I see one “winter” has actually misrepresented the things that I said, and has fixated on the concept of “pedophilia” and said much about it and its relevance/irrelevance to homosexuality — all without defining “pedophilia” in regard to the age of sex object — though the popular confusion over its precise meaning (or that of “pederasty”) was a subject of my previous posts — he just says, “children.” He seems to mean pre-teens — in which case he returns to the very game, which I had criticized, of shifting the subject away from the question of teenagers, along with some obtuse sniveling that there’s something obsessive about sticking with that subject though Boy Scouts range in age from 11 to 18. He directs the reader’s attention to words away from things and facts.

Well, I’ve since learned that the word in place of “pedophilia” when the object is a teenager, is “ephebophilia.” So I guess that one could invent a word “epheberasty” to use in place of “pederasty” when the object is a teenager.

As for the novel Parents’ Day which “winter” calls “tawdry,” actually it’s a work of serious literature. “Winter” could have found out by googling a bit about its author Paul Goodman whom I mentioned along with some of Goodman’s claims to fame, with keywords enough for an Internet search. I am not one to confuse the sickness of Goodman’s attitudes with some lack of literary merit. In fact, some very bad folks (certainly worse than Goodman) have written exceedingly well — Jean Genet, for instance. The things which I said about Goodman and his novel were directed at people who have some claim to literary education, people like Sullivan, certainly not pocket dictionary people like “winter.”

“Winter”’s difficulty in understanding “exactly” what is meant by the phrase “experienced homosexual” shows that reality is not his friend or his basis, at least when writing.

“Winter”’s one possibly constructive remark is that Sullivan in fact supports the Boy Scouts’ right to discriminate. This is news to me. I’ve read Sullivan saying that the Boy Scouts should allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters. Perhaps Sullivan doesn’t think that the law should compel the Boy Scouts to accept them, but still thinks that they should freely accept them.

“The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)”

It means no such thing.

It means, as my previous post explained, that 100%, or at least the vast majority, of the molestations were perpetrated by pedophiles. Whether or not these depraved individuals were heterosexual or homosexual (ie primarily sexually attracted to other adults of the same sex) is not stated. As the studies I mentioned above indicate, the likelihood is that they were heterosexual males.

The nature of the pedophile pathology is that these are very often crimes of opportunity and that pedophiles often choose victims of either gender. The ratio of male and female victims, and even the extent of molestations, is highly contentious given the reluctance of many victims to come forward, either through shame or the vicious threats employed by their abusers. However the preponderance of data internationally indicates that disproportionately it is female children who are most at risk, and usually from a family member or close friend.

It is tragic that this horrible crime is being used by the likes or mareseydoats and ForNow to foment hatred against homosexuals. This is cynical and depraved. Children deserve better from those of us who should be vigilantly safeguarding their wellbeing.

Right. And the source mareseydoats provided – the Los Angeles Times – fits -precisely- within that context.

*rolls eyes*

Qwinn

In his first garbled and hysterical post ForKnow makes the telling error in exactly misstating Andrew Sullivan’s position regarding Boy Scouts. Sullivan has consistently and quite rightly defended the Boy Scouts Of America’s right to discriminate (or rather, be discriminating) on the basis of sexual orientation. Further to this he cites a work of tawdry fiction to prop up his absurd theories regarding rampant pederasty being the natural concomitant of gay scout leaders. His histrionics are so badly expressed, and no doubt feverishly typed, that one can only guess what he is trying to say most of the time. He seems to have an unhealthy and strangely disproportionate fixation on the sexual vulnerability of scout-age boys (”healthy, athletic, exuberant boys who are turning out very well in the later adolescent years”). At least I think he does. The English language is not his friend. And what exactly is an ‘experienced’ homosexual? And what exactly are the ‘false pretences’ under which these ‘openly’ homosexual people operate?

For the enlightenment of these two posters, a pedophile is an adult (almost always male) who is exclusively attracted to children. Any descriptive prefix such a homosexual or heterosexual describes only the gender configuration between the victim and the molester. Any attempt to quantify instances of pedophilia as either ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ (almost always for base political advantage) is misleading. Heterosexuals and homosexual adults have no sexual interest in children. To describe the molestation of children in these terms is to give grossly undeserved legitimacy to what is quite clearly an appalling aberration; a pathology utterly distinctive from consensual sex between adults. There is no continuum of sexuality leading from normal consensual adult relations to pedophilia. The key issue is that of consent – child molestation is about violation and moral depravity. Some people are heterosexual; some people are homosexual; and some people are pedophiles. These are three distinct groups. To place pedophilia alongside the first two groups is preposterous.

Contrary to mareseydoats obscene claim that homosexuals are responsible for 40% of all child molestations, most reliable studies demonstrate that molestations committed by an identifiably gay or lesbian person are extremly rare. For example the psychologist Nicholas Groth’s study from the late seventies in which 175 child sex offenders were studied showed that in fact none of the randomly selected offenders were homosexual. Further a Denver Colorado study from the late Eighties showed that the incidence of child molestation by homosexuals was about 0% to 3.1% of all offences committed. The only place one finds contrary data is on ultra-right wing Christian websites or from adherents of the totally discredited Paul Cameron.

No one is forcing ForKnow or marseydoats to be “fair-minded” but I think you have a responsibility when posting on a distinguished site such as this that you be rational and demonstrate proper respect for established facts rather than throwing around ill-informed and malignant libel.

Gee, ya think?

And who is pushing that campaign?

And who keeps casting opposition to it as an accusation that male homosexuals typically want to go for children — i.e., 11-year-olds, etc.? Since there are such child molestors, of course some then speak out furiously against child molestation, and those framing the argument achieve their purpose — to derail it.

But Boy Scouts range in age through 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. It mystifies me that people are unable to retain that peice of information and its significance, just as they can’t remember the comparability with the idea of forcing people to put young heterosexual men in charge of groups of adolescent women (I discussed Girl Scouts in previous post).

People with “nice homosexual friends” — and I am certainly one of those people — need to stop being so naive, ill-informed, and indeed recklessly self-righteous in their effort to be “fair-minded.” The Bovaryesque corruption of sheltered innocence by trite ideas from popular books may be YOURS.

Do try to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Or merely beat you to death.

There are lots of reasons, one might not resist; I remember being beaten up by a girl in second grade because I’d been told a little too effectively that one doesn’t hit girls.

If you think it’s actually invariably possible to resist a rape, no matter how violent the rapist or how large the number of rapists, you’re a complete fool.