Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (1375)	3/5/2002 6:30:12 PM
From: maried.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

O.K. I'm really disgusted! I was looking for information regarding pedophelia and the Catholic church. I found tons of stuff on a google search and will post this with the book's title. But that's not what disgusts me! 2. Did the Catholic hierarchy cover-up sexual abuse cases among priests? On one level the answer is "yes." During the 60's and 70's priests involved in relationships with minors were chewed out, sent to counselors, told to make a retreat and moved from one assignment to another—but the police were not called. However, as Jenkins shows, that was the practice not only of the Church, but other major institutions like schools and hospitals. The societal consensus, for example as expressed by Harvard University, was that it was against the child's interest to treat sexual abuse as a crime. It was considered that police investigations and court procedures would be more traumatic, more damaging psychologically, than the incident itself. .."Pedophiles and Priests" I found a site pedophilesunite.com...It is so uncomfortably graphic! that I am ready to call every congressperson/senator that I can think of! Does anyone out there support NAMBLA and the ACLU's support of them????

To: one_less who wrote (1375)	3/5/2002 6:44:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It appears that the study was flawed and deliberately flawed to misguide the public with a political message. I think that this particular clip was not wholly on point for our discussion. It seemed to me to be trying to clarify the risk of various men who might have access to kids saying that the biggest risk is not from the obvious suspects--identified homosexuals but men who would not necessarily trip alarms. What is closer to the point, but not exactly, is that only ten percent of child abuse is committed by gay men and all women combined. The other ninety percent are heterosexual or bisexual. We don't know how many of each. Since the vast majority of the victims are girls, it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the men are heterosexual. Karen

To: one_less who wrote (1375)	3/5/2002 7:10:45 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Well, Gosh. I really didn't take that point from it at all (that hetero is more likely than homo to abuse). Actually, I seem to recall, and will say this without having anything to back me up but my memory, that the statistics were that pedophilia occurs in approximately the same % of each population, be it hetero or homosexual... and that's because pedophilia is NOT related to a gender preference. Since all I excerpted was that paragraph, and you drew conclusions on the whole study based on that alone, it is my fault that you see it as biased in some way. We would need I think to read the whole article. By the way, I didn't read the 74% as being anything more than pointing out that a lot of the men who abused boys were active heterosexuals prior to the offense, just to prevent us from leaping to the conclusion that man on boy somehow precluded the abusers being heteros. My only "agenda" was to point out that I believe it is wrong to relate homsexuality to pedophilia as being somehow causative and to present an article that argued that position. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.