Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia

Great Debates
21

Shodan, being understanding of a sexual relationship with a post-pubescent but still minor child is different from condoning or participating in the same.

I think I can say where Scott’s thoughts are coming from, at least in part. I know many, many gay men who were, indeed, sexually active at 16, 15, 14, even 13. They were “consensual” partners inasmuch as that’s what they wanted; their legal status as minors, however, is what the problem is. I have an ex who, at 15, was having regular sex with a 30 year old - and he regrets none of it (he’s over 20 now). So, since there are some gay men who were themselves active at younger ages, perhaps that’s where at least part of the understanding comes from (again, not necessarily condoning or participating in).

Esprix

22

Indeed, in discussions of sexual relations between adults and minors, the fact that one party cannot legally give consent is precisely the problem.

Although I am not sure of the distinction between understanding and condoning. The example you cite of the fifteen year old who was having sexual contact with a thirty-year old does not seem to generate the kind of outrage that accusations of a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia seem to generate.

If some gay Scout leader was aware of a sexual relationship between a fifteen year old boy and a thirty year old adult, and was ‘understanding’ to the point that he did not notify the parents or the authorities, because his sexual orientation led him to be ‘understanding’ of such relationships, I would think that should disqualify him from being a Scoutmaster. This would be true regardless of whether the thirty-year-old was male or female.

I don’t know where you would draw the line between condoning and ignoring. But anyone, gay or straight, who would shrug his shoulders and say, “Oh well - it happened to a friend of mine, and he doesn’t regret it” has committed a serious dereliction of his duty. Very serious indeed.

That’s why we have statutory rape laws. Which, fortunately, apply to anyone, gay or straight.

Speaking from the other side of the fence, I would add that I don’t think gay males are unique in becoming sexually active in their early- or mid-teens. The only difference seems to be the implication that gay males are more likely to be sexually involved in their teens with adults. Whether that’s true or not, I couldn’t say. Whether or not it is, I don’t think it entitles gay males to decide what should happen to other people’s children.

Maybe your friend has no regrets. Nonetheless, as a society we have determined that fifteen-year-olds are not old enough (as a rule) to make those kinds of decisions. If gay males have a sexual history that would tend to make them wink at violations of this kind, it may not be pedophilia, but it certainly isn’t anything to brag about.

And it goes way beyond “whatever two consenting adults want to do in private”.

Regards,
Shodan

23

I think you’re being very charitable if you assume this is why the Boy Scouts don’t allow gay members. I can’t imagine it being anything so complicated: the reason has more to do with simple religious-based intolerance and the inability to differentiate between pedophelia and homosexuality.

24

Understanding something involves having awareness of the causes. For example, I think I can say I have some understanding of terrorism and Al Qaeda. Condoning is, if not approving, a willingness to look the other way of something you’re aware to be a misdeed. Applying the same analogy, I certainly don’t condone terrorism. Understanding why something happens doesn’t mean you think it’s ok.

Not that I’m giving my approval to such relationships - I think it’s a very messy problem no matter how you break it down - I think you have to admit this is… I was going to say a Catch-22, but I’m not sure that’s exactly right. The illegality is a bit self-fulfilling, in a way.

25

I hope you can dispell the ignorance. I’ve gone a few rounds with people who believe the ignorance mentioned in the OP (ie, homosexuals are more prone to be pedophiles). From my experience, those who believe as such, want to believe that way. No amount of evidence is convincing…

With that dreary assesment said, I truly do hope you can shed some light to those people. :smiley:

26

Shodan, you’re making some wild leaps, and I don’t know where they’re coming from.

If a gay man, who say at 16 had sex with a 22 year old, heard of a similar relationship, he might empathize. But if he doesn’t report that relationship to someone in authority, then he’s in the wrong and he’s breaking the law. (Now whether those laws are fair is another thread entirely.) To understand is to relate or empathize; to condone is encourage or allow to happen.

What’s the confusion here? I don’t think anyone in this thread is disagreeing with this.

Esprix

27

If the gay man’s more relaxed attitude towards sex with minors led to no difference at all, either in participating in or putting an end to such activity, then I wouldn’t say there was a problem. In a perfect world, no doubt you could trust someone who said “I can see how someone would find that thirteen-year-old attractive” even if they didn’t go on immediately to add “of course, I would never do anything about it.” It would be roughly similar to putting a heterosexual male in charge of a Girl Scout campout. Any decent heterosexual male would never lay a hand on a girl under his care in such a situation.

But I don’t think this distinction between temptation and action is much different with gay vs. straight males. Who was it that posted that Pit thread about riding the train with the Brittany Spears fans who were in their early- or mid-teens? (If I had a faster computer, I would search for and link to it). That thread got a lot of response that was very similar to what would be regarded as homophobic if it were directed at gays regarding teen-age boys as sexually attractive. IMO.

Disclaimer: I posted in that thread, and to the effect that I understood how an adult male could find a mid-teen female sexually attractive. Does this make me a dirty old man? Should it disqualify me from leading a Girl Scout troop? Quite possibly. But I do understand how someone could be tempted towards a person under eighteen, and never consider acting on that temptation. And I am not gay.

But even if you agree that gays and straights are identical in their ability to resist temptation, I believe the motivation for excluding gay men from being Scout leaders is not simply homophobia. Or at least not only.

At least part of the idea, as I see it, is to remove the sexual element from the relationship altogether. This is why males do not (by and large) lead Girl Scout troops, and why it is seen as inappropriate for gay males to lead Boy Scout troops. They want to avoid even the temptation of a sexual relationship between a Scout and a leader. It is similar to rules against fraternization, or against sexual contact between therapists and patients, or even (in a way) similar to laws against incest. The purpose is to ensure as far as possible that the relationship between the more powerful and the less powerful is never changed by the introduction of sexual interest. The relationship of teacher and pupil, or leader and Scout, or father and daughter for that matter, is meant to be completely disinterested on the part of the teacher or leader or father. To introduce sexual interest is to change the dynamics of the relationship.

This is not to say that sex is a bad thing. It is to say that not every relationship is improved by adding a sexual component.

If pedophelia != homosexuality, and pedophelia != heterosexuality (since it is a separate orientation), and heterosexual males are also not attracted to post-pubescent boys, then by excluding gay males from leadership positions, they are minimizing the chance (from their point of view) of sexual contacts even between consenting minors and adults. The motivation is the same, in other words, as for excluding males from leadership in Girl Scout troops. They are doing what Catholics call “avoiding the near occasion of sin”, where sin is defined as sexual contact between minors and adults.

I don’t mean to be picking on the Boy Scouts, but Marley23 referred to what he believed was their motives for excluding gay men from leadership. I thought that, even if you exclude sexual interest in pre-pubescent children from the occasion, it could be argued that you might want to exclude those who might be tempted.

Regards,
Shodan
Come to think of it, I seem to remember reading that the Girl Scouts allow men to be leaders. No matter - the logic is what the Boy Scouts seem to be depending on.

28

SHODAN et al–

Glad to clarify my intent.

What I said was (in pertinent part): “… gay men… are in a better position to be at least a bit skeptical when it comes to parallel reactions re sexual involvement with the ‘wrong’ age-range. …And I do mean skepticism, not endorsement of the opposite. We gays may not be quite so willing to join the lynch mob, that’s all… Which makes us suspect.”

I was addressing the following in the OP: “One of the things that annoys me about anti-homosexuals is the way they conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.”

I am suggesting a possible factor in this observed conflation, namely that gay men become “suspect” of (at least) condoning and (sometimes) endorsing and participating in, pedophilial statutory rape, as a reaction to their (ie, gay men’s) comparative restraint in reacting to the issue when it comes up in the public forum.

The parallel is with the straight-man movie-goer who sees a homosexual kiss on the movie screen and feels compelled to shout out “gross!” (or worse) lest his failure to do so be interpreted as (at least) support, and (sometimes) a virtual admission of his own homosexuality.

Similarly, I am positing that openly gay men are in a sense required to be extra vehement in decrying eg. sex between a thirtysomething and a 16-yr-old; and if they are not sufficiently vehement, for the reasons I suggest, they come to be viewed as soft-on-pedophiles and likely participants themselves.

It’s what I regard as well-considered speculation on my part, and I offer no cites and no statistics.

To mention this possible factor is not at all to claim that a statistical majority of gay men respond in this way (ie, the “restraint”): only that there might be a differing statistical breakdown which occasionally gets noticed.

I suppose it’s logical enough to presume a correlation between “less likely to vehemently condemn” and “more likely to condone.” But the correlation, if there is one, may be very weak; in any event, the two descriptions are in no way equivalent.

I do not state, and do not believe, that pedophilial interest constitutes a “sexual orientation” as that term is commonly used.

Nor do I agree with the implication resident here and there that anyone who has any kind of contact with a minor, such contact being to any degree at all of the sort we regard as “sexual,” just plain “is” a pedophile. As I understand the term, a pedophile is someone who (so to speak) specifically gets off on the idea of sexual contact with minors. Condemn it or condone it, this is NOT equivalent to the fact of being OPEN to such contact with some particular individual who happens to be a minor; and neither is equivalent to the fact of being a gay man. (Being open to dating women with feet is not equivalent to having a foot fetish.)

I DO think there is a distinction, and a very importantant one, between “understanding” and “condoning.” Not only that–I think there is a distinction between EMPATHIZING and CONDONING! It’s possible to have a feeling of empathy toward those who desire that which, morally and legally, they should not attempt to acquire.

Thanks for asking.

29

Here’s something to throw out at you…

If, and its a huge if, the Boy Scouts followed Shodan’s logic, how could they justify kicking out gay youth? And they do, by the way. I believe an Eagle Scout was stripped of his status for coming out. Have to look up some info to confirm that, but it seems unjustifiable under the “temptation” argument.

30

Well, here is one point that supports the Scouts- somewhat. (For the purposes that follow, we are not talking about Pedophila, we are talking about more or less “normal” desires for a post-pubescent person- even if that is illegal or immoral in your juristiction). I think we can agree that a male heterosexual Scout Leader will not be tempted to seduce one of his male charges. However, a Male homsexual might very well be so tempted- and being so tempted, the “means & opportuinity” are there, and especially so on a long camping trip.

So- if we are saying: No, we do not leave an adult scout leader alone with those children that might tempt that leader sexually, then fine. I would then say “NO” to a male homosexual leader with boys, a male heterosexual with girls, a female heterosexual with boys, and a female homosexual with girls. This is not discrimination, nor homophobia. If I had a 15yo daughter, then I would not want an adult hetero male taking her & her peers on a long unsupervised camping trip. Thus, same for if I had a son and the leader was a male homosexual.

Hell- I have seen many of the current crop of 15yo “girls” and they not only look mature- but they act mature also. I was a scout leader myself- and I do not “yeild to temptation” at all easily. But still- on a week long camping trip with some of those mature 15yo “girls”? No thank you. I’ll pass.

That being said- saying that homosexuals are far more likely to be pedophiles is balderdash.

31

Agreed - men, generally, are men (as women are women), regardless of sexual orientation (the difference being life experiences, i.e., gay men usually having a different attitude towards sex and sexual orientation). Assuming innocence before guilt, it seems to me any scoutmaster ought to be allowed to lead any troop - male or female, straight or gay, boyscouts or girlscouts.

Sounds like you’re arguing our side of this. :confused:

So a scout leader who might be interested in a post-pubescent but under 18 child should be denied the opportunity to be a leader? Bull puckey, IMHO, for two reasons - one, there are safeguards/guidelines for all scoutmasters and scouts to follow that minimize risk; and two, that seems to be to be dangerously close to a sweeping assumption that adults cannot control their sexual urges. Certainly some can’t, but also as certainly most can. I find it patently ridiculous that straight men or lesbians cannot be effective scout leaders to girls, nor can straight women or gay men be effective scout leaders to boys, and that the BSA is encouraging that sentiment is offensive to me for the slurs implied against the gay & lesbian community and the heterosexual community.

Regardless, your theory is belied by both the fact that the BSA does indeed expel gay scouts, and that men do indeed lead some girl scout troops.

And the boy scouts aside, Scott’s clarification seems to make a lot of sense to me - because some gay men can empathize with relationships with under 18, post-pubescent males and do not speak up vehemently enough for the illegalities thereof, they are seen as flag-waving NAMBLA advocates.

Esprix

32

Eww! Bestiality.
:wink:

Enjoy,
Steven

33

Thanks, Esprix.

Couple thoughts (which is one more than I can usually manage on any given day)…

(a) Wouldn’t most of the “temptation problem” (of perception?) be mitigated by a “buddy system” of scoutmastering, especially on those camp-outs? For example, let a hetero male lead a girls troop, but require a (non-related) hetero female along, too.

(b) Don’t you think the BSA issue is less one of absolute sexual morality than one of pragmatic business management? I would guess that the thinking is, “Hey, we have to show that we vigorously suppress at-all-likely pedos, or if something does happen to happen–and it always does, somehow–liability and damages go through the roof.” Could the answer be as dull as-- tort reform?

Hmm?

34

Scott- good idea about that “buddy” system, but I was a Scout leader, remember? Not practical, and too easy to get around. And you don’t have to be some sort of screaming pervert either to want to- or even sometimes the adult is “seduced” by the “child”, note. (And here, we could argue about whether or not 18 should be a “bright line test” ect- but let’s not)

But please note- I only agree to this if it is done purely on a basis of no adult leader being with kids of the sex they are attracted to. Not just homosexuals. That is discrimination.

35

Pedophiles are attracted to children (for the most part), not one sex or the other. You’re still conflagrating homosexuality with pedophila, at least in the aspect of which gender one is interested in.

Would someone with some actual knowledge of this subject please speak up?

Esprix

36

See this quote above. I am again not talking about the desire for pre-pubescent children. I am talking about the more or less normal- although often illegal & immoral desire of an adult for a “child” who is “sexually mature” but not of the legal “age of consent”. Note in my prior post I used an example of a “mature” 15yo.

37

In other words, Dr. D–like Juliet. Right?

38

I would like to see a cite please. From my understanding the BSA prohibition is only in regard to their leaders. The Eagle Scout example was an Assistant Scoutmaster at the time he announced his sexual orientation.

39

Conflict of Interest, the Scout’s Oath include a pledge to be “morally straight”, and BSA alleges that being homosexual conflicts with that clause of the oath. They also allege that homosexual conduct violates the clause in the Scout Law that requires scouts to be “clean”. The Oath, and obedience to the Scout Law, is required of all scouts, not merely of scout leaders. If they claim that the restriction only applies to leaders, then not only are they being bigoted and exclusionary, but inconsistent and hypocritical as well.

40

Thats from Scouting For All. I’ll continue searching for a more specific cite. Also, it hurts Shodan’s far more viable argument. The BSA views this as a moral issue, not an issue of temptation. It should also be noted that they don’t like atheists joining either.