Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » There’s No Such Thing as a Gay Pedophile

There’s No Such Thing as a Gay Pedophile

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

"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."

That is paraphrased, but it came from a conversation I had with a psychologist friend of mine last week. We were discussing, yes, Rep. Foley, because it's what the whole country is discussing (certainly what they were discussing last week, anyway), and we happen to live in Washington D.C.

"So there seems to be an awful lot of 'Well, what do you expect? He's gay.' Coming from the real wackjobs," I said. "Which seems ridiculous, unless every gay person I know is secretly a child molester, and that's just bullshit. Something like 95 percent of child molesters are men who molest girls, right?"

"More like 90, but it's even more bullshit than you think," said the Doc. "Not only is there no connection between being gay and being a pedophile, but actually there's no such thing as a gay pedophile. There's no such thing as a straight pedophile either. You're either gay or you're a pedophile. You're not both."

"Huh? I don't understand."

"It's like this," the Doc said. "See, heterosexuality and homosexuality are what we call 'mature sexualities.' This stuff doesn't really become latent until puberty, but when it does it's assumed that people are looking for partners with the same physical maturity level. So mature sexuality means not just that the people are physically mature, but that they're seeking partners who are physically mature. Okay?"

"Okay," I said.

"And so whether you're heterosexual or homosexual, you're looking for someone on your level. You're attracted to sexual maturity, whether it's strictly your age or not."

"Aha," I said. "But is Foley a pervert, then? Sixteen is post-puberty, most of the time."

"Eh, there's some gray area there," he said. "Legally, obviously; ethically, too; psychologically, definitely. Sixteen is post-puberty but still developing.

"But anyway," Doc continued, "let's just talk about general here, not necessarily specifically Mark Foley. So the thing about it is, if you're — not really you, obviously — if you're a pedophile, you're not talking about a mature sexuality. So really, it can't be characterized as gay or straight. It's neither. There's tons of really solid research on this: the primary sexual orientation is 'pedophile.'"

"So there's no way that you can be both?" I said. "But wait a minute. What do you call it, then, when some pedophiles go after boys and some go after girls?"

"A discriminating pedophile," he said.

"Like, I'm discriminating because I'm attracted to brunettes more than blondes?"

"Well, it's a little more chemical than that," said Doc, "but it's actually somewhat along those lines."

"Huh."

"I mean, think about it this way," he added. "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."

"Ohh… ," I said. "So it really is just something completely separate from gay or straight."

"It's really not that hard to get your head around, is it?" Doc replied. "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.

"So it really gets me that if Foley does something with seriously perverse ramifications, so many people in America will hear it and think he's just 'that crazy queer.' I'm not going to say he's a pedophile or an ephebophile or whatever, because I haven't examined him, but if he is then he's not gay. Let's stop relating them at all."

Powered by

About Michael J. West

  • http://gpb-katie.blogspot.com Katie McNeill

    I really enjoyed this, I thought it was very funny.

  • Bliffle

    Good article. Very convincing. Should put to rest attempts of various republican apologists, like our own Dave Nalle for example, who are attempting to divert attention from Foleys pedophiliac crimes into a criticism of gays in general.

  • Dan

    “Like, I’m discriminating because I’m attracted to brunettes more than blondes?”

    Or penis’ more than vagina’s apparantly in Foley’s case.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    But what if I’m 51 and I’m attracted to 26-year-old surfer dudes with long blond hair and muscles out to there?

  • Dan

    Then you’re just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, gay guy?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Ohhhh… well… thank god!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Thanks Katie…and if you think the article was very funny, you should read comments 4-6. I woke my fiancee up from laughing!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Bliffle, I’m not sure this article actually contradicts Nalle’s, but you know what? I’m going to leave that to the two of you.

  • Clavos

    Good article. Very convincing. Should put to rest attempts of various republican apologists, like our own Dave Nalle for example, who are attempting to divert attention from Foleys pedophiliac crimes into a criticism of gays in general.

    Um, Bliffle. Can you cite any statement Nalle’s made that criticizes gays?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Damn, Clavos. At first I thought you were calling my article “good” and “very convincing,” too. You tease.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, MJW. Actually, it IS a good article, and I learned from it.

    But, while I’ve got your attention, a quick question (and maybe I missed it in the article):

    I understand the premise that a pedophile is a pedophile (say THAT three times fast!); what do you call a male pedophile who only likes boys?

    Or a female who only goes for girls?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    It is in the article, but that’s okay.

    You call them a discriminating pedophile. It’s almost, but not quite, a matter of taste rather than sexual orientation.

  • Clavos

    Oops, sorry Michael–I should learn to be more discriminating.

    Or maybe just learn to read…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    No worries, Clavos. I’m not at the top of my game till lunchtime, either.

  • http://eclecticlibrarian.net/ Anna Creech

    Thanks, Michael! This is an informative and timely article.

  • bumpy187

    does it matter wether you want a 16 yearold or a 38 year old of the same sex? What is the cutoff between pedophile and queer? This guy is gay as hell and you trying to write it off as some PC bullcrap is dodging the issue.

  • http://photographytodaynet.blogspot.com/ T. Michael Testi

    Great Article Michael!

    You said
    >>
    Bliffle, I’m not sure this article actually contradicts Nalle’s, but you know what? I’m going to leave that to the two of you.
    <<

    Wouldn’t that be a Politicalphile.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Who’s writing anything off as PC bullcrap? I was talking about science. And science says, yes, it does matter whether you want a kid or an adult of the same sex…although, as the Doc says, 16 is a gray area.

  • Richard Longhurst

    This is complete nonsense.

    Pedophilia and mature sexual attraction are simply two ends of a scale, or rather the end and the middle of a scale.

    To pretend that a pedophiles’ gender preferences have different psychological roots then the average gay or straight person’s is just total, total bullshit.

    “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.”

    30% of adult males become sexually aroused when shown pictures of pre-pubescent girls in suggestive poses.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Are you a psychologist, Richard?

  • Richard Longhurst

    No.

  • Richard Longhurst

    Out of curiousity, under your new definitions what would you call someone who was attracted to both pre- and post-adolescent boys?

    Are they not gay pedophiles either, by some other miracle of semantics? Maybe they’re gay and pedophiles but somehow not gay pedophiles.

    Such people most definately exist, as do people attracted to pre- AND post-adolescent girls.

    Furthermore, in your effort to distance pedophiles from gays, you seem to be lumping them in with bisexuals, or at least saying that pedophiles are essentially bisexual by default. I’m sure the bi community will be super pleased with that.

  • Chris2048

    This sounds like bull. Rather than posting in 2nd-hand, can you get your psychologist friend to argue the case?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    No, Chris, I’m not going to ask a working psychologist to take time out to answer questions on a blog. But what I will do, is ask him for the names of some of the research on the subject.

  • Chris2048

    Why? Is a blog so inferior?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Inferior to conducting research and preparing articles and presentations for international conferences? Um, yeah.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Richard, for one thing, I didn’t make any connection between pedophiles and bisexuals. For crying out loud, if a pedophile who likes boys is not homosexual, why would a pedophile who likes boys AND girls be bisexual?

  • Chris2048

    And the two are mutually exclusive?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    What two? Research and blog-commenting? I suppose if you’re discussing this with fellow psychologists, they can be correlated…

  • Richard Longhurst

    What about furries? Are there gay furries? What about foot fetishists?

  • BJP

    You wrote: “There’s tons of really solid research on this”

    Can you get some references then? (Say, to published scholarly articles, maybe from your friend the doc.) If not, then I’m afraid I’ll have to remain skeptical and consider it hearsay, as much as I might like to believe it.

    (Did some quick googling … maybe there’s some supporting research here.)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice shot at misrepresenting me up there in #1, Bliffy. As I’ve already told you a number of times the problem with Foley isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s living a deceptive lifestyle. It would be just as bad if he were a secret polygamist or a drug user. It’s the keeping secrets and trying to control those about him for protection which made this problem, not his sexual orientation.

    Dave

  • GOP Gay Pedophile

    WOW! What a load of crap this is.

    Of course there is such a thing as gay pedophiles. Go to any gay website and you’ll see tons of photos of young boys and tons of porn with young boys. This is pedophilia.

    Stop spreading your ignorance around. You look like a fool.

  • zingzing

    why are so many gay pedophiles married to women? god, they must be confused.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    BJP – Am doing exactly that, even as we speak. Starting with the Doc and working outward from there. Your skepticism is perfectly fair given the circumstances, so yes, I am looking to source Doc’s arguments.

    Richard: I understand your skepticism, too, although (1) your arguments to the contrary of the Doc’s are not particularly credible if you’re not a psychologist, and (2) with #31 above, you’re making less and less sense.

    GOP Gay Pedophile: With that screen name, how can I possibly take you at all seriously?

  • Richard Longhurst

    There’s No Such Thing as a Red Apple

    Last week I had a conversation with a grocery bagger about apples, and he let me in on an interesting factoid which I’ll now share with you. It seems that the idea of “red” apples is nothing but cryptofascist propaganda.

    “Not only is there no connection between something being red and it being an apple, but actually there’s no such thing as a red apple. There’s no such thing as a green apple either. Things are either red or they’re apples. They’re not both.”

    “Huh? I don’t understand.”

    “It’s like this,” the bagger said. “See, redness and greenness are what we call ‘complex properties.’ This stuff doesn’t really become latent until an object reaches a certain arbitrary criteria. So complex property means not just that the objects are complex, but that they’re part of an interrelated set of complex things. Okay?”

    “Okay,” I said.

    “If something’s an apple, you’re not talking about a complex property. So really, it can’t be characterized as red or green. It’s neither. There’s tons of really solid research on this: the primary property of the object is ‘apple.'”

    “So there’s no way that it can be both?” I said. “But wait a minute. What do you call it, then, when some apples absorb one spectrum of light and others absorb a different spectrum?”

    “A discriminated apple,” he said.

    “Ohh… ,” I said. “So it really is just something completely separate from red or green.”

    “It’s really not that hard to get your head around, is it?” the grocer replied. “Red and green are pears or fire hydrants or other members of my arbitrarily defined set of objects. Things with teeth or handcranks, which are over 45 kilograms. That’s normal. Apples? Not.”

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    30% of adult males become sexually aroused when shown pictures of pre-pubescent girls in suggestive poses.

    Since that’s not true of me does that make me normal?

    GoodChrist tell me itts not true!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Richard 22 What if they’re left handed, repbulican, they’re last name starts with f and the have a fetish for Fa uh Fo uh um Feraris (however that’s spelled)?

  • S. Levine

    There was NO pedophilia involved with Mr. Foley’s actions; pedophilia is sexual relations with pre- and peri-pubescent children (to approx. the age of 13); by law, Congressional pages are at least 16 years old.
    What the man did was disgusting snough, let’s not exacerbate the issue with false accusations!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Richard, your comparisons here are mostly fallacious, usually nonsensical, and completely ridiculous. I think you missed the point of the article entirely.

  • Mariya

    Foley IS gay, because (as far as we know) he also likes men who are 21. So if he’s gay (“queer”) and his behavior is socially inappropriate (“crazy”) he IS a “crazy queer”. This does not reflect poorly upon the non-crazy queers! :)

    Also, it is actually legal to have sex with 16 year-olds in many states… do people automatically regain “mature” sexual preferences once they hop the border? And when exactly DO all people stop developing? 18? 21? 35? This psychologist is trying to find scientific grounds for arbitrary laws and it just doesn’t work like that.

    Can someone address the very pertinent comment #22?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Jet, you seem to be enjoying yourself here. Did this article make sense to you?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Mariya,

    Do the words “gray area” from the article have no meaning to you whatsoever?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Indeed Dave 33 this has nothing to do with the age of anyone or their sexual preference.

    Foley’s case is nothing more than sexual harrassment on the job between two people of legal age

    It’s the right wing religious nuts that have turned this into a (gasp) gay thing!

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • S. Levine

    To add emphasis to my previous message, the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    S. Levine:

    Hence this part:

    let’s just talk about general here, not necessarily specifically Mark Foley.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Did it make sense? hmmmmm I’ll have my psychologist ask my psychiatrist for an alnylitical psychological profile mapping pure specifics verses variable specifics or generalities on speculations concerning this most troubling and complicated subject and get back to at our/your connivance… I think

  • Richard Longhurst

    Furthermore, what does “primary sexual orientation” even MEAN?

    If a man is attracted only to post-adolescent girls, his primary sexual orientation is “straight”, which includes, according to you, both his gender preference and his age preferance.

    But if he’s attracted only to pre-adolescent girls, his priamy sexual orientation is “pedophile”, which includes only his age preference, even though his gender preference is as clear as a non-pedophile’s.

    This asymmetry of semantics is supported neither by logic nor established definitions. It is supported ONLY by your political agenda and a random psychologist’s blathering.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Marilyn… I heard it on Hollywood Squares that the human body stops developing at 26 and then starts aging.

    If you can’t believe Whoopi Goldberg who can you believe?

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    let’s just talk about general here, not necessarily specifically Mark Foley

    But I don’t know of any Gay Generals in any branch of the service….

    Oh i knew a lieutenant once… but that’s a long story…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Richard, consider that first analogy I used. If you heard that a person had had sex with their dog, which would mean he’s a zoophile. If the dog was male, would that make the person a “gay zoophile?”

    And what the fuck does my political agenda have to do with ANYTHING here?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    If any of you have been paying attention, most pedophiles are usually convicted of fondling children of BOTH sexes.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Has anyone figured out if all the pages were republican or not. Did he use maple syrup, then all the pages would be stuck together…

    but that’s another fetish altogether

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Damn, Jet, what are you on today? Can I get some?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    excellent Article Michael….

    /golfclap

    those who are attempting to spin and distract reveal themselves to be part of various Problems rather than individuals looking to Understand or even discuss in a Rational manner…

    thanks for the Read

    Excelsior?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Thanks to a secret program and suggestions via e-mail from Mr. Nalle a great deal of emotional pressure has been released in the last 24 hours and I am in a great mood.

    or at least I hope I am…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    If I’m annoying you I can leave… I can take a hint (snif)

  • Anonymous

    Your friend (the Doctor) is a moron.

    Of course there are gay pedophiles, and you’re a moron if you believe everything your friend tells you.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I see. And I should believe you instead, Mr. Anonymous?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    No way, Jet! I just wish I was having as much fun as you seem to be.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It happens when you mistake your Percocet for Asparin… Just ask Rush Limbaugh…

  • Chris2048

    “If the dog was male, would that make the person a “gay zoophile?””

    Possibly, if that was his preference – if he’d just as soon fuck a bitch (rare semantics for that phrase) then no. I’d say dogs have anough male characteristics for it to be valid; but male human children are more similar to male human adults than male dogs are to male human adults. BTW- it’s also possible to be a child molestor and NOT be a pedophile.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    BTW- it’s also possible to be a child molestor and NOT be a pedophile.

    True. It’s also possible, for that matter, to be a pedophile and NOT be a child molester.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I’d say dogs have anough male characteristics for it to be valid; but male human children are more similar to male human adults than male dogs are to male human adults.

    I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, Chris, but this sentence inherently assumes that pedophilia has a greater degree of normalcy than does zoophilia.

    Maybe that’s the whole issue here: people are looking at pedophilia as a kind of variation on normal human sexuality. But pedophiles are mentally diseased, no more or less so than zoophiles.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Michael in #65 sez…
    *But pedophiles are mentally diseased, no more or less so than zoophiles.*

    Quoted for Truth

    nuff said….

    Excelsior?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It’s all them damn heterosexuals making trouble again… ther aught to be a law!

  • Chris2048

    When I say ‘more similar’ I mean in terms of physical characteristics, to which you might be attracted to. a male dog is less like, in this respect, a man than a boy is; so prefering male dogs is less gay than prefering male children.

  • Dawn

    Great post Michael. As a person who would like to kill pedophiles with my bare hands, I have often had this argument with idiots that gays and peds are not one in the same, but in fact quite different. I would choose a homosexual mal or female to watch my child a billion times over, than someone who I deemed as having a overt attraction to children in a not healthy way. Gay is okay by me, pedophiles, not so much.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    A source to start with (emphasis mine):

    However, in a July 2002 report, USA Today noted numerous experts in psychotherapy, psychiatry, and child sex abuse who argued that figures showing “male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than girls” are not evidence that gay men are more likely to abuse children than straight men, because they conflate men who abuse boys with gay men. For example, the article quoted David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, as saying that pedophilia is “a separate sexual orientation” from homosexuality, and that pedophiles “have no attraction to adults whatsoever.”

    (Finkelhor, by the way, is a Ph.D. in Sociology, and, in addition to being director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, has written four books and dozens of scholarly articles on child sexual abuse.)

    So if pedophile is a separate sexual orientation, then the implication is that the term “gay pedophile” is roughly like calling someone a “gay heterosexual.”

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Thanks Dawn!

  • linda shelton

    oh please! mark foley is also a victim according to his report that a clergy abused him as a child.
    so what that he claims to be “gay”. this is an excuse. where is the evidence? he may not be gay but he is still considering the underage person as a sexual conquest. this is the problem. let us get back to the real issue here.

    the parents of the pages bear some of the blame. whether they “thought” their children were safe or not. washington d.c. is known as a dangerous place the same as cincinnati or billings. a child should not be left to decide WHAT IS DANGEROUS.
    stupid parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    oh please! mark foley is also a victim according to his report that a clergy abused him as a child.

    Yeah. Watch me not feel sorry for him.

  • Chris2048

    “pedophilia is “a separate sexual orientation” from homosexuality”

    But is are the two mutually exclusive?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    The basic point of this article is nonsense, and seems to be pretty clearly just a political dodge based on arbitrary drawing of lines. 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.”

    So, he’s simply asserting by definition that homosexual behavior between adults (however “adult” is defined) is “normal” (whatever that means), but that sexual attraction to young people is not. On what basis does he make this assertion, other than that it corresponds conveniently to the political/social fashions of the day? Plus, likening proclivities for inappropriately young human partners to beastiality is just dumb and not the same. Too young vs out of species is apples and oranges.

    Mark Foley obviously is interested in (human) penises, and not in vaginas. He’s a homosexual with proclivities for particularly young men. You can pretend that he’s not gay by drawing words up to define this fact out of existence, but it’s still fact. He’s interested in young men, but not young women.

    Further, it certainly at least seems that homosexuals are often more likely to favor inappropriately young partners. This is not to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles or ephebophiles, nor that heterosexuals are not sometimes drawn to inappropriately young members of the opposite sex. I don’t have a piece of scientific documentation to back up this common observation, so you can pretend that this is not the case if you wish.

    Human sexuality is obviously a very complicated area. There are all kinds of factors of hormones and genetics, upbringing, and early imprinting experiences involved. On the basis of an interest in truth, it does not behoove us to make a lot of sweeping generalizations about all heterosexuals or all homosexuals- especially perjorative ones.

    One general principle from Freud though does seem to explain some of this to some extent. As I understand it, Freud said broadly that homosexuality was basically symptomatic of emotional immaturity. From that point of view, contrary to the convenient theory of Mr West’s shrink buddy, homosexuality is not a mature sexuality.

    This goes to the idea that young pubescent aged folks are more sexually fluid or ambiguous, and tend to simply grow out of homosexual proclivities. This would go to explaining such things as the the frequently observed phenomenon of college girls who are “lesbian until graduation,” or the older mature straight and married David Bowie.

    To the extent that this idea reflects reality, it’s not surprising that homosexuals might be particularly drawn to young people. The particulars of this Mark Foley stuff, carrying on about what kind of underwear a 16 year old wears sound very much like he’s emotionally immature and developmentally stunted, hung up on something from his youth, like Buck in Chuck & Buck. The Foley IMs smack of infantilism.

    Alternately, we can simply insist that homosexuality is just the same as heterosexuality, and that homosexuals are no more likely to be attracted to inappropriately young people than are heterosexuals. Gay and straight are exactly equivalent, and anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously just a homophobic bigot.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    That’s what “separate” means.

    My understanding is that a sexual orientation is not something that a person can have two of, any more than a person can have two sexes. A person who is bisexual, for example, is not both homosexual AND heterosexual. They are bisexual–a completely distinct orientation.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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?

  • 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.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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”]

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • zingzing

    and al, your comment #79 is an apparant appeal to zappa.

    just had to.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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…

  • 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.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • Chris2048

    But why must sexual Orientations fall into such neat catagories. Isn’t bisexuality being both gay and straight at the same time?

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    I have to think the shrink character, Al, is a fictitious character, since this article has no basis in reality.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    There there Michael, I still respect you.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ 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?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Silas, you’re safe, I already blazed the trail… See comments 4 thru 6…

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Al see comment 62…

  • http://noroots.blogspot.com/2005/09/gay-genes.html 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    No doubt about it I’m going to have to use a bigger font and capital letters on comment 45!

    sigh

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • sandra

    Al, you’re heterosexual? That’s a laugh! You, like all the other closeted republicans, give yourself away.

  • Lou F

    Interesting blog entry. Wrong, but interesting. Richard is 100% correct.

  • http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?noesis 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?

  • http://kellysoconnell.wordpress.com/ 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.

  • Nobody

    So…it’s possible to be a trisexual?

  • 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Nobody, I can’t believe you haven’t heard the old joke “I’m trisexual! I’ll try anything sexual”

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ 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

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Yeah, Jet, adding superstition to the mix is really gonna help things along ;-)

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com 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?

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Mistress La Spliffe

    Christopher Rose, you risk becoming religiously dogmatic in your irreligion.

  • 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.

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • Clavos

    intelligent design.

    If ever there was a misnomer…

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Mistress La Spliffe

    Seriously, Clavos.

  • 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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Remind me to mark my jokes so people know when to laugh…. Jumpin’ jehosaphat!

  • http://chantalstone.my-expressions.com chantal

    ahhh I’ve missed discussions like this…

    MJW…this is great article. So many people just miss the point.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com 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!

  • 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.

  • Leslie Bohn

    By the way, Clavos, the sun doesn’t actually “rise” in the East, it just appears that way to a human standing on the Earth.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    We take it on faith that the sun is actually 93 million miles from the earth. None of us has actually traveled the distance.

    We take it on faith that the sun stands still as we revolve around it… but do we?

    If I were able to inhabit your brain, would I see blue as green, would roses smell like ear wax.

    We all have our own reality in our own time that we except on faith, but to do so is to reject everyone else’s reality as false.

    Facts are excepted on Faith…
    there lies the paradox.
    Why can’t the faithful except facts?

    A homosexual is a monster in some eyes
    A homosexual is a source of love and caring in other’s eyes
    A homosexual is a predator who must infect other’s young because they can’t produce their own.
    A homosexual is called a homosexual because the only difference from a heterosexual is who they sleep with.

    Some people can’t use the word gay, because it takes the fear out of the hatred they’re trying to instill of us on others. We are homoSEXuals because they want to engrave the idea that we only have sex on our minds like predatory madmen.

    You fear what you don’t understand
    You kill what you fear

  • duane

    Jet, I have no interest in killing stuff that I don’t understand. And your statement about faith in the Sun-Earth distance is a load of crap.

    Al Barger, your comments about Michael appealing to authority were right on the money.

    Michael, Ph.D. don’t mean shit unless you can use what it represents to present a logical argument. I know plenty of Ph.D.s who have been led by preconceptions to state and adamantly support things that just weren’t so. I’m not saying that your “pal” is wrong. I’m just referring to your presentation style. You sans Ph.D. (I’m assuming) needed to resort to a “my Dad says so” position, which I think is pretty weak for a public blog forum. But since you have since provided links to some references, which is still a long way from providing a self-contained and persuasive argument, the point becomes a little moot. Just for future reference.

    Anyway, good post, Michael, and interesting arguments in the comments.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Er, Jet, I assume you’re being rhetorical but just for the record, we don’t take it on faith that the Sun is 93 megamiles away, there are lots of ways to calculate the distance without actually popping over there with an asbestos tape measure!

    Facts are absolutely not based on faith, not unless you’re going to try re-spinning the dubious philosphical argument that reality is not actually, you know, real…

  • Clavos

    Leslie bohn #127:

    I didn’t say the sun “rose” in the east–Christopher did, in #120.

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Mistress La Spliffe

    “By the way, Clavos, the sun doesn’t actually “rise” in the East, it just appears that way to a human standing on the Earth.”

    It wasn’t Clavos who vouched for the certainty of the sun doing shit in the east, Leslie Bohn, if you look back at the comments.

    I don’t know why you feel so secure in mocking the narrowness of Clavos’s world view. Dogma and proselytizing-through-dismissal are generally narrow, you know. Atheism may not be a religion, but atheists sure are hypocritically dogmatically religious alot of the time.

  • Clavos

    How typically arrogant of the determined faithist to toss off a casual and dismissive “Blind”.

    Christopher, as you full well know from my previous posts on this topic in other threads, I also am not a believer.

    The difference between you and me, though, is I don’t try to proselytize my point of view, nor do I put down those who are believers.

    You, on the other hand seem to be really bothered by the “faithists”, as you call them.

    And my reference to your being “blind” had nothing to do with your non-belief. I was referring to your obvious inability to see that your fervent proselytizing of your point of view (which IS all it really is), makes you no different in that regard from the believers.

  • Clavos

    leslie says to me in #126,

    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.

    Don’t make assumptions for which you have no knowledge or evidence.

    You have attributed characteristics to me which are totally false.

    In words you can better understand: don’t jump to conclusions…

  • Leslie Bohn

    Re: Sun:
    Clavos, 122:
    “Anyone on Earth can visually confirm the rising of the sun.”

  • Leslie Bohn

    Clavos, your claims to non-believerhood notwithstanding, your comments make it clear that you’re thinking in a religious paaradigm, hence your inablity to make a simple, rational distinction. My evidence is your statements here, but thanks for the advice re: posting my opinions.

  • zingzing

    ok. this is about gay pedophiles. not about god. keep god out of me having sex with young boys. he doesn’t belong here. i think it offends his eye. terrible eye. watching eye.

  • Skeptic

    Absolute kudos to Richard Longhurst for repeating Michael J. West’s inane “conversation” with another subject and showing how preposterous it was. The part that really makes me laugh was Michael J. West’s response that “your comparisons here are mostly fallacious, usually nonsensical, and completely ridiculous.” LOL! They were *your* fallacious, nonsensical, and ridiculous arguments, Mr. West. I’m glad you now see them for what they really are.

    Absolute win to Richard Longhurst.

  • zingzing

    skeptic, they were a psychologist’s “fallacious, nonsensical, and ridiculous arguments.” i have no idea what richard’s specialty is. i hope it is fruit.

  • Clavos

    leslie #135:

    Re: Sun:
    Clavos, 122:
    “Anyone on Earth can visually confirm the rising of the sun.”

    Once more: I was repeating Christopher’s #120:

    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.

    And as for this:

    Clavos, your claims to non-believerhood notwithstanding, your comments make it clear that you’re thinking in a religious paaradigm, hence your inablity to make a simple, rational distinction.

    Gibberish.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Gibberish.

    Nu-uh! Was not!

  • zingzing

    ahem. less god, more kid-fucking. please. for all that is good in the world.

  • MCH

    “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.”
    – Leslie Bohn

    In other words, he’s just another old fart set in his ways…(?)

  • zingzing

    LESS GOD!

    MORE KIDDIE-SEX!

    LESS GOD!

    MORE KIDDIE-SEX!

    (i may eventually stop, but only if you do.)

  • Clavos

    We now return you to zing’s regularly scheduled session of kiddie sex…

    don’t overdo, zing-moderation in all things…

  • zingzing

    thank you. just trying to keep the SAME OLD ARGUMENT that we’ve all seen countless times out of a TOTALLY UNRELATED thread.

    “moderation?” that’s exactly what this is.

  • Clavos

    Jet started it…

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Did not did not did not (:^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • JustOneMan

    Gee this sounds like the same old PC crap…why havent an equal number of many GIRLS been molested by priests?

    And the ANSWER IS….more serial molesters are homosexuals! plain and simple….oh and to be PC…not that there is anything wrong with that…

  • Bliffle

    “oh please! mark foley is also a victim according to his report that a clergy abused him as a child.”

    Previous abuse is often cited by perps. But a psycholigist and apparent expert said, on the radio, that when polygraph tests are applied half the claims fall away.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    After pretending to be straight, a gay republican claiming to have been molested by a priest didn’t suprise me in the least.

    Even I’m not willing to defend him… only groan at each additional lie that he or his representitives tell to get him off the hook.

  • stan

    There used to be a bunch of Aussie paedophiles (since locked up, for the most part) who described themselves in court not as paedophiles but as “hebephiles” … attracted to post-pubescent males.

    They say the term means a love of “youth”. But as one of my mates points out, it’s just a fancy word for a paedophile who likes to take advantage of boys aged over 14.

    It didn’t help them in court, either. The Crown prosecutor tore apart their argument that they were doing nothing wrong as boys of that age were able to decide for themselves what they want (whilst being manipulated by extremely manipulative adults).

    As they had an organised ring going in Sydney, and fled the country once they got a sniff of trouble, they were tracked down around the world, extradited and brought home and are now serving very long jail terms.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Bennie Dicked

    “Gee this sounds like the same old PC crap…why havent an equal number of many GIRLS been molested by priests?

    And the ANSWER IS….more serial molesters are homosexuals! plain and simple….oh and to be PC…not that there is anything wrong with that…”

    You really have to drop the kneeler on these guys to make the point. There have been studies done on priest pedophilia and it is almost EXCLUSIVELY a boy-oriented problem, literally like 99%.

    So does that mean that all molester-priests are gay, or….???

    According to the asinine theory propounded by the lovely Mr. West, there must be some kind of Devil’s Triangle correlation between the accident that kids are being molested in a quite unfair & misleading percentage as boys, despite the fact that gay & straight priests exist to molest. Further, a gay priest should be just as thrilled to have a wee girl to fondle (sheesh, anybody smell a funny scent around here?).

    It’s this kind of statistic that boggles the mind when trying to pass it through this PC seive.

    An unnamed vatican official has already recently stated that the Church believes roughly 50% of priests are gay.

    So what is the answer, Herr West?

    Please enlighten us, the lowly rabble…

  • zingzing

    jom: “”Gee this sounds like the same old PC crap…why havent an equal number of many GIRLS been molested by priests?”

    because they are called altar BOYS for a reason. they are BOYS. der. the catholic church is a very male-oriented business. a priest is going to have unsupervised access to BOYS, not girls.

    so, if a man wants to fondle little boys, he can become a priest–a trusted, holy, parental priest.

    if he wants to molest little girls, he becomes a girls soccer coach. or a ballet teacher. get it?

    unnamed vatican official. what, did he ask? “hey father, um… you wanna, you know… go out back?” “what? children?”

  • Clavos

    Zing,

    because they are called altar BOYS for a reason. they are BOYS. der.

    Wrong. They are now called Altar Servers, because girls are allowed to serve also.

    They’re also no longer just kids; men and women are Servers as well, these days.

  • zingzing

    altar servers. ha. the catholic church (sorry Catholic church) goes pc.

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Mistress La Spliffe

    Yeah? And priests aren’t allowed to be gay anymore, Clavos. Things have changed, but Zing is spot-on to describe the Church as it was until, like, yesterday, as a great place for pederasts.

  • Clavos

    Or thieves, Mistress (I feel like I’m in a femdom scene when I type that…)

    Anyway, they caught a couple of priests down here in Florida who had ripped off a parish in Delray Beach for over $8.6 million over forty years. One of them is still on the lam.

  • Dave

    Interestingly, here in the UK (and in the rest of Europe) the age of consent for gay or heterosexual sex is 16. So we wouldn’t consider Foley a paedophile, just a dirty old man ;)

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It’s the same age here Dave, but the Religious Right doesn’t see it that way.

  • L. Wolfe

    I confess to you now. I myself am a pedophile. Yet, I an ALSO a homosexual. I am sexually attracted to both men and boys. I don’t like women, and I don’t like girls. Why? Not because I discriminate. No. It’s because females don’t have the types of sexual organs I’m attracted to. I find the penis and balls of a male attractive. Men habe them, and boys have them. I have them and was BORN with them. No offence to the good doctor, but… he’s wrong. Want me to get a doctor to back me up on this? Then I will. I’ll get 2, just to make sure it’s not biased.
    I am a pedophile. I am gay. I like peni and testicals. I don’t frankly care about age.
    I am counter to the entire idea that your docto friend tries to push. My existance proves him wrong. But, I’m the friendly type. I forgive you for blindly believing…

  • anonymous

    I have a great idea. Since liberals do not think that their male children will come to any harm amongst gay men why don’t you all start your own scout troop? I’m sure all of your liberal friends would just love to send their 13 and 14 year old sons out in the woods, alone, and in the dark with their fabulous gay friends. Why not? They would have absolutely no interest in teenaged boys. Right?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I have no problem with that at all, anonymous. I’m absolutely comfortable with sending my 13- or 14-year-old son out into the dark woods with an out gay Scout Leader. Certainly more comfortable than I would be sending him out with an evangelical minister.

  • John

    Looking at the history of same sex unions, one can’t help but notice a trend…

  • http://follyofjsb2.blogspot.com Joshua Black

    There is nothing mature about fornication. Whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, it is still fornication and therefore still an abomination before God.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Christians make me laugh. Joshua, if “god” created man, why would he consider fornication an abomination? Surely that would mean he messed up?

    Doh!

  • drew

    To claim that there is no such thing as a gay pedophile is RIDICULOUS! a gay pedophile is a man who has sex with boys, making the man A) homosexual or bisexual and B) attracted to and having sex with a member of the same sex who happens to be a child. I state also in fact that most gays are not pedophiles and also most pedophiles are not gay! how’s that grab ya?

  • drew

    another comment for the bigotted “anonymous” on item #162. funny that you think all gays are flaming and “fabulous” when most of us behave EXACTLY the way most men do MASCULINE, regardless of their sexual orientation. you apply the queen stereotype of rare “gays” to all gays which is totally innaccurate. Furthermore just because someone is openly gay doesn’t mean they are a pedophile. And just because a guy says he’s “straight” doesn’t mean that he is not a closeted gay pedophile in actuality now does it? so in or out is no gauranteee of safety, the individual must be judged as responsible with children regardless of their being out or closeted!

  • drew

    one more thing, Al in comment #88 succeeded to shut the idiot west up for good since you stopped his childlike logic in it’s tracks, congrats! west is so full of crap that he’s defacating out of his mouth literally! homosexual is sexual attraction to the SAME SEX, the definition has no regard to age because obviously one is a MALE whether they are 5 years old or 50 years old and have a cock and balls.

  • http://in-self-defense.blogspot.com Steve Diamond

    Well…okay…

    …but, for all this talk of “mature sexuality”, just exactly when does a person stop evolving and maturing, mentally as well as sexually?

    …and as to this notion, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are monopolized by the proponents of “mature, adult on adult attraction”, this is a grossly obscene cold shoulder, to the glaringly obvious…

    …that so many of us grew up, being attracted sexually to many others, who were not physically adults…and these are some of our greatest, most cherished of memories.

    So, so many of us, who are homosexual (or heterosexual), would have done just about anything, to have had even just a sexual fling, when we were kids…We were dying to break out, and revel in our own sexuality with others…

    This used to be an understood, and accepted part of the “gay” culture…which used to be about the promotion of feeling good about yourself, and your sexuality.

    Then, the “plain vanillas” got a taste of political power, and were terrified, when it became threatened.

    …and the trite, pop psychology, suddenly became that “children have no sexuality”…”consenting adults” became all the rage, amongst the politically correct…and those who cast stones…

    Somewhere in this political storm, this world lost it’s humanity…It lost it’s focus, and it’s integrity…

    It lost sight of the fact that human sexuality, is human sexuality…

    …Not “adult sexuality”…Not “heterosexual sexuality”…Not “homosexual sexuality”…

    …but human sexuality

    …and there is no hard and fast rule, about human sexuality.

    Likely, every single thing we can imagine a human being doing sexually, has happened…sometime…somewhere…

    …and in the right context…in a nurturing atmosphere…in an open minded time…much of it was celebrated as noble, virtuous and good.

  • L. Wolfe

    Good comeback, #163, I even knoe conservatives that’d agree. Also great comback, #166.

    And thank you #167, and again for the end of #169

  • Kare

    You know, this just doesn’t hold water. Take, for example, the church abuse scandals. The vast majority of these incidents are that of pederasty–molesting BOYS. Does it still look the same to you, tantamount to a mere chance preference, like one of blonde hair over brown? It just can’t be. You’d expect pederasty to be involved in only about half the cases. And we have a very wide, cross-cultural sample here. So you have an institution where, for some reason, pederasty prevails. You say male/female preference is inconsequential. I’m sorry, but no reasonable person would assert such a thing, after taking the church scandals into account.

    There’s nature and there’s perversion of nature, and some perversion doesn’t upset us and some does. It’s obvious what genetalia and other orifices are meant to do. There’s no point in doing ourselves a disservice in sweeping the obvious under the rug in order to become an apologist for people whose feelings you don’t want to hurt. I’m just not a fan of dishonesty in favor of being sexier and more PC.

  • Kare

    ^ genitalia, sorry for the typo.

  • Dylan Kaufmann

    First – Well writeen article:)

    Second -You see that giant arguement over sexuality up there….

    Thats why I gave up caring about such things, like I was molested as a child, i liked it, and I still know they guy who did it to me, oddly enough i turned out rather well adjusted….:)

    Bu really why do people care so much about what other people do,like seriosly, I don’t care I f my neighbor is a serial killer, and i know it, I’ll just wait till the book comes out before I devop interest

    I wonder sometimes….

  • Tazia

    What we have is ‘gayness’ as the new blasphemy, it is orwellian, a McCarthyism.

    So if one says the COC were a pedo org which they were and probably still are, one gets the full thought crime gig.

    What we can say is that gay people contribute in the public arena, virtually nothing to child protection. So what’s going on?

    I think Julie Bindel summed it up, pedophilia and homosexualoity are associated in the sense, that as a sexual orientation, it is ubiquitously viewed as indifferent to atrocity.

    It can’t be fixed, because too many gay orgs don’t want to boot out their pedo allies, and this has repeatedly publicly stated.

    To be not queer enough, is to be a non-pedophile in many places, it is up to the gay rights organizations to clean up their act. If they keep bad company, they’ll get fleas.

  • Vejski

    “I state also in fact that most gays are not pedophiles and also most pedophiles are not gay! how’s that grab ya?”

    It’s a generic thing, like misogyny, if you can point to the male gender as having probs, one can do the same with gays. The gay equivalent problem is pedophilia.

    The denial thing? They have traction at the moment, it won’t last forever. The solution is to give gays anything they ask for, until it turns into San Francisco.

    The police are the people to fix the gay Public Relations probs by arresting the infection. So the future has a new brand of selective sex crime arrests a la Priest, Teacher, Jail Guard

    What we need to do is to celebrate a gay being arrested. As per teacher, jail guard, coach, etc. That’s fair, treat them the exact same, let them have a sex crime segment.

  • Iggy

    A pedophile teacher who decides to brand as gay, in Canada, he’s unarrestable, he’d have to litigate for the right to go to jail.

    What we need is a list of 100 gay people who have raped a child, double page thing with TV intro for weekend reading.

    Do that for balance, this endless drivel, about gayness not doing X or Y or Z, has to stop. They cheat on taxes, jay walk, litter,

    Then we might get to the stage where the lunatics, would concede that gays do a lot of crime, because they are here, have two legs and a head and can be left handed or right.

    They have to be made amenable to law and order, they’ve had qualified immunity for too long, we need to tell police, it is ok to arrest them, that fair, and that’s equal.

  • aluka

    kill that pedo bastard

  • james ross

    homosexuality and pedophilia are seperate sexualities and are both physically and mentally normal age does not matter

  • SlyG

    Hah, it has to be black or white… open your eyes and you may see the grey…

    Not that i trust in everything i read, i rather use logic.

  • Jack

    There is no science or reasoning behind this. Honestly it’s a waste of time. pedophile is just a term that means someone prefers kids to adults. And most people that are branded as pedophiles are not true pedophiles. They are Hebaphiles that prefer girls between 11-14. And it’s stated that hebephile are probably six times as common as pedophiles and even then at least 50% of Pedophiles or Hebaphiles are also attracted to people there own age or older.

    Meaning that the majority of pedophiles also find adults attractive and are either straight , homosexual or bi-sexual.

    Sure, there are people that…
    1)Don’t find adults attractive.
    2)Are attracted to children.
    3)Like both Boys and Girls.

    But unless they meet all three of those facts then they are either straight , homosexual or bi-sexual.

    You don’t often hear the term Gay Pedophile etc. I don’t personally need or want to know what a pedophile prefers gender wise unless I was a detective trying to track down potential victims in a case etc. So I’m not big on the term either… But facts are facts. Most Pedophiles or Pedophiles like adults too you know, and in most cases prefer one sex and one sex only.

  • Aluzky Irezumi

    This is bullshit, of course there are some homosexuals that are pedophiles and some pedophiles that may look like homosexuals.
    ?
    Age is a preference and not backwards.
    There is people that like old people, others like young people, other likes children, other like people that is about the same age. THOSE ARE PREFERENCES, like liking red hair, black hair, blond hair.
    ?
    When some one likes humans from ages 1 to 12 and he/she only likes the one that are of the same sex, that person is HOMOSEXUAL.
    ?
    Would you say that a person that likes blondes is not homosexual, just a blondophile that discriminates other hair colors?
    ?
    PS: I’m bisexual with dogs. Yes there are people that are gay to animals.
    There are people that is heterosexual with humans, bisexual with dogs and homosexual with horses. Sexual orientations are not always the same. Is possible some one may be heterosexual with adults but homosexual with children or bisexual or pansexual, etc.
    ?
    My point is, there are homosexual pedophiles, people is stupid if they try to denied they exist.

  • Pedro Bear

    This is the most ridiculous rationalization I’ve ever heard, from a so-called professional too. I hope he didn’t charge his regular rate while he filled your time with that nonsense.

    Sexual attraction is not about psychological partnering or looking for someone of equal maturity. It’s physical. Otherwise there would be no gay people because it would suffice that they found a mature partner of either gender.

    Gay, Straight and bisexual exist in the child-attracted community just as much as they do in the non-child-attracted, and many of them carry on with adult relationships as well, specific to their sexual preference. And it breaks down pretty much identically the way it does in the adult-oriented community.

    The only difference is that unlike gays, they still have to live “in the closet” where they are unable to speak up for themselves when some quack who has probably never spoken to one makes up lame brained theories without any study material behind it.

    I will say this though, there is a division among that underground between those who seek out consenting partners and those who would use them merely as objects. If you’ve been exposed to any of the material it’s pretty clear that consent is very common, and it was the discovery of this disparity with what I’d been told that actually sparked my own curiosity.

    Even and especially in the more public cases, like Kenneth Freeman’s, the argument is made that there is no consent at all, but the materials themselves are plainly contrary to that (hence the popularity of that particular series, “Vicky”).

    While it can be argued (and probably correctly) that the situation involved an abuse of authority and power, the media chooses rather to characterize such incidents as ALWAYS violent and forced instead of the friendly playful encounters they more often than not are. I think that this disconnect pushes some people further underground for fear of sinister reprisals when they would otherwise discuss it more openly.

    Sadly, there are also those cases where a young person or child is clearly being taken against their will, and this material is generally shunned by the underground community itself, but tolerated out of a shared isolation and a wish to understand this darker side in this community of peers.

    I would even say that the average pedo, given an opportunity to do so without themselves being revealed or incarcerated, would gladly report many of the violent incidents they encounter or see, but because of the dark stigma of their secret, cannot.

    Perhaps a day will come when youth-attracted individuals will be able to speak more openly without stigma, as has become the case with gays, who are of course more understood in the dark corners of the Internet. Imagine a day when they can come out at work and have an HR supported talk about it so that they can be who they are, free of harassment, and people will realize they are not all just a bunch of sick twisted child rapists (though a minority portion of them indeed are, just as a small portion of gays are also pedo-oriented).

  • John P

    Sorry there is such a thing as a gay pedophile and a straight pedophile. The Gay report published in the 1970s by 2 gay activists – one had a PhD, the other a MSc- showed that 23% of adult homosexuals polled had had sex with a minor between the ages of 13-15. Another report by a Harvard/Yale trained psychiatrist showed the gays were 3 times more likely to be pedophiles.

  • Doh

    What then do you call a male who likes fucking just males no matter what age? Boys, men its not relevant. I was told there are homosexual paedophiles and there is a special name for it which is stupid but acknowledges that you are gay, and only paedophile only male boys. The under age bit is irrelevant. You are willing to do anyone any age. Worst Paedophiles on the planet are male homo paedas.

  • angry

    Men who abuse young boys are simply gays who like their partners young. Men who abuse young girls are straights who like their partners young.

  • Phil

    From what i have learned from a expert in this field,you can be gay or straight and be a pedofile.Being gay or straight dose not meen you are a pedofile.

%d bloggers like this: