Any Dopers change their view on gay issues?

[Siege]

You, too, jayjay, although I’m afraid you’re only the second most fabulous gay guy in Pennsylvania at the moment – that old friend’s in town.

CJ

[jayjay]

*Originally posted by Siege *
**You, too, jayjay, although I’m afraid you’re only the second most fabulous gay guy in Pennsylvania at the moment – that old friend’s in town.

CJ **

Darn! Upstaged!

By a non-Doper, no less!

sigh

[The_Ryan]

Esprix, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? I’m objecting to libelous statements merely out of some contrarian instinct, not because, gee, I don’t like people libeling me? That’s absurd, even by your standards. If you have a problem with Kafka-esque parodies, you have only yourself to blame. I suppose that when you read The Trial, you decided the protagonist was protesting the absurd proceedings merely for the sake of being contrarian.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Esprix -**
But we all already know your thought process:
[ul][li]Children can be either gender[/li][li]Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender[/li][li]Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual[/li][/ul]
By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles.**

No, by that argument all pedophiles are bisexual.

Which I find difficult to believe. Perhaps some are, but don’t you think that there are others who preferentially attack children of one sex or the other?

I am wondering why Michael Jackson never seemed to invite any girls to his little sleepovers.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ludovic]

Several people:

And you would be wrong. Rape is about power. Prison rapes are about power. What part of that are you not getting? I mean, I won’t argue with you that there is a high likelihood that prison rapists may have some degree of bisexuality in them to start with, but to give that over as the reason they rape other inmates is ridiculous.

It’s sad that there are still people out there that don’t understand that people don’t rape other people because they’re horny. They rape other people because they have a need to assert their power over that person. Whether it’s a misogynist asserting that his masculinity is, indeed, greater than a woman, or the prison rapist establishing the pecking order, it’s about power.

Prison rape is about domination.

Prison sex (meaning, consentual sex) is about being horny and desparate.

I think we are at an impasse here without further studies. I, for one, think that the “common wisdom” espoused in these quotes doesn’t pass basic logic. You work to get money. You rob banks to get money. You do both to get money. The claim that sex does not work like money in this regard requires proof in my mind, proof that is lacking except in selectively-cited studies, and none of these studies have even been cited.

There are studies that contradict these, as well, and they are more up-to-date than the old, tired theory of domination, which makes no logical sense anyway. But I won’t bother looking them up, since it is not I making the off-base claim.

I mean, if you only wanted to assert your power over someone, you would choose anyone, a child, elderly, handicapped, for your victim. I am not disputing that there are those who do that. Yet in general the targets of this follow a systemic pattern for each perpetrator.

To say that this is evidence that the perpetrator hates and wants to dominate a specific class of person is possible, but not only is illogical, it also goes against documented reasons as given by recent testimonies of actual rapists. Many of them love women. I would think that the old theory of domination started when the majority of cases investigated were the egregiously violent ones which were more likely to be perpetrated out of hatred.

I would say then, that yes, prisoners who partake of this do have some degree of bisexuality in them, at least vis a vis those who do not. In addition they do not care enough for the wellbeing of the other prisoners that they will dominate them in order to get what they want. This is different than wanting domination, it is a means to an end. They would just as easily take sex if it were offered for free, would you not agree?

[Homebrew]

Here’s an interesting editorial in, of all places, the Charleston, West Virgina Gazette concerning changing views on homosexuality.

MORALITY in America has evolved enormously since the 1950s. Back then, you could be arrested for looking at the equivalent of a Playboy magazine or a sexy R-rated movie. It was a crime to buy a lottery ticket or a cocktail. You could go to jail for opening a store on Sunday or marrying someone of a different race. By law, blacks were kept out of white neighborhoods, white schools, white restaurants, white theaters, white pools, white hotels. Unmarried couples who shared a bedroom faced jail for “fornication.” Covenants in some land deeds excluded Jews. Birth control was illegal in some states. Pregnant girls were banned from high schools. One who got an abortion faced prison, along with her doctor. Women couldn’t serve on West Virginia juries. Relatively few jobs were open to them.

Today, many conservatives want a return to the “moral” 1950s — but it actually was a time of narrow-minded prejudice. Taboos of that day eventually were struck down by court decisions and human-rights laws. Now, it’s amazing to look back and realize how much society has changed, and how quickly.

Similarly, attitudes toward gays are evolving. In the 1950s, it was a crime to be homosexual in West Virginia. Gays who were caught were sent to state prison under biblical-sounding “sodomy” laws. Some committed suicide when prosecuted. Being gay was a terrible disgrace, back then.

However, the gay taboo gradually is dying, just as the others did.

[Esprix]

I will defer to my colleague Hamlet who posted so elegantly in this thread:

In using a term like pedophilia, which has a concrete, clinical definition, it might be helpful to look at that definition. Here is one from the DSM-IV, which outlines the clinical definition of pedophilia. There are indeed subsets of pedophilia, which allow the clinician to add whether the pedophile is sexually attracted to males, females, or both. Now, those should not be confused with homosexuality. The fact that a male pedophile has a sexual attraction to males does not make him homosexual, it makes him a pedophile with an attraction to males.

Nicely summarized, IMHO.

Esprix

[Shodan]

The fact that a male pedophile has a sexual attraction to males does not make him homosexual, it makes him a pedophile with an attraction to males.

Distinction without a difference.

A male with a sexual attraction to males is a homosexual. A male with a sexual attraction to male children is a homosexual pedophile. A male with a sexual attraction to female children is a heterosexual pedophile. A male with a sexual attraction to children, and who doesn’t care if they are male or female, is a bisexual pedophile.

Also noted that the DSM-IV does not consider all pedophiles as bisexual, since it asks the clinician to:

State whether:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Males and Females

A better summary would be;[ul]
[li]Some homosexuals are pedophiles[/li][li]Some heterosexuals are pedophiles[/li][li]Some bisexuals are pedophiles[/li][li]Some pedophiles are homosexual[/li][li]Some pedophiles are heterosexual[/li][li]Some pedophiles are bisexual[/li][li]Not all pedophiles are homosexual[/li][li]Not all pedophiles are heterosexual[/li][li]Not all pedophiles are bisexual[/ul] But it is incorrect to try to define away the problem by claiming that there is no overlap whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia. The claim that pedophiles don’t care if they are molesting males or females is wrong. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[look_ninjas]

Getting back to the original question (What? There’s something brown on my nose?) -

Reading this thread, it seems like my experience is more or less the reverse of many dopers. I was never brought up to think that there was anything wrong with homosexuality, and being heavily involved in drama, I tended to run with a more liberal crowd anyway. If I ever did run into anyone who said anything homophobic, my kneejerk reaction was to assume that they were either dumb hicks or so far closeted that they’d found themselves in Narnia.

Here on the boards, it’s been a different story. I’ll see one of my fellow posters post a few intelligent comments in one thread, share a funny story in another, say something encouraging and kind in a third thread, and then follow all that up with some incredibly backass view on homosexuality. They’re not idiots, and they’re probably not all locked tightly into little closets. So it’s been sort of a shock to me to realize that otherwise intelligent people can get so freaked out by the idea of two guys or two girls in love with each other.

Has it changed my views on gay issues? Kind of. It’s made me realize that there still are issues. Life isn’t the little protected bubble of the college drama department, and there’s a lot of discrimination and a lot of hatred out there. I think I’m more likely to stand up against that discrimination than I was before, if only because I’m more aware of it than before.

Truth to tell, it’s been kind of a depressing revelation.

[Susanann]

Live and let live.

There are so many other (more) important things, other things that can really harm/affect the rest of us, that we should be worrying about, instead of someones sexual preference or identity.

[Esprix]

I’ll also reiterate what I posted previously (bolding to emphasize what I thought I’d emphasized before):

… bisexuality, which refers to sexual attraction to either gender, and pedophilia, which refers to sexual attraction to children, when speaking in the context of mature sexual relationships are two different concepts…

The key point you’re missing is that people with a bisexual orientation engage in consensual, adult relationships with people of either gender, as opposed to pedophiles who engage in non-consensual, non-adult relationships with children of either gender.

Hence why I wrote:

No one is going to argue with you that children can be of either gender, but everyone is arguing with you that bisexuality is not pedophilia.

I can accept that some pedophiles would be attracted to one gender over another (as well as be attracted to both, regardless of their gender), but casually using the terms “bisexual” and “pedophile” without context is dangerous, libelous and an affront.

IMHO, at least.

Esprix

[elfkin477]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Distinction without a difference.

A male with a sexual attraction to males is a homosexual. A male with a sexual attraction to male children is a homosexual pedophile. A male with a sexual attraction to female children is a heterosexual pedophile. A male with a sexual attraction to children, and who doesn’t care if they are male or female, is a bisexual pedophile.

<snip>

But it is incorrect to try to define away the problem by claiming that there is no overlap whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia. The claim that pedophiles don’t care if they are molesting males or females is wrong.

Regards,
Shodan **

That’s how I think of it too. It’s not an or situation, it’s an and one. All pedophiles are attracted to children and all pedophiles have a sexual orientation be it gay, straight or bi.

As for the OP my opinions changed, but before I found SD. As a child and teenager, I didn’t give gay people much thought what so ever. I didn’t know a single gay person…or so I thought. I knew that the idea of singling someone out on the basis of who they slept with rubbed me the wrong way, but I didn’t have any definitive opinions about gays.

But when I got to college I met several people who are gay or bisexual, and a childhood friend came out. Instead of some vague concept, they were living breathing examples, and they were people I cared about. Because I care about them, I want them to have the same rights I do.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**I’ll also reiterate what I posted previously (bolding to emphasize what I thought I’d emphasized before):

quote:

The key point you’re missing is that people with a bisexual orientation engage in consensual, adult relationships with people of either gender, as opposed to pedophiles who engage in non-consensual, non-adult relationships with children of either gender.

**

The last three words are wrong. Pedophiles do not always disregard gender in choosing which children to attack.

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**Hence why I wrote:

quote:

No one is going to argue with you that children can be of either gender, but everyone is arguing with you that bisexuality is not pedophilia.

**

And I, in turn, am arguing that pedophilia is not necessarily bisexual. Some pedophiles are homosexual, just as some others are heterosexual.

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**I can accept that some pedophiles would be attracted to one gender over another (as well as be attracted to both, regardless of their gender), but casually using the terms “bisexual” and “pedophile” without context is dangerous, libelous and an affront.

IMHO, at least.

Esprix **

I would agree with this. I would add that using the term “pedophile” is also incorrect, without adding “homosexual pedophile” or “heterosexual pedophile” or “bisexual pedophile”. These terms need context as well.

I don’t know if it is libelous or an affront to imply that, by definition, no homosexual can possibly be a child molestor, because homosexual always implies sexual orientation towards adults. But it is dangerous, just as it is dangerous to assume that any married man is safe as regards young girls. Sexual orientation affects pedophiles as much as it does normal adults.

Regards,
Shodan

[Polycarp]

Shodan:

While in terms of strict denotative language (why do I feel like I’m channeling TheRyan writing this? ;)), you have a point: if one has sex with another life form of any sort, that life form is almost certainly either male or female, and hence the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as adjectives can in fact be applied to that sexual act – nonetheless you are making an invalid transference between meanings in asserting the position I understand you to be taking. Perhaps I can illustrate the invalidity of that transference by quoting the punchline of a dirty joke involving the shepherd’s answer to a highly personal question: “Only the ewes! I ain’t no queer!”

Effectively, we have a category, pedophilia, in which those afflicted are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. I will grant that some pedophiles are attracted to little girls, some to little boys, and some to both, and that in the strict dictionary definitions of the words, these are heterosexual, homosexual, and bixexual attractions respectively (presuming the pedophile to be male; reverse the first two for a female pedophile).

But the gay men and women of this board are not using the term in the strict dictionary sense, but in a clear specialized usage – their orientation is such that they are sexually and romantically attracted to consensual relationships with other adults (or adolescents, for the gay teens) of the same sex.

It is this specialized usage that they seek to have accepted by the social community as a whole: that they, falling in love with another man/another woman, may as freely engage in the same rituals of dating, courtship, shacking up, marriage, etc., as those who, male, fall in love with a woman, or, female, fall in love with a man. They are not at all interested in defending the supposed “rights” of those who are attracted to little boys, animals, or whatever, just as those who say “marriage should be between one man and one woman” are not asserting that a man is entitled to marry his sister in so defining the term.

To claim that because the term refers, in one dictionary definition, to any same-sex relationship, therefore they are asking us to embark on a slippery slope, is to engage in this sort of invalid transference of meaning. They are quite explicit that they are referring to relationships between consenting adults in their specialized use of the term.

To insist on using the broad-brush meaning of the word when there is a clear delimitation would be very much akin to my insisting that John Ashcroft’s assertion that DOMA is constitutional means that he is saying that DOMA is a brisk walk in the park for the purpose of health maintenance.

[Mehitabel]

Well, I was also from a background where gayness just wasn’t talked about, etc. The images of the early Stonewall movement, frankly, seemed to show a bunch of shallow, shrill queens who wanted–what? They all seemed to be having so much FUN all the time with none of the burdens of life like kids and spouses and mortgages and all, and so what if sometimes the cops and teenagers beat them up, it was the Seventies and everybody was beating everybody up, random people were being shot in the subway, etc. What were they whining about? They got to live in cool neighborhoods I couldn’t afford and dress up. It was club time and the gay ideal seemed to be nameless hookups with as many men as possible–at a time of horrible political and social oppression around the world, it seemed pretty shallow to be fighting for this pointless lifestyle.

AIDS hit when I was in my early teens and really changed things, forcing the mechanics of gay sex–of which I hadn’t been sheltered from exactly, but had been pretty ignorant of–into the open. Ewwww. Sounded painful and awkward and you could never even have kids! And ACT UP and all were often obnoxious–we don’t want to stop having random sex, so give us money for a cure, big bad gummint!

But then, in college, I met some lesbians and one long summer night a small mixed bunch of us had a conversation that changed a lot of things. I discovered how ordinary they were! Then I found out that my singing teacher was gay, and she and her partner had been together for ten years–i didn’t know gay people could even form attachments longer than a few dates!

So, since I joined the SDMB, I’ve learned a lot more, especially about the gay people and children thing. I had thought that, fine, Nature gave you abhorrence of the very act that creates children, so obviously you don’t want any, right? Wrong. I learned the hundred little ways that bad things can still happen to gay people, when I thought everything was now hunky-dory.

It’s been very valuable. I’ve even learned that–gasp!!–gay folks are not monolithic in their thinking!

[Shodan]

Fine, but I understood Esprix to be asserting that all pedophiles attacked children indiscriminate of gender, and that was why they could not be considered homosexual - that pedophilia was a fixation solely controlled by the age of the victim, and not at all of its gender - a false assertion.

I want to avoid a hijack of this thread, but I have been trying to remember the term for sexual attraction to post-pubescent but still minor children. Do you remember what it was?

I had a long post regarding it, but I can’t remember what it is called.

Regards,
Shodan

[jayjay]

ephebophilia

[Anduril]

hebephilia?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Shodan

Fine, but I understood Esprix to be asserting that all pedophiles attacked children indiscriminate of gender, and that was why they could not be considered homosexual - that pedophilia was a fixation solely controlled by the age of the victim, and not at all of its gender - a false assertion.

I wasn’t clear, and I apologize for that. Polycarp has said everything quite eloquently.

Esprix