Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

Boy Scout article- SA allegations pour in

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Same sex pedophilia is not the same thing as homosexuality.  It is best to be careful to use clear terminology to avoid confusing them.

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Seems propogandish, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well, as I see it, the abused has three choices. He can become a victimizer  himself, he can continue to be a victim, or he can overcome both tendencies and become healthy. Neither victim nor victimizer.

I haven't a clue how many achieve the latter. Too few, I wager. Neither do I know the percentage of pedophiles were themselves abused as children. I suspect a significantly higher number.

Everybody has pain, but no amount of pain, regardless whence it came, justifies predating children. If I can prevent the abuse, I will employ all my strength to accomplish it.

It was instilled in all men of my generation to be the sheepdog protecting the innocent sheep. Ultimately I cannot care that, for example, the coyote was kicked around as a pup. The sheep's safety dwarfs every other consideration.

You are assuming pedophiles are a different species when they are mostly sheep since the vast majority of them innocent of abusing others.  If innocent, if by their actions they have not changed to wolves/coyotes, should they not be protected too?

You are one of those iirc who speak against people dropping men in general into the predator category, but you appear to be doing this for pedophiles. How is this fair?

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Seems propogandish, doesn't it?

How so?  Did you read the whole thing including the studies analysis?  The studies are old, but do you have newer ones that have contrary evidence.

Quote

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By nature, I would be as incapable of pedophilia or sexual assault as you would be of committing an axe murder. And I don’t believe I’m atypical in that regard. 

As far as I have seen, research supports your view that the typical male, heterosexual or homosexual, does not have pedophilia and does not sexually assault others.

Otoh, there is a significant percentage of college males who report using sexual coercion (25% iirc).  I haven't come across stats for college women, but have no doubt there are coercers among them as well.  I would say to approach others cautiously until they have proven relatively safe in any type of committed/dependent relationship, whether physical or financial or emotional.  One would not turn over one's checkbook (save to very few individuals who have proved they can be trusted) on the off chance the others might take advantage of your carelessness.   It seems Wisdom to me to treat your physical and sexual safety with at least as much caution as your financial safety.

Is anyone offended by me saying I am not going to leave my wallet or phone on the table while running off to the bathroom?  If not, why get offended by me saying I take precautions for my physical safety with almost all men?  Why does it suddenly become about me viewing all men as predators?

-----

There is also a problem of talking about "typical behaviour" in some crimes, for example there isn't a "typical rapist", no real rapist profile.

Quote

There is no “typical profile” of a rapist. Many defense attorneys will talk about whether their client, the alleged assailant, either fits the profile of a rapist or doesn’t. This is an invalid argument because there is no typical profile of a rapist. This is why it is good to focus on that person’s behavior instead of who they are in their community (Maas, 2007).

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

Stats like 1 in 3 college aged men in one study considering they might rape someone if they could be sure to get away with it...hopefully when reality hits, they wouldn't feel so inclined...but if this is what some men are saying about themselves, then women imo should be listening to those as well as acknowledging the 2/3s that wouldn't.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as I have seen, research supports your view that the typical male, heterosexual or homosexual do not have pedophilia and do not sexually assault others.

Otoh, there is a significant percentage of college males who report using sexual coercion (25% iirc).  I haven't come across stats for college women, but have no doubt there are coercers among them as well.  I would say to approach others cautiously until they have proven relatively safe in any type of committed/dependent relationship, whether physical or financial or emotional.  One would not turn over one's checkbook (save to very few individuals who have proved they can be trusted) on the off chance the others might take advantage of your carelessness.   It seems Wisdom to me to treat your physical and sexual safety with at least as much caution as your financial safety.

Is anyone offended by me saying I am not going to leave my wallet or phone on the table while running off to the bathroom?  If not, why get offended by me saying I take precautions for my physical safety with almost all men?  Why does it suddenly become me viewing all men as predators?

-----

There is also a problem of talking about "typical behaviour" in some crimes, for example there isn't a "typical rapist", no real rapist profile.

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

Stats like 1 in 3 college aged men in one study considering they might rape someone if they could be sure to get away with it...hopefully when reality hits, they wouldn't feel so inclined...but if this is what some men are saying about themselves, then women imo should be listening to those as well as acknowledging the 2/3s that wouldn't.

 

By “typical,” I was not referring to typical perpetrators, but rather, typical males. I’m saying it is not in my makeup to even have the desire to sexually assault someone, let alone an unrestrained desire. I said I don’t believe I’m atypical in that regard. Maybe I’m wrong, but your one-in-three figure does sound awfully high to me. 

I’m all in favor of being careful, but I do see a distinction between that and viewing every male as a latent rapist. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

I’m all in favor of being careful, but I do see a distinction between that and viewing every male as a potential rapist. 

Aren't you in essence saying by being in favor of being careful, that you wouldn't leave your wallet unattended that you can't know if any person you just met is a potential thief or not?

If you walk into a room of strangers and can't say to yourself "I am going to give that guy my wallet to hold and I feel completely safe to do so", that is the same as viewing everyone there as a potential thief even if you believe out of the whole group there would be many it was actually safe with...you just can't tell without knowing them better.

For most women, saying every man a potential rapist is not saying every male alive will become a rapist given the 'right' set of circumstances.  It is saying we can't tell just by looking at men who might rape and who wouldn't. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By nature, I would be as incapable of pedophilia or sexual assault as you would be of committing an axe murder.

When I was studying in America, I took a dinner break one evening and joined my housemates in watching a doco on Jeffrey Dahmer. Everyone was talking about how they couldn't comprehend how he could do what he did, and I was about to join them, and then, in an instant, I saw clearly (and visually!) the specific pathway that would turn me into someone who could and would pick up young men, rape and torture them, kill them, and then dismember and eat them. And the very beginning of that pathway wasn't anything like the end of it; it was all very little stuff that most people outside the Church wold pooh-pooh as insignificant.

At first, I was terrified to discover that there was at least one potential pathway that would lead to my 'committing an axe murder'. And then I felt empowered. Knowing the pathway meant that I never had to worry that I'd wake up one morning and discover something monstrous inside me that I had no control over. I didn't have to worry that I was a predatory monster 'by nature'. Instead, I could choose not to be another Jeffrey Dahmer by choosing to avoid the first steps on that path.

That vision has shaped much of the rest of my life.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

but I do see a distinction between that and viewing every male as a latent rapist. 

You changed it from "potential" to "latent".  Which means something very different.  Latent means inherent, already there, but hidden.  Potential means possible whether it means as Hamba used it to describe agency that allows us to choose evil by small changes or meaning "can't tell, may be".

How many women are actually saying "latent rapist" as opposed to men 'translating' (misrepresenting) what they are actually saying when they say "potential rapist" (meaning you can't tell the difference without knowing someone just as we can't tell who is and isn't a thief walking down the street)?

I know personally lots of women who go by every man a potential rapist where I know none personally who think every man a latent rapist.  We are simply treating our bodies with the same intelligent caution we treat our purses/wallets.  Once we know people better, we can choose to lighten up on the caution if indicated.  With only a few have I felt the need to increase wariness, thank goodness.

I go by the rule every man a potential rapist, have since I knew what rape was.  I would never have dated or married if I thought every man a latent rapist.  

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

81% or more of the cases of pedophilia racking the Roman Catholic Church are homosexual in nature

Are you saying the priests involved in 81% of the pedophilia were attracted to adult males?

Do you have evidence of this?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It is important to differentiate between male-male pedophilia and adult homosexuality in order to find the appropriate treatment.  Confusing the two may result in attributing causes that do not actually apply, directing research into useless side paths, and years wasted in ineffective treatment that may leave pedophiles as likely to offend or worse.

Quote

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation. 

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-malemolestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

For example, if researchers assume activations patterns are the same for male-male pedophiles as they are for adult attracted homosexuals, they would likely be wrong and might miss something essential in determining brain function of pedophiles (which may be able to suggest treatments or diagnosis methods).

Quote

Central processing of visual sexual stimuli in homosexual [male-male] pedophiles seems to be comparable to that in nonpedophile control subjects. However, compared with homosexual control subjects, activation patterns in pedophiles refer more strongly to subcortical regions, which have previously been discussed in the context of processing reward signals and also play an important role in addictive and stimulus-controlled behaviour. Thus future studies should further elucidate the specificity of these brain regions for the processing of sexual stimuli in pedophilia and should address the generally weaker activation pattern in homosexual men

Thus there may be a way to diminish feelings of pedophilia by suppressing activation patterns in the subcortical regions assuming these findings are confirmed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2186373/

Quote

Functional brain response patterns to sexual stimuli contain sufficient information to identify pedophiles with high accuracy. The automatic classification of these patterns is a promising objective tool to clinically diagnose pedophilia.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1107448

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

From the bottom link, can't add to above:

Quote

Reliable assessment of a paraphilic sexual orientation is of great importance for the prediction of recidivism.23 Furthermore, the effective treatment of child s-x offenders relies on an accurate assessment of a paraphilic sexual orientation, given that some interventions are appropriate for pedophilic offenders but not for nonpedophilic offenders and vice versa.

Just to be clear, I am not assuming/classifying every child sexual abuser is a pedophile.  The research shows this is not accurate.  The majority of predators are NOT pedophiles, though given the percentage of pedophiles in the general population, pedophiles are more likely to become child abusers, I believe, than nonpedophiles.  So I am only talking about the subset of child abusers who are pedophiles.  Research that I have seen indicates male-male pedophiles are NOT also attracted to adult males.  Differentiating between pedophilic child abusers and nonpedophilic child abusers is important in determining type of treatment, effectiveness, risk of repeating, etc.

I haven't looked into the rates of child abuse by those whose sexual orientation is attracted to adults.  That is a different set of abusers with likely different reasons to abuse.

Most child sexual abuse is committed by men, more than twice as many girls are victims as boys.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rain said:

Years ago our credit card number was stolen and a new card was made and the thief then spent a lot of money on it. The bank told us it was most likely skimmed at a restaurant by waitstaff. I asked what I could do about it. They said to always go to the register with it. So we did.

I found that many were confused when I asked to go to the register with them. Some registers were even in the kitchen. So I explained what had happened and I was taking precautions.

At that point a high number would get upset or offended and say they wouldn't steal, to which I explained that I had never given my card to someone I thought I couldn't trust. Who would do that? Yet it still happened to me. And that mollified most.

After awhile I finally figured out to say, "I never let my visa out of my sight" (where I can watch over it) and suddenly people were instead saying, "that's smart".

That's really what most women are saying about being in some situations. We are not thinking  "this is a potential predator because all men are". It's saying, "I never let my body out of my/safety's sight" and like the wait staff has told me dozens of times, "that's smart".

 

It is interesting that in America, we give our credit cards to someone who disappears for 5 minutes to do with it whatever they want, even if it is to just write down the number, expiration and CVC code.  That is all you need to charge something online.

In Europe, people think that is insane.  You never give your card to anyone.  They come to your table with a hand held processor, show you the charge, and they expect you to either tap the processor or insert it.  The card never leaves your hand. If you give someone your card, they are very nervous to even take it.  It just isn't done.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying the priests involved in 81% of the pedophilia were attracted to adult males?

Do you have evidence of this?

Most of the predators in the case studies contained in the article were married men with children.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you saying the priests involved in 81% of the pedophilia were attracted to adult males?

Do you have evidence of this?

I don't have the studies of the Catholic Church at hand at the moment, but if you review the life of Archbishop McCarrick, and if my memory serves me, he abused both young male teenagers and adult males. 

I think the difference may be in the definitions of words being used. There is a difference between abusing a child prior to reaching puberty and then abusing those that have reached puberty. Abusers are different for both sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Quote

 A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that.*

This was possibly true in the past, I believe.  I would like to see documentation to be sure.

It may not be now.  The process of identification as gay has changed over the years as it has become more socially acceptable to explore same sex relationships.  My brother in law has worked with those with SSA, including those identifying as gay for several decades.  When he started, the vast majority reported to him their first SS experience was abuse.  I asked him about three years ago if that had changed and he said yes, now more often it is consensual as individuals identify as gay prior to having a sexual experience.  Anecdotal, but he keeps up on the science and if it hadn't changed generally, I think he would have mentioned his practice as being an anomaly.  

I need to get some sleep, there is probably some study out there on this if someone else wants to look.

It would be interesting if someone could find a study comparing gay s-xual patterns (age of s-xual debut, type...many have their first experience with females, for example....age difference in partnerships, number of partners, length of partnerships, etc) in the 70s with the same from the last 10 years to see if there has been more than just anecdotal change.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most of the predators in the case studies contained in the article were married men with children.  

Which article?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The lifesitenet article:

Quote

Reisman’s research based on government statistics for 1992 notes that: Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls. An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all boys. Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male. Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18.

This does not tell us the methodology for determining heterosexual and homosexual attraction in the abusers.  It seems to assume if a man abuses a girl, he qualifies as heterosexual.  If a man abuses a boy, he qualifies as homosexual.  This says nothing about identification or sexual orientation.

This does not differentiate between attraction to adults and attraction to children.  Do you not see a problem with equating the two, Robert?  Pedophilia is not the same as Teleiophilia.  Homosexuality is a subset of Teleiophilia, as is heterosexuality.  Male-male pedophilia is a subset of Pedophilia, as is male-female pedophilia.

Male-male Pedophilia may be a substantially different type of brain experience (significantly more precortical involvement) to Adult homosexuality just as it is likely male-female Pedophilia is a different experience than adult heterosexuality...unless the heterosexuals are inclined to say they are as attracted to children as well as to adults.  I haven't looked at studies comparing yet. 

---

Looks like the Dailey article does the same sort of calculation...male-male pedophilia means homosexuality:  1/3 of abused children are boys; homosexuals are only 1-3 % of population; therefore, much higher percentage of homosexuals are abusers than heterosexuals.

This would only be true if male-male pedophiles were identical to homosexual in orientation.  The research suggests they are not.  They may share the same sex orientation, but they do appear to share the same age orientation.  Gays are not generally attracted to prepubescent boys, male-male pedophiles are not generally attracted to adult males (see studies I linked to in previous posts measuring actual sexual arousal).

Now it may be those males attracted to other adult males have a higher percentage of non-pedophilic child s-xual abuse, but I haven't come across studies on this and using the logic the above articles use isn't scientific, imo. 

I am trying to promote accuracy in descriptions for better science and better use of science, not make people feel better or advance a political agenda. And btw I believe same sex sexual behaviour is a sin, I believe in the long term same sex sexual relationships won't allow for as much progression and may even be detrimental to personal growth in short term (not sure how one would measure that as what I see as growth others might not), I believe all other things being equal it is better for a child to have a mother and father and not two fathers or two mothers for a variety of reasons...but reality is likely never "all other things being equal" so I am not going to judge case by case.  I think most of us do the best we can.  The older I get the more I figure out how my parents really screwed up me and my siblings and I don't know of anyone more heterosexual than they were.  And then there is how I screwed up my kids.  I don't know anyone else's life well enough to make comparison.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As LDS psychologist Allen E. Bergin pointed out, long before the HIV/AIDS crisis began, 50% of white male homosexuals in San Francisco had each had at least 500 sexual partners, 28% had had 1,000 partners, and fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of sixteen.  Bergin, “Bringing the Restoration to the Academic World: Clinical Psychology as a Test Case,” BYU Studies, 19/4 (1979):449-473 (esp. 467, citing Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg [N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1978]).

 

This is like a game of research telephone!  Bell and Weinberg write a book which includes a small survey of gay men in gay bars and other sexually charged environments.  The statistics presented above were from among that subset of gay men. Bergin cherry picks theses statistics and presents them without specifying the limitations of the survey..... and now you editorialize by saying things like "fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of sixteen."

If we went to pickup bars and swingers clubs in Salt Lake City to survey heterosexual participants,  do you believe the results  obtained would be representative of the broader SLC heterosexual population? 

 

 

Edited by cacheman
Spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I am just getting a blank page on my iPad with the BYU Studies article.  Any chance you could post the methodology?

nvm, got the scholars' archive to work...I think:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1976&context=byusq

So Bergin doesn't mention methodology (page 17), no details in footnote, just book listed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualities:_A_Study_of_Diversity_Among_Men_and_Women

Quote

They note that their work is based on a nonrepresentative sample, and argue that a representative sample is unnecessary for their purposes...

He wrote that they appeared to have found "difficulty in dealing with the diversity of experiences that they found among their gay respondents". While appreciating their attempts to discredit stereotypes about homosexuals, he found their division of homosexuals into different "types" to be in effect the creation of a new set of stereotypes. He called their typology of homosexuals "arbitrary and misleading." He argued that while the book was a "fine historical document", its data only reflected the situation in San Francisco in 1969 and 1970. He denied that its authors had a representative sample, and suggested that a representative sample of homosexuals was impossible given that they were "basically an invisible population"....

Levin noted that the book received much attention. However, he criticized its authors for using a non-random sample. He also accused them of being credulous about their informants' reports, employing special pleading and circular reasoning, seeking to demonstrate preferred conclusions, and making misleading use of statistics...

while Bell and Weinberg covered a wide range of sexual behaviors, their failure to use probability samples meant that their study "could not be used to estimate population rates.

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just getting a blank page on my iPad with the BYU Studies article.  Any chance you could post the methodology?

nvm, got the scholars' archive to work...I think:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1976&context=byusq

So Bergin doesn't mention methodology (page 17).

No, he doesn't. I would assume,  given his profession that he was familiar with it.   The book was reviewed in scholarly venues as well as the popular press.  

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, cacheman said:

and now you editorialize by saying things like "fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of sixteen."

Bergin doesn't say how old they were when they had sex with boys younger than 16, I notice.  I wonder if the book did.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Aren't you in essence saying by being in favor of being careful, that you wouldn't leave your wallet unattended that you can't know if any person you just met is a potential thief or not?

If you walk into a room of strangers and can't say to yourself "I am going to give that guy my wallet to hold and I feel completely safe to do so", that is the same as viewing everyone there as a potential thief even if you believe out of the whole group there would be many it was actually safe with...you just can't tell without knowing them better.

For most women, saying every man a potential rapist is not saying every male alive will become a rapist given the 'right' set of circumstances.  It is saying we can't tell just by looking at men who might rape and who wouldn't. 

 Being sure to secure my wallet in a room full of strangers does not mean that I view every person in there as a thief waiting for an opportunity. On the contrary, I’m inclined to assume that most, if not all, of them are honest. But it only takes one, so I secure the wallet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

This was possibly true in the past, I believe.  I would like to see documentation to be sure.

It may not be now.  The process of identification as gay has changed over the years as it has become more socially acceptable to explore same sex relationships.  My brother in law has worked with those with SSA, including those identifying as gay for several decades.  When he started, the vast majority reported to him their first SS experience was abuse.  I asked him about three years ago if that had changed and he said yes, now more often it is consensual as individuals identify as gay prior to having a sexual experience.  Anecdotal, but he keeps up on the science and if it hadn't changed generally, I think he would have mentioned his practice as being an anomaly.  

I need to get some sleep, there is probably some study out there on this if someone else wants to look.

It would be interesting if someone could find a study comparing gay s-xual patterns (age of s-xual debut, type...many have their first experience with females, for example....age difference in partnerships, number of partners, length of partnerships, etc) in the 70s with the same from the last 10 years to see if there has been more than just anecdotal change.

"In the past?" And what has changed to make the deflowering of youths by adult men less of a "thing?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...