Ot. I don’t feel thankful

[njtosd]

The problem is not priests – they are no more likely to abuse than are other males. https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625%3famp=1

“There is no plausible evidence that Catholic priests are gangs of sexual predators, as they are being portrayed,” said Pennsylvania State University Prof. Philip Jenkins, eminent religion and history scholar, and a non-Catholic who’s studied the church’s abuse problems for 20 years.

Scandal creates contempt for Catholic clergy

Generally speaking, the problem is men – especially that darling of law school cases, the “mother’s boyfriend.”

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=njtosd]The problem is not priests – they are no more likely to abuse than are other males. https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625%3famp=1

“There is no plausible evidence that Catholic priests are gangs of sexual predators, as they are being portrayed,” said Pennsylvania State University Prof. Philip Jenkins, eminent religion and history scholar, and a non-Catholic who’s studied the church’s abuse problems for 20 years.

Scandal creates contempt for Catholic clergy

Generally speaking, the problem is men – especially that darling of law school cases, the “mother’s boyfriend.”[/quote]

ok. fair enough. but still, one might expect our spiritual leaders who we trust with our immortal souls to rape substantially less often than just regular joes.

and not to cover it up. at least Target would call the cops.

[scaredyclassic]

also the articles say there’s no formal study, just that insurance rates for priests are the same as rabbis and other religious leaders.

target still a better bet if im going with my gut. religiosity when extreme seems more likely to be a cover for deviant sexuality, to me.but that could just be my own warped perception mirrored through my Baseline mistrust.

[njtosd]

[quote=scaredyclassic]also the articles say there’s no formal study, just that insurance rates for priests are the same as rabbis and other religious leaders.

target still a better bet if im going with my gut. religiosity when extreme seems more likely to be a cover for deviant sexuality, to me.but that could just be my own warped perception mirrored through my Baseline mistrust.[/quote]

I know that this is unfair, but I am pretty suspicious of ANY man who puts himself in a position to have unsupervised interaction with kids. Not that I think they are all bad, but I don’t trust my instincts enough to be sure which ones are good. Too many bad experiences – in my opinion COACHES WERE THE WORST – not religious types. And I think you’re seeing that now (Olympic gymnastics doctor, etc.). I can’t find it right now but I’ve seen a statistic that educators are worse than all the other groups and there’s even more cover up in that domain.

[FlyerInHi]

I am catholic and our family had special seating in church… I’m sure we have fast track to heaven. I remember the priests.

My much older cousin used to invite the fathers to weekend breakfast. I didn’t feel comfortable. My cousin’s son was a choirboy and he’s now gay and happily married in Brooklyn. I wonder if he was molested, not that molestation and gay are related.

My very devout cousin still has not told everyone about her son’s marriage and family even though we all know. But she does love and support her son.

I also know a guy who was molested. He was not traumatized, but he was abused nonetheless.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]

I know that this is unfair, but I am pretty suspicious of ANY man who puts himself in a position to have unsupervised interaction with kids. Not that I think they are all bad, but I don’t trust my instincts enough to be sure which ones are good. [/quote]

I don’t think it’s unfair at all. In fact, we took it a step further when our daughter was young. We wouldn’t leave her with any man unsupervised whether he had put himself in that position or not. Not my brothers. Not our best friends. Nobody. How many times do you read in the news, “We knew him so well. I just can’t believe that he would do that.” An awful lot of men are pedophiles, and you have no way of knowing who is and who isn’t. Think of all the men who got away with it for years before they got caught. For every one of them, how many are still getting away with it? A little girl can’t defend herself and, in many cases, can’t speak up for herself, especially if she’s threatened. We figured it was up to us to make sure she never had to.

[Anonymous]

[quote=scaredyclassic]would anyone in their right mind trust any Christian authority figure, including the Pope, to be alone with one’s children for even ten minutes?

HELLLLLL NO!

if not, why would you trust them with their soul?

answer, you know the soul isn’t real, but think the body is real, even though we pretend the soul exists and matters.

hell id trust any random cashier at target before id trust a religious authority figure to watch my kid. call me cynical, but if you want religious authority over others, I assume you are a fucked up person.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/06/513745513/australian-catholic-church-alleges-7-of-priests-sexually-abused-kids-over-decade

7 percent of Australian priests were molestors. cashiers probably much better risk as a group.

maybe the popes right, too much negativity, that’s just 7 perc. nothing to see here. the headline should accentuate the positive, revised, 93 percent of priests restrain themselves from sexual ly assaulting others. a mere 1 in 14 rape kids..

what would it take to lose moral authority? 15 perc. rapists? 45% rapists?

for me, 7 is enough…

but i knew they were all sex fiends back before the scandal broke in the 90s. hell, everyone knew, no one cared, Pope on down.[/quote]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100007745

Real-estate scams and rabbis selling human organs.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]also the articles say there’s no formal study, just that insurance rates for priests are the same as rabbis and other religious leaders.

target still a better bet if im going with my gut. religiosity when extreme seems more likely to be a cover for deviant sexuality, to me.but that could just be my own warped perception mirrored through my Baseline mistrust.[/quote]

I know that this is unfair, but I am pretty suspicious of ANY man who puts himself in a position to have unsupervised interaction with kids. Not that I think they are all bad, but I don’t trust my instincts enough to be sure which ones are good. Too many bad experiences – in my opinion COACHES WERE THE WORST – not religious types. And I think you’re seeing that now (Olympic gymnastics doctor, etc.). I can’t find it right now but I’ve seen a statistic that educators are worse than all the other groups and there’s even more cover up in that domain.[/quote]

men are risky. I agree. i would never trust anyone who likes kids. better to go with a kid hater, if push comes to shove.

best day care workers for me are female atheists who despise children. biased, yeah, but that’s my opinion.

that said, we had a male day care guy for years and I trusted him 100%.

personally, I can be trusted 100 %, but its never an issue because I’m wayyyyy too paranoid to be alone with anyone else’s kids

[FlyerInHi]

Ok, I’ll stand up for my fellow men. Any data or just stereotypes?

Scaredy, I’m a kids hater. I have no interest in hanging out with kids. Or going with kids to ball games or whatever. I think today’s parents are so lame, doing silly kids’ stuff, spending all their free time on kids’ activities.

I did watch my nieces a few times when they were very little. Come shower time, it was always awkward making sure they cleaned themselves.

[scaredyclassic]

I think its just common knowledge that men are pretty disgusting, sexual ly, and will at least briefly consider fucking anything, living or not.

[njtosd]

[quote=scaredyclassic]. . . and will at least briefly consider fucking anything, living or not.[/quote]

Reminds me of a recent report of an interview with Quincy Jones: ” The talk’s most colorful moment had to do with the sexual habits of Marlon Brando, whom Jones asserts would “f*ck a mailbox.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spin.com/2018/02/richard-pryor-widow-sex-marlon-brando-bisexual%3famp=1

I wasn’t sure whether that was a colorful idiom I hadn’t heard before or an example of Quincy Jones’ creativity with words. Funny though.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]. . . and will at least briefly consider fucking anything, living or not.[/quote]

Reminds me of a recent report of an interview with Quincy Jones: ” The talk’s most colorful moment had to do with the sexual habits of Marlon Brando, whom Jones asserts would “f*ck a mailbox.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spin.com/2018/02/richard-pryor-widow-sex-marlon-brando-bisexual%3famp=1

I wasn’t sure whether that was a colorful idiom I hadn’t heard before or an example of Quincy Jones’ creativity with words. Funny though.[/quote]

“it was the ’70s! Drugs were still good, especially quaaludes. If you did enough cocaine, you’d f*** a radiator and send it flowers in the morning.”

wait, Richard Pryor had sex with Marlon brando. that’s intriguing!!! his diaries may be published soon. I would read that.

I wou l d not however have sex with a mailbox. a pumpkin, sure, but not a mailbox. a soft mound of earth. a piece of fur. some liver. but definitely no mailboxes

[scaredyclassic]

what about gay priests? does that indicate a lack of self acceptance and fear of who they are? more evidence that it’s all a massive simulation.

The notion that many Catholic priests are quietly gay is not new. In the 2000 book ” The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” Rev. Donald B. Cozzens suggested that the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58 percent of priests were gay, and that percentages were even higher for younger priests. His numbers matched previous estimates by sociologists who put the numbers of gay priests between 10 and 60 percent.

Father Gary Meier, a gay, St. Louis-based Catholic clergymen, says there’s a wide range of statistics out there on gay priests, but jokes that in his experience, “30 percent are gay, 30 percent are straight, and 30 percent are in denial.”

[Ribbles]

[quote=scaredyclassic]men are risky. I agree. i would never trust anyone who likes kids. better to go with a kid hater, if push comes to shove.

best day care workers for me are female atheists who despise children. biased, yeah, but that’s my opinion.

that said, we had a male day care guy for years and I trusted him 100%.

personally, I can be trusted 100 %, but its never an issue because I’m wayyyyy too paranoid to be alone with anyone else’s kids[/quote]

I never wanted kids, until I had one, and then I wanted another. I still can’t get past my dislike of other people’s kids, though. I know it’s irrational, and I can see the flaws in my own kids, but the flaws in others just seem magnified and irritate the hell out of me. I suppose I would be an ideal caregiver for that reason, except I get the paranoia thing, and refuse to be in a room alone with someone else’s kid even for a moment. Even if it’s a relative.

I still occasionally find myself being the one watching several kids while the moms go out for pedis or whatever. “Watching” the kids consists of me drinking beer in the garage. They’re 7-10, and can police themselves for the most part. They know not to push each other into the 60 degree pool. And if they do, they can swim.

To zk’s point, my 7-year-old (beautiful and shy) is seriously involved in competitive dance, and has an opportunity for one private lesson with a particular male instructor, which is apparently considered an honor. I’m cringing at the thought of it and not looking forward to the discussion with her mommy where I have to refuse to allow it. She’ll get my reasoning, but she’s more trusting than I am.

[Ribbles]

[quote=scaredyclassic]what about gay priests? does that indicate a lack of self acceptance and fear of who they are? more evidence that it’s all a massive simulation.[/quote]

I believe that many go in simply because they are on the spectrum, and were raised being brainwashed into thinking that those feelings are wrong. The priesthood is their attempt at suppressing the problem they think they have. Better than becoming a raging homophobe. Parents have a lot of influence on that.

[Author]

Posts