Today the south Florida Sun Sentinel published an article entitled Parent says he raised red flag a year ago about teacher accused of sexual abuse
- Is this a black eye only for ex-gays, or for gays also?
- Did the therapy drive the teacher to molest minors, or was he trying to overcome that urge through his therapy?
- Do we really trust that ex-molesters can ever be trusted with children?
- How many gays are also "man-boy love" gays? I’m sure the number is a minority (studies seem to indicate no link), but I might trust gays with my kids as much as, say, a priest. Are all priests pedophiles? Probably not, but how many are? There seems to be a link between pedophile priests and homosexuality.
- Even better, how could I identify a pedophile, regardless of their profession or orientation?
- For a scary, if not unbelievable position, some claim that there is a link between left-handedness and pedophilia. Hmm.
I don’t see where anything about this has anything to do with gays – despite your intimations. No more than men who molest young girls has anything to do with straights.
Seeker,
I am going to assume that you didn't intentionally mean to be so insulting. But, again, pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT related. Doesn't matter what you think. Doesn't matter what the Catholic Church.
Pedophilia is a sexual preference for adolescents. Since men can more easily get their hands on boys – coaches, priests, whomever – these men molest boys. If they could get their hands more easily on girls, then they would molest girls. But molestation has nothing to do with homo-or-heterosexuality. It has to do with preference and with power. As for your questions:
-It is a black-eye neither for ex-gays (assuming they actually exist) or gays.
-People who molest children were likely themselves molested. They have absolutely no conception of appropriate sexuality.
-There is no such thing as an "ex-molestor." There are only recovering sexual offenders. One of the things taught to sexual offenders in therapy is that, like alcoholics, they will ALWAYS be sexual offenders. Nothing they do, realize, change or fix will change what they've done.
-No gays are "man-boy" gays. Those don't exist. People that advocate the sexual exploitation of children are sexual predators, molesters, offenders. Do not tarnish gays – and further than you already have insinuated – by suggesting that even a minority endorse the sexual exploitation of children. If I suggested the same thing about Christians, you'd go crazy. (And no, all priests aren't pedophiles. That's ridiculous.)
-You absolutely cannot identify a pedophile at a distance, usually because pedophiles are among the most adept at hiding their predilections from public view. Unlike the frat guys celebrating his love of all things vaginal, pedophiles don't often celebrate their love of children.
-I really doubt that left-handedness has anything to do with sexual offense.
And Seeker, I know it will gall you to have to admit this, but I spent three years of my life working with sexual offenders. I am relatively certain that I know more about this particular subject than you do.
Relationship Between Hx and Pedo?
This incident may have little to do with the fact that he was gay (I included a link indicating that there is probably no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia), but what IS important is the ramifications of this case for ex-gay therapy. Did the therapist know he was a molester? When they found out, did they take the necessary actions? Is this some result of gay suppression as part of reparative therapy?
I also want to bring up the link between homosexuality and pedophilia that remains in people’s minds, even though studies have indicated that no such link exists. But the link we are talking about here is whether or not homosexuality is linked with pedophilia in the same person, as opposed to the supposed CAUSAL link between molestation and homosexuality.
Molestation Causes Homosexuality?
If molestation is ONE possible causal event leading one into a homosexual orientation (as I currently believe), then we might also expect to see more gay molesters (assuming that people who are molested are more likely to be molesters). Since the study I referenced does NOT show that gays are more likely to be molesters, this MAY invalidate my causal event hypothesis. However, there are a lot of assumptions in that chain, and it could be broken anywhere. That is, my causal assumption may still be correct. One study does not the truth make.
There is no such thing as an “ex-molestor.” There are only recovering sexual offenders.
I respect the fact that you’ve worked with sexual offenders. However, I am not a big fan of the “once an offender, always an offender.” Now, people who have developed a pattern of such deviance may always have a weakness, but I don’t like the negative affirmation that seems to say “I can never deeply change, only supress or manage my problem.” Maybe that’s not an accurate representation of of the “once always” view, but even when I attended AA meetings with my friend, I was not comfortable with the constant affirmation “I am an alcoholic.”
Admittedly, alcoholism may cause permanent physiologic changes that make alcoolics perpetually vulnerable, but many people have merely a psychological addiction, which I think can be healed. Same with pedophiles.
To summarize, I think we agree that an offender may always have a weakness (psychologic and/or physiologic), but I object to the “once/always” view that permanently stigmatizes a person and robs them of the hope and possibility of deep change, perhaps even significant healing of the wounds that drove them to such terrible things. Have you seen the movie The Woodsman (Kevin Bacon)? I have not, but I think it deals with this issue.
I don’t think people have to be in permanent recovery. I look at recovery as a time when one is still in critical condition. But after a time, after significant healing, though I think one may have to be careful, you don’t have to go to therapy or recovery meetings indefinitely.
I’m sure that smarter people than me may disagree, but I think there is a movement within the 12-step culture that supports this position.
People that advocate the sexual exploitation of children are sexual predators, molesters, offenders.
Well, I agree with you.
Do not tarnish gays – and further than you already have insinuated – by suggesting that even a minority endorse the sexual exploitation of children.
Well, maybe I’ve bought into a christian stereotype, but I have the distinct impression that, whenever gays have their parades or marches for equal rights, the man-boy love people often tag along. We all know that there is a seemier side to the gay culture (can you say bath houses and anonymous sex?), and I have the impression that these adult/child sex perverts are part of the worst part of the gay culture.
Now I am sure that most gays do not want to be associated with such things, but are you denying that there are any links between these cultures? I’m open to having my impression corrected, but needless to say, that impression is not just mine, and may be more prevalent than you think. Even if you think it is there because of Christian demonization of gays, it is there. I am not justifying it, just admitting that I have that impression which has not been controverted yet.
If I suggested the same thing about Christians, you’d go crazy.
Actually, no I would not. In fact, I am aware of a subset of xians who support polygamy. And there is strong evidence for pedophilia in a significant minority of priests. Can’t argue with facts. There may not be any facts behind the gay/pedo link, but the strong impression exists. That’s all I am saying, and of course, I made no such accusation in my posting, explicity or implicitly (although I did mention a supposed link between gay priests and pedophilia). Now, if you said that some xians support pedophilia, or that there was a link there, I would perhaps be offended, but there is no such current impression. I would have to ask for facts, or at least a reason for that impression.
You absolutely cannot identify a pedophile at a distance
I agree that they are good at hiding it, but the parent in the main article I mentioned said that he *did* recognize some signs, like overfraternization with children – my experience (which is relatively direct, unfortunately) with pedophiles is that they have an overly childlike, emotional connection with children. Sometimes, we can mistake that for just being “good with kids”, but for those of us who’ve seen it in pedophiles, other subtle cues may also be present (like sexually age-inappropriate remarks with children, physical and emotional boundary issues, being overly physically affectionate with children), giving us more conclusive suspicions. I’m sure such things have been documented in a scientific manner. Despite the fact that the average person could not detect it, an experienced or educated person may be able to recognize *possible* signs. However, I’m sure that many pedophiles are experts at concealing their habit.
But as an example, I once met an elderly man who was good with kids, and inside his house were many fine art paintings of young girls, as well as a significant doll collection. Now, he may not have been a pedophile, but I would not have left my daughter with him.
Seeker,
You make some interesting points. However I think I can counter you.
-One of the easiest outs for some people concerning homosexuality is to assume that it correlates to pedophilia. However, supposing that we look at the vast number of sexual offenders in this country, I can guarantee you that you'll see far more straight offenders than gay offenders.
-I will agree with you that one study doesn't disprove or prove the molestation causes homosexuality, but I will observe that there are vast numbers of straights who were molested as children. Again, I think that the possibility exists that some molested individuals think that they are gay (the victim almost always blames him/herself for the abuse, sadly) and then proceed to have same-sex relationships. But they aren't gay; they're simply profoundly abused individuals. If "ex-gay" therapy can help individuals to realize that they aren't bound by who molested them, then there is a chance that it is good. But that still stands OUTSIDE of my belief that genuine gays are changing. (But that's a debate for another day.)
-Seeker, please understand that the term "ex-molestor" is an incredibly dangerous one. The therapeutic reason is this: an ex-molestor, who has been "healed," should have no problem walking through a playground, or working at a daycare, or being a coach. And yet, we would never want anybody with a history of sexual victimization of others around our kids. All of those kids that I worked with? Who I thought of as good kids? I'd NEVER allow them around my daughter.
The notion of "ex" is empowering because it frees the individual from their own responsibility to monitor their own decision making. Just as a recovering alcoholic should never hang around in bars, a recovering sexual offender shouldn't coach a Little League team. (And trust me, I had too many of my clients tell me that they "didn't have a problem anymore, that they were healed" right before I'd catch them watching children on television – or worse, a mall – with a blank, predatory smile.)
-If there are links between gays and pedophilia, and I've explained that, to my mind, there aren't, then surely the same links exist between straights and pedophilia. Without getting too dirty on here, there seems to be a certain popularity with totally shaved women. Down there. In their bathing suit areas. (Get my drift?) The point is, a totally shaved women appears childlike (and if you have a daughter, unbelievably unappealling). Gays get tarnished because NAMBLA exists – I see no such evidence of straights being similarly tarnished because men seem to prefer the shaved appearance of women. These things go both ways.
Again, I really believe that there are sexual predators, offenders, molestors, and they are different from anybody with normalized views of appropriate sexuality.
-I voluntarily worked with children for three years Seeker. I hope you wouldn't paint anybody who works with children as a possible molestor…but regardless, if people were genuinely concerned about this guy, why on Earth did they allow their kids to be around him? I think that we're seeing the anger phase from the father who claims to have known before hand. I think he'd like to believe that he could have stopped the abuse. Unfortunately, I doubt that he could have because if this guy was so creepy as to be that obvious, I doubt (hope?) he would have been hired.
Incidentally, that guy was called "the Pied Piper." How disgusting is that?
Incidentally, I once watched a training video featuring sexual offenders. First they told “their” stories, which were horribly manipulated. Then they told the “real” stories, which were simply horrible.
One of the offenders was a youth pastor. He said that people were anxious to believe his stories. When kids were complaining that he was being innappropriate, he had no problem convincing parents that their children were misunderstood. I’m not saying that this proves that youth pastors are dangerous, (although for the record I think that the potential for abuse from youth-anythings – pastors, coaches, whatever – is higher than in normal society), but rather that adults often don’t want to believe that offending is occurring. This guy said adults were ANXIOUS to show that offense wasn’t occuring.
Scary stuff.
I can guarantee you that you'll see far more straight offenders than gay offenders.
You may be right, but of course, you'll need to look at proportions – i.e. if 10% of the populuation is gay, are molesters more than 10% gay? That would be the measurement. But again, I am NOT saying that there is a correlation there, as far as perpetrating molestation is concerned. However, that in and of itself does not nullify the contention that molestation may be one of the factors in gender identity disorder leading to homosexuality.
I think that the possibility exists that some molested individuals think that they are gay (the victim almost always blames him/herself for the abuse, sadly) and then proceed to have same-sex relationships. But they aren't gay; they're simply profoundly abused individuals. If "ex-gay" therapy can help individuals to realize that they aren't bound by who molested them, then there is a chance that it is good. But that still stands OUTSIDE of my belief that genuine gays are changing.
Actually, this is a point I may agree with – perhaps there is more than one type of "gay" person. Perhaps some do fit the abuse model, while others do not. But to dismiss the former as not really gay (which is often a self-label) is a bit of semantics. They might have a problem with you telling them that they are not true gays.
The notion of "ex" is empowering because it frees the individual from their own responsibility to monitor their own decision making.
Maybe you are right – but this seems to be the OPPOSITE problem of labeling one's self as "still a molester." Even the term "in recovery" sounds like there's been no recovery. I think we need language that describes four states – (1) molester, (2) molester in recovery (but still at risk), (3) molester in remission (low risk but not risk free, so should exercise caution), and (4) ex.
These words might not be the right ones, but you get the point. I think that the perpetual confession of "Hi, my name is seeker, and I'm a molester" (I'm not, btw ;) keeps a person in category 1 or 2 at best, when I think that we should be aiming for and have language for category three. I agree that for most recovered addicts, category 4 may be unattainable, and certainly, if they mistake themselves for being in category 4, they are probably not exercising caution, and my not be taking responsibility for "self-monitoring" (well said).
Gays get tarnished because NAMBLA exists – I see no such evidence of straights being similarly tarnished because men seem to prefer the shaved appearance of women.
Very good point. Maybe this tarnishing is really a non-sequitur.
Regarding shaved women, when I was in my 20's, those hot teen-looking cover girls looked appealing. Now that I'm in my early 40's, they look like girls to me, like they could be my daughter, and rather than holding appeal, there's a shudder factor – something inside me says "that's just a child." I am greatful that I am married to a woman, not a girl. And thank God that testosterone levels back off at around age 27.
I think that the shaved, pre-pubescent look appeals to our most animal urges (a.k.a. our "flesh"), and should be discouraged (the bible says "flee youthful lusts". It's also close to kiddy porn, and the hetero kiddy and teen porn industries are huge and damnable. They should not get a free pass, I totally agree.
I voluntarily worked with children for three years Seeker. I hope you wouldn't paint anybody who works with children as a possible molestor
Of course not. I myself am "good with children", having worked for a year with troubled teens (in a staff-secure home in North Carolina), and have enjoyed teaching 2-5 year olds in Sunday school. But I'm not a molester. However, I think we need to look for that in convergence with the other signs (like being "inappropriate")