If the Jay study is indicative, only 81% of victims are male, and only 78% of those (61% overall) are 11 or over. Moreover, the onset of puberty varies for males from ages 12 to 16, so it’s incorrect to say that anyone age 11 or over is “sexually mature”. Full maturity is moreover generally achieved at around 15 years of age.
My best guess is that about half the victims were sexually mature, and half were not—about a quarter were over age 17 and thus almost automatically sexually mature, 22% were ten or under and were almost automatically sexually immature, and of the remaining 50%, I’d guess about 2/3 were not sexually mature. So overall, of the males molested, I’d guess 50-60% were either prepubescent or in early puberty, and probably similar for the females molested.
The question, then, is whether the molestation was due to homosexual leanings among priests, or whether it was some other perversion, or simply “opportunistic”. I am leaning towards “some other perversion” like pedophilia combined with an “opportunistic” sexuality for the abuse of those under 15, and for those over 15, a mix of all three factors. I don’t see clear data proving that molestation of males is primarily, or perhaps even significantly, done by men with a primary attraction to other adult men.
And quite frankly, in this day and age, anyone who would dare attempt that might as well tattoo a target in his forehead and chest. You’d have to spend a lot of time investigating these cases, and the evidence is notoriously messy with somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 of victims never telling anyone.
About midway through this article, Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual journalist and person claiming Catholic faith, argues that compelling homosexual men to celibacy (e.g. Catholic priests) leads to things like this. He may be right, he may be wrong, but it strikes me that his is an interesting response to contentions like the ones I make above. I don’t know whether to put it in the bin of “one perversion leads to another” or “this is what happens when lonely men get an opportunity”, though my hunch is Sullivan would lean towards the latter.
Discussion
NewHe appears to be wrong
If the Jay study is indicative, only 81% of victims are male, and only 78% of those (61% overall) are 11 or over. Moreover, the onset of puberty varies for males from ages 12 to 16, so it’s incorrect to say that anyone age 11 or over is “sexually mature”. Full maturity is moreover generally achieved at around 15 years of age.
My best guess is that about half the victims were sexually mature, and half were not—about a quarter were over age 17 and thus almost automatically sexually mature, 22% were ten or under and were almost automatically sexually immature, and of the remaining 50%, I’d guess about 2/3 were not sexually mature. So overall, of the males molested, I’d guess 50-60% were either prepubescent or in early puberty, and probably similar for the females molested.
The question, then, is whether the molestation was due to homosexual leanings among priests, or whether it was some other perversion, or simply “opportunistic”. I am leaning towards “some other perversion” like pedophilia combined with an “opportunistic” sexuality for the abuse of those under 15, and for those over 15, a mix of all three factors. I don’t see clear data proving that molestation of males is primarily, or perhaps even significantly, done by men with a primary attraction to other adult men.
And quite frankly, in this day and age, anyone who would dare attempt that might as well tattoo a target in his forehead and chest. You’d have to spend a lot of time investigating these cases, and the evidence is notoriously messy with somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 of victims never telling anyone.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewAn addendum
About midway through this article, Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual journalist and person claiming Catholic faith, argues that compelling homosexual men to celibacy (e.g. Catholic priests) leads to things like this. He may be right, he may be wrong, but it strikes me that his is an interesting response to contentions like the ones I make above. I don’t know whether to put it in the bin of “one perversion leads to another” or “this is what happens when lonely men get an opportunity”, though my hunch is Sullivan would lean towards the latter.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.