Prime Time last week. Parish Priest and Serial Abuser Walsh

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

SonOfAdam

zoomtard wrote:

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

lol:)

Zombrex

zoomtard wrote: »

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

dang Communist!

georgieporgy

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to understand it now.

hebephelia and epebophilia (adult male sexual attraction towards another male at various ages between 11 and 17) are serious psychiatric disorders for which medical treatment is available/advised. If these desires are acted out on the youthful target they are considered serious crimes and deserve severe punishment by the state. such a person is commonly referred to as a sexual pervert.

teleiophilia (adult male attraction towards another male over age 18) also referred to as homosexual attraction, is something completely normal, healthy, cannot be changed (treated) as one is born that way. And if these desires are acted out it is legal and even considered good and loving. such a person is not referred to as a sexual pervert.


Have I got it right? Some of this terminology is new to me, and the pronounciation of some of the words takes some effort but I can see how it all makes sense in a funny sort of way.

Xizors Palace

georgieporgy wrote: »

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to understand it now.

hebephelia and epebophilia (adult male sexual attraction towards another male at various ages between 11 and 17) are serious psychiatric disorders for which medical treatment is available/advised. If these desires are acted out on the youthful target they are considered serious crimes and deserve severe punishment by the state. such a person is commonly referred to as a sexual pervert.

teleiophilia (adult male attraction towards another male over age 18) also referred to as homosexual attraction, is something completely normal, healthy, cannot be changed (treated) as one is born that way. And if these desires are acted out it is legal and even considered good and loving. such a person is not referred to as a sexual pervert.


Have I got it right? Some of this terminology is new to me, and the pronounciation of some of the words takes some effort but I can see how it all makes sense in a funny sort of way.

You got it right, your little article on the other hand...

teleiophilia sounds like a new phone company. :-) That commentary is putting a non-Christian, non-scientific spin on homosexuality.

Funny, I was just reading about this myself last night. The APA who produce the DSM do not recognise ephebophilia as a diagnosis.

The article I read basically made the point that we really should just see and call things as they are. A man attracted to young men (i.e. teenage boys) is a homosexual. We don't need to disguise it by giving it a new name just because we can't bring ourselves to name the problem for what it is.

"The John Jay report notes that the proportion of victims who were male increased in the 1960s and reached 86 percent in the '70s, remaining there through the 1980s. In a footnote, the NRB report responds to the frequent obscuring of the homosexual factor by reference to 'ephebophilia.' The authors write, 'The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (IV) does not recognize ephebophilia as a distinct disorder. Ephebophilia is thus not a disorder in the technical sense, but rather a newly coined descriptive term for homosexual attraction to adolescent males.'" [ibid]

The article is here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040104

El_Duderino 09

"Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila. Additionally, most of the abusers had not been abused as kids so don't fit the pedo profile of one having been abused oneself and going on to victimise others."

Greetings all.
The term Ephebophilia (according to wikipedia) refers to the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents generally 15-19 Specifically 14-19 in males.
Hebephilia refers to preference for prepubescents
pedophilia refers to sexual preference in minors below the age of consent.

According to wikipedia ephebophilia would not incorporate the 51% in the study you referenced. Even so, it is pedophilia if the children are below the age of concent.

Question for Ubertrad If a 40 year old lay man has sex with his neighbour's 13 year old daughter or son, what do you call it? Personally I say he is a pedophile in either case.
I dont mean to put words in your mouth but would you argue that if he has sex with the girl it is significantly different to having sex with the boy?

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila. Additionally, most of the abusers had not been abused as kids so don't fit the pedo profile of one having been abused oneself and going on to victimise others."

Greetings all.
The term Ephebophilia (according to wikipedia) refers to the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents generally 15-19 Specifically 14-19 in males.
Hebephilia refers to preference for prepubescents
pedophilia refers to sexual preference in minors below the age of consent.

According to wikipedia ephebophilia would not incorporate the 51% in the study you referenced. Even so, it is pedophilia if the children are below the age of concent.

Question for Ubertrad If a 40 year old lay man has sex with his neighbour's 13 year old daughter or son, what do you call it? Personally I say he is a pedophile in either case.
I dont mean to put words in your mouth but would you argue that if he has sex with the girl it is significantly different to having sex with the boy?

The bits I've highlighted in bold I would term 'political pedophilia' - that is, it sexual abuse which it suits the prevailing norm to term pedophilia, because to do otherwise would challenge the societally accepted norm that homosexual is good, healthy, and normal. But there is a form of abuse called homosexual predation, which includes manipulation, seduction, initiation, and rape.

The truth is not politically correct, however. Additionally, people mature at different rates, and that in earlier times, it was quite acceptable for girls to marry at an age we would now consider unsuitable, so what was today's pedophile in previous times might have been quite acceptable, given that many girls are quite mature at an age which is below the legal age of consent.

Please note that I am not challenging the wisdom or need for a legal age of consent, nor questioning the need for the protection the law ought to provide the vulnerable and young.

I pose this question for you: if a man is attracted to a strapping young man aged 14 or 15, would you call that homosexuality or pedophilia?

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The bits I've highlighted in bold I would term 'political pedophilia' - that is, it sexual abuse which it suits the prevailing norm to term pedophilia, because to do otherwise would challenge the societally accepted norm that homosexual is good, healthy, and normal.

The truth is not politically correct, however. Additionally, people mature at different rates, and that in earlier times, it was quite acceptable for girls to marry at an age we would now consider unsuitable, so what was today's pedophile in previous times might have been quite acceptable, given that many girls are quite mature at an age which is below the legal age of consent.

Please note that I am not challenging the wisdom or need for a legal age of consent, nor questioning the need for the protection the law ought to provide the vulnerable and young.

I pose this question for you: if a man is attracted to a strapping young man, would you call that homosexuality or pedophilia?

Ah yes i see where you're coming from but in the case of abusing a minor of the opposite sex it is still termed pedophilia. where does that fit into the pro gay agenda you allude to? i agree that the idea of homosexuality being normal is the politically correct view, but not the normal view in our society. (i dont think sexuality can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy between consenting adults. i dont see it as a moral issue)

i agree entirely with your second paragraph, once 'Political pedophilia' and conventions like slavery were acceptable now they are not and its probably better that way. do you agree?

Good question lets explore. i assume you mean acting on his attraction and by 'man' you mean under 20
assume the attracted man is 40 and the strapping fellow is 13, i really dont think its anything other than pedophilia. i say it in the spirit most people mean it and you call political pedophilia. i mean to say its wrong. luckily the law agrees.
if the young man is 18 its homosexuality as far as the law goes.
i concede that there could be a particularly innocent 20 year old with whom sex would be harmful and so, wrong, in all but law.
likewise there could be a 16 year old who is mature enough for sex not to cause harm but it is rightly illegal to protect the interests of most children.
there must also be provision for people of similar age engaging in normal experimentation
have i interpreted your question correctly?

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah yes i see where you're coming from but in the case of abusing a minor of the opposite sex it is still termed pedophilia. where does that fit into the pro gay agenda you allude to? i agree that the idea of homosexuality being normal is the politically correct view, but not the normal view in our society. (i dont think sexuality can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy between consenting adults. i dont see it as a moral issue)

i agree entirely with your second paragraph, once 'Political pedophilia' and conventions like slavery were acceptable now they are not and its probably better that way. do you agree?

Good question lets explore. i assume you mean acting on his attraction and by 'man' you mean under 20
assume the attracted man is 40 and the strapping fellow is 13, i really dont think its anything other than pedophilia. i say it in the spirit most people mean it and you call political pedophilia. i mean to say its wrong. luckily the law agrees.
if the young man is 18 its homosexuality as far as the law goes.
i concede that there could be a particularly innocent 20 year old with whom sex would be harmful and so, wrong, in all but law.
likewise there could be a 16 year old who is mature enough for sex not to cause harm but it is rightly illegal to protect the interests of most children.

have i interpreted your question correctly?

So according to your way of thinking, if the boy is 15, it is pedophilia, but becomes homosexuality the next day when he turns 16 (UK age of consent) at 3pm?

And again, according to your thought, in Ireland, it is pedophilia if the boy is 16, but homosexuality three hours later when he turns 17? Is this what you mean to say?

I think we can fall into the trap of intellectualising a problem without actually addressing it. We seek to mask reality with fancy terms, whilst the dog in the street is perfectly aware of what happened. The dog in the street knows what the predominant problem was in the priesthood. Additionally, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I suppose there are also conflicting moralities at play too. The orthodox Christian position would be that sex is only for marriage between one man and one woman. Once you depart from that, it gets murky.

Take Peter Tatchell. He is a gay activist who advocates for a lower age of consent. This means young people will be put at risk of predation. If a 40 year old preys upon a strapping 15 year old, that would still be wrong (despite what new UK legislation might say), and it would be homosexual predation, not pedophilia. Do you agree?

I say call a spade a spade. If an adult man is attracted to pre-pubescent kids, that's pedophilia. If he is attracted to adolescent males, that's homosexuality. Most of the abuse in America, as illustrated by the authoritative John Jay Report, was inflicted on adolescents; that is, young males becoming men, vulnerable as they were to the advances, manipulation, seduction, and rape of their abusers.

Within the gay movement itself, there are conflicting opinions about what is acceptable and what is not. I guess that is what happens when you stray from the straight and narrow path illuminated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Perhaps if more priests had been paying attention to the Magisterium and to living their Christian faith, rather than satiating their perverse desires in the 'free love' way, we mightn't have ended up in the mess we are in.

That's really all I have to say about the matter, in a nutshell.

JimiTime

Xizors Palace wrote: »

What if the boy is 15? It is pedophilia, but becomes homosexuality the next day when he turns 16 (UK age of consent) at 3pm?

No. Paedophilia is being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. Sex with a 15 year old may be illegal, but its certainly not paedophilia.

Xizors Palace

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Paedophilia is being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. Sex with a 15 year old may be illegal, but its certainly not paedophilia.

My point exactly, contrary to what El_Duderino 09 was saying.

See the first two paragraphs of post #60. I clarified it for you and other's benefit.

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think we cann fall into the trap of intellectualising a problem without actually addressing it. We seek to mask reality with fancy terms, whilst the dog in the street is perfectly aware of what happened. The dog in the street knows what the predominant problem was in the priesthood. Additionally, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I suppose there are also conflicting moralities at play too. The orthodox Christian position would be that sex is only for marriage between one man and one woman. Once you depart from that, it gets murky.

Take Peter Tatchell. He is a gay activist who advocates for a lower age of consent. This means young people will be put at risk of predation. If a 40 year old preys upon a strapping 15 year old, that would still be wrong (despite what new UK legislation might say), and it would be homosexual predation, not pedophilia. Do you agree?

I say call a spade a spade. If an adult man is attracted to pre-pubescent kids, that's pedophilia. If he is attracted to adolescent males, that's homosexuality. Most of the abuse in America, as illustrated by the authoritative John Jay Report, was inflicted on adolescents; that is, young males becoming men, vulnerable as they were to the advances, manipulation, seduction, and rape of their abusers.

Within the gay movement itself, there are conflicting opinions about what is acceptable and what is not. I guess that is what happens when you stray from the straight and narrow path illuminated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Perhaps if more priests had been paying attention to the Magisterium and to living their Christian faith, rather than satiating their perverse desires in the 'free love' way, we mightn't have ended up in the mess we are in.

That's really all I have to say about the matter, in a nutshell.

Maybe we should start using a different word rather than pedophilia, i dont mind which word we use. So long as we are referring to the harm done to the children.

Regarding the ducks we see, i see it walking like a scheming pedophile while i think you see it mincing like a gay from a carry on movie. Haha. i think we could agree that the overarching problem within the church is that they had within them, men who did harm to children, they chose to hide those men, shield them from prosecution under the law and in too many cases they simply ignored the abuse and moved them to avoid dealing with the problem. whether the men did what they did because they were Homosexual pedophiles or heterosexual pedophiles they were pedophiles in that they sexually abused children and caused them harm.

With respect i would hate to avoid addressing the problem. Surely the problem is the harm that was caused by the sexual abuse and compounded by the actions of the Catholic church in dealing with that abuse. If the RCC would like to discipline their members thats ok with me, so long as it does not interfere with the legal process for reporting and dealing with abusers, sexuality of the abuser becomes irrelevant at this point. do we agree on that?

I agree that sex, between Christians, should be between one married man and woman. Once Christians depart from that it becomes murky for them.

Regarding Peter Tatchell looking to lower the age of consent, it would increase predation, and would also allow exceptionally mature young people to be sexually active earlier. on balance i would not support his cause because it would take away protection from those who need it.

In the case of the 40 year old and the 15 year old. the 15 year old could be exceptionally mature in which case it might not be morally wrong but would be rightly illegal. (unless you adhere to a belief system which considers homosexuality to be immoral in which case it would be neither moral or legal.)

morality is not black and white but the law is. you cant vote, drink, have sex, sign a legal document and so on the day before the law says you can. its not ideal, its law.

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Regarding the ducks we see, i see it walking like a scheming pedophile while i think you see it mincing like a gay from a carry on movie. Haha. i think we could agree that the overarching problem within the church is that they had within them, men who did harm to children, they chose to hide those men, shield them from prosecution under the law and in too many cases they simply ignored the abuse and moved them to avoid dealing with the problem. whether the men did what they did because they were Homosexual pedophiles or heterosexual pedophiles they were pedophiles in that they sexually abused children and caused them harm.

With respect i would hate to avoid addressing the problem. Surely the problem is the harm that was caused by the sexual abuse and compounded by the actions of the Catholic church in dealing with that abuse. If the RCC would like to discipline their members thats ok with me, so long as it does not interfere with the legal process for reporting and dealing with abusers, sexuality of the abuser becomes irrelevant at this point. do we agree on that?

I agree that sex, between Christians, should be between one married man and woman. Once Christians depart from that it becomes murky for them.

Regarding Peter Tatchell looking to lower the age of consent, it would increase predation, and would also allow exceptionally mature young people to be sexually active earlier. on balance i would not support his cause because it would take away protection from those who need it.

In the case of the 40 year old and the 15 year old. the 15 year old could be exceptionally mature in which case it might not be morally wrong but would be rightly illegal. (unless you adhere to a belief system which considers homosexuality to be immoral in which case it would be neither moral or legal.)

You keep saying children yet it has been agreed by myself and Jimitime that a 15 year old young man is not a child. Such abuse would not therefore be pedophilia but homosexual predation. The age of consent protects young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It's role is not to arbitrarily set what constitutes pedophilia and what constitutes homosexual abuse. Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact, irrespective of age. Hence if it walks like a duck it is a duck. If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?

The question at hand here is not about cover-up or moving perverts around which we can all agree was wrong, we're now looking at the nature of the abuse itself. If you can confirm whether or not my understanding of your position as per my revised first two paragraphs in post #60 is correct as well as looking at what I've just written, then that would be helpful for our discussion should you wish to continue with it.

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You keep saying children yet it has been agreed by myself and Jimitime that a 15 year old young man is not a child. Such abuse would not therefore be pedophilia but homosexual predation. The age of consent protects young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It's role is not to arbitrarily set what constitutes pedophilia and what constitutes homosexual abuse. Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact, irrespective of age. Hence if it walks like a duck it is a duck. If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?

The question at hand here is not about cover-up or moving perverts around which we can all agree was wrong, we're now looking at the nature of the abuse itself. If you can confirm whether or not my understanding of your position as per my revised first two paragraphs in post #60 is correct as well as looking at what I've just written, then that would be helpful for our discussion should you wish to continue with it.

Ah I didn't see your last edit (the first two paragraphs) until a few minutes ago. The law needs to set an arbitrary cut off (to protect what it calls children) I suppose whether we like it or not.

oh i do see what you are saying now. I think your figures showed that 73% were under the age of 15. As you and Jimitime have decided that 15 year old is a man that leaves 27% homosexual predation and 73% pedophile predation according to your study.
have I misunderstood?

I'm not really sure I do understand your point fully. what if the 15 year old looks much younger? is he a man? what if a 13 year old looks 15, is he a man?

by way of helping me understand, what would you propose as a solution?

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah I didn't see your last edit (the first two paragraphs) until a few minutes ago. The law needs to set an arbitrary cut off (to protect what it calls children) I suppose whether we like it or not.

oh i do see what you are saying now. I think your figures showed that 73% were under the age of 15. As you and Jimitime have decided that 15 year old is a man that leaves 27% homosexual predation and 73% pedophile predation according to your study.
have I misunderstood?

I'm not really sure I do understand your point fully. what if the 15 year old looks much younger? is he a man? what if a 13 year old looks 15, is he a man?

by way of helping me understand, what would you propose as a solution?

What about a 17 year old that looks like a 12 year old? There was a guy at my university like that. He looked 12 but was actually 17.

I'm not really interested in percentages. If everybody just followed the teaching of the Church, then there would be no problem.

I suppose you would need to do a detailed study of the victims to determine what you are wondering about. I don't think that is going to happen.

JimiTime

Xizors Palace wrote: »

My point exactly, contrary to what El_Duderino 09 was saying.

See the first two paragraphs of post #60. I clarified it for you and other's benefit.

Apologies.:o

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

What about a 17 year old that looks like a 12 year old? There was a guy at my university like that. He looked 12 but was actually 17.

I'm not really interested in percentages. If everybody just followed the teaching of the Church, then there would be no problem.

I suppose you would need to do a detailed study of the victims to determine what you are wondering about. I don't think that is going to happen.

You said "Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact" that might be the case it sounds pretty subjective but surely looking 12 is even more subjective so I don't know how to deal with that case. I will leave it to Jimitime and yourself to rule on that one. I honestly don't have a clue. Should we class him as a 12 year old? after all if it walks like a duck... what do you say?

I'm sorry i thought when you said the part quoted below in post 64 that you were interested in statistics.

"If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?"

Now that the 'vast majority' has turned out to be 27%, i am curious to know how will you phrase your point in future now that the authoritative John Jay report suggests otherwise.

(i'm tempted to ask if you understand that 27% is not a vast majority, and it is important to understand that if you wish to continue this discussion but that would be cheeky. Wouldn't it?)

I agree that if Catholics followed the teaching of the Catholic Church they wouldn't be in this position.

Again I would be interested to know if you have any solutions to the problem?