Discussion taken to the top for more clarification -- RealityFans

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:41:22 06/01/02 Sat
Author: Tweety
Subject: Discussion taken to the top for more clarification
In reply to: Cari 's message, "Discussion taken to the top (attn Alvin, WE67, and Tweety, esp.)" on 09:46:02 05/31/02 Fri

In the event that my comments in the thread below were misunderstood, let me be clearer. I really did not mean to imply that true pedophilia is a by-product of anything, least of all celibacy of a homosexual priest. To put it simply, I feel that it is naive to believe that all child abusers are born pedophiles. A priest believed by all to be celibate might well feel safer to make his overatures where he had the greatest authority to wield, and not be too finicky about the characteristics of the object of his sexual release. I believe we have all faced the fact that not all people are created equal as to their sexual appetites. One only has to consider the result of enforced conditions in prisons to see how "normal human nature" can be redirected when desire is great enough. My statements in that thread were directed toward consideration of the degree appetite might play in sexual activity in spite of spiritual aspirations and well governed commitments toward celibacy.

Before society was as enlightened as it now is about the percentage of homosexuals among us, a priest might only have created curiosity by associations too close with women. Though there may have been suspicions about gays in the priesthood, one seldom heard that discussed openly. But until facts were uncovered as they have been, children were the least likely to be suspected of liaisons with priests except by the unfortunate few having good reason to.

Lastly, as much as an extreme sexual nature might rule a predator, I don't think we can overlook the injurious nature of some to desire control more. More and more this is recognized as a greater motive among rapists. Who questions the authority of a priest? And what could be more convincing as evidence of compliance than control over one's body to another?

I guess what I am saying is that reducing this issue to considering only how SO MUCH pedophilia could have creeped into society without our noticing......I find that just too short-sighted! There is such a full gamut of sins to blame!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Well put! (NT) -- WE67, 06:26:32 06/01/02 Sat
Excellant, well-written ideas, Tweety (NT) -- Cari, 19:03:49 06/01/02 Sat