It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jaw-dropping paramoralism: "It's Not Pedophilia If the Boys Were Post-Pubescent"

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:03 PM
I don't know why hair is being split between pedophilia and homosexuality. It's all homo, meaning same, sexual and results in the rape of a minor. Unfortunately there are both homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles in this world and it is them that should be blamed. I see the Roman Catholic Church as being helpful and not corrupt in the least.

My opinion on the matter is that this is the fault of perverted gay behaviour towards another male who is a minor. It's the fault of the man who engages in gay behaviour with the boy/teen and knowingly breaks boundaries. I don't see how the Roman Catholic Church, as a whole, is engaging in gay behaviour with any boy/teen. Or how the Roman Catholic Church is to blame. For instance, if a public school teacher does gay things to a boy/teen, one shouldn't blame the public school system for having done gay things to that boy/teen. Yet another way it can be seen similar to is when one blames the gun for killing a person and letting the shooter of the gun off the hook, claiming, "if it wasn't for the gun..." That's absurd. Someone can kill another with their bare hands; no gun needed. Likewise, regardless if the church is there or not, some gay pedophile will be on the hunt for a minor to attack. Well, the church is there and for that I am glad because people that worked for the church helped my family.

I went to a Roman Catholic middle and high school even though I wasn't Catholic. My parents just sent me there to get me out of the public school system and into a better one. While I was there, there was nothing weird going on in the church. I was never molested. I made it out fine. Not even a hint of sexualness towards me or others, if that's even a word, from any of the nuns or priests that were there. As a matter of fact, my sister was molested by our father, who is an athiest. She went to a Roman Catholic Church, the school, and got help. So those that worked for the Roman Catholic Church helped a victim of hetrosexual pedophilia break free. That would have been the type of headline which would have held a candle to the Roman Catholic Church, but due to the sensitive nature, it was kept private. Our family didn't want to be embarrassed. We were all shocked, ashamed and mad. I can imagine how the Pope must feel about what is going on in the church. We likely share some similar feelings. I understand why the need for privacy within the church. It is an uncomfortable thing to discuss, and we need to remember that just because it isn't being discussed openly does not mean it isn't being addressed.

Obviously there are corrupt people in the Roman Catholic Church, just as with any present or past religions. There are many bad apples in public schools, in the government, in ethnic groups, in homes, in cities, in states, in Nations, where ever one turns, they will be sure to find some, if not many, bad apples. The Roman Catholic Church is not bad in and of itself, their love for Jesus Christ is strong. The dark forces of Evil have infiltrated the church, just as it has with the rest of the world. The mission of the religion of Christianity is to spread the good work of Jesus Christ, attempt to emulate it and hold steadfast to faith and belief in Him and His love for human beings, which includes loving the sinner but not the sin. This is a tough act to follow and not an easy road to take. I have the upmost respect for anyone attempting to take on the belief system of Jesus Christ/Christianity. Just because someone attempts to walk the christian walk and fails to do so, does not mean that christianity failed, just the person. The good news with christianity is that just because a person fails at it doesn't mean they are banned from the walk permanently, they get to try again, repent as many times as they need to, to get it right, being uplifted with the endless patience of Jesus Christ, which surpasses human patience. God Bless them all~

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by Son of Will

Sorry I agree with Yoki. ANYONE who hurts a child deserves all the pain in the world.
Screw psychological help, a pedophile is a disgusting waste of space on this earth.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by predator0187

I realize no one but someone who is not on this board will read this post. Regardless, this douche bag is the douchiest douche bag I have ever seen. There. I said it.


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by Afterall

why are you correcting this.
It is still a 12 or 13 year old boy/girl.
They do not have the insight nor ability to escape such a situation should it arise (especially if they are deaf)
To me, that is pedophilia. Pedo means kids...12 and 13 year olds are KIDS in my book.
either way, the church and priests responsible should be burned at the stake for these disgusting acts.

I am simply responding to the OP. Apparently reading my reasoning would be too much trouble for people. The OP is pointing out that it is technically NOT pedophilia. is not. It is rape. Why accuse someone of a crime they did not commit when you can easily convict them of the one they obviously did?

What would you rather, a priest running free but you can call him a pedophile or a priest in jail for rape and who cares what you personally want to call him?

I would rather that a rapits go to jail or worse than just get called the incorrect name.

Why are people so against wanting to punish rapists for rape? I just want to see rapists be punished. If you want to string them up for a crime they did not commit, they will walk free to rape some more. Where is the logic in that? Do all of you really think it would be better to have a rapist roaming the streets, preying on children, just so you can call him whatever you want?

This is rape. Rape is plenty bad all on its own. Pedophilia has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Why focuse on crap that has nothing to do with it when you have a perfectly valid and heinous crime to deal with already????

I do not understand why so many people on this board would rather let more children suffer just so you can all feel better knowing that you used the word you wanted to, correct or not.

READ THE OP, GET A DICTIONARY, Then string 'em up for that rape they obviously did commit and stop focusing on the crime they did not just because you like the word better.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by Faiol

What do you mean?

Is it english? Have you been drinking?

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Republican08

Look, this whole thing with the Church and "altar boys" is ridiculous and needs to stop. History will one day look upon these things with the same contempt we now look upon the "Aztec mass human sacrifices" or something like that.

We truly are so backward still in this world, it's not funny! The whole problem stems from the fundamental error of expecting priests to ACTUALLY remain completely celibate for life. It's not natural to go against Nature like this; only a monk can pull something like this off successfully. Even then it is hard and the monk needs to meditate/pray a lot, be a vegetarian, etc, etc.

This is why their sexual drive then comes out in perverted ways and they suddenly start f*cking little boys! And, then, to top it all off, you have the apologists on TV trying to explain it all away with ludicrous theories...

Jesus is the Master of Masters; that is the Truth and I care not what people think about that! But the Church, hah...that's an entirely different matter.

Check out 8/14/webcam-wanker-was-a-catholic-priest-who-tried-to-groom-a-13-year-old-for-sex/ about a "chat-line priest"

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by Key-Minder

Thanks for sharing your family story and opinion. I'm a former Catholic that attended a parish where we did not see any of this abuse. We were lucky because it was in surrounding parishes.

Where I think the Catholic Church fails in all of this is in the initial cover-ups and the current attempts to excuse those initial cover-ups. People make mistakes and the Church hierarchy are only people and we are judged in this world on how we recover from our mistakes. They would not have been blamed if justice was swift from the start.

Hiding criminals and then further exposing the faithful to those same criminals over and over was wrong. The hubris of the Church leaders was the reason for that. It only proves they are men and the Pope is simply a man with no special God connection. God never told them to treat rapists inside the Church. God never told them to risk children over and over. God never guided them in any way through this process. The criminals should have been handled by the law enforcement and the justice systems of the various countries, states and cities where the crimes occurred. The Church is not above the laws of man. That's where they went wrong. God should have told them to get the foxes out of the hen house and that he would provide new people to serve the Church. God must have been sleeping or the Pope was not listening. Even I can make up more enlightened answers to this problem.

1963 letter indicates former pope knew of abuse

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by cjcord

Of course it's not a gay issue. I mean, percentage-wise, all those little girls raped by priest show this is a definite hetro problem

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by Afterall

Whoops. Somebody needs to do some research, but I'm not so sure it is the OP. We are discussing sexual assaults which occur with a minor child.
Yes, it is rape depending on the type sexual assault which occurred. Rape must involve some type penetration, be it anal, or oral, as far as males are concerned.

Fondling, etc. with a child is still considered sexual assault, and is simply called child sexual abuse. It is sexual assault. Because the offender selected a minor child to assault rather than an adult, it is pedophilia.

Pedophiles are people who are sexually drawn to children. A fourteen year old is a child. If the offender wanted someone on even footing with himself, he would choose another adult. This is not the case here. If the fourteen year old engages in sexual activity with another fourteen year old, and it is with consent, it is not criminal.

If an adult engages in sexual conduct with a child who DOES consent, and that child is an older teenager, it is Rape II, or statutory rape.

However, if the child is less than 12 years old it is a felony, regardless of the issue of consent.

Most adults are not sexually attracted to children. If you are, it is a disorder, and considered a mental illness, not just a sexual preference.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:22 PM
It's not pedophilia, although this is a common myth.


Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.[

It's ephebophilia if it's a post-pubescent minor.

Wiki again:

Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

The age of consent varies by country and even by state in the U.S. Spain's age of consent in 13! I feel that if the adolescent is willingly giving consent, what's the harm? Of course, if someone is using coercion, force, drugs, or manipulation, then it's totally wrong.

@ladyinwaiting Yes, our society considers it a mental disorder, but it's totally a sexual preference. The thought of it being a mental disorder is merely a cultural construct. A long time ago I came across an article which stated that it's most likely related to genetics, and not the result of neurological damage.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by unityemissions]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:11 PM
I'm pleased to report that the information I give is not from wikipedia, but rather from universities where I study and teach.

However, the difinitions issues appears to be derailing the thread, and I have previously explained this for those who are interested.

There are indeed legal definitions, which I have given, and definitions according to mental health statistical manuals, which I believe I have also given.

I am willing to bet personally, that some of the offenders who will be uncovered during the hopefully upcoming thorough investigations and inquiries will meet the definitions of both in many cases.

What I do resent to a large degree, is the church renaming this issue as a "homosexual" one. As I have pointed out many times, most pedophiles actually prefer females, but tend to target males more often, because males are more easily accessible. Not to say some don't actually prefer males, I'm sure some do. However, in pedophilia, it doesn't really matter so much. As long as the victim is devoid of any secondary sexual characteristics, such as public hair, etc. they are content with the victim.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:12 PM

See, if the kids were post-pubescent - 12 or 13, according to Bill - then it's not pedophilia anymore, it is homosexuality. And that means it's not the fault of the church, it is the fault of Gays.

Trying to lower tha age of "consent" with a technicality and blaming the actions of their own priests on another group altogether.

And what if there are girls 12-13yo? That's not even homosexuality, so does that mean it's fine?

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by unityemissions

A good video. True about the culture shock thing.

But when adults are the ones who make up these laws, it can look pretty suspicious if the age seems low. Only 12 in Vatican City?
Not bad for a bunch of blokes that probably pretend they don't even agree with premarital sex.

If Disneyland set their own age of consent to 12, you would be suprised how many people wouldn't clue on to why it was done...

[edit on 4/4/10 by NuclearPaul]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Sorry, but I didn't see any links or references given in your previous posts. Here's some info from another site besides wiki which states the DSM-IV criteria.

The Characteristics of Pedophilia According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by and adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-years-old. Those attracted to males usually prefer slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults.

I have a personal agenda about this because of my circumstance. I have always chosen younger girls as most attractive. It probably has to do with my emotional immaturity. I'm thought to be slightly autistic (aspergers) .

When I was 16-17, I choose those 14-15. When I was 17-18 I chose those 15-16. Now at age 27, I choose women age 19-24. When I was younger, I had issues with feeling amoral for wanting to be with a minor. It's just not that clear cut, as I've learned over the years.

While it seems I'm derailing the thread, I think the point is valid. In the title it states a prepubescent child and that it's not pedophilia. I agree, and so does the DSM-IV. It may be seen by society as amoral, but it's not a mental disorder.

As for it being illegal, yes it is. I reside in the state of Texas. If someone is 17 and wants to sleep with a 15 year old it's legal, but more than two years is illegal. It's simply a gray area to some extent. I just don't think the black and white laws hold true to common sense.

Should two people age 15 & 18 who are in love be separated because the female's mother finds a used condom, confronts the guy, and he subsequently is put under legal questioning?

reply to post by NuclearPaul

I agree 100%.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by unityemissions]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by unityemissions

Ah, UE. I was afraid you would take this in an insulting way, and my comments were not directed towards you, as others seem to rely on the internet encyclopedia heavily.

What you have quoted from DSM is also Wikipedia quoting DSM, is it not?

In fact, let me just hopefully lay this to rest, or not, in any event I will bow out as it frustrating to me when I have laid this out clearly in previous posts. (Again, not directed to you).

I now have DSM in my lap, okay? I know these things from my own memory from years of study, but I will type word for word the criteria to meet the Mental Disorder for Pedophilia.

Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

B. The person has acted on these urges, or is markedly distressed by them.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in A.

Note: This does not involve a late adolescent in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12 or 13 year old.

So it becomes clear that you, UE, are not a pedophile. Not to worry.

Also, I won't respond on this thread again, as obviously people believe what they want to believe, and I have said all I can say.

Didn't mean any of this in a bad way....just trying to share some information.

Good evening UE, et al!


posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:42 AM
If you've never had to rush a child to the ER to have lacerated intestines stitched back together; if you never had to hold a child who trembled and shuddered each time he/she had to go potty; if you never had to wash the blood from their underwear or take them to ER to have their esophagus repaired; if you never looked into a pup tent covered in blood from slit wrists or had to chase a tormented child through the woods because they were trying to escape themselves and if you never had to cut a dead child down from a tree, you really haven't seen the reality of what these demon seeds from hell do to kids. When you can say you have seen those things, then maybe, just maybe, you'll realize this has nothing to do with any church. It has everything to do with criminals and those who protect them. The next time you say it's only God who judges, keep in mind that he gave mankind the power to reason. Do you think it's about time they put it into effect?

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by Ex

Thank you for posting this. I have had similar experiences and could write a book about it, and probably will someday. Sounds like you could too.

Waiting outside surgery for physical damage to be repaired: Check.
The dead children: Five.
Dissociative Disorders: Check.
Multiple Personality Disorders: Check.
Runways, drug addiction: Check.
Families where they know about the abuse and don't care: Check.
Young children pregnant, and not knowing how they got they way.

....and more. As you seem to know.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Republican08

Oh so disgusting.....It's almost perfect how they make it sound......disgustingly almost made me puke. (even if it is a's wrong and sure gives a funny perspective if it weren't so wrong)

This is one of the worst things I have seen in years, I cant believe that this isn't getting even more attention that it is getting! The pope himself seems to act like it's nothing, yet here we go.

The worst part about it has to be
""And let me remind our clergy of the holy vows they all took when they entered the priesthood," he continued. "They should know that they're only allowed one small child every other month."

The pope said he was deeply disappointed to learn that the number of children sexually abused by priests was almost 10 times beyond the allowable limit clearly outlined in church doctrine. Admitting for the first time in public that the overindulgent touching of "tender, tender young flesh" had become a full-blown crisis, the Holy Father vowed to implement new reforms to bring the pedophilia rate back down to five children per 1,000 clergy."

[edit on 6-4-2010 by desireforyou]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by desireforyou]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM

Originally posted by predator0187

Quote from source:
On Larry King Live last night, professional overzealous defender of the Catholic Church Bill Donohue explained to Sinead O'Connor that it's not pedophilia if the victim is 12 or 13.


so following thier logic.... its not pedophilia if it is a 8 year old girl that hit puberty at 7? I see so now the church is condoning premarital relations with 8 year old girls if i use this logic to guide my choice in "women"...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by HalfAWorldAway

i think it is easy with Catholic church as they, as a system, has denied blame for the incidents when they obviously knew what was going on. There have even been letters sent to churches tell them to, in not so many words, cover it up.

as for other denominations and religions... can say

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in