Yes, but that is wrong. Listen pal. You don't get to do that. I said nothing of the kind. I don't why you have been so petty and disingenuous lately. Maybe you are sick of being the only intelligent liberal on a mostly conservative board. Anyhow, you are not going to call me out like that. Respond to what I say or don’t respond at all. I was talking about the condition of ephebophilia. This is defined as sexual attraction to late adolescence. These are individuals that are aged between 15 and 17 years old. Having sex with kids this age is a crime, but I will readily admit I have seen girls that I thought were hot only to find out they were 16. This revalation made them off limits but did not make the girl unattractive. The term jailbait exists for a reason.
of course. most of us are attracted to a hot young fertile female. our dna does not tell us their age and not to be attracted. in fact it does the opposite. Doesnt mean you act on it obviously. now if your dna tells you to be attracted to some prepubescent 8 yr old its a sign your programming is off and you may need be recalibrated or castrated. .
Maybe, but only partially. Reports tapered off greatly in the mid 70's, and while cases are still reported they are nowhere near as frequent. I have seen one figure that as high as 70% of accused priests were either retired or dead when the allegations came to light. Another 22 percent were within three years of mandatory retirement, which is age 75. Only a tiny fraction of cases have been brought against active priests. What happened in the mid-70's was a shift in the psychological theory that sexual deviants could be treated which led to accused priests being removed from ministry and defrocked. Also consider that as the vast majority of the cases were reported years after the abuse occurred, nothing could be done. I think the John Jay report is dead on.
Hence why I said to me the condition of ephebophilia is normal. Which is why the distinction is important.
Opinions differ. The definitions have been posted, amigo. You only have to read them. And so I did. I think you are splitting hairs here on a fairly serious topic. No offense intended, just needling you for insensitivity. I realize this. But it's not a moral and legal issue if a priest is attracted to a child as long as he doesn't act on it. But if he acts on it, he will be called a pedophile in general public parlance. That's all.
The distinctions are important for making sure the same thing never happens again. If you are heavily screening seminarians for pedophiles you may not catch the types of individuals who were the abusers.
Not really. I think the problem is you're equating any attraction to a 16 or 17 year old as ephebophilia and the clinical definition of the condition is a preference for partners who are in mid to late adolescence. If you see a 17 year old you would are attracted to/want to scrog, you are not an ephebophiliac.
regardless of age it is not all that creepy to want to have sex with a girl who is physically an adult with fertile child-bearing physical characteristics. it not legal, but not that creepy. lets not pretend we dont see hot underage girls prancing about all the time. my goodness, so hot. but priests are obviously different because they homos.
I have heard about some of the conspiracy theories on that but I never really looked into it heavily. I assume if we had not that the Soviet Union would have screamed bloody murder. That would have been a huge propaganda coup for them. But, sure....as far as I know we landed on the moon. I've seen plenty of space shuttle launches. I imagine if you put enough fuel on one of those things and point it in the right direction it can end up where ever you want. Why do you ask about that?
Well, I guess it looks strange, sure. But so do a lot of "religious" services. Especially to people who don't believe in God. The Freemasons are a very influential group and their main opponent is the Catholic Church.