Posted on 07/20/2013 1:45:48 PM PDT by NYer
That's an extremely far way away from the statement that the vast majority of child sex molesters are married men.
In fact, because a little more than half of adult men are currently married, and about 70% of men either are currently married, or are divorced or widowed, and because child sex abusers, as you point out, look very much like the general populace, it's unsurprising that a large number of molesters are, indeed, married/widowed/divorced men.
In fact, the statistic I cited was 44%. That's a lot of folks. Nonetheless, if married/widowed/divorced men are roughly 70% of the population, and are roughly 44% of molesters, that means that this population offends at a substantially lower rate than the rest of the population.
sitetest
“Well then you should be able to do your own survey of the research.”
It’s not a topic that so interests me that I’ve tracked the research I’ve read over the years. But the research that I’ve seen that actually measures the demographic features of molesters shows that married men offend at lower rates than the rest of the population.
“I would call this an argument from authority since professionals who treat these people are generally considered as such.”
Having come from the mental health field, and having spent some years with mental health faculty, I take their aggregated opinions with more than a grain of salt.
But even if I didn’t, I’d never take the results of a survey of folks’ OPINIONS about the demographics of a population over actual studies of the demographics of the same population. That’s called choosing sign over sample. Which was one of the first things we were taught not to do in graduate school.
“Actually my assertion was about pedophiles only not those who pursue teenagers.”
My understanding is that folks who exclusively molest young, prepubescent children are a small percentage of child sex abusers overall, perhaps less than 10%. Thus, even if your statistic were accurate, it wouldn’t be all that meaningful, as it would ignore over 90% of abusers.
As well, the study you cite doesn’t indicate that they are asking about attitudes of exclusive pedophiles, but rather use the broader term “child sex abusers.”
Even so, by definition, true, exclusive pedophiles don’t experience sexual satisfaction with adults, and from what I’ve read, are generally somewhat LESS likely to marry (although many marry anyway).
“Your argument is that you don’t recognize the authority of the opinion.”
I certainly take their opinions with a grain of salt. I’ve known mental health researchers who did fine research. But I wouldn’t pay a quarter for their unmoored opinions, professional or otherwise, especially guessing about demographic data.
” I don’t see how morals (because someone won’t or will report crimes) means they can (students) or can’t (professionals) describe the population that produces the crime.”
I don’t see that morality entered into the question. My professors had very good reasons to oppose mandatory reporting. They had cogent and logical arguments. They were trying to do what was right by the victims, by the offenders, and by other interested parties.
But we students had our side, as well. And we had our reasons, our arguments, our logic. We, too, were trying to do what was right by folks. And in my view, we had the stronger argument. I also happen to think that we students have been vindicated by revelations of the past couple of decades.
I didn’t think my professors were immoral. Just wrong.
And they were.
“On reporting sex crimes ....the Catholic Church has defended the sanctity of confession on this very issue. Is it immoral too?”
In that I didn’t impute immorality to my professors over this question, why would I impute immorality to those who believe in the seal of the confessional.
However, I agree with the absolute seal of the confessional, and have at least enough wisdom to distinguish between a psychotherapist who tries to heal a psyche and a priest who forgives sin.
In looking further at the study you cite, their citation of the Abel, Becker, et. al. study seems straight up. They don’t appear to make any effort to undermine the result that suggests that “most CSA perpetrators are White males, in their thirties, single, fairly well educated, and employed[.]”
Indeed, this meme, that ordinary married men are the chief source of child sex abuse, arose primarily in the context of the homosexual agenda, to hide the fact rates of abuse by homosexuals far exceeds rates of abuse of heterosexuals, generally. Obviously, as homosexuals comprise only around 1% - 3% of the population, and generally speaking, most of the rest of the other 97% of folks can be accurately described as heterosexual, in absolute numbers, heterosexuals commit more child sex abuse. But they don’t offend at higher rates than homosexuals, just the opposite.
Finally, the idea that the population of married men, which is a little over 50% of the adult male population, comprises 78% of child sex abusers is so over the top, it shocks me that anyone who isn’t warped or distorted by some sort of sick agenda would actually think that.
Against all evidence to the contrary, such a person is asserting that married men commit child sex abuse at rate 50% above the average of the entire male population, and commit abuse at higher rates than either single or divorced men.
sitetest
You've been shadow boxing with your own fallacious idea. I've never heard this meme and I haven't said one thing about the general population of married men. I have completely restricted my remarks to the rare group of people that are pedophiles and that's because they and only they are associated with the priesthood. That makes them significant. Combining pedophiles with (what used to be called) ebophiles together hides the homosexual behavior because they are part of the second group and have different demographic characteristics.
As I posted before, describing pedophiles as married says something about the general population of pedophiles not the general population of married men.
The media constantly puts out the idea that the Catholic priesthood is filled with pedophiles and people suddenly believe the solution to this is to allow married men. It's repeated on this site, I see it mentioned in public and have heard it tossed out by people at work. The Church itself is responding to it in the “Protecting God's Children” program which concentrates heavily on pedophiles and says very little about those who pursue teenagers. Allowing marriage will not weed out pedophiles and does nothing to protect the group of children who are at risk from homosexuals.
“You've been shadow boxing with your own fallacious idea. I've never heard this meme and I haven't said one thing about the general population of married men.”
You haven't been paying attention over the past few decades.
I can't tell you how often I've heard folks, to counter the fact that homosexuals abuse minors at a far higher rate than heterosexuals, that “most abuse is by heterosexual [or even married] men.” I first heard this in a psychology class in 1977.
“I have completely restricted my remarks to the rare group of people that are pedophiles and that's because they and only they are associated with the priesthood.”
I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate with this. Obviously, the child sex abuse scandal in the Church was mostly about homosexual priests who preyed mostly on pubescent boys.
“As I posted before, describing pedophiles as married says something about the general population of pedophiles not the general population of married men.”
Although the word you used originally was “pedophile,” the study you cited doesn't seem to use that language or restrict itself thusly. In any event, although I've seen assertions to the contrary, most cites I've seen suggest that among the less than 10% of abusers who are “true pedophiles” - folks whose primary sexual orientation is neither heterosexual or homosexual (and even that designation is disputed) - most “true pedophiles” do not, indeed, marry, especially because nearly by definition, someone who engages in the marital act with an adult spouse isn't a “true pedophile.”
Thus, although there will be some folks who are “true pedophiles” (if that is truly a valid category of sexual orientation) who marry, to say that the vast majority of them are married is an astounding claim and requires astounding evidence. You haven't presented any astounding evidence of the claim, nor even any direct evidence of the claim, but only very weak indirect evidence.
As for the media, they generally use the word “pedophile” interchangeably with phrases like “child molester” or “child sex abuser.” The distinction between the two terms is lost on the media, and thus talking about it is pretty irrelevant.
The Church also makes a similar confusion.
It is true that permitting priests to be married men wouldn't substantially alter the number of “true pedophiles” in the priesthood, but that's not because married men comprise the “vast majority” of pedophiles (a terrible libel), but rather that so few priests were “true pedophiles” (again, if such a category exists objectively) in the first place.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.