In meaner, possibly saner, moments I think of such a thing as a societal contract, breach it and you no longer belong. The answer to the rock spider issue is to step on the rock.
HG
When was Foley a pedophile? He was accused of sending e-mails to a 17 year old teenager, which is biologically an adult, not a child. Big difference.
I’ve made this point repeatedly, but some people have their fingers in their ears.
I still think he’s a slimeball, though. 
I recognize that a 17 year old is a lot different from a 12 year old, but he’s still a child, not an adult, in most states in the US. SO FAR, Foley’s only been accused of sending inappropriate e-mails, but the FBI is investigating. If he hadn’t had sex with underage boys yet, it seems clear that was his fantasy. Whether or not he fulfilled that fantasy or got caught first I admit we don’t know.
[quote]Foley used the screen name Maf54. Here is an excerpt from one message:
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Another message:
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
And this one:
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.[/quote]
bestsyndication.com/?q=10010 … _foley.htm
[quote]Maf54: ok…i better go vote…did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go vote…I don’t want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen:
Teen: are you going to be in town over the veterans day weekend
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes 
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that’s not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn’t be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don’t get busted [/quote]
blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 … insta.html
But Matt Foley is not the point. He’s just an example. More to the point is the following:
[quote]Experts on sex abuse say the comments of a Roman Catholic priest who acknowledged being naked with Mark Foley when the former congressman was young fit a pattern of distorted thinking that they’ve seen over and over among offenders. . .
From the perspective of people who have worked with abusers and their victims, that thinking is typical of a molester. Offenders, who are sexually immature, commonly view their involvement with their victims as normal and are baffled when others see things differently. . .
“It’s common that offenders will block out major pieces of the events. . . part of the denial process, where they just don’t, frankly, want to remember” . . .
Abusers assume that because a young person seems to be enthusiastic around them, that any boundary crossing or sexual activity is OK, Finkelhor said. And if no penetration occurs, molesters convince themselves that the interaction does not hurt the youth, he said. . .[/quote]
seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ … Foley.html
[quote]Experts say the type of sexual abuse Mark Foley said he suffered as an altar boy from a Catholic priest may have become the model that Foley used, decades later, in forming his own illicit relationships with teen-age boys.
“There could be an identification with the abuser that was like a training ground for grooming: how do you pick the vulnerable kids and how do you groom them,” Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, a clinical psychologist and author of the forthcoming book, “Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.”
“It’s a way of understanding how Foley may have become the man he was, but it isn’t an excuse for him becoming the man he was,” Frawley-O’Dea said.
Most abusers say that they were sexually abused as children, but the vast majority of adults who were abused as children do not grow up to be abusers (less than 20 percent), psychologists said.
Those who do sometimes recreate the scenarios of their abuse.
In Foley’s case, the use of his position of power over minors parallels that of Anthony Mercieca, the priest who told the Herald-Tribune he had naked encounters with Foley when Foley was a boy.
Victims sometimes re-enact what they experienced to deal with it emotionally, experts said.
“Sometimes they’re trying to undo the trauma that they experienced when they were young by, oddly enough, behaving that way themselves” . . .[/quote]
heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. … S/61020006
That’s part of what I find odd – that one would seek to undo trauma that another caused to you by inflicting the same trauma on another. :s
That’s been almost universally the case with the peds I met back in my psychiatric nursing days.
Here’s a wildcard. Some “victims” actually gain pleasure from these experiences, which instils in their own mind the idea that they are not doing anything wrong. The issue is intelectual, not physical. A kid may feel physical pleasure in something society deems a major no no.
The succesful peds can have an incredible number of experiences with a very vast array of kids by merely advising the kid to keep this “our little secret.” Obviously this is not a violent or frightening event in most instances, as the kids would talk, in most cases, if they felt threatened.
The whole language screws the head. Victim of molestation sounds like something profoundly hideous, when in fact, if you remove the social mores, relates ion most instances to a simple act of sex.
Now if you consider that most kids that have endured this know that they either did keep this little secret about strange uncle Bertie, and in all likelihood were not phsysically harmed, indeed drew some pleasure from it, then it is logical that they may then consider the whole “victim” molestation issue in a different regard.
I also think the way the issue of being a “victim” of molestation is carried out often adds a whole new level of shame and guilt for these “survivors.” “Shit, I was molested and very, very secretly, I quite liked it. What the fuck is wrong with me?” “This is a dirty bad thing . . etc, etc.”
I’m not in any way proferring this as a reason to condone diddling kids, mind you. In fact, I’m alll for very harsh penalties, including chemical castration and life-long monitoring for all rock spiders.
HG
It doesn’t matter how many times you say something. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
Homosexuality is absolutely a lifestyle choice, whether or not there is a genetic factor. If you stipulate that there exists a gay gene, or a group of gay genes that colletively determine “sexual orientation”, nothing in these genes determine where you are going to be on any given Saturday night. Sexual activity is a choice whether gay or straight.
Now, I don’t believe in a gay gene. I do believe there is a gene that influences attraction to men, so some people would be predisposed towards homosexuality and would find themselves drawn to it. If you check the science and skip the rhetoric you’ll see that this all that is supported by science, and even that is far from being proven.
Either way, it is clearly a matter of choice. How we view that choice is another matter. Society has long demonized homosexuals, and painted them as inhuman and unworthy of association. Now, the tide has shifted and homophobic views are condemned and shown intolerance. In some ways this is an improvement.
But don’t go so far as to remove all responsibility from the individual. It doesn’t matter if you think homosexuality is fine or if you think it’s an abomination. Don’t claim its all in the genes.
That’s totally your opinion and unsupportable by science. Personally, I think it is a likely source. In the nurture vs. nature argument, it most often turns out that both play a powerful role.
Rep. Foley did nothing illegal. He didn’t even seem to be pedophile from what I read. He was just chasing people just under the legal statute. In my mind it’s about as bad as the guy who comes on to his underage clerk or something. Definitely wrong and inappropriate, but not on the same level as rape or child molestation.
As for the case in general, I think sexual abuse does lead to an altered view of sexuality and could make a person promiscuous, a prude, or even inclined towards homosexuality depending on how the person was affected.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Here’s a wildcard. Some “victims” actually gain pleasure from these experiences, which instils in their own mind the idea that they are not doing anything wrong. The issue is intelectual, not physical. A kid may feel physical pleasure in something society deems a major no no.
The whole language screws the head. Victim of molestation sounds like something profoundly hideous, when in fact, if you remove the social mores, relates ion most instances to a simple act of sex.
[/quote]
Hold on a minute. Are we talking about 17 year underage ‘kids’ that are sexually (if not necessarily psychologically) mature, enjoying sex with an older person? Holy shocker, Batman! Teenagers that age are bursting with hormones. Of course it’s sleazy and immoral for an older person to take advantage of teenage naivette, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Let’s keep statutory rape and child molestation separate, because they are totally different beasts.
If you’re saying that pre-pubescent children, who haven’t undergone hormonal changes and are still in a mostly pre-sexual, innocent state, actually enjoy being buggered by perverts, call me dubious. It’s not “just sex”. I can’t imagine how a 5 year old’s sexuality couldn’t be warped and scarred for life from having sex at way too young an age. There may be no serious physical harm, but the psychological damage is enormous.
Anyway, can anyone answer my question:
How many abusers weren’t victims of abuse?
I would wager practically nil, but I don’t have the hard facts to back my gut feeling up. You almost never, ever hear about a child molester who wasn’t himself a victim as a child. People with normal, healthy sexual upbringings don’t do these sort of things - why would they have any reason to do so?
So when does a child become an adult? Now of course you have the ridiculous situation of female teachers being convicted of crimes for engaging in mutually consensual sex with 17-year-old boys. The only reason that becomes anything of a story is because to criminalise it is in such stark contrast to common sense. Who is being protected from whom? It was legal, and considered normal, healthy even, for me to be shagging my girlfriend when I was in Lower Sixth, but if I’d seduced Miss M**** the French assistant, she’d have been sacked. Awesome! Justice in action. Of course this all has to be seen against a backdrop of a medico-legal system which attempts to absolve everyone from responsibility for everything and replace engendering the capacity to make rational decisions with behaviour altering drugs. Ritalin for the kids, valium for the parents, and psychobabble for the deviants (“it’s not really their fault”).
Bring back the birch I say and hang the lot of them.
Yours sincerely
Major Fotheringay-Smythe (Rtd.) (Mrs.)
Tunbridge Wells
Agreed. I know quite a few lesbians who became lesbians after having serious relationships, but abusive ones, with males. The gays I’ve met seem to have had either known they were gay from a young age or realized it later on. Either way, to say that homosexuality is a gene thing, is something I would steer clear of as how science is easily used today to encourage beliefs that have no ground.
[quote=“Quentin”]Anyway, can anyone answer my question:
How many abusers weren’t victims of abuse?
I would wager practically nil, but I don’t have the hard facts to back my gut feeling up. You almost never, ever hear about a child molester who wasn’t himself a victim as a child.[/quote]
Couldn’t that be because of the tendency to grasp for any kind of excuse when caught? I would consider the self-reports by child molesters to be pretty suspect, wouldn’t you?
From http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse/abuse-cycle-study.htm:
As for the other direction, did victims become abusers?
[quote]Respectively, about 7 percent and 26 percent of sexually abused children in these studies were found to be sex offenders as adults.
…overall, the retrospective studies, prospective studies, and research reviews indicated that the experience of childhood sexual victimization is quite likely neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of adult sexual offending.
The two prospective studies concluded that the majority of victims of sexual abuse during childhood did not become sex offenders as adults. Therefore, childhood sexual victimization would not necessarily lead to adult sexual offending. In addition, the majority of retrospective studies concluded that most adult sex offenders against children did not report that they were sexually victimized as children. Therefore, childhood sexual victimization would probably not be sufficient to explain adult sexual offending. While some studies indicated that sexual victimization in childhood may increase the risk that victims will become sexual offenders as adults, other studies found that many other conditions and experiences might also be associated with an increased risk. For example, one prospective study we reviewed found that children who were neglected were even more likely than children who were sexually abused to commit sex offenses as adults. …[/quote]
Good info, DB. It’s definitely not a causal relationship, though it may be contributory.
Personally, I think we shouldn’t focus so much on whether or not the abuser was a former victim. What does it matter? Does this mitigate the situation, or does it make it all that more heinous?
If there’s a cycle, it needs to be stopped and offenders need to be both punished and reformed when possible.
It doesn’t matter how many times you say something. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.
Homosexuality is absolutely a lifestyle choice, whether or not there is a genetic factor. If you stipulate that there exists a gay gene, or a group of gay genes that colletively determine “sexual orientation”, nothing in these genes determine where you are going to be on any given Saturday night. Sexual activity is a choice whether gay or straight.
Now, I don’t believe in a gay gene. I do believe there is a gene that influences attraction to men, so some people would be predisposed towards homosexuality and would find themselves drawn to it. If you check the science and skip the rhetoric you’ll see that this all that is supported by science, and even that is far from being proven.
Either way, it is clearly a matter of choice. How we view that choice is another matter. Society has long demonized homosexuals, and painted them as inhuman and unworthy of association. Now, the tide has shifted and homophobic views are condemned and shown intolerance. In some ways this is an improvement.
But don’t go so far as to remove all responsibility from the individual. It doesn’t matter if you think homosexuality is fine or if you think it’s an abomination. Don’t claim its all in the genes.
That’s totally your opinion and unsupportable by science. Personally, I think it is a likely source. In the nurture vs. nature argument, it most often turns out that both play a powerful role.
Rep. Foley did nothing illegal. He didn’t even seem to be pedophile from what I read. He was just chasing people just under the legal statute. In my mind it’s about as bad as the guy who comes on to his underage clerk or something. Definitely wrong and inappropriate, but not on the same level as rape or child molestation.
As for the case in general, I think sexual abuse does lead to an altered view of sexuality and could make a person promiscuous, a prude, or even inclined towards homosexuality depending on how the person was affected.[/quote]
[quote=“Bodo”]
Can sexual abuse make individuals gay/homosexual?
[/quote]
According to this article, science does not support the notion that sexual abuse can make individuals gay.
I don’t disagree that the science in this field - sexual orientation - lacks many answers. My assertion is based upon my own opinion and personal experience, as well as the anecdotal evidence of the many gay people I know. Furthermore, I am not speaking about sexual activity only. I’m talking about who you are attracted to, who you naturally feel drawn to form intimate, loving relationships, as well as sex.
So, you’re telling me that you choose to be heterosexual (assuming you are, of course). It would be no big deal to wake up one day and decide you’d like to have a boyfriend? 
Bodo
MT,
I understand that you were just trying to understand the Foley case. Can you understand that the way you phrased your questions is something a homosexual might object to? There were some faulty assumptions anchoring your questions. If you don’t want someone to jump down your throat, I suggest you think a little harder next time, and ask your questions more carefully.
Bodo
[quote=“Quentin”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Here’s a wildcard. Some “victims” actually gain pleasure from these experiences, which instils in their own mind the idea that they are not doing anything wrong. The issue is intelectual, not physical. A kid may feel physical pleasure in something society deems a major no no.
The whole language screws the head. Victim of molestation sounds like something profoundly hideous, when in fact, if you remove the social mores, relates ion most instances to a simple act of sex.
[/quote]
Hold on a minute. Are we talking about 17 year underage ‘kids’ that are sexually (if not necessarily psychologically) mature, enjoying sex with an older person? Holy shocker, Batman! Teenagers that age are bursting with hormones. Of course it’s sleazy and immoral for an older person to take advantage of teenage naivette, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Let’s keep statutory rape and child molestation separate, because they are totally different beasts.
If you’re saying that pre-pubescent children, who haven’t undergone hormonal changes and are still in a mostly pre-sexual, innocent state, actually enjoy being buggered by perverts, call me dubious. It’s not “just sex”. I can’t imagine how a 5 year old’s sexuality couldn’t be warped and scarred for life from having sex at way too young an age. There may be no serious physical harm, but the psychological damage is enormous.[/quote]
I agree that adults should not be having sex with pre-adolescent children. I also think that adolescents should not be having sex with adults - it’s illegal - and has the potential to be damaging to the adolescent.
But, you’re wrong about pre-adolescents not being sexual. Kids begin masterbating at 2 and 3 years of age, and they do it because it feels good. I remember being concerned that my little three year old nephew was going to damage himself - he could really pull that little foreskin way way out there 
.
Bodo
i agree. people tend to do what they learn. i would be very surprised if there weren’t such a statistical correlation for an abnormal behavior.
17 year olds are not small children, and there is obviously some shameless excuse making here but you still have a very similar abuse of power in this case.
[quote=“Bodo”]Can sexual abuse make individuals gay/homosexual?
According to this article, science does not support the notion that sexual abuse can make individuals gay.[/quote]
[quote]Can sexual abuse make individuals gay/homosexual?
Can sexual abuse make individuals straight/heterosexual? These are impossible questions to answer with the amount of information we have. So far, biologists have deduced that sexual orientation is probably a combination of genetics, and environmental factors before age 5. What are the genes and environmental factors that affect sexual orientation? These are still unknown.[/quote]
The article says we don’t know. It doesn’t say science doesn’t support it. There probably is research in support of the idea, just not enough to be conclusive and probably with contradictory information.
The opinion that abuse does not lead someone to become homosexual is no more valid than the one that says it might.
I don’t have an objection to your belief that homosexuality is a genetic thing and can’t be influenced by a person’s choice or environment- you could possibly be right, but I do object to how you are trying to make it seem like your position is the scientific one. It’s not. It’s just an opinion, and the current politically correct one.
Sorry, but that’s not really acceptable evidence. You have no clue what motivates you and neither do they. Maybe there’s a gene that made them like people of the same sex or maybe it was a childhood experience involving a poodle and pink cotton candy- but “personal experience” isn’t going to reflect that now, will it?
Me too. But let’s keep the terminology straight, shall we?
Does having a homosexual thought make you homosexual? How often do you have to have it? In the last 10 years I’ve probably had about 5 moments where I had what I’d deem to be a homosexual thought. I didn’t pursue the thought, just dismissed it, but a thought did occur to me. Would that make me homosexual?
Now, I agree, that to some extent we have no control over whom we become attracted to. Some people have a thing for Asians, some have a thing for blonds, and some are fairly particular in what kind of person attracts them while others will want to hump anything with the right parts. But on the other hand, we do have control over what we focus on and whether or not we allow an attraction to take hold on us. This I can tell from my personal experience- I’ve created an attraction to someone and I’ve completely shut off an attraction by force of will. The former as an experiment, and the latter because she got engaged.
So, when you say it’s not a choice, it’s how you’re born, I can’t agree. I believe there is an influence on what type of person we are attracted to from genetics, and likely from environmental factors, but in the end we are ultimately responsible for our own life.
Again, it’s not your opinion I have a problem with, despite the fact that I disagree with it. It’s that you present your view like it’s 100% fact and everyone else should agree with you. Saying things like, “when are you going to get it through your head” and such is not appropriate when you’re talking about your opinion.
I don’t really know what you found offensive in MT’s questions. Seemed like you took offense mainly because some of the wording challenged your position. I’d suggest using a different rhetorical strategy.
Yes, I definitely choose to be heterosexual. I could have chosen abstinence.
Choosing abstinence has nothing to do with whether you are hetero- or homosexual. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can choose to refrain from engaging in sex. They are still either hetero- or homosexual… just not practicing sex.
Daniel,
I don’t believe I ever represented my assertions as 100% validated by science. So, your objections to my rhetoric, well, they are unnecessary.
I have never stated that genetically, I am gay. I have stated that as far as I’m concerned there is no choice in the matter of sexual orientation. I stand by that assertion. It is my experience. And, I think if you were completely honest with yourself, you would agree that your attraction to women is beyond a simple choice of choosing women rather than men to be intimately involved with. You could not simply decide one day that I am going to like men, and get a boyfriend. You can not convince me that you have consciously chosen to pursue relationships with women. The examples you give about your ability to use choice about pursuing relationships are of women - I’m not surprised, and I don’t know what that has to do with sexual orientation either. For all of us, there is an attraction to a particular sex that is beyond a conscious, rational choice. It just is. It seems innate to me. I can recall the attraction from early adolescence, and many gay folks recall it from an even earlier age. We may need to agree to just disagree here.
As far as choosing abstinence is concerned - that is what many religions would have a person like myself do. The faith I was raised in, my parents and my brothers (except one) all believe that I should choose to remain celibate, and essentially alone for the rest of my life. It is a test of obedience to God according to them. Whether sexual orientation is purely a choice, or purely genetic, or somewhere in between - I can say “God made me this way.” I reject your veiled suggestion that I choose celibacy over the possibility of enjoying the companionship of a soulmate, and the joy and health that comes from family life.
Bodo
Ah yes, but our man Dan has willed himself off other men. Where is your mental fortitude, pervert?
HG