Pun intended.
Apparently, if you like to do males, it's their age that determines whether or not your orientation is skewed that way. [Read]
I'm trying to follow the logic here and all I can come up with as a consistent parallel is if Walt Hawkins liked to do puppies, that wouldn't mean he's into bestiality--he'd have to graduate to full-blown (!) dogs. At least that's what he and the HuffPo regressives agreeing with him in comments appear to be asserting.
Ignorant me, who can't claim to have the expertise that comes from having "treated more than 3,000 child molesters," which Hawkins appears to believe is the final word in dismissing any dissent from the unilluminated. But I do note his "expert" can't claim to have cured any...which won't be necessary in 20 years time at the rate we're going, when dinosaurs like me will be looked down on as hate-filled pedophobes.
If we last another 20 years.
The Orwellian perversion of what words mean for calculated political and cultural ends continues...for instance, tolerance, the essence of live and let live, does not require embracing...
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
no statistic or probability can undo what the catholic church, and others, have done.
the plain fact is that no matter what it is that gets repressed, when the individual finally acts out, the most likely victims are those who can't defend themselves.
David, you lost me. Puppies and dogs? I rarely read HuffPo and I never read its comments, because those folks are just plain nuts. I thought the article itself made an important point: Most homosexuals are not pedophiles and most pedophiles are not homosexual. Pedophiles lose interest in boys when they develop into men; they prefer their victims to be infantile and "pre-sexual," with more feminine characteristics. Why they don't prefer female children isn't very well understood, but those pedophiles who are capable of having sex with adults, are almost exclusively heterosexual.
He wasn't very clear about it, but I think Hawkins was criticizing those who think "male on male" pedophilia is an expression of homosexuality. That would mean that "male on female" molestation is and expression of heterosexuality. It's not. Pedophilia is not a "sexual preference." It is, like adult rape, a sexualized expression of a psychopathic need to dominate a victim. It's not about sex, it's about utter control.
Here's why I think this is a VERY important point. Your children are much more likely to be molested by a married straight man that by a gay man. Almost 100% more likely. The church either implies or flat-out states that the bogeyman is "that gay guy," while the REAL bogeyman is sitting beside his wife in the next pew over, preaching from the pulpit, coordinating youth camping trips, leading a Cub Scout pack, or coaching soccer. You will NOT hear this fact during a church board meeting or during Bible study. Your church is more than willing to sacrifice the safety of your children, in order to demonize its favorite brand of sinner.
I never said nor do I believe that most homosexuals are pedophiles. But if a male sticks his thing in another male or "vice" versa, that's a homosexual act. No two ways about it.
And sure, there are heterosexual pedophiles who do kids of the opposite sex.
And lesbian pedophiles who do little girls.
Sorry, I don't buy the "it's not about sex it's just about control" argument. Of course there's a strong sexual component to it in addition to the control aspect.
I did not mean to give the impression that I think you believe homosexuals are pedophiles; the article was criticizing people who do. I do agree that same-sex pedophilia is technically a homosexual act, and Hawkins would have to concede that point as well. He's emphatically separating homosexuality from pedophilia for a pretty good reason though - so many people are biased to some degree against homosexuality, and the ignorant and bigoted among them would gladly lump all those sinners together. Frankly, I think the Hawkins' target audience is, shall we say, um, not *quite* as intelligent as you. (How can you stand to read their comments?) While his points are basically sound, they are definitely generalizations, with rather fuzzy edges. Well suited to the venue.
And about the sex/control issue, yes it is about both. In a way I almost dismiss the sexual aspect as secondary, because I think the two main purposes of sex are reproduction, and fostering intimacy or loyalty, both inherently nurturing in nature. A desire for non-consensual sex is aberrant because it's destructive and serves no valid "sexual" purpose. Maybe I'm showing my own bias, hesitating to acknowledge the connection.
On an unrelated note, I'll be emailing you soon to ask for some gun advice. Just need to organize my thoughts...
Don't know that much about guns really, if the subject is hardware or shooting. My guess is I'll need to post it here for readers to educate us.
I'm cool with that. It's hardware, and I suspect your readers will have a LOT of insights!
Post a Comment