As opposed to this guy, who is (or at least covers for) HEBEPHILES, which is people attracted to post-pubescent adolescents (generally, teenagers).
There is a clear difference. One (PEDOPHILIA) is a crime against nature, an extremely dangerous mental/psychological defect. People who have this defect should be killed, locked up till they die, or otherwise PERMANENTLY removed from society, since we haven't a clue how to cure them, and they are actually and truly dangerous to every child they are around, forever.
The other (the HEBEPHILES) are what most people think of when they say "PEDOPHILE." In fact, it's actually being attracted to minors who have developed secondary sexual characteristics (post-pubescence or in transition). These are referred to in common usage as "Jail Bait," which pretty well explains the truth of the matter: They are attractive to the general population, and dangerous to those who actually bite.
Acting on hebephilic impulse (e.g., actually molesting a minor, or, as you prefer, taking the bait) is a crime based on the STATUS of the minor (e.g., under 16 or 18 or whatever the age of consent is - your mileage may vary,) and is NOT based on some dangerous sexual "defect." Humans are designed to respond to sexual stimuli, and there's no point to trying to classify them as perverts.
They aren't.
I'll leave to you to consider that the Virgin Mary was probably somewhere between 13 and 15 when she was married and involved in the most famous pregnancy in history, and Juliette (of R&J fame) was 14, but considered to be a grown woman for most purposes.
The Catholics' main problem is that they are engaging in mostly homosexual encounters which, regardless of the PC values we all hold, is still considered pretty pervy deep down in our liberal heart of hearts. It just creeps us right the fuck out when altar boys are being shagged by some creaky old fart with his priestly robes hiked up over his bony ass.
I'll guarantee you that if it turned out that there were a bunch of 13-15 year old GIRLS who were now complaining that the worldly representatives of Mother Church were making a career out of plucking virginal flowers, the outrage might still be there, but considerably muted.
They are abusing minors because they know that minors have large handfuls of new hormones blasting around their systems, are extremely poor decision-makers, are enormously subject to being taken advantage of and are, more often than not, pretty stupid. This is especially true if the adult in question is an authority figure (priest, parent, teacher, coach, Boy Scout leader, etc.)
That's why it is (and, in case I'm not clear, IT SHOULD BE) a criminal act to con or force minors into sex, which is to say it is (AND SHOULD BE) illegal for adults to have sex at all with them, because there is almost ALWAYS a con or more-or-less subtle force in any minor/adult interaction.
Without putting too fine a point on it, the goofy little turds ALWAYS need protection to make it through that "trying out the wings/fledgling" thing without being eaten by whichever predator happens to be around when they drop to the ground like stones the first few times out.
What we ought to be focusing on is the abuse of power and breach of trust. After all, isn't the setting up of a private worldwide collared club which is primarily devoted to gaining the trust of minors and their protectors in order to have sex with those minors enough of an outrage? Do we have to spice it up by assigning it tabloid status as a "sick" desire of pervert priests before we can be bothered to be sufficiently offended?
So, to summarize, a quick review:
OK, now that we have our terminology sorted out (as well as going back to reserving our disgust for pedophiles to pedophiles) we can get on with locking them maggot priests up and suing the Church out of existence.
In Our Next Episode: Physics. We investigate antigravity:
PS: If you want to add a third or fourth consenting adult, go right ahead.
ReplyDeleteAs they say in California (or used to - who knows now that the state's gone down the rabbit hole?): Sex should be between two consenting adults and that's it.
ReplyDeleteNow, what about all them closet homosexuals in the church, hmm? Or worse: All the arrogant self-pitying deniers of any wrong-doing? Could we swap them for some genuine out-of-the-closet gays? That would be such an improvement.
(Made some edits to the posting to clean it up a bit.)
ReplyDeleteYup, the entire thing reminds me of that old Monty Python bit in which all the women in ancient Palestine rented beards so they could pretend to be males in order to attend public stonings (which was prohibited to women.)
These guys are raised in a religion in which being a homosexual is a mortal sin, spend their life hiding it, knowing that they are NOT going to be having an acceptable relationship with women anyhow, and are offered a chance to join up with a big ol' wad of other men who are ALSO sworn off women.
Yeah, the vow is that specific, or used to be anyhow, and is not exactly a major sacrifice for someone who'd be totally capable of keeping the vow if they were sleeping every night in a pile of nekkid strippers.
They can then spend the rest of their lives stoning the homos (who they really do hate - and there's a psychological study that needs doing) and banging (mostly) male schoolchildren.
I mean, what did they THINK was going to happen? It didn't occur to anyone that a large club of healthy males who voluntarily swear off ever getting nekkid with women might be - oh, I dunno - a little gay?
FOX = 666 (if you just assign 1-9 to each letter consecutively) so I am hoping this means the Catholic church either goes belly-up or at least lets priests marry and people with AIDS to use condoms. Either would be a wonderful change of heart (hah!) from that quarter.
ReplyDelete(Final Edit Of Post Completed - New images to increase the prurient interest for those who are into that sort of thing.)
ReplyDeleteYup, agree 100% - people tend to think that since I'm politically an extreme right-wing sort that I'm anti-gay. I'm not. I'm pro-freedom. I don't care WHAT adults do. Not my cuppa, you understand, but as long as no one's trying to make me schtupp any of 'em or "understand" their lifestyle, I'm good.
Now, if they're offended because I think they're weird and amuse myself laughing at them once in awhile - OK, I'm good with that, too.
But as a societal matter, my vote is to leave 'em alone and everyone just mind their own f**king business - which I suspect would put the Church out of commission in less than a week.
gekko approves of this poast.
ReplyDeletegekko also approves of all the comments so far.
We talked about this at dinner tonight, my gay brother and his partner. Talked about gay men they've known who've also been priests. Evidently the (Episcopal) seminary in question is essentially a bath house, or was in the 60s and 70s. Of course, all those men would be married to women anwyay. The parishes would insist. I'm not making a point because Episcopal prists can marry, yet as many of them are gay too. And that has zero to do with hebephilia, which is totally understandable, by the way, as an impulse but not as a hobby or even one-time experiment. And no, I wouldn't go to jail for miss pretty in pink but yeah, I did have to think about it.
ReplyDelete