The Glade 4.0

First I don't believe that anyone has said that being a Catholic priest turns one into a gay pedophile. However, what has been argued is that the repression of anything sexual, and unhealthy position that being gay is evil and a sin may very possibly contribute to people having very deviant reactions to being in that environment.

I think RD's eating metaphor is perfect. If you're trying to have some super strict diet of nothing, you don't break the rules on wheat toast. You go straight for the tub of chocolate ice cream.

The only problem with your analogy is that sex with boys would already need to be perceived as akin to the tub of chocolate ice cream. Otherwise, out of all the possible sexual perversions, why would you pick that one?

_________________

For that to be a logical position, one needs to assume that a tub of chocolate ice cream appeals to those who are breaking their diet. That takes a leap of faith... or blatant bias ... in which case, it's no longer logic.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'd be happy with a couple of cookies every now and then.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The laws for Catholic priests don't cause them to become pedophiles, obviously. But it definitely predisposes them to it. By making all sexual activity forbidden, it forces Catholic priests that "need" it to seek it behind closed doors. Some of them will invariably conclude that it's easier to get away with having sex with a child than it would be to have sex with an adult. Remember, both activities are forbidden to the priest, so many will just pick the one that easier to get away with.

I very frequently hear conservatives argue that Islam causes large-scale violence due to its acceptance of polygamy. The logic there is pretty much the same. Obviously polygamy itself does not force Muslim men to become violent, but it predisposes the ones who cannot find a wife as a result to it.

About ten years celibate (really guys, if you're going to argue about something spell it right) and no, I am not molesting children, other men, or animals (such as camels). Been spending a lot of time thinking about boobs and how much I miss them lately, but that is cyclical.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It doesn't predispose them to it either. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that celibacy, in any way shape or form, is related to pedophiliac attractions.

You're engaging in nothing but conjecture that "many will conclude it's easier to get away with it with a kid". The far more likely conclusion is what was stated earlier: that people predisposed to pedophilia seek out the priesthood thinking it will keep them safe from their own attractions or in more rare cases thinking they will be free to act on them.



You "very frequently hear conservatives say this"? Bullshit. Unless you're representing a few conservatives you know saying it all the time as "hearing conservatives say it frequently", you're not hearing any such thing unless you have access to some secret conservatives that none of the rest of us do.

More to the point, polygamy is not, in any way, related to violence in Islam, either by causing it or predisposing it. Of all the doctrines of Islam, how anyone could tihnk that one was the cause of violence is beyond me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's absurd. Sex with children is forbidden for everyone. The point is, the vow of celibacy doesn't affect the pedophile, since they have no interest in getting married -- their only sexual interest is forbidden for anyone. The priesthood, however, does put them into a positon where they have more trusted access to children.

Normal people will mostly avoid the priesthood, because ...well, abstinence sucks.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So, what, 8 years of college just to get to get into position of authority so they can abuse a kid?

Uh huh, I see where you went wrong - you couched your opinion in logical terms and think it's logic. It's not. There are much less complicated ways for someone to position themselves to take advantage of a kid.

The argument, as best I can tell, is this:



If you have any information that supports your argument, then I'd like to see it.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around the your idea of someone choosing their career and putting in YEARS to achieve that as a goal just in order to facilitate their sexual desires.

I admit, I was pretty much driven to chase skirts as a younger man and I chose to become a techie, which was about as far away from where one would find a skirt as one could get. I'd not even sure I know where to start to pick a career to find women... other than some childish opinion they guys used to talk about that if we became a gynecologist we could see what's in womenfolk's pants.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

RD's metaphor is much a load of crap as my comment about rules pushing people to certain directions (via video games lead to violence), because its an individual decision based upon that persons natural tendencies, and no amount of rules is going to override everyone's basic nature.

If that were true you would see more pedophiles as pediatricians since it is much easier to "get away with it" under the guise of medical treatment. Or as gym teachers since the kids shower and get changed there.

_________________

So your argument is that it is the celibacy vows that cause such a ridiculously high rate of pedophiles in the priesthood?

Huh.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, his argument is that pedophiles do not seek out the priesthood in order to have access to children, which quite frankly is silly for precisely that reason, especially since you'd need to be Catholic in the first place.

The most likely argument is that they seek out the priesthood in the belief that they will be able to control their sexual appetites with the discipline of the priesthood. This would fit more with being a devout enough Catholic in the first place to put up with going through the training needed to become a priest.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

RD's metaphor is crap because it's crap. Eating does not work like that; starvation will kill you, while sex starvation won't. Not only that, but there's nothing inherently wrong with eating chocolate ice cream; its the amount thats bad. On the other hand, it is not ok to indulge in pedophilia as long as its in moderation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

the urge to mate is evolutionarily just as crucial as the urge to eat. Without either the species dies.

So what does that say about gays and pedophiles and non-reproductive fetishists? If it is an evolutionary imperative then where do they come from?

_________________

It's not mating when a pedophile abuses a child. It's abuse.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ok, let me try a different approach. Imagine two groups of people who are predisposed to pedophilia (i.e. they have some urges in that regard but have never acknowledged or acted on those urges). One group pursues normal adult sexual and romantic relationships, while the other group eschews both completely and takes a vow of celibacy. Over time, presumably, at least some of the people in each group would likely act on their pedophilic urges. Do you think there's likely to be any difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage of people who act on their urges? If so, what difference do you anticipate and what do you think the reasons for it would be?

I don't see any point in answering this. Any answer is complete conjecture. Really this would be properly explored by an actual study, but conducting such a study is impossible for a number of reasons.

I mean, just to start are the people assigned to those groups or are we looking at groups of people who have chosen that lifestyle themselves and are assigned to the group based on their choice? If the latter, how do we know that the strenght of the pedophiliac attraction doesn't influence the choice? If the former, the question becomes a bit silly as it relates to one of the many things that make the study impossible: where would we find admitted pedophiles who would allow us to choose a lifestyle for them?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

True, it is conjecture, but so is everything else in this conversation so far. I'm saying it seems plausible that celibacy might push people towards pedophilia, and you guys are saying that's not plausible. The point of the hypo in my last post is to clarify whether your view is based on the idea that (i) celibacy can't possibly make a non-pedophile more likely to become a pedophile; (ii) celibacy can't possibly make a pedophile more likely to act on his pedophilia; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) are true.

However, they're fulfilling the same psychological imperative that causes normal people to seek out an adult companion. They're just not doing it correctly.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's not necessarily true in most cases.

_________________

Yes. Just because sexuality is an evolutionary imperative, does not mean that every member of the species will be wired for reproduction.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/0 ... pt005.html

The problem with pedophilia is not that it doesn't result in reproduction, it's that it victimizes innocent children.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

My point is that the argument presented above is that celibacy goes against the natural imperative to reproduce. If the sexual urges being decried do not lead to reproduction then it is not a natural imperative and therefore whether or not celibacy is advocated has no impact on the outcome. Nor as RD asserted could they be a distortion of natural imperative because it does not lead to the evolutionary favorable outcome (more people via reproduction).

_________________

The issue is that in some people that natural imperative to reproduce (i.e. sex drive) can be "mis-wired". In some people, it manifests in the way of a shoe fetish. In others it's sado-masochism. In some it's pedophilia.

And it's not like it's some all or nothing switch either. There are degrees and shades to these urges and desires. Some of them are within the realm of control, others are not.