If Priests can marry will the abuse end

[Alive]

Nah...

I bet this kind of thing has been going on for centuries; priests and children. I doubt marriage would put a stop to it. If anything, marriage would make the priesthood less attractive to gays, and then there would be a shortage of priests.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Frasier In which case I think it could reduce problems of abuse - but it would not all paedophilia, ie being sexually attracted to children, will end if they could marry. I fail to see how that is a misuse of the term.

Most molesters aren't "attracted" to children in the Pedophile sense, they just lack another outlet.

Quote by: Frasier I meant to say acting upon paedophilic thoughts and desires. My apologies.

Again, i fail to see how that's wrong, given it's consensual.

Quote by: Rooster There is no evidence for that. If you knew anything about the complexity of sexual urges you'd realise that actually they can be caused because one is celibate and that because of that the id becomes dominant over the superego - in which case one is more likely to develop urges that the superego would normally surpress.

They lack other outlets. The urge isn't necessarily specified towards young boys, but they have no other outlet.

[Rooster]

Frasier: Are you suggesting that Freud's theories are incorrect because of this conjecture?

Freud was a nut case, pardon my use of the term. History finds that he never stopped having sex, just stopped having sex with his wife. All of his theories came down to sex being the root of the isse.

Maybenot, when you quote me, please do so correctly. I did not make this statement :

There is no evidence for that. If you knew anything about the complexity of sexual urges you'd realise that actually they can be caused because one is celibate and that because of that the id becomes dominant over the superego - in which case one is more likely to develop urges that the superego would normally surpress

.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Rooster Maybe-not, when you quote me, please do so correctly. I did not make this statement : .

Oh sorry. I just quote everything, and comment what needs to be commented. Must have deleted the actual [ QUOTE ] tag. Sorry.

[Frasier]

Freud was a nut case, pardon my use of the term. History finds that he never stopped having sex, just stopped having sex with his wife. All of his theories came down to sex being the root of the isse.

Ah ok, I see. So Freud, the most respected psychologist in the last Century, was wrong because he was, in your opinion "a nut case"? Fair enough.

[Mia]

Quote by: Rooster Whether or not priests can marry has nothing to do with abusing or entering into inappropriate relationships with young boys. Having a healthy, normal or sexual outlet will not stop the urges

How do you know? It entirely depends on whether the priest in question are actual pedophiles, attracted primarily or exclusively to children, or whether their sexuality has been suppressed, and now taking on deviant forms.

There are many examples and incidents of this,,,,as was mentioned above, heterosexual prisoners being 'gay for the stay'.

Sexuality is a powerful force, and if it doesn't have an appropriate outlet, it can turn to deviancy in a person it otherwise would not have.

I find it ironic that a few years ago, the issue of whether to allow priests to marry was put aside in order to focus on the problem of how to handle the child abuse,,,,,,I feel like they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces

[Mia]

Quote by: Maybe-not Most molesters aren't "attracted" to children in the Pedophile sense, they just lack another outlet.

Your source? How do you account for all the married molesters who offend against their own children? Granted, there are reasons besides pedophilia, but not primarily or exclusively lack of another outlet.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Mia Your source? How do you account for all the married molesters who offend against their own children? Granted, there are reasons besides pedophilia, but not primarily or exclusively lack of another outlet.

Mental instability, drinking, and a varity of other reasons, are, according to Wikipedia, more common. For one, a sadist who can't act out his urges, but have kids... Well, you get the idea.

Naturally they have got to have some element of a pedosexual attraction to be able to get off, but i think we all have "some" elements of most sexual acts. The 'Being gay for the stay' thing as an example.

"A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile and will usually meet the DSM criteria for that mental health diagnosis; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[17] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner),[27]"

From Wikipedia. Can someone clarify what "DSM" is?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Rooster Whether or not priests can marry has nothing to do with abusing or entering into inappropriate relationships with young boys. Having a healthy, normal or sexual outlet will not stop the urges

It depends on what the urges actually are. Human beings have natural sexual urges, the RCC removes the ability to act on those urges by their priests. That doesn't make the urges go away, it just makes them push them down. For the majority of priests, I don't think they are pedophiles, I think they are desperate. It's the availability of young children that the priest has access to that makes them act sexually toward them, not an inherent pedophilia among priests. It's like the prison population, the majority of inmates aren't gay, but since they only have access to other male inmates, man-on-man sex happens at a very high rate, simply because that's all there is.

Giving priests the ability to marry and have normal sexual relations with another adult is going to reduce those urges to "get some" wherever they can. It will seriously reduce the number of sexual abuse cases and allow the church to purge those who actually are pedophiles from their ranks.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Cephus It depends on what the urges actually are. Human beings have natural sexual urges, the RCC removes the ability to act on those urges by their priests. That doesn't make the urges go away, it just makes them push them down. For the majority of priests, I don't think they are pedophiles, I think they are desperate. It's the availability of young children that the priest has access to that makes them act sexually toward them, not an inherent pedophilia among priests. It's like the prison population, the majority of inmates aren't gay, but since they only have access to other male inmates, man-on-man sex happens at a very high rate, simply because that's all there is. Giving priests the ability to marry and have normal sexual relations with another adult is going to reduce those urges to "get some" wherever they can. It will seriously reduce the number of sexual abuse cases and allow the church to purge those who actually are pedophiles from their ranks.

Why the hell should the church purge pedophiles? (Apart from them being the icon of Intolerance).

[Mia]

For the same reason that drug addicts aren't put in charge of the pharmacy.

Coyotes don't guard the hen house.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Roost Whether or not priests can marry has nothing to do with abusing or entering into inappropriate relationships with young boys. Having a healthy, normal or sexual outlet will not stop the urges

That all depends on whether the priests in question are true paedophiles. It's prerfectly possible and, considering their situations, likely that they are surrogate offenders who use kids as an alternative to an unavailable adult outlet.

Quote by: Roost There is no evidence that supports your theory either.

If Freud isn't good enough for you, how about Kinsey, Krafft Ebbing (1886), Howells (1981), Abel, Mittleman & Becker (1985), Knight et al. (1985), Brongersma (1990), McConaghy (1993), Ward et al. (1995), Hoffmann (1996) or Seikowski (1999)? Or are they all nut-cases as well?

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Mia For the same reason that drug addicts aren't put in charge of the pharmacy. Coyotes don't guard the hen house.

I see your logic.. But keep in mind, being a pedophile, does not make one a predator. The comparison to Drug addicts, and wild animals, is rather offensive.

[Mia]

Quote by: Maybe-not Mental instability, drinking, and a varity of other reasons, are, according to Wikipedia, more common. For one, a sadist who can't act out his urges, but have kids... Well, you get the idea. Naturally they have got to have some element of a pedosexual attraction to be able to get off, but i think we all have "some" elements of most sexual acts. The 'Being gay for the stay' thing as an example. "A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile and will usually meet the DSM criteria for that mental health diagnosis; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[17] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner),[27]" From Wikipedia. Can someone clarify what "DSM" is?

First, your assertion was that most, not some, offenders are not actually attracted to children, they just lack another outlet. Second, the source you're giving here says the opposite, that most will meet DSM requirements to be a pedophile.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Mia First, your assertion was that most, not some, offenders are not actually attracted to children, they just lack another outlet. Second, the source you're giving here says the opposite, that most will meet DSM requirements to be a pedophile.

It says they are commonly assumed to be pedophiles. And it isn't a "mental health diagnosis" it's a sexual orientation. If they are diagnosed with a mental instability, that does not nessesarily mean they are "pedophiles". eg someone who, according to Wikipedia, [the true pedophile who "has a general interest in social contact with children, including a sexual dimension"].

Also:

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to children or sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those who have sexually abused a child.

In contrast to the definition of a true pedophile, it's used this way.

And seriously, what does DMS means?

[Rooster]

We can debate the definition of a true pedophile all day long, but no matter who they are or what they are...they (meaning pedohpiles) DO NOT belong in the "protection of the church" or in a postion of authority over children. No matter what the age of those children are.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Rooster We can debate the definition of a true pedophile all day long, but no matter who they are or what they are...they (meaning pedophiles) DO NOT belong in the "protection of the church" or in a position of authority over children. No matter what the age of those children are.

The Church and protection, nukes and cancer-patients...

[Mia]

DSM = the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medem: Medical Library: Fact Sheet: Pedophilia

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Mia DSM = the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Medem: Medical Library: Fact Sheet: Pedophilia

Okay, thanks.

However, the link to that Medem page.. :rolleyes:
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." Interesting how this seems to be Taboo. Even trying to debate is, is considered immoral by some. :rolleyes: