About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Um, male pedophiles who prey on little boys, and are "straight"
otherwise, are "bisexuals", aren't they?

No, they are not. They are pedophiles. If you ask a male who is attracted
to boys as well as adult women what his sexual orientation is, do you really
think his answer is going to be "bisexual"?

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...



Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely to
find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

Because pedophilia is neither a homo or heterosexual act. Sexual preference
between consenting adults is not a good predictor as to whether they would
molest a child or vice versa.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...
I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order
of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a
teenage
girl.). According to my wife (a Girl Scout leader, BTW), most women just
ain't wired "that way". (I'll have to take her word for it.)

Why would you have to take her word for it? Does she know most women? How
is her position as a Girl Scout leader relevant?

As far as wiring goes, most men aren't either. Most people in our society
are able to resist temptations that fall outside of socially acceptable
behavior. Beyond that, there are ample examples of women preying on teenage
boys (Mary Kay Letourneau being a recent high-profile case).

Of course, our society being what it is, the boys don't usually think of
themselves as "prey". As enlightened as we'd like to think we are, boys are
still encouraged to have sex while girls are told they are sluts for even
thinking about it. But that doesn't diminish the fact that it is, indeed,
preying.

Men, on the other hand, I understand. It would be sheer folly to assume
that a man, left alone with a teenage girl, overnight, wouldn't be
tempted.

Left alone? What kind of arrangements do they have in your Boy Scout troop?
If male leaders and scouts are pairing up and sleeping alone together, I'd
submit that you have bigger problems than the question of homosexuals on
your hands.

Further, I'm a bit curious why you think you understand gay men. Do you
understand what it feels like to be attracted to another man? To be
attracted ONLY to other men? If you cannot understand that, what makes you
think you can understand how a gay man would feel around a teenage boy?

Would most men ACT on this temptation? No, of course not. But I'd bet
you
a hundred bucks that a higher percentage of men than women would...

I'd take that bet. After all, the victim is much more likely to be
compliant in the case of a woman trying to act on her temptation (due to our
screwed up sexual double-standard, in which teenage boys are encouraged to
have sex while girls are discouraged). In any case, the question is not one
of "how many", but rather of "whether". If you are concerned about the
potential for abuse, you need to look at the individual.

Furthermore, there are far more women involved in Boy Scouts than there
would ever be gay men; if you feel that gay men are a risk, simply because
they would be "tempted", then you should be arguing to ban all female
involvement with the Scouts as well.

Finally, I'm totally baffled by your statement that "you are more likely
to
find a heterosexual male willing to prey on a teenage boy than you are to
find a homosexual male willing to do the same." In what way would a
HETEROsexual male be likely to prey upon a teenage boy?

Pedophilia is not about gender preference. It's about preying on children.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual. Furthermore, just as all but a very few
heterosexuals are pedophiles, so are just a very few homosexuals pedophiles.

If you think that just because a man is heterosexual, you can be assured he
won't want to have sex with your boy, you are dangerously ill-informed.
Your bafflement reveals a hazardous gap in your awareness of sexual deviance
and its risk to you and your family. It's the same as if you had the belief
that putting a second engine on an airplane ensures that it couldn't be
crashed.

Pete

Jay Honeck wrote:

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example

That's because it's not "preying". It's the fulfillment of the dream he
has had every night since he was 14.

Uhhhhh try "since he was 10" instead of 14. Seriously, I suspect a major
reason the number of cases of adult women having sex with young boys are so
much much lower than those of adult males having sex with young girls is due
to a difference in reporting rate rather than a difference in incidence.
And I can easily understand why - what 12 or 14 year old boy in his right
mind is going to complain when his greatest desire, the forbidden fruit he
so desperately wants experience, is handed to him on a silver platter? "Mom
and Dad, have that woman arrested! She gave me the most exquisite
experience of my life today and promsed to do it again for me tomorrow if I
came back over!" Sheesh, not very likely!

"Newps" wrote in message
news:3cB0b.152090$cF.55663@rwcrnsc53...


Jay Honeck wrote:

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an
order of
magnitude smaller than the reverse example

That's because it's not "preying". It's the fulfillment of the dream he
has had every night since he was 14.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:wIt0b.201425$YN5.140717@sccrnsc01...

I would say the odds of a woman "preying" upon a teenage boy are an order
of magnitude smaller than the reverse example (i.e.: A man preying on a
teenage girl.).


How many teenage boys would consider a sexual advance by a woman being
"preyed upon", rather than a terrific stroke of luck?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:bUp0b.200383$Ho3.26912@sccrnsc03...
....snip...

No, Peter, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is a
lifestyle
"choice" or not. (I personally don't believe anyone would choose such a
difficult path for themselves.)

This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that skin color or religious
preference is patently and demonstrably harmless, while sexual attraction
is
potentially and demonstrably harmful -- especially in groups of pre-teen
boys (and girls).


Actually there is nothing demonstrably harmful in sexual attraction either.
Attraction, arousal, and even orgasms do not in and of themselves harm the
persons experiencing them, regardless of the source of the stimulation. I
suspect that the real reason for the sometimes violent opposition to
homosexual Scout leaders, teachers, clergy, etc is not a fear of sexual
assault but rather the fear that young people will be exposed to positive
role models who happen to be gay, thus reinforcing the idea that it's no big
deal whether one's sexual partners of the same or opposite genders. Assume
that they are not having sex with the kids in the group, what difference
could the kids knowing the leader has a sex life with a member of the
opposite sex or with a member of the same sex matter? I think the debate
between whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or somehow biologically
determined is moot, except from an academic bio/psychological research
viewpoint, as the entire debate is based on the notion that it should
somehow MATTER who someone has their orgasms with. If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The conversation is about not about children and consent, though the laws
establishing the age of sexual consent are based more on the age at which a
person is sufficiently educated to marginally function as an independent
economic entity rather than on the age at which they reach a level of sexual
and emotional maturity where consent is actually possible psychologically.
More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships, and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves. My point is that whether a
person is gay or straight or whether one's children turn out gay, straight,
or bi *should* be of no greater importance than whether they turn out to
prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream - in an enlightened society one's
sexual orientation and practices would be a total non-issue. It *is* an
issue in our society because for some unfathomable and bizzare reason, so
many heterosexual people have an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality
and that attitude, by its very existence, is directly harmful to the people
toward which it's directed. It parallels the civil rights movement because
it makes no more sense to feel aversion to someone based on their sexual
preferences than it does to have an aversion to someone based solely on skin
pigmentation.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:r0y0b.202309$YN5.141543@sccrnsc01...
If everyone involved is
consenting, what possible difference could it make? As a parent, I
could
care less if my daughter turns out straight, gay, or bisexual. All that
matters is that she is happy.

This conversation is about children who, by definition, cannot be
"consenting".

Or do you dispute this assertion to?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The conversation is about not about children and consent,

Unless I'm completely daft, the term "boy" (as in "Boy Scouts") refers to
children, of the male persuasion.

More at issue is the apparent fear that accepting homosexuality as
completely normal, sanctioning gay relationships by recognizing them as
morally and socially indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships,
and
accepting those openly gay as legitimate models for children in roles such
as teachers, clergy, coaches, scout leaders, etc will somehow expose
children to assult and/or will persuade them to abandon their straight
sexual orientation and become gay themselves.

You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,
and I certainly don't advocate persecution of homosexuals. In fact, quite
frankly I suspect most people don't care who you want to have sex with, and
you're more than welcome to practice your lifestyle.

But this benign tolerance does not translate into allowing you chaperone my
son on a camping trip, nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model"
for our youth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"