaw in this film. Still, it remains useful.

Don't let your son receive emails from horny congressmen. And while you're at it don't let your son receive advice from high-pressure military recruiters with promises of money for school!

This is easily one of the dumbest old education films I have seen, and that's saying something. Most people will point to the fact that it confuses homosexuality with pedophilia, but that's only one fraction of its stupidity. On close viewing there are many layers of rich, gooey idiocy for the viewer to soak in. Its only value today is for the viewer to be able to toss their head back and laugh at the stupidity that permeates the film; in fact, the best way to get it all down is to list it point-by-point. So consider:

--They go out of their way to make Ralph the homosexual as creepy-looking as possible: balding, mustache, stupid-looking dark glasses and leering grin. What's the matter Mr. Davis,couldnt find any more creepy stereotypes to fit in there?
--One of the narrator's early bits of evidence that Ralph is a freak is "he told several off-color jokes." Damn, if that's the criteria then I'm a pretty big perv myself!
--Ralph shows Jimmy some porn, which Jimmy doesn't respond negatively to; as the narrator puts it, "he was curious." Now, this means either one of two things: either the porn is heterosexual porn (as Jimmy is supposedly straight) which means that Ralph is not in fact a homosexual as they've been alledging, or it's gay porn and since Jimmy doesn't seem creeped out by it obviously he has some gay leanings. Yet they just tiptoe around this.
--The narrator's voice never changes in the slightest, no matter what. During the fishing trip when Ralph pulls out the porn, the narrator says "Ralph showed him some pronographic pictures" without the slightest change in tone from when he was describing the fishing trip. And later in the video the narrator will mention another victim "riding in the shadow of death", an incredibly melodramatic line recited in that same flat monotone he has for the entire video.
--The narrator asserts homosexuality is a contagious disease. Now, there are people out there who genuinely think homosexuality is a mental disorder, but even if it was what kind of mental disease is contagious?
--The narrator takes great pains in pronouncing out "home-oh-secks-you-al" which just strikes me as funny for some reason, like it's a big fancy word in a medical book that he has no clue what to do with.
--The narrator defines a homosexual as someone who "demands an intimate relationship with membrs of their own sex." Um, no. Homosexuals are people who DESIRE intimate relationships with their own sex. When people DEMAND intimate relationships with anyone, same sex or opposite sex, they're called rapists. But why am I surprised, I'm sure this guy thinks all homosexuals are rapists too.
--After everything's come to a head, the narrator identifies the point when Ralph asked Jimmy to go fishing as the point when Jimmy should have walked away. Which seems incredibly irresponsible; rather, shouldn't he be stressing that Jimmy never should have accepted a ride with Ralph in the first place?
--After Ralph has been caught, the narrator adds "Jimmy was released on probation." Um, what? He got arrested for being a victim of abuse? I suspect this was tacked on as an extra scare tactic to try and keep kids away from creeps, but was it really necessary? I'm sure they're already scared enough without thinking that they'll be arrested too!
--The narrator segues with "not all homosexuals are passive, some resort to violence." Oh, great, now we're getting into the effeminate serial killer phase. God, I don't think they can cram anymore stereotypes in here.
--The aforementioned violent homosexual appears to be wearing a tux in the middle of the day for no reason at all. Why?
--Upon hearing that her child got into a car with a strange man and hasn't been home since, a mother reacts with very mild concern. Oh well, I guess it was a more innocent time.
--The narrator mentions that homosexuals like to hang around public restrooms. Who am I kidding, of course they can cram in more stereotypes!
--The creepy homosexual hanging around the bathroom is played by none other than the film's maker, Sid Davis. Um, is there something you'd like to share with us there, Sid?
--The melodramatic timpani music that plays as the homosexual creeps uo behind the boy. Wow, not only are gay men mustached porn-reading perverts, they also have their own ominous theme music!
--At the end of the video when issuing his warning about homosexuals, the narrator does not use the phrase "homosexuals" or "a homosexual", but rather "THE homosexual", kinda like he thinks all gay men are some singluar mythical entity like Sasquatch or something.
--The narrator further warns of THE homosexual: "He may appear normal." Well no, not according to you. According to you they're all creepy balding guys with mustaches and dark glasses that carry porn around in their pockets!

And I'm sure I could find more stupidity, but I'm tired. Although one final note: Mr. Davis made a sister film called "Girls Beware". From the title and content of this movie, you'd think it was about predatory lesbians, but it's actually about men abusing girls. Naturally they've also forgotten that women, both straight and lesbian, can abuse children as well.
Ah, the good old fifties, when gay men were pedophiles and gay women didn't exist!

While this video would be much better specified as a view of pedophilia it is a fair glimpse at what may be and may have always been accurate but has become altered in the publics' mind due to an ever-changing consensus on morality.

For starters, the label in the movie is not factually without basis as a homosexual can be a pedophile but not all homosexuals are pedophiles. As stated before it would be more accurate to state that these gentlemen were pedophiles but they were also homosexuals due to the fact that they were seeking relations with a member of their same gender. Now, certain points stand out as without foundation "homosexuals hang out near public restrooms." While this may be true I am fairly sure there has never been a statistic, nor will there likely ever be one, that estimates the amount of time homosexuals spend at, in, or around public restrooms. If there ever was one I am sure occupation, state of slumber, and eating would hold as paramount to public restroom loitering when comparing time consumption. I believe this was either a poor assumption or a trend local to this police department that became misconstrued with the other more legitimate points of the video. The points that some homosexuals stray towards the "dating" mentality when pursuing possible partners as in the first gentleman while others take a more aggressive approach is true. This is not to say however that heterosexuals and members of both genders are not similar in expressing these mentalities. It is important to note however that at the time of this video both of these approaches were in fact a legitimate crime by law as practicing homosexuality was illegal (at least in this police department's precinct). So, while it may seem inappropriate to single out homosexuals as having wayward sexual policies in this video it must be put into context than ANY sexual policy regarding homosexuality was illegal and hence the video is correct in warning children not to commit a crime or affiliate with criminals. Just because it is legal now doesn't mean we can reprimand those making the video for telling us it was wrong then. If as a society we vote tomorrow to say that drinking and driving is appropriate SOMETIMES, it is not wrong that our current videos today tell us it is wrong to do ALL THE TIME. In other words, this video did give generally accurate information (with assertions like the public restroom one being exceptions due to their untested premise) and the warning against a specific sexual lifestyle was well-founded by their existing laws.

It is interesting to see though that they coupled homosexuality with a pedophile in every example. This is likely because the diagnosis of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual stated up until 1973 that homosexuality was a mental disorder and ONLY BY A VOTE AND NO SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL RESEARCH did they alter it to state that it was not an abnormality. In other words, at this time all research suggested that any sexual deviation from heterosexual relations was a mental disorder; interestingly a point yet to scientifically or medically be proven inaccurate. Had this video been made in 1973 I am sure by the change in public opinion surrounding homosexuality the characters would have either been all adults or the homosexual would have been referred to as a pedophile. It is worth noting though that while many would like to act like a mistake was made in assuming homosexuality was a disorder that theory has not been unproven medically; only by popular opinion. Which greatly parallels what the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) did with pedophilia, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and exhibitionism in 1994. If one is to make any point here it should not be an attempt to disassociate pedophilia, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and exhibitionism medically from homosexuality but instead to show that the video may still hold wisdom in all such sexual lifestyles being mental disorders worth addressing. Oh, and to the posters that have used this board to unabashedly scold religion; grow up. If the best argument you can make is an attack on a person or group for being ignorant, stupid, racist, sexist, etc. rather than some factual information with consensual constraints please remove yourself from the marketplace of ideas as you are blocking legitimate thought from flowing freely.

Sources:
1.) http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/dsm.htm
2.) http://www.apa.org/

I see no reason to object to this film. In my opinion it's an invaluable example of just how astonishingly ignorant people were (and in most religious circles, still are) on the subject of human sexual orientation.

People fear and hate what they don't understand, and in this case we can add 3000+ years of institutionalized persecution of gay people. "It's God's Word."

It should also be noted, Sid Davis was a raving delusional paranoid who saw threats to society and his own family's existence everywhere he looked. He made over 150 of these silly films, even one about the perils of running with scissors (in this one, a young girl winds up impaling herself).

What I object to is the implication that homosexual men are necessarily pedophiles, mentally ill, or otherwise "sick."... although I have to chuckle a bit at depiction of "The Homosexual" a guy who likes to lurk around public bathrooms wearing sunglasses.

Ironically, it seems to me that Ralph was actually one of the LEAST hysterical portrayals of what today we would call a pedophile I've ever seen. So much so that if you throw out the smallpox absurdities it would almost appear as an endorsement.

Basically it says "Watch out! They'll give you rides, gifts and porn, take you to do fun things and then they'll want to sex with you." Gee that doesn't sound so bad.

Several reviewers suggested that if you replaced "homosexual" with "pedophile" the film could still be used today. For the above reason I really doubt that will happen. Nowadays they would skip the first half and go straight to the pedophiles will kill you part.

"No less dangerous and contagious than smallpox?"

Well that is just a factual inaccuracy.

Smallpox is A LOT more dangerous and contagious than the ghey.

Trust me on this one.

We do not have a "libre" society. We should, but we don't. Both sides are misconstruing the issue. So called "empirical" research is often not in fact empirical research. Allot of research in general is full of mistakes in collection of data and interpretation.

People are making other errors as well. Homosexuality is simply the attraction to the same sex. Pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent individuals. Both heterosexual and homosexuals are attracted to prepubescent individuals.

Now that we got that out of the way pedophiles are not child molesters. This is a big big misnomer. If you investigate data from police statistics your looking at mostly male molestation of underage females where the perpetrator is known. Child molestation is a crime of opportunity.

MSNBC and the media often get this wrong. To catch a predator is a perfect example of where information gets mangled and misconstrued. If it was not for the independent actions like this by police would be entrapment. The other thing to consider is who are doing these studies? What does anybody gain from appearing to defend pedophilia? As a result we have very biased results. You can find less biased research but this is a hot topic that different groups and agendas are influencing.

Homosexuals don't want to be labeled pedophiles, religious groups don't want to separate the topics, and the media just wants to have a field day with it producing the most outrageous results.

Even today there is something wrong when an adult takes a "special interest" in a young person, be the adult male or female and likewise the minor. I think you could take some of the same ideas from this film and apply them to special "rendezvoux" on the Internet.

As far as the person whose review precedes mine: A review is not a slam on people doing the review. We should be respectful of everyone who reads this and understand that we all do not come from the same side politically.

Bill

I wrote a review.

Against rednecks and facist.
Saying that they reminded me of adolf Hitler.

My opinion was removed.

Recht wing facist can say what they want, but ......


I wish to be removed of your mailing or member list.

No respect,


Frederik

Vicwise is right in one respect: this movie should still be shown to kids today, but to demonstrate just how far we have come as a society and how many people, like vicwise, have decided not to evolve. Maybe it will help the closet homos, like vicwise, not be disgusted by their own leanings and from preying on those brave enough to accept their own. BTW, this comment comes from a straight man.

I think this should still be shown today to kids. It might prevent the homos from further preying on innocent young children.

"Of course, I realize that this little expose will bring out the perverts to attack me, as they are filled with hate for everyone who exposes and doesn't approve of their perversion, but I've told you the truth, just as I read it WRITTEN BY HOMOSEXUALS FOR OTHER HOMOSEXUALS TO READ. Sexual perverts are liars. I say it this way: If a man will seduce my son, then, of course, he will lie about it."

can i emphasise the part that you said you READ something written by HOMOSEXUALS for HOMOSEXUALS!!!! rofl.. hmm research was it... yes a likely alibi


rofl. as "rob" said you want the cock! rofl.

The answer to the previous question is easy: Because some heterosexuals, mainly those in southern agricultural states, used to call it by another name - normal courting or marriage. Married by 12 and a couple of kids by 14 was no big deal. I wonder if this film's producers made other movies dealing with topics such as Jewish people killing white Christian babies and drinking their blood or African-Americans placing syphilis on toilet seats to infect all white people. Unfortunately, there was a time in the not so distant past when such disgusting thoughts were actually considered logical by quite a few. Check out some 1940's Nazi propaganda children's books and some segregationsist arguments in the 50's and into the 60's and you'll see what I'm talking about. This film is not as much about child molestation as it is about putting homosexuality in an evil context. Of course, today's version would be titled Boys Beware of Your Heterosexual Blonde Female Middle School Teachers. Like Pat Buchanan said a few years back, I (he) could care less if people are homosexual - they just need to be respectable and keep it in the closet like they used to. That way, the 45-year-old church deacon with a wife and four kids can still play around with his 18 or 19-year-old (or younger) boyfriend and not shock the community - while at the same time condemn gay people as evil perverts. Ah, for the good old days.

What an outdated film.

Excellent film that exposes what the perverts and their friends have successfully kept OUT of the news, programming, and virtually every report on homosexuality.

I can see that the pedophiles have filled this forum with their lies and hatred, but let me tell you what I read years ago in a homosexual publication:

The setting, of course was a friendly setting for homosexuals to share freely; not the politically correct deceit that's promoted in practically every venue, that homosexuals are "born that way." In this homosexual publication, written when there wasn't a great backlash against against perverts, it was simply stated that 80% of the homosexuals, interviewed by other homosexuals about their beginnings in sexual perversion, had no inkling that they were homosexual at all, but were seduced by older men when still adolescents or younger.

I find it very interesting that 15 years ago, homosexuals, in a homosexual publication, admitted, to the tune of 80% of them, that child molestation led them into homosexuality. With the wide range of the internet today and the ease of finding informtion, no sexual pervert will admit such a fact today because they love the freedom to flaunt their perversion and they're smart enough to know that when the public finds out that seduction/molestation is the basis for the growth of sexual perversion, they will quickly lose the ease with which they get "chickens."

Of course, I realize that this little expose will bring out the perverts to attack me, as they are filled with hate for everyone who exposes and doesn't approve of their perversion, but I've told you the truth, just as I read it WRITTEN BY HOMOSEXUALS FOR OTHER HOMOSEXUALS TO READ. Sexual perverts are liars. I say it this way: If a man will seduce my son, then, of course, he will lie about it.

People in every culture move within a cocoon of self-satisfied self-deception, fully convinced that the way they see things is the way things really are.
-David R. Stone

The greatest mistake any historian can make is to try to understand another time or place by using our own values and norms.
-my anthropology teacher

OK, I'm not arguing that this is a film I'd show in schools today, to our mondern eyes it's horrifically predudicial. and yes, the makers were unfair to intimate that all homosexuals are child molesters, or that all child molesters are homosexuals. but this little film was made, with the best of intentions, FIFTY YEARS OR SO AGO. it was an age, believe it or not, with different norms, different values, and a different understanding of the world than we have. if you want a bible verse, here's one: Judge not, that ye be not judged. in fifty years, just imagine what OUR grandkids will be telling us we were idiots to believe.

You don't have to be gay to realize this crap is just messed up!

Again, in the tradition of the White Man's Burden.

Funny how God hasn't really had much to say on the issue for 2,000 years. Why doesn't he destroy the gay village in San Francisco if he's so concerned?

As for the comment below about all these "surveys" claiming gays are more likely to be paedophiles... you'll find that all those surveys were commissioned by hardcore religious groups. If you examine the results of completely independent research you'll see that actually there's no identifiable link whatsoever.

I don't know why I'm bothering to type this, because people who claim things like that are so idiotically narrow-minded that it's pointless even trying to educate them.

In response to Bibilical claims of the evils of Homosexuality, the bit in Timothy is about evil women, and anything oin the OT, at least, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is invalidated by Colossians 2:12-15. Or thereabouts.

Secondly, if judged based on its ability to make its point, this film is very, very bad. However, if judged based upon how funny it is viewed through a modern lens, then it's very good. Since that's how most viewers will approach it, I'd say it's well worth a watch.

Foiled again! You won't have another boy's butt until you learn your lesson in prison where you'll be the girl! BUWAHA...

But, seriously, they say 3 times about 'watch out for homosexuals!' When what they mean is 'watch out for homosexual child molesters!' A simple slip of the conscience. Back then, all the child molesters going after young, ripe, athletic boys were homos. Today, everyone wants to go after little boys...isn't that why all the hot men are touted as hairless, waifish, scrawny, unter-sexual, metros?

Child molestation is now vogue in this sick country. Time to take it back by glorifying BACK HAIR and calling a spade a spade. In this case, correcting this film by saying - HOMOSEXUAL CHILD MOLESTER.

Right on, brutha.

This film, and some of its reviewers, follow the line of "It's true because I say it is". The film (which I have rated based on its need at the time of its making) gave a supposedly valid warning for its day without the need to condemn by the use of religion - the general acceptance that not all (in fact not many) homosexuals are child molesters was decades away.
I am more concerned that some of the present day reviewers quote religious texts that they believe they MUST enforce on everyone else - what happened to free choice? I have my beliefs, but I won't bore you with them here - or anywhere else for that matter. To those who condemn all who don't accept their beliefs, I'll quote the following which I found elsewhere:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.
ÃÂ When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

ÃÂ I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

ÃÂ I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

ÃÂ Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

ÃÂ I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

ÃÂ A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

ÃÂ Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

I kept thinking this was a parody film. But halfway through I realized, 'no, this really was made in all earnestness.' We have made a lot of progress in a lot of ways since the year this 'instructional film' was made. We know now that homosexuality is simply part of the wide array of human experience. The 'we' I speak of is the 'we' represented by intelligent, educated people who listen to what science and research has taught us. What is sad, and alarming, is how so many people still seem to believe that gay people are 'convinced' into being gay like this film shows. As if one's sexual orientation were no more than developing a taste for something, like blue cheese. What is most alarming, is that these people are worming their way into political office, and are actively seeking to create public policy based on their own state of fearful ignorance.
Fact: people are not persuaded into being homosexual any more than people are persuaded into being heterosexual.
Fact: people can not be retrained out of homosexuality any more successfully than people can be retrained out of being black, or asian. These programs all have ridiculously high rates of recidivism.
Fact: The Bible is full of errors of fact. Its stance on homosexuality is one of these errors. The Bible is no more an authoritative book on social mores than Peyton Place. The big difference between the two is that we know who wrote Peyton Place.
Okay. I'll get off my soapbox now : )
But, really, you people who are using this 'training' film to spout your confused, fearful, sad little misinformed worldview, get a clue. You don't know anything about being gay. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
Okay. Sorry. I truly am off my soapbox now. . .
As for rating this film, I'm conflicted. On one hand I want to give it 5 stars for being a perfect nugget of backward history. On the other hand, I want to give it half of one star for being part of what has contributed to generations of self-loathing and ostricization for many good, upstanding citizens.
So I will rate it 3 stars, and let the middle road prevail.

What IAMSatisfied fails to understand is the dynamics of sexual offenders! Sexual abuse is for the most part to do with the offender seeking to create a power inbalance by way of grooming behaviours and abuse. Sex in almost incidental in all of this, which is why the often heard cry to castrate pedophiles appealing as it may be would not work practically. The offender would simply find another way to abuse their power over the child.

Below is a tongue in cheek questionnaire by a doctor seeking to show just how silly many of the homophobic prejudices are by turning them on their head..

Enjoy

Heterosexuality Questionnaire

1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?

2. When and how did you first decide you were heterosexual?

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of the same sex?

4. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex how do you know you wouldnt prefer it?

5. Isnt it posible your heterosexuality is just a phase you'll grow out of?

6. Isnt it possible that all you need is a good same sex lover?

7. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual

8. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendancies? How did they react?

9. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? Why are they so promiscuous

10. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust members of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

11. If you were to have children, would you want them to be heterosexual knowing the problems theyd face?

12. Your heterosexuality doesnt offend me, so long as you dont try and force it on me. Why do you feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

13. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

14. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Cant you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

15. How can you ever hope to be your own person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your homosexual potential?

16. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and eachother to narrowly restricted,stereotyped sex roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role playing?

17. Even with all the societal support marriage recieves, the divorce rate is spiralling. Why are there so few stable relationships amoung heterosexuals?

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexual. Techniques have been developed that could help you change if you really wanted to. Have you ever considered trying psychotherapy or even aversion therapy?

20. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counsellor to be objective/unbiased? Dont you fear he/she might be inclined to influence youin the direction of his/her own preferences?

21. How can you enjoy a full,satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex when the differences are so vast? How can a man hope to understand what pleases a woman, or vice versa?

Attributed to Martin Rochlin, Phd, Jan 1977

A MSNBC Dateline news program recently ran an episode called "To Catch a Predator III" in which it caught 50 men attempting to rendezvous with 12 to 13 year old boy or girl. The percentage of these men seeking boys are exceedingly high.

The transcript can be found here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11152602/

Anyone with any common sense at all can see that homosexuality is founded on the selfish perversion of the natural order, period. Homosexuals are wholly dependent upon the heterosexual union of man and woman, but they don't like to talk about that... the fact that their insanity is completely reliant on the sanity of the natural order. Homosexuals are unproductive, naturally.

Hello, is anyone home??

I didn't think so.

I just thought I needed to clean up on a few points that reviewer Eric M. Brame made on March 10, 2006 in his comment entitled "Homosexuality Is A Sin".

You people persist on using the literal text of the Bible to support the most inhumane treatment of your fellow human beings don't you. Be it racial segregation, sexist oppression of women, or homophobia - all i see is small minded religious bigots using literal scriptures to justify your own prejudices.

Listen my friend, the Bible doesn't go anywhere near condemning homosexuality at all, therefore your interpretation of these ancient scripts is totally off line. If you're up for an education I'll be more than happy to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's for you, but I don't think here is the right place.

Are you up to having your mind opened brother?

When I saw this film for the first time, I had the same sense of horror I had, as a child, knowing that the Holocaust happened just 40 years before.

The saddest thing is that today, at the dawn of the XXI century, there are people who still believe in this nonsense.

is it just me that thinks the guy that took the license plate number was also gay? I think all the boys that weren't supposed to be gay really were. But i loved the film. And don't get me started on the 'pornography' bit! It was just hilarious! "He knew he shouldn't be interested..."
What a laugh!

strange film, and a perfect - if chilling - example of this style of right-wing propoganda fear-mongering that was (and is still) passed off as educational. Sad that homosexuality and pedophilia gets mixed up, in this film and in the minds of the christo-facist neo-conservatives.

now, as for the review by 'riske':

pretty much everything you have written there is a lie.
i like how you have worded it in a way that makes it seem like you got it from a legit source, but anyone who looks at REAL research, ie: objective, non-chuch affiliated research, will know that the opposite is true of most of what you have written.
In fact i really urge people to do a bit of research on their own because people like riske, if not challenged, lower our average iq to a stunning degree. PLEASE, look it up for yourself, and don't believe riske's nonsense.

also ..... wasn't the basket ball player a little too 'needy' when he greeted the 'sick homosexual' who had dropped by to offer a lift on the 2nd day ????

My god, were people really that casual about hitchhiking and getting in strangers cars? "If a friend gets into a strange car, make sure to write down the license plate." WTF?!?!?!

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.... The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." (CCC 2357-59)

The bible is the binding word on Homosexuality. God destroyed two cities for that sin.

Here is what one part says:

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)


13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Here is something else:

1 Timothy 1:9-11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)



9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural and the only way around it is to repent in the name of Jesus Christ and walk away from the world of sin and enter the world of god. He will then change your life from an evil repulsive thing to a pure and productive one.

hey im a gay, ooo noo, how about u shut ur mouth. Being gay is not bad, im proud of it. god dont talk like u know everything about being gay when YOUR NOT. You have no idea what ur talking about. whenever i see something like this i always remember this : IF EVERYONE WAS EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS WOULD BE A VERY BORING WORLD. So think about it, i think boys are hot so what do u have angaist gays. god its not like im gonna molest a kid im only 15 and i like boys my age. get a grip.

As another commentator put it, the reviews are almost more interesting than the film itself... but I digress.

I agree and disagree with various posts, but I think this film brings to light a much bigger picture than the topic of the film itself: the role of film propoganda. Anyone who has viewed other films from this era or earlier understands the very decisive slant that such films portray: military films made it clear that you represented loyalty to your country by serving in the military; the danger of atomic warfare and destruction was downplayed to control widespread national fear(see 'The Atomic Cafe'). Decisive portions of information were chosen to present a controlled perspective regarding a subject (both of the topics I mentioned above conveniently avoided any mention of mass destruction or death).

My point is, I think that 'Boys Beware' is a prime example of this type of film and, more importantly (at least for me), sends up a red flag that films can still play this role today (whether to the left or the right, old or new). It is our freedom and duty as intellectual viewers to dilligently pursue all avenues of information (like the internet!!) to test whether the information we are receiving is, in fact, valid... or if it's been piece-mealed together to frame things in a more rosy light.

So, as an example of film propoganda, and based on the responses it provoked, I'd say this film deserves all five stars.

Today, just as then, there is a confusion between what is seen as homosexual vs. pedophile. This film does not show pedophilia. These boys are in Jr. High and as such are probably entering puberty. You can tell they are simply by their bodies and facial structures. Pedophilia as defined in modern terms is the sexual interest of adults in pre-pubescent children. What you're seeing here is a misinterpreted view of pederasty as was seen in the 60's during a time where homosexuality in itself was still illegal. The portion of the film where "Jimmy" was "released on probation" suggests that the boy actually participated in sexual relations with the man and was treated as a criminal along with the man. These days, they would make the man out to be a criminal and the boy a victim, even if the boy were homosexual himself and a consenting and willing partner, simply because it's not seen as socially acceptable. The film shows such relations on a slanted view and isn't based in reality, but is only showing one side of the story; that of predatory tactics used to coerce.

It's interesting that the film induces thoughts within the pubecent audience that should any of the boys watching the film feel the same sexual tendancies toward their fellow classmates, it would also be seen as criminal. Since homosexuality was seen as immoral, the film makes no attempt to define consentual vs. non-consentual advances. A good contemporary movie one might watch would be L.I.E. or For a Lost Soldier. L.I.E., while still riddled with biased slants, does at least attempt to show the audience that even the local perv has a heart, while the former, For a Lost Soldier, attempts to show that in certain environments where there aren't negative forces attempting to persuade a boy to stay straight and deny his natural sexuality, the relationship can flourish positively and become benificial.

What this film was wonderful at doing was dehumanizing the man and denying the natural sexuality within the boys. It's interesting to see such a film and the comments made about the film on this forum. We've still a long way to go until we're truly unbiased and living in reality.

http://pedologues.libsyn.org/


At the time of the filming, since homosexuality was itself illegal,

just like adultry, theft, murder, idolatry and so on...However, I do not believe in hating homosexuals any more than I believe in hating thieves. We are to love our enemies. Too many people calling themselves christians need to quit the hatred.

please get a life

homosexuality is not acrime nor a disease, it a part of your life as a man-woman with interests towards the same sex.

religious prejudices are not apart of religious freedom. for the effective meaning of the trem "freedom" ends where your freedom destroys the freedom of your fellow man.

the movie itself is just weird, old fashoined and ridiculous. people who watch it as an instant modern, scientific documentary are dangerous and-or stupid ass hell

yours,

obi jan

The reviews here are more fascinating than the film was. On the one hand, it's nice to see how most people have progressed in terms of what they believe (and disbelieve) about homosexuality.

On the other hand, it's clear from a few of the reviews that the very same irrational fears and misinformation about gay people that existed when the film was made still exist today. Case in point: the comments about the Catholic priest scandals reminded me that the Church did not refer to the guilty priests as pedophiles, but as homosexuals--as if the two terms were interchangable. Perhaps Sid Davis came back from the grave to handle their PR on that one.

All in all, the film is a scary (for gay people) look back at the past and an even more frightening look at what some people continue to believe today.

One more reason why a tsunami wouldnt be the worst thing to happen to the left coast.

Do you people realize that you are spewing hateful right wing words that are as damaging today was they were funny looking back to 1961...quit going on about homosexuals and intelligent design...live your lives happily, and get a life away from your churches....and walmarts ...I hate to tell you but when you die, thats it people...its darkness and nothingness..no heaven...no streets paved of gold....just black...so burn your bibles and live your lives

That was wild! I'll bet the guys on Mystery Science Theater 3000 really wanted to feature this one.

Actually, it's a good short about pedaphiles that could prove useful for potental victims and, unfortunately, for the pedaphiles themselves. But it seems people used to get homosexual mixed up with molesters. Still do actually.

Tonight, the great Prelinger was talking about how this film had been downloaded 80,000 times, and perhaps not for the reasons that Sid Davis anticipated.

It's a fantastic piece of kitsch. It's depressing, then, that, judging from the caveman posts below, it's being downloaded by 21st century mouth-breathers under the impression it's a legitimate documentary about gay Americans. What's it like to be a caveman, anyway?

This movie is worth a watch, reading some of the previous reviews I think some real facts about homosexuals need to be brought out in the open.

Empirical research proves beyond any doubt that a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile, homosexuals are not normal at all, there is absolutely nothing normal or natural about male/male or female/female sexual attractions, it is a sick perversion.
Humans naturally feel disgust toward homosexuals, it is a perfectly normal reaction, we don't want you or your kind anywhere near us or our children.
Homosexuals in the US are many times more likely (around 700 times more likely) to be hiv positive, to the poster who suggested that aids is not "the gay disease" you are utterly wrong.
To the poster who suggested that homosexuality is not a mental disorder think again, vast amounts of research prove you wrong.
Nonheterosexuals are relatively overrepresented among pedophiles, sexual sadists, sexual masochists, sexual sadomasochists, zoophiles, and other paraphiles. Nonheterosexuals are also relatively overrepresented among individuals with non-paraphilic sexual compulsion disorders.
Several studies have reported a relative overrepresentation of homosexuals and bisexuals among individuals with borderline personality disorder.
Several studies have reported elevated personality disorders among male homosexuals.
Homosexual men are relatively overrepresented among male patients with eating disorders.

And the list goes on and on, clearly, and without doubt, there is something 'not normal' about homosexuals.

An oldie but goodie!

People need to know how bad homosexuality is.

A new version could be done if the liberals would let us.
Homosexuality is a mental problem.

...replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile" and this film could still be used to teach kids a few good lessons. Unfortunately films like this may have had a bigger impact by equating being gay with pedophiles and, as a result, slowed what's already been pointed out as the good progress that society's made on the subject of homosexuality.

We still have a way to go, and convincing those who had these ideas fed to them at a young age that homosexuality is not a choice or mental illness will be difficult. The current political climate is born of that mindset and doing added harm.

i was less offended watching the broken movie by nine inch nails.

i've always found it hard to believe that humanity could be so gullible that they would actually buy into something like this. i thought bush was full of shit before he invaded afghanistan, let alone iraq. but people always seem to make me think less of them, and i don't know how they do it.

very untruthful, poorly researched, bad terminology (as stated before, i think the correct term is "pedophile", not "homosexual"), and a very shocking look at how many people, even today, view homosexuality.

"homosexuality is a choice."
"AIDS is a gay disease."
"homosexuality is a mental disorder."
anyone who believes any of the last three sentences i just stated truly have no clue about any group outside their albino-straight world. they're the real people with mental disorders. and that disorder is the inability to think.

These people REALLY have issues.

Whoever wrote this probably had a personal experience with a male pervert, and assumed that only gay men could be perverts. This film could do with being about sex offenders in general, and might be good, instead of just being blindingly homophobic.

Shame the writer was so myopic.

this movie scared my head's ass out of its mind. i like the part where he refered to the homosexual as "the shadow of death."

I'm giving this 5 stars, not because it's actually good in and of itself, but because it's an important snapshot in time of an era when people actually thought this way.

The fact that nearly every review has (correctly IMHO) emphasised how ridiculous and unintentionally hilarious this film now appears to us in 2005, is a telling indication of how how far we have progressed on this issue.

It's also very telling that the only two dissentions come from someone who appears to have stepped straight out of the movie, (Or maybe I should be more charitable, and he was crafting a masterpiece of extreme sarcasm.) and a paranoid racist with a curious interest in the restrooms along Highway 5 and 101. (Perhaps the film touched a raw nerve?)

I would recommend everyone see this film, at least once. It's both a warning, albeit not the one intended, and also unintentionally hilarious.

In response to:
Reviewer: abbey_rodent - 4 out of 5 stars -

<>
Somehow you overlook how muslims and other third worlders marry 12 year-old girls as part of their "culture". It's done all over the world, and in the USA too, as a "cultural belief". Don't forget about female genital mutilation either, or a hunderd other sick things.
No, just focus on a small group of priest.


-----------------
<>

You'll be happy to know that Inglewood today is THE most violent section of Los Angeles. All the "white bread" has been replaced with blacks and mexicans. And the murders, rapes and robberies are much higher, which appearantly testifies "how far we've come" as one person said.

The "White-bread" had their nieghborhood stolen from them---------reparations coming to them?

Also, in California public restroom are used by gays. Just go to the "rest areas" along Hiway 5 or 101 and the gays do their anonymous sex with each other in there.

Good grief! This whole flick could be replaced by two sentences: "Kids, never get in a car with a stranger!" and "Kids, if a strange adult tries to get friendly with you, make sure they meet your parents before you go anywhere with them or accept anything from them!" Two lessons which are still sadly lacking today. I'm not sure why they decided that the only danger in the "strange adult vs. child" venue came from homosexuals.

I wonder how many people who downloaded this and laughed at it realized that when "Jimmy" reported the attempted sexual assault, he himself was ARRESTED and charged with "sodomy" along with his attacker? Hence the fact that he was put on probation and released to his parents. That to me was horrifying. Welcome to America, kid.

At least the parents looked supportive and caring. You wouldn't believe how my father treated me when he found out I was friends with a suspected "faggot" classmate in high school. He nearly threw me out of the house. The joke was on him, of course.

As a raving home-oh-sex-you-all, I take exception to the belief that homo=pedophile, but that dead horse has already been beaten enough by previous sado-masochistic bestialistic necrophiles here.

And speaking of gaydar, am I the only one who's gaydar started beeping at the site of "Jimmy"?

'Boys Beware'...WOW, what a hilarious film. This is very interesting in how outdated and ridiculous it truly appears now. The music could not be more inappropriate, there is happy, chirpy music being played when children are about to be molested...it reminds me of the poor music choice from 'Habit Patterns', which is similar to this film in many ways.

young Mike, the basketball player, d'ja notice how he seems a little, shall we say, limp wristed?

Quality casting. These guys knew their subject.

As campy and amusing as this bit of anti-gay propaganda may seem today, it was shown in countless physical education and health classes across the US and helped shape the attitudes of a generation of Americans -- not to mention the damage it did to gay teens of the day.

Always beware of the basketball playing aggressive yet friendly murdering tuxedo wearing homosexual. Narrator sounds like he's reading the words from a medical chart... "Homo-sex-you-uhl." Interesting film to see how the world once portrayed those of differing preference, and reassures one that although in the passing decades, morality may have slumped, this is one aspect that has changed for the better.

OOOOooooooooooooooooohhhh...... I'm siiiick!!!

Only 5% of male perpetrators who sexually abuse boys are gay. Different studies have revealed that there is no relation between perpetrator's adult sexual-orientation and victim's gender. Having this in mind, such films makes you understand how much iniquity and nonsense about minorities lies in our late history.

that was funny, they dont say or show any females,dose that mean that girl on girl action is excepted

I was so freaked out by it, because I was at the tail end of these kinds of films. I was born in 1964, and I have to say... that this kind of propaganda truly makes a boy who is homosexual feel entirely criminal when it has absolutely nothing to do with child molestation. Pedafiles are straight men as well, and if they could have gotten their facts right with terminology, it would have saved so much heart ache for future generations. It was during that time that African Americans were not allowed to vote.

A tiny proportion of gay men are pedophiles, just as a tiny proportion of straight men are. It's important to understand the difference in those words, when people's lives and liberties are at stake.

Welcome to 1961, and in some people's minds, 2005. Those people largely ignore science and experienced counsul from important observers such as the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations. It is not a mental illness, and the desired model mirrors the heterosexual experience of relationships, commitment and yes, marriage or civil unions.

I was 11 when the film was made. I've lived through the sort of stereotyping evident in the film, and suffered for it. It's back with a vengence. I want it to end.

Re: "Boys Beware", it's creepy and poorly done, but not all that inappropriate if you label the molesters what they actually are: pedophiles.

God, I love Homosexual Zombies!

Five stars because this film is so lousy it's good! I love how homosexuals are made out to be almost like zombies in this one, especially the public restroom homosexual. It's the perfect example of how you hear things like "Homosexuals had it a thousand times as bad fifty years ago," but if you weren't alive fifty years ago, you don't realize how absolutely terrible the American view on homosexuality actually was until you see a hilariously bad film like this one.

Hey the Police station is also a bomb shelter! Great tie-in. The 2 greatest threats to our American way of life, THE atomic bomb and homosexuals (who are also obviously communists and purveyors of mind-warping pornographic materials merely for profit).

Jimmy plays baseball in his cuffed up Toughskins? That must have been before polyester uniforms.

19 cent Tacos at the drive-in is a sure sign of Hispanic intents to take over the land of the hard-working American.

So many homosexual innuendos in this one: the phallus-like fishing poles, the "hole-in-one" at the local putt-putt, the stiff-backed walk of Jimmy as he comes out of the police station...
Wait, Jimmy's dad also gave him a friendly pat when they left the police station! Arrest him!

"Get in the car and leave your bike behind to help me catch 2 boys who stole someone elses' bikes!"
"Yes Sir, at once!"

I don't know which is scarier, the production values or the creepozoid they found to play "Ralph". The b/w filming only adds to the creepiness, as does Ralph's car. Some helpful things they don't tell you: homosexuals can help you choose draperies. Do they mean to say all pedophiles are homosexuals, or all homosexuals are pedophiles? I'm confused. Also, maybe they were right, because Jimmy now hangs out in piano bars and sings show tunes.
If forced to choose, I probably would have went with the guy in the T-Bird, he seemed alot more hip.
This would have made a terrific "Leave it to Beaver" episode.

I love these 50's style films! The duck and cover one is GREAT! This one is a good laugh too, I can't believe how far we have come.

This is a great film; they just have this bizarre habit of referring to pedophiles as 'homosexuals'. We sure have come a long way since then, haven't we? AT least some of us have.

Laughed my way through the whole film....good descriptive words. Check it out and you probably will laugh also.

This is a great film to alert our children the dangers of doing anything with a stranger, especially if a stranger approaches the child. Strangers who are consider a person whom we don't know about especially when meeting for the first time. There are more men out there with tendencies to sexually molest our boys because the homosexual lifestyle is more open and with our government giving into new laws. Certainly one knows when a boy has been sexually assaulted that he will remember it for many years to come and eventually it will change his life and behavior in a way that could eventually loose his morals and ruin his life. This is the main reason why homosexuality is bad and why it is a sin. This is a good film to instruct our kids not to have anything to do with strangers, especially if the guy makes any moves or ill advances towards him, get out, escape when you can. Report the man to authorities. This is an excellent must see film to show in the schools to teach children to protect themselves.

This movie is chock full of so many great one liners:
"One never knows when the homosexual is about"
"Public Restrooms are a hangout for the homosexual"
"what Jimmiy did'nt know was that Ralph was sick,a sickness of the mind known as homosexuality"
the list goes on and on! No wonder gay marriage is still illegal, these sicko perverts should all be locked away!

Somehow, this film fails to mention the high incidence of boys molested within the Catholic church system. Hmmm, guess the producers just didn't have time for that particular nest of hornets.
Where were Jimmy's parents when he was spending every saturday in the company of a 40 year old man, not a relative?
The nice white-bread suburb of Inglewood, CA is to be commended for agreeing to expose the dark, twisted underbelly of suburbia that lurks around every burger stand and public restroom, just waiting to ensnare our innocent and naive young boys with its promises of afternoons spent fishing and riding in cars with middle-aged creeps.
Dont Let This Happen To Your Son!!!

Creepy, very creepy, the happy stock music makes it even creepier. Good one!

Not much I can add to the wonderful reviews I have read here, but just wanted to point out what could be the best line in the film: "Ralph was a homosexual, a person who DEMANDS sexual satisfaction from members of his same sex."

Demands???

One of the funniest films in the collection.

The chipper, happy background music is perhaps the creepiest thing about this anti-molestation short.

Equates homosexuality with pedophilia, uses the phrase "riding in the shadow of death" in a tone of voice that suggests reading a telephone number, and after a young boy is molested, tells him parents, and goes to the police, the Stranger ("Ralph") is arrested, and Jimmy "is given probation in the custody of his parents." WHAT THE!?

Wants to rely on scare tactics, but isn't really scary (for real chills, watch The Strange Ones, also on Prelinger).

Having read the lead reviews, I figured this film would be the typical 50's-60's "Everything is deadly, and if you don't do exactly what we tell you, the worse possible outcome will happen, but when it comes to seriously trying to inform you so you can protect yourself, we're just gonna dance around the situation and not really tell you anything useful" mental hygene film. I could see the erronious equating of Homosexuals to Pedophiles a mile away, but I was very surprised that the first young man in the film was brought up on what I'm assuming were Sodomy charges rather than being treated as a victim and being provided counseling and so forth. I'm not well versed in Criminal Justice history, but I'm assuming that back in 1961, that such things as victims services did not exist. This does bring out one of the things I enjoy about watching these films. That it brings to light the attitudes society had at this time about various social issues. I give it four stars because although it is useless for protecting children from Pedophiles, it does show insight into the attitudes about the subjects of pedophiles and homosexuality in that time. Plus, it's just entertaining to watch and laugh at!

This is a delightful 10:12 min trip down memory lane, it takes us back to a simpler time with a chicken in evey pot, and a homosexual stalker in every men's room. The stories are drawn out a little at some points, but high comic value in others. All and all this is a jem, it shows us how this country indoctrinated the youth at an early age, and still does to some extent. I take it this gay bashing was BEFORE the ACLU. My favorite scenes are about Bobby and his friends and the short cut under the pier. Bobby finds the short cut under the pier not such a good idea when he notices he is being stalked by the " stranger ", from the mens's room. " Bobby had made a wise decision, it just may have saved his life, " or at the very least his anal virginity. So in short if you have ten minutes to kill, want to laugh till your ribs hurt, or just want to be scared mentally in a way where you'll never want to go alone into a public restroom, this is your short. By the way why did Jimmy get probation for bring molested by Ralph unless it was concentual, and notice the " Shrimp and Chicken " sign at the drive-in. Jimmy should have read the writing on the sign. Shapes of things to come for Jimmy. Why do you think Bubba was always talking about " shrimping " with Forrest.

I am forever in Sid Davis's debt, before watching this film I was unaware that homosexuality was "just as contagious and just as deadly as small pox."

I was planning a trip to San Francisco, but now I have changed my mind. If I went there I might have to take use a public restroom at some point, but with public restrooms being a "homosexual hangout," I am afraid that it would not be safe for me to releive myself. A gay man might try to show me some pornographic pictures, or take me miniature golfing or something.

This film is great entertainment. It is halarious - its right up there with "Perversion for Profit." The film relly lets you see where the term "homophobia" came from in the first place.

Apart from all the homophobic myths in this film, the most disturbing aspect to me is the soundtrack, which is almost relentlessly cheery and upbeat throughout.

"Poor Mike traded in his life for a newspaper headline. But it's a nice day. Let's go for a picnic! But let's hope none of those pesky 'homo-sexuals' come to ruin our fun! Stay away from the public restrooms!"

You have to love how this film equates homosexuals with child molesters when science and law enforcement bears out that heterosexual men, often married with families of their own, are the primary (95th percentile) predators in the molestation of young boys. Of course, this movie was also produced before the advent of DSM III - at which time homosexuality was removed from the psychiatric community as an "illness." On a related side note, how many times have you ever heard of a gay father or lesbian mother killing their own kids? Seems like the news is chock full of that particularly heinous crime these days (aka Susan Smith) - all committed by heterosexuals. Makes you wonder who is the real threat to children - strangers or relatives.

...but the fact that the kids in this film are completely blind to the fact they are engaging in very risky behaviors. Tips we have been ingrained with since elementary school, such as not riding with strangers, not taking stange short cuts, and not going out by yourself at late hours (in otherwords, "Use the buddy system") seem to have never been explained to these boys. Sadly, these real dangers are presented as the result of the wretched homosexual men, as opposed to the grim reality that children should be more capable of protecting themselves. Of course, it also ignores that sexual abuse is almost entirely committed by someone the victim knows, such as a family member or close, older friend. Here, not only is the child presented as getting arrested (for those curious, Jimmy has broken a sodomy law which is why he ALSO goes to prison), but his fate is the result of the lurking homosexual threat as opposed to the much greater threat of the child who has never learned to keep himself safe from those who wish him harm - and homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on this form of crime.

As for the camp factor, the narrator relates most of the piece in a casual, almost pleasant voice, no matter what he's actually saying. There's something surreal as he relates "They went fishing. Then Ralph showed him some pornographic pictures." with the utmost cheer.

The pentultimate Sid Davis film, the one which he will always be synonomous with. Features many boys getting too comfortable with homosexuals who are of course labeled sick in the mind. So don't hitch-hike, go to public washrooms, plax mini-golf take short cuts or play basketball alone. Because once of them comes along, why you'll be trading your life for a headline, or, of course, be put in probation under the custody of your parents (Can someone explain this?) of course it's a MUST SEE on this site.

Can't wait to see how hackneyed our propaganda seems decades from now - like this one does today.

"A sickness that was not like smallpox but no less dangerous and contagious. A sickness of the mind."

Sad document to the bigotry that persists today. Some still think sexuality is contagious and that gay = pedophile who keeps little boys in a well in his basement.

Does the predatory homo shooting a basketball really have to kick his leg out girl-style?

Yes, all homosexuals are conspicious balding middle-aged garish dark sunglass-wearing men named Ralph. Furthermore, they all prey upon teenage boys for recruitment efforts by taking unsuspecting youngsters out to eat, fishing, and calling them by their first names!

This film really needs to be seen to be believed. While Sid Davis obviously showed a little real insight into social problems in his other films (See "Age 13"), he completely tows the standard line of the day in this film, that homosexuality is a sickness "not unlike smallpox". Ralph's arrest is a true mystery as he does not appear to even cop a feel during his entire time with jimmy. Oh wait, he suggestively leads jimmy up a motel stairway, which means...oooooh! Give me a break, please.

"Jimmy was released on probation in the custody of his parents." -- Uhm, the hell? Poor jimmy gets seduced by a balding homosexual and he gets a line in his juvie record?! Now *that's* sick.

Things to watch for:

* Motorcycle cops pull over evil homosexual in front of highly suggestive treeline.

* Police detective drives the EXACT SAME CAR as one of the "homosexuals"!

* Sid Davis cameos as the "washroom homosexual" (is Sid trying to tell us something?)

* Man who murders a teenage boy is equated with all other homosexuals

Things you WON'T see in this version:

* The truth that the vast majority of sex abuse occurs with other family members and neighbors, IE NON-STRANGERS.

* The extended scene where jimmy tells all his circle jerk pals about his experience with a genuine homosexual.

The film is bad, but I'd consider it essential to watch. That's why I give it *****.

Junior high Jimmy hitches a ride and that's where the trouble starts. A Sid Davis production, of course. First a pat, then a trip to the soda shop, an off color joke, and a fishing trip. Oh oh, they're using first names! And porno at lunch! Watch out! Ralph's a sick homosexual! Now it's off to Ralph's apartment! But wait there's more ... men at the park and the restrooms and "riding in the shadow of death"!