"A person can be gay or a pedophile, but not both." A conversation with a psychologist friend.
"Suppose Mark Foley had been caught having sex with a dog. And it was a male dog, so he announced, 'Yes, I'm gay.' Would people go, 'Oh, well that figures?' No! They'd go 'What the hell does that have to do with it? You were fucking a dog!' And that's really what should be happening here."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Michael J. West
Here's the basic arbitrary and untrue claim from your pal: "Gay and straight are grown-ups who go for other grown-ups. Consenting adults who understand what they're doing. That's normal. Pedophilia? Not."
I understand your perspective, Brother Barger, but here's the thing: My pal spent a dozen years as a student of psychology, has a doctorate, is currently employed at a psychological research institute, and is recognized as an outstanding scholar in the psychological areas of human development and psychopathology.
So, of the two of you, guess who has credibility on the subject?
77 - Dawn
An "adult" is defined as 18 and over in most states within the U.S., although lots of people over 18 sure don't act like adults.
78 - Al Barger
Brother West, your comment 76 has no apparent significant relation to reality. The assertion that you're simply straight or gay or bi does not really seem to have much basis in fact.
Again, human sexuality is way more fluid than that. In my Psych 100 class in college, the preferred model was presented to be a sliding scale. A lot of folks are a little bit gay in their attractions, whether or not or how they act on it. Then again, a super gay dude might make an exception. Hey, Elton John was married to a woman at one point.
Plus, Mr Longhurst's analytic satire in comment #37 was excellent and spot on. Your categorical rejection of his clear and undeniable explanation simply reveals that you're a fruitaphobe - or perhaps a closeted vegetasexual. [Cue "Call Any Vegetable"]
79 - Al Barger
Brother West, your comment #77 is simply an appeal to authority, and not at all to logic or reason or actual truth on the ground. He may be a fine fellow with some interesting things to say if I got to know him, but the specific bit of conversation which you relate as the substance of this article is intellectually totally unimpressive. That he has some extra letters at the end of his name does not for a second mean that he's right.
80 - Michael J. West
Now that (#79), Al, is a fair criticism. That one was me talking, and I certainly won't pretend to be an expert on anything.
On #80, though, you don't have the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" correct. Appeal to authority has only occured if the person in question (in this case, my "shrink buddy") is NOT a legitimate authority on the subject.
Now, granted, YOU have no way of knowing whether the things I have said about his credentials are correct, but I do. Thus I actually do know him to be a legitimate authority on the subject.
You and everybody else, of course, are welcome to draw your own conclusions. But if I am to choose between your reasoning and my friend's, it is no fallacy to choose the one whose reasoning is genuinely backed up by his expertise.
81 - zingzing
and al, your comment #79 is an apparant appeal to zappa.
just had to.
82 - Al Barger
Zing, I could write a confessional about my dating relations. You see, I just met this cute little carrot... By the way, you do realize that a prune isn't really a vegetable, don't you?
Michael, I do not doubt your truthfulness, nor the degrees you describe for your shrink friend. But comment 77 was exactly and purely an appeal to authority. We should accept his ideas over mine for no reason other than that he has a degree and position.
What I'm saying is that I don't care what kind of resume the guy has if his argument doesn't make sense and particularly if it appears to go against observable facts on the ground.
83 - Michael J. West
What I'm saying is that I don't care what kind of resume the guy has if his argument doesn't make sense and particularly if it appears to go against
observable facts on the ground.
His arguments do not make sense based on the information that YOU know. The degrees and such would imply that he has more, and better, information than you do, and one assumes that his argument is based on deductions from that information.
As to whether it goes against observable facts on the ground, I'll give you that you qualified that with "appears to." But as I've said here, I've written to him and asked him to provide some research sources (you know, the kind that observe facts on the ground) that would support his conclusions. Until he provides them, it would probably be prudent to withhold judgement as to whether his argument goes against them.
84 - Michael J. West
But comment 77 was exactly and purely an appeal to authority. We should accept his ideas over mine for no reason other than that he has a degree and position.
Are you actually evoking the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," Al, or using that phrase in another sense?
85 - Michael J. West
And, just to make sure my contribution to this thread is well-rounded,
Rutabay-ee-ay-ga, Rutabay-ee-ay-ga, Rutabay-ee-ay-ga, Rutabay-ee-ay-ga, Rutabay-ee...
86 - Jim
16 is not a grey area. Yes, it's not legal in most of the country to have sex with someone who is 16 if you are over 18, but it's NOT pedophilia.
There are lots of 16 year olds that can pass for 18, and vice-a-versa. When they turn 18, they don't suddenly go "BING, I'm physically an adult when I wasn't yesterday!"
It's only been in the last few hundred years or less that 15 year olds weren't getting married. It's not not unknown in some parts of the country for 14 year olds to get married. Canada has a lower legal age as well.
Foley is not a pedophile. He's gay, which isn't illegal or immoral. He was approaching 16 year olds, which is legal in DC. What he DID do wrong is to approach people that basically worked for him. That is known as sexual harrassment.
It's no different than a VP in a large company sending suggestive emails and IMs to the 18 year old mail clerks or secretarial pool. When they get creeped out and complain about it, which is what happened here, the VP should have been stopped.
87 - Al Barger
Michael, as Richard Nixon would say, let me make this perfectly clear: Yes, I'm saying that your whole article is basically an appeal based purely on this guy's perceived professional authority. He may have more and better arguments than you present here, but these are what I'm responding to.
For starters, the very title is just completely factually wrong prima facie. There certainly ARE gay pedophiles. We've had a lot of Catholic priests, for example, in trouble for exactly that.
When your guy says uh-uh, then his credibility on this is blown right there. If you say things that are clearly and incontrovertibly contrary to LOTS of fact like that, I don't care how many degrees you have, or what kind of semantic games you run to justify it. Nor am I going to be impressed by any "research sources" that would say otherwise. Who am I going to believe, your research sources or my lyin' eyes?
Your basic premise is objectively, factually wrong. That's a statement of fact, not opinion. There certainly are some (again, not all nor most) gay men whose tastes run to youth. That a dude is 8 years old or 16 years old does not make them less a dude.
That the priest is not attracted to older dudes does not make his proclivities less homosexual. Hey, I'm generally not sexually attracted to old women, but that doesn't mean I'm not hetero. That just means that I'm a discriminating heterosexual, much as the exclusively pedophilic homosexual priest is a discriminating homosexual.
Your shrink buddy can try to redefine the terms, but the actual facts are there. If he says otherwise, he's just playing semantic games- no matter how many extra letters he carries around on the end of his name.
88 - Chris2048
But why must sexual Orientations fall into such neat catagories. Isn't bisexuality being both gay and straight at the same time?
89 - JR
Michael J. West: Who's writing anything off as PC bullcrap? I was talking about science.
Not really. You're arguing semantics and citing a psychologist. No science involved.
90 - Jonathan F.
I think it was quite an entertaining article, and I don't see any conflict as others commenting here do. I can understand it.
In fact, the only problem I had with it was answered in comment #76:
"A person who is bisexual, for example, is not both homosexual AND heterosexual. They are bisexual--a completely distinct orientation."
Thanks again for the good read!
91 - Ray Ellis
I have to think the shrink character, Al, is a fictitious character, since this article has no basis in reality.
92 - Dan
Whether or not the shrink character is fictional, the study of psycho-sexual persuasion is plain subjective theory among all sorts of scientificky "experts".
I suspect --agenda-- from an authority who would make such a dismissive claim.
93 - Dan
It's an interesting dilemma that ped's present to a society that rushes to condemn certain sexual variations while promoting others.
For instance, when is it that pedophile's "choose" their orientation?
94 - Michael J. West
God Al-fucking-mighty, I wish I had never written this thing. If I had had any idea how much of my day and my energy would have been given over to defending someone else's argument, I'd have written about bathroom humor instead.
It does remind me a lot of the Terri Schiavo case, where all of a sudden everybody and his uncle became an amateur neurologist and knew exactly what her doctors were absolutely wrong about, only this time everybody's become an amateur psychologist. Of course I suppose I've become like so many of the commenters here: taking on an argument that I personally don't know jack-shit about.
In any case, I heard back from my shrink friend (who yes, is real) and he's got some references. Most I was able to find the text for (or at least part of it) online, and some of those are linked below. (up to my limit of URLs, but the others you can google and find online.)
Groth A.N. Birnbaum, H.J. Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, vol.7, nr.3: 175-181 (1978).
"The Child Molesters: Clinical Observations". By A. Nicholas Groth, PhD, William F. Hobson, MS, Thomas S. Gary, MEd.
Herek G.M. "A lawyer's guide to social science research." Law and Sexuality, 1991, v. 1, pp. 133-172. (The link is to an excerpt; this is somewhat tangential but contains important and relevant information.)
D.E. Newton, "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence," Adolescence 13, 1978, pp. 29-43. (The URL is to an abstract).
UC Davis's page about homosexuality and child molestation
And that will, I truly hope, be the final word from me on the subject. It made perfect sense to me, the discussion did, and it still does, but I clearly made a mistake by ever combining it with my keyboard. I'm tired of it, I've spent a whole lot of my day on it, and now, near midnight, I've got nothing to show for it except frustration, a bunch of commenters who somehow imagine they have knowledge on the subject, and the misfortune of knowing that I spent much of my day being as arrogant as they were.
95 - Jet in Columbus
There there Michael, I still respect you.
96 - Jet in Columbus
There's an exchange in the classic Doris Day film "Where were you when the lights went out' where gapped-toothed Brit Terry Thomas is on his shrink's couch discussing trying to break up Doris' marriage...
Terry: She'll never sign that contract unless I break up that revolting marriage......God how I hate man!
Shrink: I thought you hated women?
Terry: Oh men too.......
Terry: Doctor? Does hatred of both sexes make me Bi-sexual?
Shrink:............What to you think?
97 - Silas Kain
Damn. I'm 50. My partner is half my age. Does that make me a pedophile? Nope. It makes me one LUCKY DUDE!
P.S. I think I'll run and duck for cover now.
98 - Jet in Columbus
Silas, you're safe, I already blazed the trail... See comments 4 thru 6...
99 - Al Barger
Brother Silas! So glad to hear from you. Maybe you can get ol' Jet under control. He's either off his meds, or doubled up on them one. Perhaps you can figure it out.
Michael, why would you have thought that you would write on this topic and not get lots of comments?
But you're STILL stuck on this authority thing, like only your shrink pal has any right to make any kind of analysis or judgment on these matters. Amateur psychologist? Since psychology is the study of human behavior, you're positing that no one but a shrink would have legitimate knowledge or insight about human behavior. That seems like the arrogant and presumptuous idea, right there.
You seem to have set up some kind of priesthood in your mind. Of course, actual priests have some insight into human motivation and behavior too- when they're not busy plooking the altar boys.
This guy's argument may well make sense to you, as it reconfirms stuff that you already believe or want to believe. Again though, even the very title of your essay is absolutely factually incorrect - no matter how convenient to your pre-existing belief systems.
But also, you don't have to spend all day defending your article. You can just put it up and let it go. Or you can come up with a better and more logical statement in the first place.
100 - Jet in Columbus
Al see comment 62...
101 - Robin
I don't buy it. You could call it discriminating but in order to label the nature of the discrimination, it is gay or straight. Idiots may equate pedophilia with homosexuality when the two are not one - but the fact that 10% of pedophiles are gay just as 10% of the general population is gay indicates that (1) being gay has nothing to do with pedophilia - it's a random overlap, and (2) one's sexual preference is still exhibited when one is a pedophile.
The dumb thing about this is that if he'd been hitting on a 16 year old girl, nobody would have suggested he was a pedophile - just a guy trying to score some barely legal ass. It's BS.
Foley is a predator who abused his power but people are only interesed because he hit on a teenage boy. Where are the page scandals involving girls? No doubt there have been many more.
102 - Jet in Columbus
No doubt about it I'm going to have to use a bigger font and capital letters on comment 45!
sigh
103 - Al Barger
I am Deeply Offended by Mark Foley. It's just more proof of the ruination that we've brought on ourselves by doing away with teaching the Bible in public schools. This is just another example of the communists and homosexuals taking over with their deviated preversions.
Um, percocet... Good call, Jet.
104 - sandra
Al, you're heterosexual? That's a laugh! You, like all the other closeted republicans, give yourself away.
105 - Lou F
Interesting blog entry. Wrong, but interesting. Richard is 100% correct.
106 - Noesis
It's just more proof of the ruination that we've brought on ourselves by doing away with teaching the Bible in public schools. This is just another example of the communists and homosexuals taking over with their deviated preversions.
Dear God is that the Republican't excuse for everything?
107 - Kelly
As sexual mores have relaxed our society has found different ways to communicate these changes. Some are esthetic, but others -- like the message of this article -- aim at the more profound.
I would categorize this article as an attempt to recast the "truth" of pedophilia in the manner of an enlightenment, on the scale of the "ah-ha!!" moment of the realized law of gravity, a round earth, or that mass and the speed of light formally relate (E=mc2), etc.
Seen from this angle this reformation of human sexuality reveals itself as a manuever by Elites to control a major aspect of religious fealty, the position of marriage and family to God.
The Elites would like you to believe that your gut level, visceral understanding of sex is utter hogwash. An expert, a priestly mandarin, is brought in to disrobe the notion that same-sex activities could be described in any meaningful sense as homo (same as) + sexual (of genital interaction). So to say that same sex pedophilia COULD BE homosexual is a nonsense, despite the fact that it is technically the exact meaning and none other of the phrase "homosexuality."
The mandarin priest, ie "psyhcologist" is brought in to give illumination and a blessing upon those who repent of their illiterate former acceptance of the nonsensical belief that men touching boys could impute any mar to adult male gays.
This is yet another labor, like Herculese's cleaning of the Augean Stables, meant to purify our beliefs and thoughts. Whereas psychology has been revealed as a vast repository of nonsense in times past (cite: Dr. Freud), it now is seen as an organ of societal correction which unscientifically redirects social beliefs and mores towards the "proper" positions.
The high point in the response of the author to his detractors was when he archly asked one critic who dared dsiagree with the enlightened position, "Are you a psychologist?" While he may feel this creates a prophylactic net around his topic and only allows "certified" mental health experts to disagree, it actually achgieves the oppositite effect. The question makes clear that this is a liberal and secular establishment standard, which uses the ever shifting standards of the "unbiased" science of psychology to block & tackle as it moves its subjective truth-claim downfield.
108 - Nobody
So...it's possible to be a trisexual?
109 - Dawn
Michael, I on the other hand am deeply gratified that you wrote this article. I have always found it disgusting how the ill-informed and clearly ignorant bible-thumpers and bigots in general, try to combine homosexuality with pedophilia.
Your citing a highly educated and erudite researcher on the matter is far more conclusive than any wingnut screaming from the rafters.
Besides, the evidence is overwhelming in your favor. Like those who say that stereotypes exist for a reason because a certain number of any group display similar behaviors - it's well-documented that convicted pedophiles and closeted pedophiles are in fact NOT your average gay person seeking mutual affection from someone who is also an adult homosexual.
Pedophiles are clearly sick and twisted, whereas gay people are only as sick and twisted as their heterosexuals counterparts.
110 - Jet in Columbus
Nobody, I can't believe you haven't heard the old joke "I'm trisexual! I'll try anything sexual"
111 - Jet in Columbus
Dawn brings up a good concept. There are those in America who are too stupid to get to know people before they judge them.
Therefore all...
Blonds are stupid
Jews are stingy
Gay men chase after little boys
Lesbians are truck mechanics
Irish drink too much
On and on
It's a sad commentary really.
Personally I blame it on them preventing us from learning about god in school and good judeo-christian values.
jet
112 - Christopher Rose
Yeah, Jet, adding superstition to the mix is really gonna help things along ;-)
113 - Jet in Columbus
The baby Jesus loves even you Christopher Rose and I pray that someday you'll find the enlightenment of our saviour the lord.
114 - Christopher Rose
The baby Jesus has long since turned to dust, as will we all in due course, and I have long left behind the enlightenment of this lord along with other silly superstitions. Now what's your starsign, sweetie?
115 - Mistress La Spliffe
Christopher Rose, you risk becoming religiously dogmatic in your irreligion.
116 - Clavos
Mistress La Spliffe,
It's way beyond mere risk. For Christopher, irreligion IS a religion, although he won't admit it.
I've argued this point with him before. he's blind to the point.
117 - Mistress La Spliffe
Most atheists are. Their denial is as hilarious as listening to people get earnest about, what do they call it now, intelligent design.
118 - Clavos
intelligent design.
If ever there was a misnomer...
119 - Christopher Rose
Mistress La Spliffe and Clavos: You share a mistaken perception. I am no more dogmatic about my opinion than someone who believes the sun rises in the East, it simply is that way, so it is totally irrelevant to apply concepts of dogma.
Clavos' point that to not believe is a religion in itself seems to give him some comfort but it is meaningless sophistry to me.
Finally, Mistress, I am not an atheist; the very word itself is a crude, if effective, way of framing the argument in faithist terms. There is no word for me and the many who think as I do, nor any need for one, just as there is no word for someone who does not believe in Astrology.
120 - Mistress La Spliffe
Seriously, Clavos.
121 - Clavos
I am no more dogmatic about my opinion than someone who believes the sun rises in the East, it simply is that way, so it is totally irrelevant to apply concepts of dogma.
Except that anyone on Earth can visually confirm the rising of the sun.
The existence or non-existence of god is pure conjecture, and not provable in any meaningful way.
Blind.
122 - Jet in Columbus
Remind me to mark my jokes so people know when to laugh.... Jumpin' jehosaphat!
123 - chantal
ahhh I've missed discussions like this...
MJW...this is great article. So many people just miss the point.
124 - Christopher Rose
No, Clavos, it is the existence of these "gods" that is the subject of conjecture; after billions of people have spent thousands of years trying there is still zero evidence to support it.
That in itself is rather a lot of evidence against the idea, as any truly open-minded person would have to concede. How typically arrogant of the determined faithist to toss off a casual and dismissive "Blind". So much easier than a little intellectual and spiritual honesty.
And Jet, I got your joke but it seems these earnest believers are stunningly literal. No surprise there then!
125 - Leslie Bohn
Clavos, you seem to think your brilliant bit of sophistry is original to you and hasn't been posited and discussed through literally centuries of thought. You, however, seem just thrilled with your breakthrough.
"Atheism is just another kind of religion. I mean, isn't disbelief just another form of belief?"
Wow. Dude. Deep.
But, no.
Faith is belief without evidence. Like rational people everywhere, Christopher Rose has considered the totality of his experiences of the world, and concluded there's no evidence for an omniscient, benevolent creator who takes an interest in the affairs of humans.
Your insistence on placing this conclusion within the realm of your own superstitions speaks of your lack of perspective and ability to imagine a worldview outside of your own.
In courtroom jargon, it's been asked and answered, on other threads. You just don't like the answer.