Yet more Catholic pedo sickness

[AdamSmith]

Is there no end to it?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/31/priest-apologizes-after-sex-abuse-comments-draw-ire/

[caeron]

I had sex with an older man when I was about 14.

I wasn't 'abused'. I wanted it and liked it.

While it is an unpopular point of view, I think that saying that sex below the age of consent is always horrific is just not real.

Most here would shrug their shoulders if an 18year old had sex with a 17 year old, and scream in horror (justifiably) if a 30 year old had sex with a 3 year old. Between those two points is a continuum, not a step function.

So while I find the catholic church reprehensible on many levels, I think we here ought to have a better grasp of the truth than most when it comes to older guys sleeping with younger ones.

And no, I'm not condoning it, and wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to hang someone who says that these contacts aren't always instantly damaging to the younger male, and that the younger male can, in fact, be the initiator and like it. I did.

[MsGuy]

Yep. A (younger and cuter) friend of mind had me in stiches one night as he related his 5 year campaign to seduce his mentor from a Big Brother program. The poor guy never had a chance. Back when he had all his hair, my friend was one cute honey-pot and devious as all get out. Still is devious, lol, but now he and his husband (not the same guy) have been happily married for over 20 years.

Ner the less, American mores draw little distinction between 5 year olds and 15 year olds and American law even less, so it's best to put away any rogue impulses you may have and stick to guys over the legal limit. The phrase "jail-bait" comes to mind.

[AdamSmith]

What MsGuy says.

caeron, I do get and agree with your point. I know a couple of adults I wish I had been able to sleep with when I was underage. It would not have harmed me -- quite the opposite! (I may not be able to get to sleep tonight thinking of them now. Urrr!)

But one point about priests, teachers etc. -- adults who hold positions of "authority" over young people (leave that definition flexible for this convo but the general principle) -- they do have some kind of responsibility (forgive that word too) above and beyond. No?

[caeron]

Absolutely they do.

But in reading the article, I read a man who is just tone deaf to what he's saying. He wasn't saying it's ok, just that it's sometimes more complicated than "evil priest molests innocent child." I think he's frustrated as a priest with the demonization of fellow priest whom he knows aren't all the monsters they're painted to be. I also sense, though I may be reading into it, a man who understands that the vast majority of men weren't built for celibacy, and that trying to keep that vow can twist men. (that's one of the reasons I blame the catholic church for much of this. Its twisted teaching on sex is part of what has made such messes of these men that they do these things.)

In the current media environment, these just aren't things you can say. The crowd baying for blood wants the matter to be black and white. Grey upsets them.

[lookin]

Gratified to see the nuanced thoughtfulness in this thread. It seems so unusual these days, at least in this country.

Of course the law will be black and white and I think the ethical actions of an adult toward a child, or any person with less power, are often best framed in black and white. But thought, analysis, and discussion have never been well-served by pretending that gray does not exist.

When we look for the best answers and the best outcomes, I think we should use all the experience, insight and brainpower we can muster.