Tedster explains child molestation, sexual orientation, and scoutmasters

Great Debates
21

The following information comes from my recall of deviant psychology and child development classes in college, so it may be out of date, but for what its worth.

There are two types of child molestors. True pedophiles are those who are attracted to sexually immature children. Sometimes they are attracted to just one gender, sometimes both, but age is the dominant factor. For these people, the sex of the child they are attracted to is unrelated to their sexual orientation towards adults.

There is no established age; the key factor is sexual maturity. Child molestors who prey on sexually mature children are oriented the same way they are towards adults–i.e., heterosexual men molest girls, homosexual men molest boys, etc.

22

I would think that access might easily have a huge influence on gender selection, and on rates of frequency in different professions. After all, a pedophile has to have time, privacy, and if he wants to remain undetected, some sort of influence over the child. You might have a male pedophile who prefers girls, say, but luck of the draw is, all he has is nephews, or whatever. You might have a man with strong urges to molest children, but who never has access to any–so even if hte % of pediophiles was exactly even in all professions, the incidence of molestation would be higher in those groups that facilitate unsupervised contact with children. This is certainly true in the adult-oriented world–the rate at which people get laid is not exactly coorelated to how often they want to/who they would have chosen.

I suspect that most pedophiles do not have a great many potential victems, and they take advantage of whatever is avalible. This could easily skew statistics, especially since i tihnk many parents would worry/wonder less about why the nice guy next door wants to spend time with Bobby teaching him to play catch than they would about about why he wants to play dolls with Suzie.

I have also heard that incidences of women moslesting children are probably way, way, underreported because we have a tendency ot shrug off hte molestation of children–especially boys–by older women as being at worst, naughty. Most people would react very differently to the 16 year old female babysitter letting the 9 year old see her breasts than to the 16-year old lawn mower guy showing his penis to a nine-year old girl.

23

Um, just to clarify, they’re not my points, per se - I’m just regurgitating info from reliable sources. I know naught of pedophilia except for the basics.

Esprix

24

“Tedster” wouldn’t happen to be one Ted Kaldis, would it? It’s been a while since I’ve seen one of his posts on Usenet (thank random deity for small favors) so I don’t remember if the writing style matches up, but his pet issues sure do sound familiar.

25

:eek: That this is permitted is news to me. Do you happen to have any cites, other than your own personal experience?

26

Nowhere did I assert that Child Molestors are homosexuals, only that they most certainly aren’t heterosexuals, either, regardless of what the textbooks or media spew.

I apologise for being unclear. My silence on any post does not imply endorsement of your opinions. Rather, I’m not going to waste my time arguing against logical fallacies.

27

Glad to finally hear from you.

You objected to gay Boy Scout masters without specifying exactly what your objection was. You still haven’t. You did, however, make an analogy to male Girl Scout masters:

And when asked to clarify, you said this:

Here you object to male Girl Scout masters and equate them with pedophiles. Using your own analogy, I inferred that your objection to gay Boy Scout masters was that they were scoutmasters because they lusted after boys, just as the Girl Scout masters lust after girls. This is not a logical fallacy, it is a direct analogy, one that you made.

If you do not equate gay Boy Scout masters with pedophiles, and do not assume that they lust after young boys (as you do with Girl Scout masters), what exactly is your objection to gay men being scoutmasters?

28

Apparently you gain a lot of satisfaction by twisting my words around and employing the rhetorical equivalent of a drive-by shooting. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that right does not automatically infer any value to it. I think you’ve illustrated that point quite nicely.

http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_Show.html?article=4132&archive=1

29

OK, here’s my take on this.

I’d trust a homosexual man with young boys just as much as I’d trust a heterosexual man with them. He would be no more likely to molest them, as pedophilia has little to nothing to do with sexual orientation. I think keeping homosexuals from working with Cub Scouts (8-11 years old, if I recall correctly) is totally unjustified.

On the other hand, things are different when we are talking about the Boy Scouts, which includes boys in their late teens. I don’t think it’s a good idea to send homosexual men on camping trips and the like with teenage boys, for the same reasons that it would be improper to send heterosexual women with them. This isn’t so much for the protection of the boys as it would be for the protection of the scoutmaster. Teenagers can be very sexual creatures, and are perceptive enough to notice when someone finds them attractive, even if it’s on a base level that would never be acted upon, and manipulative enough to blow this into a serious problem.

Turn things around somewhat, and ask yourself it you would want me, a heterosexual male, being the only adult on a week-long Girl Scout camping trip with a number of girls from the ages of 13 to 19 or so. I’m going to be sleeping in close proximity to these girls, quite possibly be present when they are in various states of undress. I would never do anything inappropriate with these girls, but I can’t honestly say that I would not find any of them sexually attractive. People’s minds work on different levels, and if there is a girl in the group that I am attracted to there is a strong chance I’m going to treat her differently than the others, though it might be to actually avoid her in situations that I am otherwise comfortable being in with the other girls, though I might also subconsciously treat her in a better way than the other girls without realizing why. Teenagers will pick up on this, and it leads to all kinds of situations that could have been more easily avoided had I been a woman - some of the other troop members might become jealous and (rightfully) realize that I am giving her preferential treatment because I am attracted to her, or the girl might develop a crush on me which leads to other bad situations. These same situations could also occur if I was an openly homosexual male supervising a Boy Scout troop. Yes, the risks would be minimized if the boys did not know I was homosexual, but I think this line of thought leads to an unhealthy suppression of people’s right to be open about their sexual nature, and wouldn’t get rid of the problem of the Scoutmaster treating members of the troop differently because of their sexual attraction, which would lead to accusations of favoritism or unfairness even if the boys did not know why.

I’m not saying that homosexuals are more likely to let their sexuality interfere with their ability to work with people effect their judgement than heterosexuals, and I know that in most cases it would not cause ANY problems, just as in most cases a heterosexual man could be trusted with a group of teenage girls, but in both cases there is a greater potential for problems. I think we should only take into consideration sexual orientation in certain cases, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Basically, I think it’s fair to treat homosexual men as heterosexual women when deciding what jobs are appropriate for them and which are not. In 95% of situations, it makes no difference whether a man or a woman is doing the job, but in the few that it does, I think it’s fair to take it into consideration.

30

Exactly which words did I twist around? At every point, I have quoted you exactly. How is asking for you to clarify your position and provide the reasoning behind it “the rhetorical equivalent of a drive-by shooting”? I did not ambush you. I provided you a link in the original thread and asked you to come here and respond. I quoted your words exactly. I responed to what seemed to be the message contained therein, and asked you to present your side.

Did you not make an analogy between gay Boy Scout masters and male Girl Scout masters? Did you not then make the claim that male Girl Scout leaders who go on overnighters are “men who lust after Pre-Teen and Teen girls”?

If my inference about why you object to gay Boy Scout masters is incorrect, then explain your reasons. If you do not believe that gay scoutmasters are more likely to molest scouts, then exactly what is your objection?

And what exactly was the point of the article you linked? Do you mean to imply that the woman who kissed the Girl Scout was typical of gay scoutmasters? Do you beleive that lesbians are more likely to behave inappropriately with Girl Scouts than straight women? If not, then how does this isolated incident support your claim that there is something wrong with gay scoutmasters?

31

What you seem to be missing is that The reason there appears to be a higher rate of Paedophiles in the Catholic church is that it that their crimes are reported more. Its like rape in a way, I’m sure there is a similar percentage of molestation that goes unreported as the Rape stats.

32

Hey, Number Six, I applaud your efforts to get some clarification from Tedster on his views expressed in another thread. You summarized his points nicely and upon reading the whole Poundstone thread, I think you were right in requesting an explanation. However, I wouldn’t hold out much hope of any true explanation from him. He and I had brief and largely uneventful exchange in another thread on hunting. I too asked for clarification and was met with something akin to, “If you don’t know how to respond to my point then that’s your problem not mine.” In short, I decided it wasn’t worth the effort to sally forth a volley of questions asking Tedster to make sense out of what he had written. Your request for an explanation is more reasonable than mine was in the sense that he exhibited a clear and consistent train of thought that appears internally flawed. All that said, I wouldn’t expect that you’ll get much satisfaction in a direct response to your questions.

33

Badtz Maru,

Well said.

34

According to BSA policy, every event has at least two adult leaders present. This is strictly enforced.

I am currently a Boy Scout leader, and have been involved with my troop continuously since joining when I was 11, in 1989. About three years ago, our troop committee got rid of our scoutmaster for breaking this policy, despite the fact that no impropriety was even suspected. If there is an event where we can’t guarantee that this policy can be followed, the event won’t happen.

Again, according to Boy Scout policy, adult leaders do not share tents with non-adults. I’m not sure how this extends to camping trips involving cabins or other shelters, though.

In my years of experience with the Boy Scouts, I have seen several examples of favoritism, none of it sexually based. Way back in my early years in the troop, for example, I was the scoutmaster’s paperboy. Within the last couple years we had a case where the scoutmaster’s younger brother was one of the older kids in the troop. These situations happen, and really aren’t all that serious. I can see no significant added complexities that would be brought on by allowing homosexuals to be leaders.

I think that all situations that I have encountered in Boy Scouts as an adult leader, or that I have seen other adult leaders encounter, would fall in that 95%.

35

It isn’t. Tedster’s just one of those inarticulate types who has trouble coping when his ass is being handed to him.

36

Look, it was you “guys” who flew off the handle, not me.

37

'Scuse me? You casually tossed off an obnoxious, offensive, and insupportable assertion. As this message board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, you were called on it, and asked to provide evidence for it. You repeatedly refused to do so, necessitating further requests.

If you want to remain ignorant, that’s fine, but it violates the mission of this board to let your assertions go unchallenged – not because we think we’ll change your mind, but rather to prevent any lurking readers from concluding, based on a lack of said challenge, that your beliefs have a basis in anything other than prejudice and fear.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by waterj2 *
**

Waterj2 here is what you are talking about. The complete policy starts at the top of the page.

FTR I worked at a boy scout camp for 10 summers – we had a scoutmaster (of my troop - not at the camp) who was a molester but he was the sort who preyed on small (read very young) children. Dragging 10 boy scouts into a court to talk about these things is never pretty though. I wish I had links to provide but the case was back in the very early 80’s and the local newspaper’s archives only go back two weeks or so.

<shameless plug>Oh, and don’t forget to check out my site for Camp Pioneer.</shameless plug>

39

“The first time I went on a campout (along with Mrs. Peel, a woman co-volunteer) I had planned on sleeping alone in my tent.”

—THIS is obviously the Girl Scout troupe to belong to! Not only do they get a great male role model, but they get to practice karate chops with Diana Rigg!

40

If you’ll recall, I merely pointed that a Scoutmaster’s lust for little boys precludes him from being Heterosexual; It was at that point some became apoplectic and assumed I was asserting something completely different.

The bottom line is, children need good, wholesome role models, and there are a dearth of them, obviously. Most people regard buggery as something less than that. There’s a sexual “McCarthyism” prevelant in today’s values free culture, branding anyone who doesn’t agree with the party line as a “bigot” or “prejudiced”; I believe in tolerance- in the true sense of the word. Not surprisingly,
that still means the prohibition of known sodomites in positions of authority over children and our young people.

The “love that dare not speak its name” has become the “love that won’t shut the fuck up.”