Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia

Great Debates
41

Essentially, yes. Male or female, gay or straight, if you follow their line of reasoning, you will want to choose leaders who are least likely to have a sexual interest in their charges.

Possibly, but from their point of view, the safeguards are not as secure as eliminating a further source of danger, which would be anyone who might have a sexual interest in Boy Scouts.

Certainly most can, and do. But the sweeping assumption is that some adults cannot control their sexual urges. Therefore, to minimize the risk, they want to eliminate the entire class of adults (gay males) on the chance that some of them could not control themselves and would seduce their Scouts (or respond to the consensual advances of gay Scouts).

Certainly you could argue that it is unfair to exclude gay males from Scout leadership because some among them are unable to control themselves. But the Boy Scouts, by and large, are pubescent males. Thus pedophiles (who are interested only in pre-pubescent children) would have no interest in the Scouts, and heterosexual females and gay males (who might be interested in them sexually, to the point that they might respond to a sexual advance by a Scout, even if they did not initiate such contact), are excluded from leadership positions.

All that’s left are heterosexual males, and lesbians, who would have the least chance of sexual interest in pubescent boys. I imagine arguments for excluding lesbians from leadership are based on a desire for specifically male role models for boys, and/or arguments that homosexuality is morally wrong per se.

The moral argument is likely also to be the one used to exclude gays from non-leader membership in the BSA. Although almost the same kinds of arguments that are used to exclude gays from leadership could be used to justifiy excluding gays from membership altogether. By excluding gays from membership, they would be minimizing the chance of sexual interest among the members of a troop. I am sure most people, gay or straight, have had the experience of seeing the bad effects of people pairing off within a group, and then, when the relationships end, having it impact the group dynamics. If you form a softball team, and the pitcher is dating the third base player, and then the shortstop breaks up that relationship, the team is at risk. If you could form a team made up entirely of those with no sexual or romantic interest in each other at all, such break ups are less likely to occur, even if the coach never dates anyone on the team at all.

Certainly you could argue that all this is immoral, and that there is a God-given right to look for dates everywhere you go. But since the BSA is a private organization, they can set the rules of membership anyway they like. If they find value in setting up an organization where avoidance of sexual contact is an important part of the relationships, and where there cannot be any hint of sexual exploitation in the relations between leaders and members, they have the right to set up and maintain such an organization. Without being sued into turning it into a dating club.

I see the value in excluding hormones from some relationships, as well as in maintaining the rights of freedom of association for private groups. If you care to argue that they should not be publicly subsidized (at least not more than, say, a gay group who does not frown on intra-group fraternization), I would not disagree.

I don’t see the disadvantage of setting up a rival organization for those who want gay leaders to teach kids to tie knots and do service projects. See which way works out best.

I don’t necessarily know that I would regard a gay guy who wanted to take my fourteen-year-old son out on a camping trip with some of his friends with more suspicion than one who wanted to take a daughter of the same age. But probably not less.

Regards,
Shodan

42

Shodan, I’m neither arguing that sexual temptation doesn’t exist, nor that the BSA doesn’t have the right to exclude who they like as a private organization (although the fact that they continue to receive public funds is another topic entirely). What I am arguing is that in order to “minimize risk” the BSA assumes that all gay men (and straight women, for that matter) are automatically guilty and cannot be trusted, and are therefore removed from leadership positions. I think that’s bullshit. Couple that with their “morally straight” line, and it’s just homophobia, plain and simple.

Esprix

43

Well, maybe they do, and maybe they are- in fact since they deny membership to any avwoed homosexual, they are certainly practicing discrimination, which I think is wrong for the Scouts- “Scouting- for ALL boys”.

But as long as they keep their restrictions along the lines Shodan & I mention- “No adults are allowed to be leaders of scouts they would be sexually attracted to”- then it is just being cautious, not homophobic. I do not think that any adults should be going on camping trips with underaged “children” of the sex they are attracted to. This includes adult hetero men with girls, hetero women with boys, Gay men with boys, and Lesbians with girls. THAT is not homophobic. However, THAT is also not the way they currently practice it.

44

Well, yes, you can and many do label this concern as homophobic.

My point (insofar as I had one) is that this is not necessarily irrational homophobia. If you grant their concerns as valid, it is not necessary to invoke hatred of gays as a basis for the ban on gay Scout leaders. Although no doubt in many cases it is present.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned rules against fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel, or against romantic/sexual relationships between therapists and their clients. Even if such rules are applied only to heterosexual relationships, it would be incorrect to label them as ‘heterophobic’. Nor would they be an expression of hatred for straight men or women. It is a recognition that some relationships ought to be strictly asexual. How strongly you feel about that rule would obviously affect the lengths to which you would go to exclude those who might reasonably be expected to be at risk of violating it.

It would be, in a way, like expecting that rape counselors be women. Not that women never commit sexual assault, or that men cannot understand, but that certain relationships work better if confined to certain kinds of people, because it just seems to be that they are more likely to share certain experiences.

I think we lose something if we allow the label of ‘political correctness’ to discourage us from using what is likely to be true for the advantage of the weaker.

Regards,
Shodan

45

What you call “political correctness” I call “discrimination.”

I see your point, but I do not agree with it. It seems we will have to agree to disagree.

sprix

46

I made a post earlier which the hamsters ate, and it was probably as well.

Some quick points I’d like Shodan to address:
[ol][li]Isn’t it slightly hypocritical for BSA to, on the one hand, adopt the stance that “We can discriminate if we wish because we’re a private organization,” and on the other, accept a status where it’s claiming a unique role, and is supported in kind by Federal and state governments, as performing a unique service for boys? [/li][li]“Moral behavior” does not consist in what you feel but in what you do. A gay man, whether or not he feels attracted to teenage boys (and I gather that only a small but significant proportion are), should be judged on his behavior and on his professed moral code. I’d be quite impressed by a man who said, in essence, “Yes, I think boys are cute, but I know it’ll harm them if I make advances on them, and I have standards that I live up to that preclude me doing any such thing.” I’m quite confident that there are many heterosexual male public secondary schoolteachers who would say the same thing about their female students.[/li][li]Regardless of the issue about gay leaders, I find it absolutely invidious that boys who admit to being gay or having gay tendencies, and atheist or agnostic boys, are excluded. These are the boys who need the benefits of Scouting the most.[/li]“Moral straightness” does not consist in purity, or we’d all be in hot water – it consists in doing the right thing despite temptation.[/ol]

47

The belief that gay men are more likely to molest boys than straight men is nothing more than an aspect of institutionalized homophobia. All the evidence shows that it is straight men, not gay men, that molest small boys. Any person or organization that makes decisions based on the presumption that gay men will, or are more prone to, molest boys is acting out of homophobia.

It is irrational to persist in a belief when that belief has been shown to be unsupported by the evidence.

48

KellyM, you’re using “straight men” and “gay men” incorrectly - pederasts are neither.

And I will also mention that Shodan’s argument isn’t about men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, but rather adults who may find themselves attracted to under 18 year olds who are post-pubescent.

Esprix

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**

Some quick points I’d like Shodan to address:
[ul][li]Isn’t it slightly hypocritical for BSA to, on the one hand, adopt the stance that “We can discriminate if we wish because we’re a private organization,” and on the other, accept a status where it’s claiming a unique role, and is supported in kind by Federal and state governments, as performing a unique service for boys? [/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]

Yes, pretty much. Unless there are gay groups performing the same functions who are being supported by government, and the BSA is denied the same support. In other words, everyone (who is working for the benefit of others) is supported, or no one.

Also yes. Although my version of the Lord’s Prayer includes the phrase “Lead us not into temptation”. So that would include a duty not to subject others to temptation, and to protect them from the effects of others who succumb to the same.

A lot has to do with how much risk you are willing to incur on behalf of your children in defense of the principle of non-discrimination. Maybe I don’t drink and drive, and maybe you don’t either. If you had to choose a designated driver from either someone you knew drank at least on occasion, and someone else who was a complete teetotaler, which would be the safer choice?

Most of the time you would be wrong, and doing the occasional drinker a disservice, if you chose the teetotaler. Once in a while you would not.

Although I suspect many in the BSA who support the ban are acting on the kind of unreflective homophobia to which I think Esprix objects.

I don’t know. Excluding gay Scouts would have the de-sexualizing effect to which I earlier alluded, and prevent the emotional breakups that would be almost inevitable from impacting the group. Setting up a parallel, gay-friendly version of the Boy Scouts would offer the benefits of Scouting without impact on the right of free association cited by defenders of the BSA.

Atheist/agnostic Scouts are another thread.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**[ul]
[li]“Moral straightness” does not consist in purity, or we’d all be in hot water – it consists in doing the right thing despite temptation.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]

Entirely true. 1 Corinthians 10:13 applies as much to gay males as to anyone else.

By ‘pederast’, do you mean someone attracted to pre-pubescent children, or some attracted to post-pubescent males? I can’t tell from either your or KellyM’s post.

I should state for the record that I seem to be getting involved in a number of threads that turned nasty. It is pleasant not to encounter this in this one. My thanks to you all for this.

Regards,
Shodan

50

Sorry, meant pedophile.

Esprix

51

Shodan, I can understand the point about gay men being perceived as more prone to engage in inappropriate liaisons with post-pubescent teenage boys.

It is true that a truly straight man will have no desire to engage in sex with a teenaged boy, while a gay man might have some desire to do so. However, it is impossible to know that a person is truly straight, and it is also not possible to impute a desire for teenage boys from the belief that a person is gay.

There are, doubtlessly, men out there who claim to be straight, and to the best of anyone’s knowledge have never exhibited any tendencies toward teenage boys, who nonetheless harbor such proclivities in secret, either out of shame or out of a desire to avoid censure, and who would (given the opportunity) carry them out. Such individuals who appear, to the Boy Scouts, to be straight, and thus not made ineligible, even though they are the danger that the BSA seeks to avoid.

Similarly, there are doubtlessly men out there who claim to be gay or who are generally known to be gay but have never exhibited any tendencies toward teenage boys, either because they simply don’t or because they know better than to engage in such licentious liaisons. Such men, despite being gay, are not the danger the BSA seeks to avoid.

It is well-documented that most men who engage in sex with prepubescent children (pederasts) identify as straight, and most have little or no sexual history with men. To the extent that prepubsecent children are involved, selecting individuals who are self-identified as gay is, statistically, the better choice. I don’t know what the percentage of “secretly gay” men is (rather hard to evaluate that one, isn’t it?) so it’s much harder to evaluate the risk of false imputation by using the logic of “gay, therefore probable sex offender” is. But do not fool yourself into believing that excluding identified gay men eliminates, or even necessarily reduces, the risk of a Scout leader taking advantage of his teenaged charges.

Nor should you fool yourself into believing that such a rule does not offend the living daylights out of those who are labeled as “probable sex offenders” merely because of their sexual orientation.

52

To avoid the language problems, may I suggest the distinction matt_mcl found in the writings of an early gay advocate and brought up a couple of years ago:

A pedophile is a person attracted to pre-pubescent children, with pederast as a subset of persons who act on such attraction with reference to pre-pubescent boys.

An ephebophile is a person attracted to post-pubescent (male) youths. (There appears not to be a related term for men attracted to teenage girls.)

53

Clinical definition of pedophilia:

A pretty good full assessment of pedophilia:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/g2699/0005/2699000576/p1/article.jhtml?term=pedophilia

From page two from above:
“Pedophiles describe themselves as introverted, shy, sensitive, and depressed. Objective personality test results tend to confirm these subjective assessments, with the addition traits of emotional immaturity and a fear of being able to function in mature adult heterosexual relationships. A common characteristic of pedophiles is a moralistic sexual attitude or sexual repression.”

Many pedophiles were abused themselves and are reliving the pattern of behavior. Also, but not mentioned in the article, many pedophilics have sexual dysfunctions in adult relationships that do
not stem from biological causes.

54

I suppose “dirty old man” isn’t clinical enough. Thanks, Polycarp - I was trying to remember that word.

Thanks also to Esprix for the clarification. If ‘pederast’ refers to a person who preferentially targets pre-pubescent males, is there a term for someone who preferentially targets pre-pubescent females?

The classification scheme would run like this:
[ol]
[li]Pedophilia - general sexual interest in pre-pubescent children regardless of sex. [/li][li]Pederasty - sexual interest primarily in pre-pubescent males.[/li][li]No term listed - sexual interest primarily in pre-pubescent females.[/li][li]Heterosexuality - sexual interest in post-pubescent members of the opposite sex[/li][li]Homosexuality - sexual interest in post-pubescent members of the same sex[/li][li]Ephebophilia - sexual interest in teen-age males[/li][li]Dirty old man - sexual interest in teen-age females[/li][/ol]I believe the argument is that gay males are not more likely to appear in any of the first three classifications than self-identified heterosexual males. Their sexual interest do not cross the boundary of puberty, in other words.

Based on my own experience, and the reaction to the thread I mentioned earlier about the Brittany Spears fans on the train, there is some overlap between categories 4 and 7. I am assuming here, but it would seem based on Scott Dickerson’s post that there is some overlap between 5 and 6 as well.

Therefore this post:

does not strike me as entirely true. Eliminate, no, but probably reduces. They are just playing the percentages.

Certainly only a minority of adult males, gay or straight, would either initiate or be receptive to sexual contact with a teen-ager. But if you eliminate the major class with which the class of “ephebophiles” partially overlaps, you are reducing your risk.

I am assuming here that the class of ‘adult gay males’ has a higher incidence of those who both are attracted to teen-age boys, and lacks the self-discipline to refrain from acting on this attraction. In the same way, I would assume that adult heterosexual males are more likely to contain members who cannot or will not refrain from acting on their attraction to teen-age females.

As an adult, heterosexual male, I don’t take offense at the idea of having a chaperone if I were ever to accompany a group of fifteen-year-old females on a camping trip (for instance). This is largely because I would replace the work “probable” with “potential” in the above quote.

I would not label it as ‘heterophobia’ if I am required to have a chaperone on such a camping trip, or even if I were excluded from leadership in a girls-only organization. Not that I am looking for the chance to assault teen-agers, and am only deterred from doing so by the clever machinations of Scout leaders, but I understand the temptations, and want to protect the vulnerable from what I see as harmful.

Shoot - I have already gone fifteen minutes past the time I said I would quit fooling around on the SDMB and get some real work done. Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Regards,
Shodan

55

Shodan, they are not “playing the percentages”. They are taking a WAG grounded in homophobia and hoping the percentages (which neither you nor they nor anyone else know) give statistical support their position.

56

Homosexual men are no more prone to sexual misconduct than any straight man. All it depends on are the moral that individual has. It is ignorant to think that just because a man strays from the norm sexually, he engages in horrible acts. The whole idea that a homosexual is more prone to this kind of behavior strays from the desire straight “normal” people have of attempting to make themselves appear to those individuals that are different from themselves. They don’t understand that being gay yourself is not immoral no matter what “God’s Word” states. People need to loosen up and become a bit more open minded before they start believing and then spouting off profiling and fitting others into steriotypes.

57

Not sure what you mean by this - could you explain it a bit?

A good bit of the thread to date has been my attempt to point out that the BSA might have reasons to outlaw gay Scoutmasters and/or gay Scouts for reasons other than simple homophobia. Some of it can be explained by a desire to avoid the sexualization of relations within the group. This would explain both why they exclude gays and also heterosexual females from leadership positions, as well as why military organizations outlaw fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel, why many relationships between therapists and patients, and so forth.

If you wish to sum up all these under the single term “homophobia”, I doubt we can have much to say to each other, but the term doesn’t seem to fit very well. The ban seems to be on sexual relations in general, not simply gay sexual relations.

If you or KellyM would care to, I would be interested in your thoughts. It doesn’t seem to me to be simple homophobia, at least not solely.

Regards,
Shodan

58

It seems like you are indulging in what some would call “reverse racism”. I can “impute a desire for teenaged boys from the belief that a (man) is gay” because I also equally impute a desire for teenaged girls from the fact a man is hetero. I do not assume that a gay persons sexual drive is much different than a hetero persons.

So because- every “redblooded straight” male I know has a desire for teenaged girls- I assume the same about gay men- or at least most gay men. Why should gay men have a radically different sex drive than hetero men? So- I would not want my “fully developed” 16yo teenaged daughter to go on a camping trip with only male hetero leaders- thus I , not being discriminatory at all- would want the same thing for my fully developed 16yo teenaged son. (A specific “co-ed” trip, with mixed sexes & mixed sex leaders might be acceptable, as then everyone suspects that there could be “hanky-panky” going on, and chaperoning will be stringent).

Somehow- both you and Esprix have got the odd idea that since Shdoan & I seem to be imputing the same desires & dangers with hetero AND gay men- that is somehow “homophobic”. “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it does”. Nothing of the sort. I simply give them the courtesy of assuming that homosexuals are rather similar in their sexual desires as heterosexuals.

Thus, since if I see a well rounded cute 16yo girl in a cheerleader costume- I have sexual stirrings (although I am adult enough to control them)- I assume that Esprix would have the same stirrings with a similar boy- and the same ability to control himself. (Sorry if I am wrong, maybe you specifically find younger dudes un-attractive, I don’t know) BUT- I would not want to put myself in a long term situation of tempation, either. Thus I assume that a normal gay man would also find tempation in such a long term situation.

It is true I find the Scouts general anti- gay message to be disturbing. But not wanting a leader to be alone during a long camping trip with the sex he/she is attracted to is NOT homophobia. It is at worst being “over-protective”.

59

Again, I don’t think anyone is denying that people have normal, healthy sexual urges regardless of their sexual orientation, nor is anyone denying that it is not unusual for there to be attraction for post-pubescent teenagers, and I think we are all in agreement that those attracted to pre-pubescent children - pedophiles - fall into a seperate category entirely. All fine and dandy.

I suppose where the charge of homophobia comes from is twofold, IMHO - one, the BSA’s active stance against homosexuality as not being “morally straight,” including their exclusion of gay scouts, atheists, and flat-out statements thereof; and two, that in order to “minimize risk” they would rather opt for denying gay men the opportunity to be scouts and scout leaders - who, on the whole, are just as good role models as any other man - instead of changing their practices and procedures to “minimize risk” in other ways; i.e., two adult leaders at all times, changing the way they do camping trips, including more parental participation, whatever. I’m sure the BSA is smart enough to come up with other, better options than “kick out the queers.”

Esprix

60

Shodan,
Most pederasts will not self-identify as homosexual. They will present themselves as heterosexual and many of those busy-handed little scoutmasters are married and have kids. Eliminating only self-identified homosexuals, therefore, accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, to follow your conclusions to their logical ened, we would also have to remove all self-identified heterosexual men from having any similar contact with teen-age girls. Would you suggest that only gay males be able to caoch girls’ volleyball?

Is it just me, or does this sound like a dead-on description of Michael Jackson?