Men & Boys [Trigger Thread]

WindSock

Are men who sexually abuse young boys usually straight? How come there is such a high incident of male to male abuse? Or was it just the accessability in the industrial schools that increased these incidents?
You would think if a priest or brother committed a sin in breaking their celibacy, they wouldn't go against the bibles teachings on homosexuality as well (Let alone using children to do so)

Latchy

Would that be one reason why a lot of homosexuals are attracted to the preisthood /christian brothers ? knowing they will come into contact with young boys ?

will return to the thread later ,have to go off now

mike65

I imagine there is some proper research material on the web.

Nevyn

Latchy wrote: »

Would that be one reason why a lot of homosexuals are attracted to the preisthood /christian brothers ? knowing they will come into contact with young boys ?

homosexuality does not equal pedophilla.

Herbal Deity

Thaedydal wrote: »

homosexuality does not equal pedophilla.

Who said that it did?

WindSock wrote: »

Are men who sexually abuse young boys usually straight?

Surely, by definition, they're at least bisexual?

WindSock

Thaedydal wrote: »

homosexuality does not equal pedophilla.

I never said it did.

I am wondering why straight male pedophiles will often abuse young boys rather than girls. I made no link to pedophilia and homosexuality.

mike65

Yes you did. Or you certainly implied it, accidently or not.

You would think if a priest or brother committed a sin in breaking their celibacy, they wouldn't go against the bibles teachings on homosexuality as well (Let alone using children to do so)

Herbal Deity

This is only armchair psychology, but could it be that some homosexuals, who are too afraid to come out, act out their sexual desires on innocent members of the same sex, i.e. children?

I reckon that there exist some paedophiles who happen to be attracted to children due to genetics, I reckon the majority, however, take advantage of the innocence of children when they have no other sexual outlet or feel trapped from expressing their sexuality naturally.

Herbal Deity

mike65 wrote: »

Yes you did. Or you certainly implied it, accidently or not.

That's a very strange way to interpret what she wrote in her OP...

It's a fact that the bible denounces homosexuality, it's a fact that the vast, vast majority of people are against paedophilia. From a priest/brother's standpoint, both were sins, that's all she was saying, she didn't say paedophilia was an equivalent wrong to homosexuality, or that in her opinion homosexuality was a sin at all.

Zulu

I would have understood homosexuality to mean a sexual attraction to ones own sex. As such, what you are describing is homosexual paedophiles.

So no, men who abuse boys are not straight.

WindSock

mike65 wrote: »

Yes you did. Or you certainly implied it, accidently or not.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It's a fact that the bible denounces homosexuality, it's a fact that the vast, vast majority of people are against paedophilia. From a priest/brother's standpoint, both were sins, that's all she was saying, she didn't say paedophilia was an equivalent wrong to homosexuality, or that in her opinion homosexuality was a sin at all.

Thanks. You put it better than I could have. Now lets get off this homosexuality is wrong and homos = paedos, I never implied it, it is not my belief. Thaedydal knows me well enough to know that.
I am talking from the point of the catholic clergy abuse. Why commit 2* sins at the same time?

Herbal Deity wrote: »

This is only armchair psychology, but could it be that some homosexuals, who are too afraid to come out, act out their sexual desires on innocent members of the same sex, i.e. children?

I reckon that there exist some paedophiles who happen to be attracted to children due to genetics, I reckon the majority, however, take advantage of the innocence of children when they have no other sexual outlet or feel trapped from expressing their sexuality naturally.

This is what I would have thought too. Perhaps they don't believe they are committing a homosexual act, because to do that it would have to be with another man. So they believe they are disguising their sexual desires for other men by turning to boys instead.

But are they homosexual pedophiles? Do homosexual paedophiles have any desire to be with adult men at all?

Or are they just called paedophiles who have a preference for males?



*1 sin to most of us, but 2 in the eyes of the church.

Zombrex

WindSock wrote: »

I never said it did.

I am wondering why straight male pedophiles will often abuse young boys rather than girls. I made no link to pedophilia and homosexuality.

Because pedophilia is not about sexual attraction in the adult sense. It doesn't matter if the pedophile is straight (ie attracted to adult members of the opposite sex).

It is the youth in the child that they are attracted to, the absence of sexual features, not the sexual features of the child since they haven't developed them (hence pedophilia, attraction to pre-pubesant children).

WindSock

Wicknight wrote: »

Because pedophilia is not about sexual attraction in the adult sense. It doesn't matter if the pedophile is straight (ie attracted to adult members of the opposite sex).

It is the youth in the child that they are attracted to, the absence of sexual features, not the sexual features of the child since they haven't developed them (hence pedophilia, attraction to pre-pubesant children).

But don't pedophiles have a preference of gender? Gary Glitter for example went for girls.

I am just wondering why so many more young boys seemed* to be sexually abused than girls in the 50s/60s & 70s.



* Seemed in relation to the scandals. As far as I know there were more male sexual abuses than females, but I don't know if that is because there were more males in industrial schools.

Latchy

Thaedydal wrote: »

homosexuality does not equal pedophilla.

No it doesn't ,I never said it did but asked a question .

Most hetrosexual boys in the main hang around with other boys until they develop and discover their own sexuality . Straight men by nature unless bisexual are into women

Homosexuals are (obiously) attracted to to other men so then it goes without saying that a % of them will be attracted to working and , living in envoirment that is 'predominantly male ie ,the preisthood /christian brothers . But we also know that priests and brothers can be just as attracted to women but their vows dont allow relationships with them ie, sex / marriage .

.I would imagine in this day and age most people including myself would know the difference and it was you who made the connection between homsexuality and pedophilla,not me .My question in keeping on topic with the OP was just to ask the question of how many homosexual priest /brothers joined these religious institutions and as zulu said below were ' homosexual paedophiles '.

Zulu wrote: »

I would have understood homosexuality to mean a sexual attraction to ones own sex. As such, what you are describing is homosexual paedophiles.

So no, men who abuse boys are not straight.

That's the way I view it to

deadhead13

WindSock wrote: »

But don't pedophiles have a preference of gender? Gary Glitter for example went for girls.

I am just wondering why so many more young boys seemed* to be sexually abused than girls in the 50s/60s & 70s.



* Seemed in relation to the scandals. As far as I know there were more male sexual abuses than females, but I don't know if that is because there were more males in industrial schools.

It could be down to accessibilty, on the whole boys went to institutions run by brothers whereas girls went to ones run by nuns.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I tihnk a lot of people think this is true but don't say it out of fear of being branded homophobic. Head of the Catholic League in America has said the paedophile problem in the church is actually a homosexual problem.

I don't agree myself. I think there's plenty of reasons why priests would target boys over girls. Mainly down to access. More priests in boys schools than girls.

Then there's other issues, a boy has only other men to turn to whereas a girl might tell the nuns. Boys keep quiet about things more than girls. Its not simply a matter of attraction for paedophiles, just like rapists they have to choose their victims based on who's least likely to report them

Zombrex

WindSock wrote: »

But don't pedophiles have a preference of gender?

Possibly but there is no indication that is related to sexual preference. Easy of access I think would be a key factor. But I imagine that pedophiles do have preferences in what they look for in a child and gender would play into that.

The point is that this preference does not seem to work anyway like adult sexual preference. For example a pedophile might have a preference for blonde boys and the blonde bit being much more important than the boy bit, with blonde girls being good enough.

WindSock wrote: »

I am just wondering why so many more young boys seemed* to be sexually abused than girls in the 50s/60s & 70s.

* Seemed in relation to the scandals. As far as I know there were more male sexual abuses than females, but I don't know if that is because there were more males in industrial schools.

You hit the nail on the head with your prefix point.

994

WindSock wrote: »

But don't pedophiles have a preference of gender? Gary Glitter for example went for girls.

I am just wondering why so many more young boys seemed* to be sexually abused than girls in the 50s/60s & 70s.



* Seemed in relation to the scandals. As far as I know there were more male sexual abuses than females, but I don't know if that is because there were more males in industrial schools.

I read it was because even back then they were aware that a man might abuse little girls, but a man with boys wasn't seen as a threat, so they were much laxer.

Handsome Bob

WindSock wrote: »

I am just wondering why so many more young boys seemed* to be sexually abused than girls in the 50s/60s & 70s.

I imagine it comes down to accessibility as deadhead said. Maybe the abusers knew there was less of a chance of a young lad going home to his father and telling him he was sexually violated by another male. Also all altar assistants were boys back then too, so the opportunity to abuse boys was there.

philologos

WindSock wrote: »

Are men who sexually abuse young boys usually straight?

I'm doubtful. However it is likely that many who go into the priesthood are not capable of keeping to celibacy restrictions. Not that this fully explains why it is more prevalent in young boys rather than in girls.

WindSock wrote: »

How come there is such a high incident of male to male abuse? Or was it just the accessability in the industrial schools that increased these incidents?

Considering that male to male sexual abuse is rather common outside of settings that have occurred through the Roman Catholic Church, we must consider the latter to be not the case.

WindSock wrote: »

You would think if a priest or brother committed a sin in breaking their celibacy, they wouldn't go against the bibles teachings on homosexuality as well (Let alone using children to do so)

Well, in Christian settings, including in the policy of the Roman Catholic Church, for the most part sexual activity is regarded as something that should be confined to marriage. Some churches have liberalised this position, but for the most part it remains overwhelmingly conservative within Christian circles globally. Likewise a minority of churches have effectively done away with the Biblical teaching on homosexuality.

The Biblical precedent on marriage amongst clergy is overwhelmingly in favour of permitting marriage amongst ministers. There can sometimes be a disparity between how teachings are practised in a human church setting, and how teachings present themselves in the Bible.

Even from a Roman Catholic view (which I do not personally subscribe to) St. Peter the first Pope was married.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have read a lot on this subject in terms of journals and papers and the like. The general consensus from what I have read seems to be that if you are a paedophile you are attracted to children. That is all. Children. That says nothing about what sex they are, just the fact that they are a child. There are, like most science, people who disagree with this but it seems to be the general consensus, so much so that I have stopped even asking the question.

I would be sceptical of studies that suggest that men predominantly target young boys, and even if such studies were shown to me the first thing I would look at while reading the peer reviewed papers is how they normalised the comparison to account for accessibility.

The main question that still interests me however, and one that few papers I have read actually address, is explanations on source or diagnosis of the people concerned. Most specifically the question I am interested in, as it has applications in a few other areas I am interested in is this:

IS it that the paedophile HAS a condition that the rest of us do not... some disease or mutation or sickness and so on.... or does the paedophile LACK something the rest of us have.... some boundaries we have grown into morally or socially etc. It seems to me that to treat a condition you must first identify its root and my studies thus far have failed to unearth anything conclusive in either direction, but much to support both.

johnnyskeleton

WindSock wrote: »

I never said it did.

I am wondering why straight male pedophiles will often abuse young boys rather than girls.

Opportunity I suppose. In prudish Catholic Ireland priests did not have as free access to girls as they did to boys.

I don't understand why someone would view a child in a sexual way so the psychology of the abusers in this scenario is unknown to me (whereas everyone can understand the psychology of a thief or fraudster). However the theory that it is not about sex but about power is one explanation.

WindSock wrote:

Why commit 2* sins at the same time?

It seems to me that they would be committing a whole lot of other sins as well - lying, decieving, violence, abuse of trust etc.

They defied their beliefs in more ways than one. Some people have suggested that those priests who did commit sexual abuse went into the priesthood because they knew it was a safe place for them to hide rather than because of devotion to their god (or whatever). Not sure I agree with that view as such, but it has gained common currency.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

homosexuality does not equal pedophilla.

As an aside, child abuse does not equal paedophilia either

nacho libre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

IS it that the paedophile HAS a condition that the rest of us do not... some disease or mutation or sickness and so on.... or does the paedophile LACK something the rest of us have.... some boundaries we have grown into morally or socially etc. It seems to me that to treat a condition you must first identify its root and my studies thus far have failed to unearth anything conclusive in either direction, but much to support both.

"When I was a boy, I thought, slept and played like a boy. Then nature began to drop hints about a change in status: a cracking voice, hairs about the buttocks, acne ... I never asked to be a man. I never wanted to be man. I want to be a boy. If when nature starts thrusting pimples and hairs through the skin, a boy could be kept from school and the world of men and just carry on behaving as a boy, then perhaps nature would give up and the pimples and hairs would recede. The permanent boy could be found."


another words for some people the explanation is that in their formative years a paedophiles sexual awakeing become stunted or stifled and this is why they are attracted to those who subconciously represent this period in their life.

i guess from the point of view of those with religious belief it must be something like this - a mental disorder.

otherwise they'd have to subscribe to the view god was a spiteful and discriminatory so and so.

kowloon

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Then there's other issues, a boy has only other men to turn to whereas a girl might tell the nuns. Boys keep quiet about things more than girls. Its not simply a matter of attraction for paedophiles, just like rapists they have to choose their victims based on who's least likely to report them

Are they actually that calculated?

A Primal Nut

I've discussed this with people before - I came to the conclusion that there are some men who will literally do anything to get off. The kind of people who can get off from abusing children fit perfectly into this category.

It just so happens that in general, adult men would have more contact with young boys that in young girls, whether they be teachers (usually all boys schools), sports coaches, priests, industrial school workers, etc, this is usually the case. I don't think they would care too much whether it was a boy or a girl they are abusing, but it just so happens they have more access to boys.

I don't think bi-sexual is the correct, more like polysexual or something, they will do anything, including animals, judging by an article in today's metro.

This definition of a homosexual peodophile is a bit silly because they would happily abuse little girls also, they just tended not to have the opportunity. Those that did have the opportunity, (for example, Brendan Smith) did indeed abuse both sexes.

There are even some peodophiles who abused boys who have wives of their own.

A Primal Nut

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I tihnk a lot of people think this is true but don't say it out of fear of being branded homophobic. Head of the Catholic League in America has said the paedophile problem in the church is actually a homosexual problem.

He also said that the worst thing to happen kids in Irish industrial schools was the heating broke sometimes. Complete tool!