Your opinion might be that I am being pedantic, however conflating gay with child molester is reinforcing a stereotype that has led to discrimination against gay people with some very nasty consequences - that to me is not being a pedant.
Whilst I may well have used a specific term in an inexact manner, my point remains and I expect that most folk with open minds would accept that it is not technical, nor is it trivial, and despite my error I would be surprised if my point was not made and understood - whereas the stereotype is much more insidious because we all can easily slip into acceptance of such labels.
Sorry, I was thinking in Spanish and translating literally imbécil in its old-fashioned meaning of “anybody considered unable to make their own decisions for whatever reason” (age, dementia, temporary illness, sex, slave status, etc.). I should have said “legally incapable”.
I think you can still maintain that most gays are not pedophiles and retain the distinction between “homosexual pedophiles” vs. “heterosexual pedophiles” vs. “bisexual pedophiles”. “Homosexual pedophiles” would be those who preferentially attack male children, “heterosexual pedophiles” preferentially attack female children, and “bisexual pedophiles” attack children of either sex.
Most pedophiles preferentially attack female children. One reason the distinction might be useful is that pedophiles who attack male children (almost all pedophiles are male, and all Roman Catholic priests are male, so that’s why the distinction comes into play) are considered to be at higher risk to re-offend than those who only attack females. That doesn’t make anything any better or worse, but it does affect how the child molesters should be treated IMO.
Another factor is whether or not the victim was a member of the attacker’s family. So a priest who attacked an altar boy would be more likely to re-offend than someone else who molested a niece.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I suppose I could dig up cites for the above, but not on my work PC.
I assumed that was the case, translation is always complicated. (I find it interesting mostly because I’m working on increasing my vocabulary to the point where I can actually conduct therapy sessions in Spanish instead of Espanglish. El idioma/vocabulario de la psicoterapia es…well, pretty specific and not the sort of thing I use in my day-to-day Spanish.)
The “problem” is that it isn’t pedophilia to be attracted to a fourteen-year-old under these definitions, assuming they’ve gone through puberty, so people who are attracted to young teens don’t meet the technical qualification. I’m not sure how this actually impacts what therapy they can receive.
There are pro-anorexia groups, Healthy At Every Size Fat Activism pro-obesity groups, and all kinds of pro-drug groups. We “deal with them” by punishing the members when they actually do something, if they ever do.
Do you think that’s really why? Either the claims of the Catholic Church are true, or they are not (i.e either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or he didn’t). If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then an entire army of predatory pedophile priests being sic’ed on children by the Pope himself can’t change that. It seems much more likely that people are leaving the Church because they just don’t believe Jesus really rose from the dead.
Of course, but I don’t think these Irish people that have left / are leaving the Catholic Church in droves are joining Protestant sects, or are they? Are Protestant churches booming in Ireland? I somehow doubt it…
I said it was largely because of abuse. I have no doubt that other factors, including fall off in belief, social pressure to observe etc have played a part. I think if you have ever been embedded in a highly religious community you might realise that part of the reason you do or do not participate is largely down to which is easier.