The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #128156   Message #2893607
Posted By: akenaton
24-Apr-10 - 04:53 PM
Thread Name: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
Nothing of any substance from the "liberal" religiphobes then?

Joe, as one of the few on this thread who seems interested in solving the problem of why the abuse took place to begin with, I have taken your post from a few days ago.....

"Ake, I'm wondering if you have read Dr. Herek's article thoroughly. Dr. Herek would agree that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths:
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
So, certainly some molesters prefer boys and some girls (and some both) - but their focus is on male and female children, an orientation quite different from an attraction to male or female adults.If an adult male is drawn to have sex with a female child, would you call that normal?"

This theory may have some validity, if it is applied to true paedophiles(although I would term them severely psychologically disturbed criminals), but as the Boston study made clear Clerical abuse is largely against male teenagers and youths.

A substancial number of heterosexual men entertain fantasies involving post pubescent girls and young women...as a building worker one hears these stories all the time,(personally, I find such conduct sad and degrading), but there is no doubt that it happens.
Fortunately, the fact that these men usually have families of their own, prevents the fantasy becoming reality on all but a very few occasions.

Heterosexual men do not normally fantasise about having sex with young men or boys, so I believe the case concerning the selection of gender to sexual orientation, of sexual abuse victims, teenager boys/ youths, is proved and Dr Heric's theory found wanting at best...biased and invalid at worst.
Heric is trying to contend that both homos and heteros sexually abuse boys and youths, with not a shred of evidence to support that contention.