Originally posted by ChessPraxisIt is more the issue of missing them rather than the actual mislabeling of them, if you are looking for homosexuals who molest children you are going to miss about 95% of them, but hey if it sounds right, say it.
Yeah, I'd hate to mislabel child molesters.
Jesus have mercy
Might wanna leave Jesus out of this, given what his reps on earth have been up to.
24 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57My geography/sports (surprise, surprise) teacher at prep school was eventually convicted, though fortunately I was never the focus of his attentions. He got a suspended sentence, which I am still baffled with today, even though his offences were in the relatively 'minor' category.
Yeah over here we have an ongoing disclosure process before anyone can work with or supervise children and vulnerable adults. And regulations regarding anyone being alone with a child.
Sounds a bit paranoid but on a day to day basis it is adhered to without people being too conscious of it. It offers protection to the adults as well.
It is a shame tha ...[text shortened]... wing them and adults to engage in healthy interraction's in a social and mentoring environment.
Anyway, I googled his name a few months ago and found nothing, except a person who had been abused by him more seriously at another school. He is in his mid 40s today and he still hasn't come to terms with it. He did not come forward at the time as he was too ashamed of what was done to him.
I think we are too protective of our kids where physical safety is concerned, but where this form of abuse is concerned, I think the regulations in the UK are proportionate.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI am not sure homo is implied but, if it is, then it shows how far we have to go.....
Ch-ild MO-lester I think, also Homo is implied.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
[i]Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.[i]
Originally posted by Rank outsiderLook here pencil dick. I NEVER said gays were more likely to be pedophiles.
I am not sure homo is implied but, if it is, then it shows how far we have to go.....
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual ...[text shortened]... characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.[i]
You've hardly shown the ability to put words in your own mouth, kindly refrain from putting them in mine.
24 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57If it's all the same to you, and even if it isn't, I'll decided what I am going to say.
It is more the issue of missing them rather than the actual mislabeling of them, if you are looking for homosexuals who molest children you are going to miss about 95% of them, but hey if it sounds right, say it.
Might wanna leave Jesus out of this, given what his reps on earth have been up to.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisThen why introduce a term into the discussion that you believe implies this? Why perpetuate such an offensive and inaccurate presumption?
Look here pencil dick. I NEVER said gays were more likely to be pedophiles.
You've hardly shown the ability to put words in your own mouth, kindly refrain from putting them in mine.
When challenged on this presumption, you showed no concern about the implications for gay people. You seemed to think it was OK to mislabel paedophiles as gay, as they deserve nothing better. That, in itself, could be seen as pretty offensive to gay people, that being gay should be used as a term of abuse for paedophiles.
I never said that you thought that gay people were more likely to be paedophiles. You are the one putting words in my mouth. But if you really think this, why use a term which, by your own admission, you believe implies this?
It's hard to think of a reason why you would use this term believing that "homo is implied" if you did not stand by this implication. Perhaps you just chose the wrong word and used it without thinking through the implications?
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI don't think that anyone is accusing you of anything, I for one am adamant on my right to point out inappropriate language when it comes to something as important as child abuse in this or any other public forum.
If it's all the same to you, and even if it isn't, I'll decided what I am going to say.
This particular word is problematical for two reasons, it does help perpetuate a negative image of homosexuality, and, I would say more importantly it lulls society into a false sense of security in regard to straight men, could not help but notice that the Wife of Sandusky stuck by him to the bitter end.
The response you gave above applies to us all, get used to it.