Sexuality's Double Standard

[no1tovote4]

I don't know of any data, but I find it hard to believe that people would be able to go through the seminary and find a vocation as a priest if their sole purpose was to use the institution as a shield for their pedophilia. They must first be Catholic and then it seems without any religious motivation for becoming priests they'd have to be great actors. Then they should just go into acting, lots of sex there!

Talk to a shrink about this one as well. Pedophiles choose vocations that put them in contact with children in a capacity of leadership and trust often, they become teachers and Boy Scout leaders, this particular vocation would be particularly attractive. They would do exactly that, especially with the inherent protection provided by the Church at that time. They get a position of trust and respect in society and access to the children...

I wonder if older pedophile priests influence/initiate/corrupt sincere young ones into this lifestyle.

I would doubt it, would they actually be able to corrupt you in that way?

 

[Nuc]

I would doubt it, would they actually be able to corrupt you in that way?

Not me, but maybe they use it as a kind of initiation rite a la fraternities. Before I get flamed let me point out I think most priests are sincere and not pedophiles.

 

[dmp]

homosexuals and rapists are equal in your book?

their unresolved/uncontrolled behavior is the point.

 

[no1tovote4]

Not me, but maybe they use it as a kind of initiation rite a la fraternities. Before I get flamed let me point out I think most priests are sincere and not pedophiles.

There is no fraternity that I know of that use pedophilia as an initiation rite. Once again would they be able to convince you to participate if they did? Most people that would be joining the priesthood would be sincerely religious persons and very unlikely to be corrupted in such a manner. Some would take advantage of the priesthood and the Church's decision to hide this, but it is very unlikely they would be able to convince others to do this. They would be unable to tell which ones would be likely to have this proclivity. If you notice, in none of the lawsuits was it stated that multiple priests had done this to the children, it was one priest that was simply moved to another place to continue his victimization of children.

 

[Nuc]

If you notice, in none of the lawsuits was it stated that multiple priests had done this to the children, it was one priest that was simply moved to another place to continue his victimization of children.

Actually I've mentioned this before, but one of my buddies was being raped by his priest, when another priest walked in. My friend thought priest #2 would stop it, but instead joined in.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually I've mentioned this before, but one of my buddies was being raped by his priest, when another priest walked in. My friend thought priest #2 would stop it, but instead joined in.

Anecdotal, but it stands to reason that occassionally they would find each other and it is entirely possible. It is not widespread that way though as shown by my example of the lawsuits. All of those were one priest victimizing the young.

 

[Nuc]

Anecdotal, but it stands to reason that occassionally they would find each other and it is entirely possible. It is not widespread that way though as shown by my example of the lawsuits. All of those were one priest victimizing the young.

They told my friend that God wanted him to do this stuff.

 

[5stringJeff]

They told my friend that God wanted him to do this stuff.

God does not instruct people to rape children.

 

[Nuc]

God does not instruct people to rape children.

I kinda figured that.

 

[no1tovote4]

They told my friend that God wanted him to do this stuff.

Sick bastards. Pedophiles are simply sick people that will say what is necessary to get the next victim.

 

[MissileMan]

Hobbit, that is a grand slam post. Excellent question!

In response, I believe that all sexual behavior is motivated by choice. Except for cases of rape, engaging in sex is a choice, made by free moral agents (humans), who are capable of making the decision as to whether or not to engage in that activity.

This is a great answer Jeff, but it doesn't really answer the question. Of course, unless it's rape, sex is choice. The question is whether orientation is choice.

I don't believe that homosexuality or pedophilia are genetic...I don't believe there's a gay or pedo gene. I do however believe that in both cases, during fetal development these peoples' brains wind up wired differently.

 

[5stringJeff]

This is a great answer Jeff, but it doesn't really answer the question. Of course, unless it's rape, sex is choice. The question is whether orientation is choice.

I don't believe that homosexuality or pedophilia are genetic...I don't believe there's a gay or pedo gene. I do however believe that in both cases, during fetal development these peoples' brains wind up wired differently.

By "sexual behavior," I meant both orientation and individual acts, but I guess that it wasn't really implied after all. Sorry.

I do believe that orientation is a choice.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe bisexuality in females is a beautiful and natural thing...

lol. pig!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the constant sexuality debates in this country and I've noticed one thing particularly odd. Both liberals and conservatives, in general, have a double standard concerning the nature of sexuality, thought their double standards are polar opposites.

To a conservative, who holds zero tolerance for sexual deviance, homosexuality is a choice. You aren't born homosexual, and if you really do choose to, you can become straight with therapy and insight into whatever caused you to be gay. This leaves no excuse for homosexuals, meaning no gay rights, because it's voluntary deviance, which should be discouraged.

On the other side of the standard lie the illegal deviants. Namely, pedophiles. Conservatives contend that a pedophile has this type of behavior ingrained within their heads and cannot possibly be cured. Once they become pedophiles, you might as well write them off as society's waste, to be discarded without remorse. This, of course, leads to the conservative viewpoints of no mercy towards pedophiles. Longer prison sentences, no sentence-shortening therapy, and neutering are the order of the day for the conservative's pedophile stance. Since pedophiles cannot be cured, this is the best way to keep them from acting again.

Liberals, on the other hand, argue that homosexuality is involuntary and is something ingrained in the person's head from birth, or at least from the time they become sexually aware. They can't help that they're gay, so they should be allowed to live out their lives as gay people and be able to have special conveniences that allow them to gain all the benefits of a normal, heterosexual relationship without actually being heterosexual.

The flip-side of this one with pedophiles is that most liberals, always on the side of compassion over all else, believe that pedophiles have some sort of fixable problem, something wrong with them that can be treated with therapy, allowing the redeemed pedophile to go back into the world without those desires. With enough therapy, any pedophile can work at any child-oriented business without ever repeating his past crime. They're perfectly reformable and should be given this rehabilitation in order to allow them to live normal, happy lives.

Now, while I have seen some who do not subscribe to either double standard, they are rare, and though I disagree with some (Nuc comes to mind), I must admire their consistency.

So, once and for all, I'd like to ask the many of you I have seen subscribe to mainly the former double standard the ultimate question: Which is it? Is sexual preference something you are born and stuck with or is it something that develops and can be changed? It's either one or the other, pick one.

A few problems

Pedophilia is recognized by ALL groups, other than NAMBLA, as a very deviant, IMMORAL behavior.
Homosexuality is USUALLY considered neutral on the morality scale by conservatives , hence the reason for looking at them differently.



Conservatives dont for the most part claim homosexuals choose to be homosexuals, nor do we think most or all can be changed.

What rights are homosexuals being denied??????????????????

Lastly, its probably not one or the other, but a combination, hence I dont need to pick one. I think some are more inclined to homosexuality, but enviorment plays a heavy influence.

Oddly enough, it turns out a vast majority of homosexuals have their first sexual experience as a mid teen, with an adult. So apparently the so called "hamless" activity between two consenting adults is actually a lot of sex with minors.

 

[Hobbit]

What rights are homosexuals being denied??????????????????

My bad. Simply misworded. It shoud have been, "No special rights created to make gays feel 'normal.' It's not normal. Change or deal with it."

I still stand by my original assessment, though. Whenever I see a gay rights thread come up, I see lots of people chime in about how homosexuality is a choice and gays need to deal with it instead of demand concession(I am among them). Whenever a molestation thread starts up, however, I see many of these same people claim that pedophilia is something that cannot be helped, so pedophiles all need to be either executed or castrated.

On the other side, I see many of the same people who claim homosexuality to be something one is born with and can't be helped insist that pedophilia is simply a disease that can be cured.

I does seem a bit contradictory, and while I'm beginning to see the gray area, I stand consistently behind the fact that any sexual behavior besides the normal, family centered, genetically preferable behavior of heterosexuality with those old enough to properly bear children is either a choice or an outgrowth of other choices. As such, any deviant behavior can be discouraged and prevented through therapy and whatnot.

 

[Max Power]

Ok, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the constant sexuality debates in this country and I've noticed one thing particularly odd. Both liberals and conservatives, in general, have a double standard concerning the nature of sexuality, thought their double standards are polar opposites.

To a conservative, who holds zero tolerance for sexual deviance, homosexuality is a choice.

I don't see why a conservative's (or anyone) could have "zero tolerance" for anybody else.

If gay people want to have consentual sex, then that doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or safety. So there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

 

[dmp]

If gay people want to have consentual sex, then that doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or safety. So there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Likewise, they should not expect 'me' or the rest of society to accept or embrace their choices.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I figured this would just turn into a gay-rights thread.

 

[GotZoom]

I figured this would just turn into a gay-rights thread.

Or a hetero-sexual rights thread?

 

[archangel]

Not unlike a fetish for shoes or panties..golden showers or whatever else...and personally I could give a shit less what consenting adults do in private...between the Maker and themselves...what I do have a problem with is pushing or forcing this issue down my throat...keep it out of the schools,parks.marriage or any other public forum that goes against my teachings to my children...period...end of story!