Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I've read, girls are many times more likely to be sexually abused than boys. Men are many times more likely to be abusers than women. (It was something like 85-90% of sex offenders are men) So by doing that math, it would stand to reason that the most common form of sex abuse is a man abusing a girl/woman. I honestly think the man/boy cases get more publicity because of where they come from (Boy Scouts, Priests, this Sandusky case) Just a thought.
I have some other thoughts on this issue.....
My first reaction when hearing stories of child sex abuse is to fry these people. In my head, they are on the same level as people like Tim McVeigh or Jeffery Dahmer. But giving it more thought, how common are the Tim McVeighs or Jeffery Dahmers of the world? Not very common thank goodness. Serial killers just aren't that common. However, the numbers of child abuse are staggering. It's just so, so common.
A mother would never think, "I don't want to let my 5 year old son go into the men's bathroom alone so I'm taking him in the ladies room because I don't want someone to murder him." No. She would think, "I'm taking him in the ladies room because I don't want some freak trying to molest him."
It's like molestation is on the forefront of people's minds. It's just so common. And it's not done by scary degenerates. It's done by Average Joe! That's what's scary.
So what is it? Is it a mental illness? I'm thinking it has to be. That's the only thing I can get my head around and I just can't get on board with giving someone with a mental illness the electric chair. What happens to a person that they do this? I was thinking maybe mentally they are children. But that doesn't make sense because they hold down jobs, they are often married with families.
I guess in my ramblings, what I'm thinking is, it's easy to paint the rare people Jeffery Dahmer with the "monster" brush. But when you have crimes being committed by SO many people on such a regular basis, I'm thinking there has to be some other answer than just monster. What is it?
I guess it's like the difference between a person who goes out and murders 5 children, versus Andrea Yates who murdered all 5 of her own children the same day because she thought God wanted her to or something like that. It's clear the first person is a monster (at least to me) but for a mother to do this, she has to be mentally ill. While the act of murder makes you outraged, it's hard to put the two acts on the same level even though the outcome was the same. Does this make sense?
I hope nobody interprets this as defending these sex predators. I'm not at all.
I did read a theory once that suppression leads to perversion. This was used to explain the Catholic priests and what men do to each other in prison. But it just doesn't explain other cases. Any thoughts?
I think if you understand the difference between "fixated" or true pedophiles and regressed "opportunistic" pedophiles and child molestors, it will become clearer.
You do know that some sexual acts very commonly performed by heterosexuals are considered sodomy, right?
So, are we to assume that you believe that when a man and a woman have anything other than 'missionary' sex, that they are committing homosexual acts?
Seriously?
Huh? Sorry....Where was that suggested?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
The OP may think that he is presenting his continuing diatribes as educational, but, I just have to ask, why is it so important to attach any label beyond pedophilia to these horrors?
Surely if the OP wants to 'educate,' the focus should be on those in positions of power over, and easy access to, children and not on this seemingly pathological need to scapegoat homosexuality.
Isn't it important to better understand the profile of child sexual predators and who they target, so we can better protect our children?
The OP shows he just wants to smear gay men with the pedophile brush, while having little understanding of pedophilia, and zero research to back up his misinformed diatribes.
This is demonstrably false, as I re-posted your entire post, and addressed each of the elements individually, specifically, and clearly, unlike you who make a broad claim of "Straw Man Arguments" without an iota of specifics.
Your original post was a machine gun tactic of various "studies" and excerpts, which themselves were at times contradictory, and at other times irrelevant ... a tactical ploy on your part to employ volume rather than value in your argument. And your tactical approach to debate is transparent.
And again, you think that honesty is an attack on gays. This is the same fundamental tactic employed in other debates ... the "race card" type tactics which are ad hominem in nature, void of substance.
It's particularly absurd for you to bark down that path with such allegations given your every word and effort is literally drenched in agenda based bias, purposeful distortions, and tactical maneuvering.
It's shameless, to be quite honest.
Now who is really the one creating straw man arguments here? Yes, you! What you refuse to do is honestly address the counter points I presented in response to those referenced "Studies", which are nothing more than politically biased opinions masquerading as facts.
In every instance, your cited "studies" included an excerpt of the conclusion or point being made. And when those conclusions or points suggest something outwardly absurd like the moon is made of cream cheese, I'm really not going to explore it further than that, as I couldn't care less how such a conclusion was reached.
For example ... one of the studies concluded that it was the feminine qualities of little boys that attracted the heterosexual pedophile, while the homosexual who is attracted to masculine qualities would not find a child attractive. (I really even hate to recount this crap, because it is sickening, yet unfortunately necessary to discuss).
The absurd nature of this "conclusion" speaks for itself. But to break it down for you, since you obviously need someone to do it for you ... normal people don't find children sexually attractive at all. Only pedophiles do. Secondly, the insinuation that little boys exhibit a feminine quality that attracts the heterosexual pedophile seems to directly claim that little girls are less feminine than the little boys, in spite of the very clear anatomical differences which would clearly give the little girls a significant advantage in that department. This is Orwellian BS ... it's the epitome of up=down by insinuating male=feminine more than female=feminine. Now, maybe you need an in depth study to point out the logical fallacy in that, but I don't, and neither does anyone else who can formulate a rational thought.
The third absurdity embedded is the claim is that homosexuals are attracted to masculine qualities for which those little boys don't possess. Again, a logical fallacy since homosexuals are anything but the embodiment of masculine qualities, and when compared, the obvious and most distinct difference between girls and boys is the masculine organ known as a penis! Even doctors will conclude that the absence of one indicates a female! Furthermore, by and large, the homosexual male possesses more feminine aspects in comparison to heterosexual males. Again, no scientific study is required for rational people to reach this conclusion, nevertheless, there is clinical data (actual scientific data rather than politically motivated BS opinion) to support that contention, which by the way is the foundational evidence used in the argument that homosexuality is congenital result rather than simply a lifestyle choice. Now you aren't trying to upset that applecart, are you? This is virtually a universal contention from the homosexual community, therefore you can't have your cake and your penis too .. which is what this lame argument attempts to do.
There are distinctive outwardly recognizable characteristics of homosexual males (generally speaking, though not without exceptions), as well as physiological/chemical/anatomical differences defining homosexual males from heterosexual males, to include the primary hormonal driver that determines masculine development in both the developing fetus and later, in the masculine qualities of the adult male. This testosterone activation of the hypothalamus is responsible for the first stages of defeminization in the fetus carrying XY chromosomes, and the resulting size of the nuclei of the hypothalamus called INAH-3 has been found to be twice the volume in heterosexual males as compared with homosexual males and female adults.
So, we have a problem here .... we have observable characteristic differences in homosexual males (picture Elton John standing side by side with Hulk Hogan) and we have clinical data that shows homosexual males share physiological/chemical/brain similarities with females as compared to heterosexual males. This tends to dismiss this ridiculous assertion that homosexual males are drawn to each other because of their "Masculine Qualities", while insisting at the same time, the penises of little boys is a sign of their femininity. How much more backward could your arguments be? They are as backwards as anything could possibly be.
No, this is yet another example of you attempting to convince others that up is actually down. The CLEAR insinuation made by the statement suggests two fallacies at once .... that lesbians don't molest little girls, which is totally false, and that the existence of a female pedophile would necessarily be heterosexual, which is also false. Just another barking cat from you.
The third fallacy in the above is the part you left out ... the statement was made in context to insinuating that the lack of lesbians molesting little girls supported the claim that homosexual males didn't molest little boys. It was a blank check dismissing homosexuals of either sex as participants in child molestation without a penny in the bank to cover it.
I don't feel the need to provide you sources that you will summarily dismiss as not reputable. And you declared that very intention in the first paragraph of your original post.
Furthermore, I have no illusions about convincing you of anything ... your stalwart attachment to your agenda here is all too clear. I'm simply presenting the facts and the logical conclusions most anyone free of extreme bias would come to, and for those who would choose to research the points on their own are free to do so. I'm sure that doesn't describe you. So what is the point of me providing a link that you intend to dismiss with no debate .. just an ad hominem dismissal? There is no point.
Besides, your cited studies and their conclusions are so absurd on the very surface, I can dismiss them myself, using rational argument and well known facts that are easy to validate.
And this is your "gotcha" moment? Look, all of your alleged study data takes "self identification" from the pedophiles themselves as the proof of their sexual orientation, with every claim made thereafter based on that assumption. Guess what? That's not empirical evidence, it's anecdotal testimony coming from people with a freaking mental disorder!
Now, I'm sure you'll disagree with that too, because I'm aware of the recent efforts to reclassify pedophilia in the DSM, with lots of folks within the psychiatric community now claiming that pedophilia itself is not a mental disorder per se, unless it causes the person severe difficulty in normal functional life areas such as family, career, etc. So, for the pedophile who has no conscience or remorse for committing their vile assaults on children, they don't really have a mental problem ... it's just the ones who have milligram of human decency left in them who are ashamed of their deviate attacks on children .. they are the ones with a mental disorder.
This is precisely the same inane nonsense that you present, and why I dismiss the other idiotic mainstream propaganda that you have foisted on everyone here.
Look, ... it really doesn't take much to be as confident as you present yourself, when your argument consists of an endless game of "Heads I win, tails you lose".
Because homosexual pedophiles don't exist in your world ... this automatically leads to the conclusion that the otherwise overt homosexual nature of a male adult sexually stimulating little boys in the exact manner homosexual males gratify each other seems to represent a heterosexual act to you. You allow no other option... so your argument is assumption by default, before one word is spoken.
This is the center point of your position, and its' a total fraud ... and would be laughable if the subject was not so serious. Because it is so serious, your promotion of these distortions and lies is contemptible.
But if you want to provide political cover for those who molest little boys by diverting attention in these strange directions ... well, that might be the only point worth highlighting.
Lie after lie and strawman after strawman. So another long diatribe and you STILL haven't backed up your opinions with any direct links to studies or research? You know why? Because the research does not support your misinformed opinions.
And apparently you aren't even bothering to read any research or studies in their original form anyway as it's a lot quicker to just find religious-based anti-gay websites which distort them....
Isn't it important to better understand the profile of child sexual predators and who they target, so we can better protect our children?
Yes, absolutely it is, however, I don't believe that is the OP's intent. I believe that the sole purpose of the OP's rant is to, as you note below, "smear all gay men with the pedophile brush."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
The OP shows he just wants to smear gay men with the pedophile brush, while having little understanding of pedophilia, and zero research to back up his misinformed diatribes.
Of course a good amount of pedophilia is committed by Homosexuals! Good grief, is it now Un "PC" to admit the facts? My "close as a brother" best friend, a gay guy told me back when we were in our twenties, among a ton of things that he preferred males but not any with facial hair.
I didn't think much about it but then watched him in the company of a 11 or 12yr. old boy from our neighborhood, and how my friend couldn't help himself from walking almost excitedly, very fast behind the kid when he got to show him his new car. It was not normal, it was so sad to witness an otherwise very, fabulous "soul of a guy" act in a way that he was unaware of himself.
Tigerlily, I believe you are totally mistakened about the OP's intent. He's setting the record straight in a world gone mad, where truth is hidden, and denied, and those that dare to speak it amidst this insane, political climate are ostracized, to say the least.
I used to prosecute medical professionals for, among other things, pedophilia.
EVERY defendant was male, heterosexual and married with kids. In seven years, and probably twice as many cases, I never saw one that was gay, single or childless.
If anyone wants to know, there were some interesting racial/national origin trends...
Now, were they all gay and living a lie? Maybe. Maybe not.
If a gay doesn't want you to know that he is, gay, you are not going to know! C'mon, it's very naive to think you CAN know, and to not know that the smartest ones married, had kids, and very fine careers, yeah, even in politics, and being judges, etc.
I had my eyes opened about ten years after high school Grad., when a dear friend died of AIDS, married with three kids, and after that, his wife, also an old Jr. High and HS pal, started talking.
She "just had to" start talking and inform me of the secret, gay clique at our old, Texas high school, and she knew since her hubby had bedded some of them, and partied and been "in" with some others.
Then came not one, but TWO of my first-cousins that both married and in both cases didn't know they had married gays until the problems, and divorces in each case. One couple had kids, and the other did not. GOOD LOOKING, professionals, guys I sure would have dated, too. No detectable "gay dar" is it called?
So, don't care how many you prosecuted....betcha some of them were, and are, right now, gay.
Of course a good amount of pedophilia is committed by Homosexuals! Good grief, is it now Un "PC" to admit the facts? My "close as a brother" best friend, a gay guy told me back when we were in our twenties, among a ton of things that he preferred males but not any with facial hair.
I didn't think much about it but then watched him in the company of a 11 or 12yr. old boy from our neighborhood, and how my friend couldn't help himself from walking almost excitedly, very fast behind the kid when he got to show him his new car. It was not normal, it was so sad to witness an otherwise very, fabulous "soul of a guy" act in a way that he was unaware of himself.
Tigerlily, I believe you are totally mistakened about the OP's intent. He's setting the record straight in a world gone mad, where truth is hidden, and denied, and those that dare to speak it amidst this insane, political climate are ostracized, to say the least.
So in your best estimation, what percentage of gay men want to have sex with little boys? Every last one of us?
You want me to guess? to estimate? Fun...but accurate? Okay, it's you, not me asking for the speculation.
We cannot, in intellectual honesty and for scientific attempts, even try to estimate what you ask before we estimate what AGES of children we think "most" of them want.
My bud, precious guy, otherwise (under a compulsion he could not understand or control, in defense of him and in my opinion/belief) was excited by the 11 or 12yr. old. He never acted that way at any family functions around an 8 or so, year old. I think the sickness in him wanted the best of both worlds, and that therefore, being a "pedophile" doesn't mean the same thing about everyone.
I think my dear friend remembered too many painful things about his own childhood and truly would not have wanted to touch a really young child and that because we spent so dang much time together, that this is why I am so confident of this---he only had desires for an "older child."
So, how do I make this estimation? My common sense suspects that there's more of them that desire older children, and fewer that are so sick that they desire the younger ones. Numbers? nah, playing with numbers in this seems as silly as trying to guess the date of the year that my savior, Jesus will return. It's tempting, and it's fun to seriously speculate, but I usually, not always! refrain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is virtually a universal contention from the homosexual community, therefore you can't have your cake and your penis too .. which is what this lame argument attempts to do.
Look, all of your alleged study data takes "self identification" from the pedophiles themselves as the proof of their sexual orientation, with every claim made thereafter based on that assumption. Guess what? That's not empirical evidence, it's anecdotal testimony coming from people with a freaking mental disorder!
start talking and inform me of the secret, gay clique at our old, Texas high school, and she knew since her hubby had bedded some of them, and partied and been "in" with some others.
Okay, it's you, not me asking for the speculation.
