tangent thread about labels/assumptions

[Suzie]

I failed to respond to this initially. Homosexual molestation is, by definition...well, homosexual. The perpetrator of homosexual molestation is very obviously homosexual, since s/he is molesting someone of the same sex in order to achieve sexual gratification.

I think that's where we disagree. "Homosexual molestation" (the term) is used to describe the fact that both the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex not the sexual orientation of the perpetrator or the victim, otherwise the statistics don't add up.

I believe homosexuality involves attraction to people of your own sex but adults (not a child) in which case will be a pedophile and certainly homosexuality and pedophilia aren't mutually inclusive.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Suzie

[Vort]

Well, the problem I have is connecting what you consider the perversion of homosexuality with child molestation. I just cannot understand why if someone is homosexual they could also be a child molester, I just don't see the connection at all IMO but reading your views on homosexuality then I can see why you feel the way you do.

The very structure of your statement suggests that you don't understand what I'm saying, even though I have been trying to keep it very simple and without other entanglements. Very frustrating. Let's look at each sentence individually.

Well, the problem I have is connecting what you consider the perversion of homosexuality with child molestation.

Why? This is quite obvious. Let's use some (made-up) numbers to illustrate:

Let us assume that 5% of the population is homosexual. The least figure I have seen is 0.2% homosexual, while some homosexual groups have suggested that upward of 10% (or more) are homosexual. My 5% figure is giving the homosexual lobby too much credit, but so be it. For simplicity, let us assume that the remaining 95% is heterosexual.

Let us also assume that pedophilia (as expressed through child molestation) is an independent condition that "afflicts" homosexuals and heterosexuals with equal percentage. Let's say that, I don't know, 5% of people are pedophiles.

So, then, how many people are homosexuals and pedophiles? That would be 5% of 5%, or 1 in 400 (0.25%).

Now, take two individuals from that group. One of those individuals has denied himself of his homosexual urges. The other has embraced his homosexual urges. Of those two, which is more likely to embrace his pedophilic urges? I say the one who has already embraced one sexual perversion. If I had to choose, I would be far more likely to entrust my child to the one who has demonstrated his mastery over his unclean carnality by rejecting his homosexual inclinations.

What exactly do you find difficult to understand about this?

I just cannot understand why if someone is homosexual they could also be a child molester, I just don't see the connection at all IMO

Let me turn the question around. What is it about homosexuality that precludes the homosexual from also being a pedophile?

The Catholic priests who fondled boys were by definition homosexuals. So how can you think that homosexuals are somehow unable simultaneously to be child molesters?

but reading your views on homosexuality then I can see why you feel the way you do.

Doubtful. How do you think I feel?

Statistics seem to agree most sexual molestation of children doesn't come from gay people, if so then it means they mostly don't act upon these tendencies (if they have them) according to your example.

If homosexuals are a minority, then it stands to reason that only a minority of child molesters will be homosexual. What, exactly, do you think this demonstrates?

I think most of the time, people just repeat what they hear, assume, have their own prejudice, different culture, upbringing, fear or act out of ignorance

Agreed. For example, you seem to have decided that anyone who does not embrace homosexuality or parrot the PC line about homosexual child abuse (e.g. the infamous Catholic priests) must therefore be a "gay-basher". You have applied this prejudice to me and have interpreted my words through this lens. As a result, you have completely failed to understand what I have said, despite the fact that I have said it as clearly as I know how. You have actually applied meanings to my words that I specifically disallowed. So, as you note, I can only assume you are repeating the tropes that you have heard and applying your own prejudices to what I have written.

I am curious, what about those who watch child porn and consider themselves heterosexual? Do you feel about them in the same way you described homosexuals in your example?

Suzie, this question betrays your complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. I despair at possibly being able to explain to you, in a way that you are willing to understand, what I am getting at.

Let me try once more, in as few words as possible.

Those who have embraced a sexual perversion have shown themselves to be the kind of people who embrace sexual perversion. Therefore, those who have embraced a sexual perversion seem much more likely to embrace another sexual perversion (such as child molestation or pedophilia) than those who have refused to embrace sexual perversion.

This does not mean that all homosexuals are child molesters. Indeed, this is not a subtle difference; it is a starkly obvious point, at least to me.

Does that explain things any more clearly?

[Vort]

I think that's where we disagree. "Homosexual molestation" (the term) is used to describe the fact that both the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex not the sexual orientation of the perpetrator or the victim, otherwise the statistics don't add up.

I believe homosexuality involves attraction to people of your own sex but adults (not a child) in which case will be a pedophile and certainly homosexuality and pedophilia aren't mutually inclusive.

Then you are using a special definition. I can use a special definition, too, and prove that Adolph Hitler was not responsible for murdering anyone. I will simply define a murderer as someone who commits murder and who isn't Adolph Hitler. See how easy that is?

By definition, homosexuality is same-sex attraction. Age of the attractor is an independent variable.

[Suzie]

I'm really not sure what else to say, we don't seem to understand each other and the root of it all, it seems to be the fact that we use different terms and have different perceptions of things. I really hate going in circles over the same things, post after post, sorry. It's late here and my brain surely doesn't work overtime however I wanted to say you got this 100% wrong, really wrong (and you surely like to make assumptions I noticed based on your posts) and that's why I know you don't really understand what I am saying, however I also noticed that we disagree on many threads (nothing wrong with that). I guess this is just another one.

For example, you seem to have decided that anyone who does not embrace homosexuality or parrot the PC line about homosexual child abuse (e.g. the infamous Catholic priests) must therefore be a "gay-basher". You have applied this prejudice to me and have interpreted my words through this lens. As a result, you have completely failed to understand what I have said, despite the fact that I have said it as clearly as I know how. You have actually applied meanings to my words that I specifically disallowed. So, as you note, I can only assume you are repeating the tropes that you have heard and applying your own prejudices to what I have written.

However, I appreciate your time and effort to explain even though we disagree. Good night.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Suzie

[Soulsearcher]

One of the comments to be made is the view that pedophiles don't act so much on attraction to the youth as the power they can exert over them. They are found to have issues with functioning with people of their own age and so seek our people they can feel in control of. It acts out in a sexual way but most of the findings seem to support that it's not overly sexually based.

Another comment on the priests that were mentioned is that few identify as homosexual and more again went with victims of opportunity who they had power over due to lack of experience in a more adult realm of sexual relationships.

Also again being you carry the view of homosexuality as a perversion, which it's no longer considered by the majority of certified mental health professionals also shows more the moral bias than factual basis. I would more be a pervert if i engaged in heterosexual actions because that would be out of the norm for me. Going by your view and by the very literal definition of perversion anyone that does not engage in sex for the sole reason of procreation is a pervert and more likely to molest a child. Sex for fun, oral, anal, any fetish of any kind, would mark anyone hetero or homo sexual as some one with an increased chance of crossing the line. That is if we want to take the most literal view of what perversion is.

As for parents not allowing their kids around homosexuals, do do find it amusing. I helped raise 5 LDS kids, wile i was in the closet they admitted i was the best thing to ever happen to their family. Left the kids with me for a few weeks here and there, constantly told people i was the reason the kids turned out so well. Things changed after i admitted i was gay, even made sure they were the first i told so it didn't look like i was going to extremes to hide it. Their mom freaked, the kids had mixed reactions, but i laughed that it made an instant difference as if it changed all of who i was vs the 10 years of hard work and dedication i'd put in. What you seem to call rational doesn't seem to fit the defenition. People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day it seems LDS people keep trying to prove they aren't perverting the gospel, which is a common claim, and ask for people to give it a chance, and yet they seem to not be as willing to give the same chance to those who are not in that different of a situation, judgement vs getting the facts straight.

[Vort]

One of the comments to be made is the view that pedophiles don't act so much on attraction to the youth as the power they can exert over them. They are found to have issues with functioning with people of their own age and so seek our people they can feel in control of. It acts out in a sexual way but most of the findings seem to support that it's not overly sexually based.

Can you cite "most of the findings"?

Another comment on the priests that were mentioned is that few identify as homosexual

They are agents of an organization that views homosexuality as a sin. What are the odds they will self-identify as homosexuals? But the fact that they derive sexual satisfaction from sexual activity with members of the same sex makes them, by definition, homosexuals.

Why do you have such difficulty accepting this?

and more again went with victims of opportunity who they had power over due to lack of experience in a more adult realm of sexual relationships.

Strange, then, that it is almost always boys being molested.

Also again being you carry the view of homosexuality as a perversion, which it's no longer considered by the majority of certified mental health professionals

How are "certified mental health professionals" qualified to determine whether something is a perversion?

also shows more the moral bias than factual basis.

On what "factual basis" is the opposite claim made? On the "factual basis" that "certified mental health professionals" have decided not to call it a perversion any more?

I would more be a pervert if i engaged in heterosexual actions because that would be out of the norm for me.

So in your universe, the only people guilty of perversion are those who act in a way they don't want to act. So the homosexual who refuses to have sex with other men and the pedophile who refuses to defile children are the real perverts, in your universe.

Do I understand you correctly?

Going by your view and by the very literal definition of perversion anyone that does not engage in sex for the sole reason of procreation is a pervert and more likely to molest a child.

You clearly have no idea what my view is, so you are eminently unqualified to make any statement about it. And your "very literal definition of perversion" is beyond ridiculous.

I helped raise 5 LDS kids, wile i was in the closet they admitted i was the best thing to ever happen to their family.

Well, I certainly believe your words at face value.

Their mom freaked, the kids had mixed reactions, but i laughed that it made an instant difference as if it changed all of who i was vs the 10 years of hard work and dedication i'd put in.

Glad you have such a robust sense of humor.

What you seem to call rational doesn't seem to fit the defenition.

How not?

People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day it seems LDS people keep trying to prove they aren't perverting the gospel, which is a common claim, and ask for people to give it a chance, and yet they seem to not be as willing to give the same chance to those who are not in that different of a situation, judgement vs getting the facts straight.

Interesting that you level this accusation, given that you have judged me wrongly and have failed to get your facts straight. What do you make of that?

[Sali]

One of the comments to be made is the view that pedophiles don't act so much on attraction to the youth as the power they can exert over them. They are found to have issues with functioning with people of their own age and so seek our people they can feel in control of. It acts out in a sexual way but most of the findings seem to support that it's not overly sexually based.

.

Not sure I agree with this. My friend's husband was a pedohile (obviously they are divorced now). When he was arrested he was subject to having a test done where he was required to watch certain pornographic images, whilst being wired to a machine to measure his sexual reactions. He was shown not to be attracted to adult males or females, but was shown to be attracted to pre-adolscent children. I know this is only one person, but I'm sure this is pretty much common practice and there must have been studies done.

[Bini]

One of the comments to be made is the view that pedophiles don't act so much on attraction to the youth as the power they can exert over them. They are found to have issues with functioning with people of their own age and so seek our people they can feel in control of. It acts out in a sexual way but most of the findings seem to support that it's not overly sexually based.

Soul, I too would be interested in a source that supports what you have suggested here. At this point, however, I disagree with your statement. To say that pedophiles seek out the company of children because they cannot "function" with those within the same age bracket as themselves, seems a bit naive to me, and only part of the much larger and overall picture. I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject but what I understand after watching several shows on the personal accounts of child molestation/rape victims and documentaries on some of the most vile sexual predators, is it seems that their motives are rooted from their own experiences of sexual abuse and exploitation. I've recently been following the Jaycee Dugard story and she talks about the grueling sex-sessions that her abuser put her through multiple times throughout the day. Authorities have even discovered videos of some of the sexual acts he forced upon her. There is no denying that this man is a sexual deviant. And what's interesting is, he continued an ADULT relationship with his wife, who was an accomplice for all those years and prior to him kidnapping and taking Jaycee.

[Gwen]

I do somewhat agree with the assertion that when a person is willing to act on one "perversion" they are more inclined to act on another. Sexual perversion is a slippery slope.

Where I disagree is that I believe all unhealthy sexaul expression is a perversion and thus part of that slippery slope. Which means everyone has equal potential to go down that slope, not just homosexuals.

What does unhealthy sexual expression mean? If we use the LDS standard then it would be... sexual relations only between husband and wife. It must be in love. If either party is uncomfortable, feels degraded, or isn't consenting of the act then it's off limits. No third parties through any method (porn, physically there, web cam, etc). The world has a similar standard for healthy sexual relationships other than the husband and wife only qualification. The world would say two consenting loving partners. So the basic componets of healthy are the same.

If the basic components of healthy sexual relationships are the same then it is logical to say the result of an unhealthy relationship is the same.

Example....

You could have an active lds couple. In most ways they appear to be doing just fine. But their sexual relationship is perverted/unhealthy. Nothing that would make most be shocked but in that one person isn't entirely comfortable with everything they are doing. Nothing "big" (we've had ppl on this site say using dress up accesseries isn't righteous so assume it's something like that, nothing "nasty") but one partner isn't feeling good about it. So it doesn't meet the standard for a healthy sexual relationship so by default it's an unhealthy perverted relationship.

That partner is now at risk of going down that slope. Over time of this they will feel the need to take back that power and control in their life, it will eat at them. They become desperate. In that desperation and unhappyness they seek out other forms of sexual fullfillment. Could start anywhere and lead to all kinds of trouble. Usually when someone is uncomfortable with what they are doing then they hide. That added element to the desperation only makes the situation more dangerous.

The issue is what creats the desent down the slope. It's not a specific action. It's the sexual environment.... it's against what they feel ok with sexually (the desperation for power over themselves) and the need to hide. Those are the byproducts of unhealthy/perverted sexual relationships.

New example....

If you have someone that is homosexual and due to society they desperatly feel the need to hide, they feel powerless over their lives sexually...... wait, they haven't even had a chance to have an intimate relationship and they are in a dangerous place poised to slide down this slippery slope.

Homosexuals have been pushed into the box of secrecy and being powerless for many many years. It should not be a surprise that a culture of risky behavior and promiscuity exists. Lack of charity toward our brothers and sisters actually created the very environment we are afraid of and suposidly trying to stop.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood I do hold to the standards and doctrines of the church. That means while I do not believe in and would not enter a homosexual relationship (for me that would be a perversion/unhealthy) I also support agency and the command to love they neighbor. I will act on and support what I believe to be right.

It also means that when my sister came out to me about her girlfriend I did not reject her and force her to stay in that box of secrecy. I do not expect her to live by my standards. I do not expect her to hide who she is and I do not expect her to deny the woman she cares for. The result of accepting her for her has been positive. From what I can tell they have a very healthy, committed, respectful, equal relationship. I know some very active lds who haven't managed to acheive that yet. It's not a perverted relationship on a slippery slop. I won't throw that away because I disagree with the choices she has the agency to make.

It is possible to dismiss labels and false assumptions to accept and love someone while disagreeing with a specific choice they have made.

[Backroads]

Of those predisposed to a certain sexual perversion (e.g. child molestation), those who have shown themselves willing to submit to other sexual perversions (e.g. homosexuality) are more likely to submit to the given perversion than are those who have consistently rejected submission to other sexual perversions.

This solved my confusion. It did seem to me you said one thing in the opening thread than another in the other post. I'm following now.

[Soulsearcher]

Can you cite "most of the findings"?

From wikipedia

Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[53][54] and poor social skills.[55] Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.[56]

According to Wilson and Cox (1983), "The paedophiles emerge as significantly higher on Psychoticism, Introversion and Neurotocism than age-matched controls. [but] there is a difficulty in untangling cause and effect. We cannot tell whether paedophiles gravitate towards children because, being highly introverted, they find the company of children less threatening than that of adults, or whether the social withdrawal implied by their introversion is a result of the isolation engendered by their preference i.e., awareness of the social approbation and hostility that it evokes" (p. 324).[57]

Studying child sex offenders, a review of qualitative research studies published between 1982 and 2001 concluded that pedophiles use cognitive distortions to meet personal needs, justifying abuse by making excuses, redefining their actions as love and mutuality, and exploiting the power imbalance inherent in all adult-child relationships.[58] Other cognitive distortions include the idea of "children as sexual beings," "uncontrollability of sexuality," and "sexual entitlement-bias."[59]

One review of the literature concludes that research on personality correlates and psychopathology in pedophiles is rarely methodologically correct, in part owing to confusion between pedophiles and child sex offenders, as well as the difficulty of obtaining a representative, community sample of pedophiles.[60] Seto (2004) points out that pedophiles who are available from a clinical setting are likely there because of distress over their sexual preference or pressure from others. This increases the likelihood that they will show psychological problems. Similarly, pedophiles recruited from a correctional setting have been convicted of a crime, making it more likely that they will show anti-social characteristics.[61]

While not causes of pedophilia themselves, childhood abuse by adults or comorbid psychiatric illnesses — such as personality disorders and substance abuse — are risk factors for acting on pedophilic urges.[13] Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) noted about comorbid psychiatric illnesses that, "The theoretical implications are not so clear. Do particular genes or noxious factors in the prenatal environment predispose a male to develop both affective disorders and pedophilia, or do the frustration, danger, and isolation engendered by unacceptable sexual desires — or their occasional furtive satisfaction — lead to anxiety and despair?"[62] They indicated that, because they previously found mothers of pedophiles to be more likely to have undergone psychiatric treatment,[63] the genetic possibility is more likely.

he term pedophile is commonly used to describe all child sexual abuse offenders, including those who do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards, which is seen as problematic by researchers,[23][27] as most distinguish between child molesters and pedophiles.[3][27][28][43] A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[50] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner).[65] As child sexual abuse may or may not be an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders may be separated into two types: Exclusive (i.e., "true pedophiles") and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, "non-pedophilic"). According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male pedophile sex offenders, only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most offenders fall into the non-exclusive category.[26] However, the Mayo Clinic reports perpetrators who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia offend more often than non-pedophile perpetrators, and with a greater number of victims. They state that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.[26] A behavioral analysis report by the FBI states that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for [prepubescent] children (i.e., true pedophiles)."[24]

A review article in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes the overlap between extrafamilial and intrafamilial offenders. One study found that around half of the fathers and stepfathers in its sample who were referred for committing extrafamilial abuse had also been abusing their own children.[66]

As noted by Abel, Mittleman, and Becker[67] (1985) and Ward et al. (1995), there are generally large distinctions between the two types of offenders' characteristics. Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress; have a later onset of offending; have fewer, often familial victims; and have a general preference for adult partners. Pedophilic offenders, however, often start offending at an early age; often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial; are more inwardly driven to offend; and have values or beliefs that strongly support an offense lifestyle. Research suggests that incest offenders recidivate at approximately half the rate of extrafamilial child molesters, and one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims.[68]

Some child molesters — pedophiles or not — threaten their victims to stop them from reporting their actions.[1] Others, like those that often victimize children, can develop complex ways of getting access to children, like gaining the trust of a child's parent, trading children with other pedophiles or, infrequently, get foster children from non-industrialized nations or abduct child victims from strangers.[1] Pedophiles may often act interested in the child, to gain the child's interest, loyalty and affection to keep the child from letting others know about the abuse.[1]

From Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders

Causes and symptoms

Causes

A variety of different theories exist as to the causes of pedophilia. A few researchers attribute pedophilia along with the other paraphilias to biology. They hold that testosterone, one of the male sex hormones, predisposes men to develop deviant sexual behaviors. As far as genetic factors are concerned, as of 2002 no researchers have claimed to have discovered or mapped a gene for pedophilia.

Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Some think that pedophilia is the result of having been sexually abused as a child. Still others think that it derives from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life. Some researchers attribute pedophilia to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically. Some regard pedophilia as the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner. Since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. This drive for domination is sometimes thought to explain why most pedophiles are males.

I'll concede why wording earlier wasn't the best, yes there is a large sexual component, but it's still they why of children, which is weaker easier to control, lack of ability to have a strong stable relationship with adults.

They are agents of an organization that views homosexuality as a sin. What are the odds they will self-identify as homosexuals? But the fact that they derive sexual satisfaction from sexual activity with members of the same sex makes them, by definition, homosexuals.

By definition pedophile, not homosexual, as stated above there is a difference between the two, as well as the comments about victims of opportunity who they can exert power over.

Strange, then, that it is almost always boys being molested.

Not when you consider that for the most part in the past and still that young girls really have no place with in the day to day tasks in Catholic churches. Young males tend to have the more one on one time with priests.

How are "certified mental health professionals" qualified to determine whether something is a perversion?

I guess it comes down to who one looks to for a diagnosis of something, for me i tend to prefer medical or scientific opinions. If I'm going to label someone or something i tend to prefer to have the facts available. As said earlier , to you it's a moral issue which is fine, doesn't make it true or a fact to any but those who agree with your moral stance, but there are enough out there who disagree with your view and when it comes to homosexuality, those who have come to diagnose "real" perversion have said it no longer fits the bill. Though i think it matters as much to you as your driving force matters to me.

On what "factual basis" is the opposite claim made? On the "factual basis" that "certified mental health professionals" have decided not to call it a perversion any more?

You believe it's now ok for Black people to hold the priesthood, but that was a no no. So is it because someone decided that it was now ok? Yes even if it's God's will it showed a change, a shift in what once was thought to be set in stone to a new way. A church built on continuing revelation and yet when people outside change due to new fact or clearer ways of looking at things it holds no water?

So in your universe, the only people guilty of perversion are those who act in a way they don't want to act. So the homosexual who refuses to have sex with other men and the pedophile who refuses to defile children are the real perverts, in your universe.

No, in my universe people who act against their nature are perverts. To you homosexuality is a perversion, it's against all that is natural for you. For the homosexual it's exactly the same as your heterosexual drive. If it's perverted for you to be homosexual, it's just as perverted for the homosexual to go against their nature. I see no difference between a chaste hetero sexual and chaste homosexual so not sure why you'd think chastity plays into anything, if they aren't acting on their sexual urges it has no bearing. I'm just not sure why you only go one way on the line of thinking, if someone going against their nature is perversion, why isn't it the same going the other way?

You clearly have no idea what my view is, so you are eminently unqualified to make any statement about it. And your "very literal definition of perversion" is beyond ridiculous.

My literal view is one held by most Christian religions over time. Sex for reasons other than procreation, oral, anal, contraception were all considered perversions. Views and attitudes have changed over time as has what is considered a perversion or not. Can you honestly tell me that the church has always fully embraced oral sex and contraception with out any condemnation in the past?

Glad you have such a robust sense of humor.

True i guess, it's laughable to hold people to a high standard. Should remember that judgment of the surface is the only way, forget the person judge the label.

How not?

rational (ˈræʃən ə l) — adj 1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem 2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable 3. of sound mind; sane: the patient seemed quite rational 4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought: man is a rational being

A lot of your guesses go against fact. The connection between willingness to go from homosexual to pedophile because it's a smaller jump than heterosexual to pedophile has no factual basis and if you actually read on pedophiles at all from the medical stand point it explains why your reason isn't sound. Your moral bias is clear, how you view homosexuality colors the fact of what really is in relation to shifting orientation to something different. Pedophilia is considered a kin to it's own orientation, so it's as likely for you to start sleeping with men as it is a homosexual to start sleeping with children. The attraction is preexisting, it might present later but you are either a pedophile or not. Now child molesters are a different thing altogether, not all molesters are pedophiles. Something close to what Gwen was mentioning earlier.

Interesting that you level this accusation, given that you have judged me wrongly and have failed to get your facts straight. What do you make of that?

Not to sure I've judged you too wrongly. You have strong feelings about all topics. We both have a bias, from different sides. While I've gone through and tried to fully understand the view point i don't really like, but have come to respect in an odd way, you haven't done the same and it shows with your lack of understanding on basic things. You don't have to like that your definitions don't match up with real definitions or that things have shifted in ways you don't like. Something to take into consideration is that you are making suppositions from outside. You make hypothetical inferences with flawed logic ( such as why it would be easy to jump orientations). You also would dismiss fact in favor of faith, which i don't have an issue with, but it does lower my ability to take certain views seriously, just as you won't take certain fact based views serious if they tend to clash with your faith and morals. It's not that I've miss judged you, just seen the flaws due to confusion over what you think things are and what current hard definitions are.

[Gwen]

Just read an article that made me think of this thread. It's a different tangent but still about labels and assumptions where gays are concerned. (I know some of you won't see how they fit but that's how my ADD mind works. And it is a tangent thread so how far off the topic can I really get? lol)

Man says he was rejected by blood bank for seeming gay | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

[DigitalShadow]

Let's do a gedankenexperiment. Imagine two men with virtually identical personality makeups. They have very similar strengths and weaknesses; in particular, both have personality weaknesses that predisposes them to three types of sexual behavior:

• Homosexuality
• Voyeurism
• Attraction to children

But while these two men have similar baseline personalities, there is an important difference: Mr. A has experimented with homosexuality and voyeurism, while Mr. B has assiduously kept himself from any such thing.

Which of the two would you want watching your children?

Those who have engaged in sexual perversions of one sort have already shown themselves to be the type of person who indulges their sexual perversions. If they have any predisposition toward child sexual attraction, it seems obvious to me that they would be far more likely to indulge that perversion than would those who deny themselves of ungodliness.

So even if we accept the idea that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to want to molest children, the very fact that they are willing to act out on their natural, God-given homosexual attraction suggests that they would be equally willing to act out on their natural, God-given sexual attraction to children.

I think there is a big part that you're missing here. In your mind, it appears there is only normal sexual activity and activity which deviates from that and it's all the same to you after that point. In my mind, there is any type of sexual activity between two consenting adults, and then there is sexual activity that goes beyond that and inflicts harm on fellow human beings. To me, that is a much more significant line to cross than simply going outside what society defines as normal sexual behavior.

Saying that someone who engages in homosexual activity is more likely to be a child molester because they disregard social norms is like saying that someone who downloads pirated movies is more likely to murder your family simply because they disregard the law.

If someone pirates movies, they show that they don't have much respect for the law, but that is a relatively harmless activity that doesn't directly harm their fellow man and is much different than say, manslaughter. Similarly, if someone engages in homosexual sex, it shows that they don't have much regard for social conformity, but it's a huge stretch to assume that the also completely disregard the well being of their fellow man and would inflict such harm on a child.

I would also like to point out that not everyone has had it drilled into their heads since they were little that homosexuality is some evil abomination. Most homosexual people are simply acting on the only sexual urges they know, just as most heterosexual people are. Contrary to what you seem to believe, they don't consciously think "I'm going to go out there and be sexually deviant! Muahahahaha! What should I do next?"

Edited July 19, 2011 by DigitalShadow