I think you’ve demonstrated your point of view quite adequately without any “twisting” on my part.
**
I sure did. In fact, I found so much supporting my point of view, that I had to disregard most of it in search of pages which spelled it out in simple terms. I have a entire bookshelf dedicated to sociology. Laziness kept me from transcribing the lengthy passages dealing with this very subject.
Perhaps it’s just me, but if I held a point of view that was only supported by gay-bashers, Fundamentalists, and other whackos, and was utterly dismissed by the scientific community at large, I might want to reconsider my position. But, then again, I’m one of those kinds of people whom evidence and logic can convince, without clinging stubbornly to error-- one of those types who can admit that they might be wrong about something if shown evidence supporting an opposing view.
Actually, I say to insist that there is a biological foundation based solely on your antecdotal evidence is to do so without any scientific validity. The sites I posted were not only talking about outward expression, but about inward beliefs as well. Documentation from competent researchers has been offered. Read it.
Whatever. Despite the reams of evidence I have provided, you refuse to consider what sociologists take as fact: there is no biological origin for predjudice. Apparently, you didn’t bother to read them, and so I won’t bother doing any more research, when what I have already provided is more than enough. Instead, much like a Creationist, instead of reading through the material and trying to understand it, it appears you took the time to pick through and try to find “inconsistancies,” basically refusing to see anything that contradicted your point of view.
You demanded a definition of homophobia: I provided it. Your reaction: Silence.
You demanded evidence that homophobia was not innate: I provided it. Your reaction: Silence.
I have demanded evidence to support your beliefs: You ignored it.
My reaction: provide more evidence.
Each time you have thrown down the gauntlet, I have met it with relatively good-natured aplomb. Since, at one time, I thought you were genuinely questing for knowledge, and were unaware of the studies done by sociologists in this area, I tried to be helpful in providing you un-biased and simply-put information. I have since discovered that you have no interest in learning, or in dispelling any erroneus beliefs. The purpose of this board is to eradicate ignorance, but there’s only so much that can be done. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
**
I provided a definition of homophobia some time ago. Fit anyone you know? If you don’t fit the definition, you are not a homophobe. Simple enough, I should think, but apparently not.
I have read this discussion through and have to disagree with this post, for a number of reasons.
First, and most important, I don’t think zwaldd is in fact “insisting” that there is a biological foundation based on anecdotal evidence. I think he is suggesting that it could be the truth.
I also think that what sociologists take as fact has probably changed many times throughout the history of the discipline. All scientists must be able to discard what they had believed to be fact if there is reason to do so. I cannot say that zwaldd has offered reason to do so, but to say that he has “refused to consider what sociologists take as fact” is both incorrect (I believe he has considered it) and rather pointless (that sociologists claim it doesn’t make it true).
Did not, did too. Gotcha. OK, lets see if we came eye to eye anywhere here…
**I think you’ve demonstrated your point of view quite adequately without any “twisting” on my part. **
Agreed. I say to insist that there is a biological foundation based solely on your antecdotal evidence is to do so without any scientific validity.
True. Sociology has changed its opinions over time, however, the field today is much different than it was in the past. Today, there are thousands upon thousands of sociologists who dedicate their careers to the study of human behavior, whereas in the past, scholarship in this field was somewhat limited, both in numbers and in scope.
In the modern era, sociologists dig deep in studying almost every aspect of human behavior in excrutiating detail. The competing schools of thought criticize and pick apart one anothers’ theories to the nth degree. Whereas, in the past, because of the limited number of sociology scholars, theories abounded which were on shaky basis, to put it mildly. There was a mild aura of “respect” in which many scholars did not want to point out their collegues shortcomings, whereas today, a scholar cannot declare the sky is blue without having a dozen other sociologists submit papers as to why this might not always be true. Sociology is not the elite gentleman’s club that it once was.
That’s why sociology today is much more refined, and more careful in study. One’s collegues in the field will be happy to pounce on any flaw, or error in methodology. For scholars to reach a general consensus on any behavior means that many competing theories have been submitted, and discarded . . . much like science finally coming to a “theory.” With thousands of people studying the same thing, discovering an erroneous theory is every scholar’s dream: a great way to make a name for one’s self. If flaws exist in a generally execpted theory, there is little doubt they will be found.
You are correct in saying that theories change over time, however, if a theory has withstood the onslaughts on conflicting theories and suppositions over time with little change up to the modern day, it is doubtful that there will be many significant findings in the future will alter it dramatically.
That seems extremely reasonable. How long would you say the theory about homophobia, and aversion to homosexual acts, as cultural products has been the dominant one? Or, perhaps I should ask, has it ever been believed otherwise?
The Social Construction of Reality is one of the foundations of modern sociology, which was developed in the early 1900’s. Basically, it says that human social life and reactions to social situations are totally constructed through interaction with others.
As early as 1902, Cooley was advancing the idea that there are no innate predjudices/morals-- that all social reactions come from parents and peers. He called it “The Looking Glass Self.” (His work was not on sexuality, but on the socialization factors of the family.) It was natural for these two areas of study to merge. Mead wrote about the “generalized other,” meaning that we only become “human” by symbolic interaction, and communication with others.
Study of sexuality became more popular after Kinsey’s famous studies got everyone talking, and wondering about sexual behaviors. Specific study of homosexuality and homophobia began in the late 1950’s and early sixties when homosexuality was removed from the DSM where it had been previously listed as a pshyciatric illness. Phsycology and sociology sort of pooled together at this time in study of homosexuality.
Almost as soon as the study of sexuality became popular, so did the study of people’s reactions to it.
This site offers this timeline: A Sociology of Sexuality
Yes, homosexuality was much differently viewed by social scientists in the past. As I mentioned before, it was once listed as a psychiatric illness. In the Victorian era and afterwards, people viewed sexuality as something animalistic and dangerous. Masturbation was blamed with causing all sorts of degenerative physical illnesses, (hairy palms included) including insanity. I have a book from that era which shows a before and after drawing of a young man who began masturbating and devolved into a slavering, slack-jawed shadow of his former self. Parenting manuals advised tying childrens’ hands to the bedposts so that they could not masturbate.
Homosexuality was seen as the most dangerous of all the sexual vices. It was seen as immoral, sick and dangerous to the health. “These people must be crazy to want to have sex with other men! There’s no other way they could possibly want to do that!” was the contemporary reasoning. (Women’s homosexuality was barely mentioned, or apparently even thought of.) It wasn’t until the late 1950’s that serious study into homosexuality began to change that view.
a male adult who molests girls may be disgusted by women…and this proves what? Anyhoo, my original quote claimed that a larger percentage of pedophiles engage in homosexual behavior, not were homosexuals.
I wrote this because I am fully aware that the medical community considers same-sex pedophilia not to be “gay”. This is, IMO, wacky. Being gay or not being gay is orthogonal to a person’s pedophilic nature.
But I used the “proper” grammar in my post. Unless, of course you define said acts as not even being homosexual behavior, in which case I dont even know what to say to that.
**
**
Need I remind you that we are a culture that abhors pedophiles? So the only ones that are measurable are the “outted” ones, which is pretty much the ones that get caught.
I would think that pedophiles are statistically just as decent people as…ummm…gerontophiles(?), just that the ones that do the right thing and do not engage in their desired activity are not entered into the statistics.
And even among those who do, the infamous ones, the aggressive and sadistic ones, are more easily caught in the first place. There is probably a huge chunk of possible cases where the crime was not enough to warrant “making a big deal out of”, because the perp did not revel in their “power and dominance”.
Not to say that there arent long-term consequences for the victim, but i think your premise of power-hunger is thrown into dispute by the dynamics of measurement.
who are you discussing this with? Has anyone disagreed on that?
It boils down to definition of terms. Respected medical communities have DEFINED such behavior as not being homosexual: I am inclined to disagree. To each his own.
I see your point, and it’s one reason why I’m opposed to “homosexuality” – the term, not the orientation/behavior/whatever.
If you define “homosexual behavior” as “anything done that gives sexual pleasure between two persons of the same sex, whether consensual or not, including the molestation of little boys by males” then you’re correct – but the quick and immediate spin people will put on that is to then read “homosexual behavior” as “behavior engaged in by homosexual people, i.e., normal adult gay men and women” and play the homosexuality=pedophilia game all over again.
Points for discussion:
[ul][li]Pedophiles, as you note, include moral persons with a sexual attraction to children that they never act on, and child molesters.[/li][li]Child molesters molest children for sexual gratification and reasons of dominance and insecurity. Some molest girls, some boys.[/li][li]Adult gay men desire sex with men, not children. A subset of them also desire sex with adolescent youths who are capable of enthusiastic consent in real life, if not in law. This is ephebephilia, and distinct from pedophilia.[/li][li]Some few pedophiles may also desire sex with men.[/li][li]The division of sexuality into hetero- and homo- becomes less than useful when one starts identifying improper sex objects simply by their gender and classifying people with those perversions as hetero- or homo-. I trust that you are not going to identify the woman involved in those Tijuana woman-and-donkey shows as having good healthy normal heterosexual sex![/li][/ul]
True, but there have been, and still are, other cultures that do not.
In our culture, where sexual contact with children is forbidden, some scholars have proposed that it is this very taboo which makes the act exciting to some perpetrators.
**
This is true. Some believe that up to 3/4 of molestation is never reported, for a variety of reasons. The child may be afraid to tell out of guilt, or having been threatened. The parents may be confused or embarassed, or afraid to come forward, especially if the perpetrator is a respected member of the community. They may fear that the ordeal of a trial would bring further damage to the child, or that they do not have enough evidence to bring charges. If the abuser is a family member, they may be moved out of pity or the sense of family obligation not to prosecute, or feel that making the matter public would bring shame on the entire family. And some parents feel that it is best to just try to forget that it ever happened . . . that if no further action is taken and nothing more is said that the child will forget about the abuse in time.
**
I’m sorry. I don’t understand this paragraph.
**
Again, I don’t quite get what you’re trying to say.
If it’s that pedophiles who substantially injure the children physically are more easily caught, then yes, you’re right. A good deal of molestation doesn’t involve penetration, or even forcible fellatio. It may “only” be fondling the child, which is often undetected by the parents, because the child may be confused, and it leaves no physical evidence. The perpetrator often knows how to manipulate a child into feeling guilty, and threatenes the child that if the molestation was found out, the parents would be angy at the child. In familial molestation, the child feels an obligation to obey the family member, and may not even understand that what is happeing to them is wrong.
I don’t understand your sentance in which you say that some of the crimes may not been worth “making a big deal over.” Could you give an example of one? If I caught a man touching my child, or even just looking at their nude bodies without contact, I would feel that it was a “big deal.” I can’t think of any act of molestation which I would not. (Of course, my perceptions and repulsion for such acts are culturally triggered.)
If your trying to say that some acts which we classify as child molestation aren’t, in the sense of layman’s denintion, such as a 19 year old man having sex with his underage girlfriend, then you are correct. These people, however are not treated in the same manner in the criminal justice system as a predator of young children. The 19 year old man would be classified a Level One offender, one who is unlikely to repeat his crime. Level Two offenders are people who have been caught molesting a young child, and there’s a moderate risk that he will do so again. A Level Three offender is most often a repeat offender, (or one whose crimes were particularly heinous) judged likely to repeat his crimes, and will be required to register as a sexual predator for life, wheras Level Two and One offenders only have to register for ten years. (Your state laws may vary.)
**
It’s not my premise. In most of the literature I have read on the subject of molestation, it has been said that power/dominance over the victim were the primary motivation in American molestations, because our culture has removed any “legitimate” sexual feelings for children. If children were readily available for sexual outlet, there would be no “dirty” aspect of power and dominance, unless artificially construed, such as a man asking a prostitute to pretend she’s being forced.
The psychology/sociology papers I have read said that an American/Western Culture molester is generally a man who feels intimidated by adult women and feels sexually innefectual. Children, who are weak physically, and easily intimidated and controlled may look attractive to such a man for those reasons. It’s generally not the sex act alone which makes the perpetrator satisfied, but the notion that he had total control over another human being, and could make them do whatever he wished. Because our culture forbids the act of having sexual relations with children, it changes the very nature of it.
Some molesters acknowledge that their acts are seen as “disgusting,” and it’s this very “forbidden fruit” aspect which make the act exciting. Some find the “pervert” lable itself exciting, added to the thrill of power over another human being.
Others will refuse to admit that they did anything wrong, sometimes blaming the victim for “coming on” to them, no matter how young the child. These types can see themselves as the victims in the situation, and sometimes point to their own molestation as children to be the cause, that they had an “irresistable” compulsion to molest because of what happened to them.
Some perpetrators have been victims of abuse themselves, but some literature says that such claims have been on the rise among molesters because it sometimes leads to lighter sentances.
But the American judgement on molestation and the causes thereof aren’t necessarily the way that things have always been seen. Children have not always been inviolate, untouchable non-sexual beings. In the past, it was perfectly acceptable in some cultures for a man to keep a young male child as a lover in some cultures. Where sex with children is seen as “normal” societal ramifications such as guilt and shunning are not seen. The excitement of “getting away with something” is absent, as is the excitement of force.
You are talking about child molesters. So was I, originally. then someone brought up pedophilia.
Pedophilia. Is. Not. The. Same. Thing.
Or are you saying it is impossible to be a straight man who likes postpubescent females, yet still does not engage in sex?* Well, then I have first-hand evidence that that it wrong, if you know what I mean. The same goes for pedophiles.
According to the DMS-IV, revised, pedophilia is persistent attraction for prepubescents with either actual contact or distress to the pedophile. I would posit that those who fall into the latter category both drop out dispropotionately from the radar screen of studies, and also are the ones, who being more or less decent human beings, like you or i do not get off on power trips.
i was referring to the victim’s internal justification for not reporting. While all instances of prepubscent abuse should be illegal, I would posit that there is underreportage of marginal cases, versus cut-and-dried ones, and ones involving your stereotypical power-junkie. I could be wrong, though.
[/hijack]
If you’re talking about an attraction to, say, a 15 year old girl, my opinion is that such an attraction is perfectly natural. In the past, that girl most likely would already be married, with a baby on the way. Such a girl is the ideal mate, reproductively speaking. She’s past puberty, and due to her youth, has many breeding years ahead of her. Men, it seems, are programmed to find youth attractive in this respect.
Our modern culture has deemed this young lady off-limits, but in no sense of the word could she have been considered a “child” a couple of hundred years ago. It’s only since the dawn of the Victorian era that “childhood” has emerged as a fragile state in which young people must be protected and kept innocent as long as possible.
I’m sure that there are many people out there that have urges on which they do not act. Hell, I’ve an urge to break into Barnes and Noble and fill the trunk of my car with books. That doesn’t necessarily make me a thief, but if I should sit here all day long dreaming and dwelling about my potential theft and thinking up ways I could get away with it, then the problem is a bit more severe.
The problem lies with focusing on one desire to the exclusion of all others. If a person is able to gradually change their focus to more obtainable goals, then they can’t be classified as a danger. Some people, however, focus deeply on a fantasy to the point where they feel that they MUST act it out, at least once. The key is to carefully monitor fantasies, and keep them from gaining power over one’s self control.
