It would explain the naughty little cowboy suit.
I’ve never understood this contorted logic that says that if someone hates Thing X, he must be a secret lover of Thing X.
Are Red Sox fans secretly closeted Yankees fans?
Are KKK-ers secret lovers of black people?
Are arachnophobes secret spider-lovers?
Are dentist-phobes secret fans of the dental drill?
I’d say that close to 99% of the time, when someone claims to hate someone or something, they indeed hate it, period. Plain and simple as that. No ‘secret affection’ for that thing whatsoever. They mean what they say and they say what they mean. Nothing to hide, no inner mental confusion, etc. Didn’t Maya Angelou once say, “When people show you who they are, believe them?”
I hate Apple Pie.
I won’t argue what things are called in different states.
That said it seems if Moore did what he is alleged to have done with Corfman (the 14 year old) then he would be guilty of two crimes in Alabama:
He would have been guilty had he been tried back then and found so, but the statute of limitations is long past, and there isn’t going to be any trial. He’s guilty in the court of public opinion, for what that’s worth, which is actually quite a bit.
Yeah, usually. But there is actually research that indicates there is a correlation between extreme homophobic opinions and homoerotic inclinations. (I cannot speak to the methodology of said research. Only to say it’s not totally out of left field to think there might be a correlation.)
The statute of limitations is past but Moore got lucky in this instance.
The statute of limitations on his alleged crimes expired in 1980-1983. Alabama removed the statute of limitations on these crimes in 1985. Had he committed these offenses after 1982 he’d still be on the hook for them (if the statue of limitations had not run by the 1985 change there was no limitation).
Generally I’d agree that you should take people at their word, but there seems to be an exceptional situation with gay-hating Republicans (or Christians) later getting caught being gay. Here is a list of 19 republicans brought down by gay sex scandals.. Plus there’s Ted Haggard, notoriously anti-gay leader of New Life Megachurch until he was brought down by a meth-and-gay-escort scandal.
So yeah. “Republican doth protest too much” is a thing.
Maybe it is the repression inherent in the conservative character when it comes to sex that makes it all the more titillating. The more taboo, the more arousing it is. There is a well documented link that the bible-belt states tend to view more gay porn (and more porn in general) than the more liberal states (which is not to say there is not high porn consumption in some liberal states).
Thats fair. I didn’t know the technical legal definitions and was using ‘statutory rape’ as a catch all term for all sexual conduct with a post pubescent minor to distinguish it from what most people think of as rape (forcible rape).
The 16 year old he met in the restaurant was attempted forcible rape. What happened with the 14 year old sounded consensual from what I know of it, but is still illegal.
Much of what Moore did was just skeevy, but not illegal (trying to date or have sex with 16 year olds isn’t illegal in most states, however I think in some states taking a 16 year old somewhere without their parents consent or knowledge is considered kidnapping even if they go willingly). I ‘think’ the sexual interactions with the 14 year old and the attempted rape of the 16 year old are the only things Moore has been accused of that are actually illegal (so far).
OK. As for the 14-year old, we might agree in layman’s terms that it was “consensual”, but the law does not recognize a minor of that age to be able to give consent. In legal terms, there is no such thing as consent from someone under the… age of consent.
I know you said this in passing, and I know this is the pit where cites are not commonly asked for, but I would appreciate any support you have for this bolded statement (bolding added by me), or lacking support, a re-statement of what you meant, or a retraction.
I have a particular reason for this. I am a gay man and over the years it has been a common, but I believe mistaken, accusation against gay men that most of them like to diddle boys or underage teenagers. Since the estimates of the percentage of gay men in the US ranges between 3% to 10%, if the bolded statement were true, it would have to follow that most or all gay men do a LOT of molestation of boys.
So I am attempting to be rigorous here because these kinds of casual assumptions can cause a lot of damage to gay men, and I believe they should not be allowed to stand without being challenged.
It’s entirely possible to be opposed to gay people simply because you believe they’re sinners. It’s also possible that you could rail loudly against being gay solely for this reason. However there’s another more specific reason to rail loudly against gay people - because you believe they’re tempting you to sin. Because you believe they are using their sexy sweaty sexually uninhibited lifestyle to try and lure good straight people down the path of sin with them, and it’s a super-real temptation that has to be actively resisted.
Every single person who approaches the situation from that angle is a self-hating gay person.
Why would it need to be retracted? Sexual abuse of boys by women is turning out to be way more common than most people ever imagined.
I’ll get this to you soon… I want to clarify that pedophilia and ephebophilia are wildly different things than homosexuality. Gay men don’t molest boys, pedophiles molest boys. It is a different sexual orientation. But with ephebophilia I consider that more of an extension of sexual orientation, maybe with an emotional maturity component that attracts them to teens. (that part in talking out of my ass.) I stand by the general statement, boys are molested almost at the rate of girls and I will provide your cite when I am able.
There isn’t any significant difference between the percentage of gay men who molest children and the percentage of straight men who do it. But boys are certainly being abused. Hope that clarifies… Sorry I’m in a restaurant.
The logic is, “If I am really, really insistent about how much I hate X, nobody will suspect that I’m really X myself.” It’s not exactly a new idea, having been expressed in such diverse places as Shakespeare’s “Methinks the lady doth protest too much,” to the schoolyard “He who smelt it dealt it.”
These aren’t great examples. Sports fandom is a largely arbitrary tribal designation. There’s no real moral value attached to being a Red Sox fan versus being a Yankees fan, and there’s not really any penalty, in most contexts, to being the “wrong” kind of fan. People who are afraid of the dentist generally don’t hate dentists - they’re just worried that dental procedures can be painful. People who are afraid of spiders are creeped out by how they look, but they’re generally not putting a moral value on being a spider.
The KKK comparison, though, is kind of on point. Because if you listen to what your average Klansman says is wrong with black people, and you look at how the average Klansman lives his life… there’s a lot of overlap there.
99% of the time, I think you’re right. But a lot of prominent homophobes fall into that 1%. Like, a whole lot.
You have already clarified your meaning to some extent, for which, thanks. I am not (or was not) aware that pedophiles were so indiscriminate in their gender choice for victims.
This makes me wonder how this came up in a thread about Roy Moore, who only (allegedly) molested teenagers not children. You seemed to change the conversation in your original post. The bolded part now just seems irrelevant to the rest of your post, since the first part is talking about Roy Moore and teenagers, and then you suddenly switch to talking about children. It’s confusing.
What!?!?!?
Was SW saying that? I’m no expert on pedophilia, but I wasn’t aware they didn’t care about the gender of their victims. Is that correct? A pedophile is generally not attracted more to one gender than to the other?
Go to bed John, you’re drunk.
I’m sorry, I have to go to work soon and I’m not functioning at full mental capacity. I can see how what I said could be taken out of context. I don’t have time to dig up cites right now.
So, let’s start with this: There is no evidence that gay men molest children at a rate higher than the general population.
Claims to the contrary are fabricated bullshit.
Research on pedophiles, as I understand it, indicates that in addition to being sexually attracted to children, they usually have some sexual orientation to adults, gay or straight. It stands to reason, since most people are straight, that most child molesters are straight. A man can be straight and prefer to molest boys. It’s weird, but that’s the way it is. IIRC the statistic is 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused and 1 in 4 girls.
But I don’t think of Roy Moore as a pedophile. Some people prefer sexual relationships with post-pubescent adolescents. These are kids who have usually reached or exceeded puberty. I was the victim of one such person, so the distinction stands out in my mind. Roy Moore appears to be an ephebophile. I’m sure a lot of straight men are attracted to teenage girls, sometimes as young as fourteen, but most of them know it’s immoral to pursue a sexual relationship with a kid. Roy Moore failed this morality test, but I don’t think he’s wired much different sexually than the average straight man. And some people, I believe, pursue relationships with teens out of some emotional immaturity or simply because it’s easier to coerce children than adults. I’m assuming these people are preying on people that match their adult sexual orientation because there’s really nothing de-facto unusual about being attracted to a post-pubescent teen. There is something unusual, and reprehensible, about acting on it.
Which means, and this is where my comment comes from… if Roy Moore was a closeted gay, he’d be more likely to be abusing boy teens than girl teens. If Roy Moore’s victims were 6, and 7, and 8 years old, I would have never have said what I did.
As I understand it, women are significantly less likely to molest pre-pubescent children than men, but certainly, they do abuse. I have two friends who were abused by women. Women do, however, physically abuse children at roughly the same rate as men. Also, some studies have indicated that if the definition of rape were amended to involve ‘‘being forced to penetrate someone,’’ a lot more men would fall under the category of rape victim. Men aren’t the only ones who fail to understand consent in our culture. Abuse of power knows no gender.