Paedophilic Priests

SmirnoffMule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
448
Likes
9
Points
49
#31
Rabbi M. Yess said:
1) It IS simple and IS NOT not complicated. Deny a male his sexual need for woman and he will go homosexual: visit any prison for proof of that. As a Rabbi I hold that homosexuality like theft is a sin as the Bible states... and not an illness nor condition nor valid lifestyle. Yes Rabbis have committed pedophilic acts (very very rare indeed). The essential issue is the Christian misunderstanding of the Eve saga in Genesis. The original sin was not sexual. The sin was eating from a forbidden tree. Once again... The first Commandment in the OT is to be fruitful and multiply. Did God thereby command us to sin? Get the point?
It is true than men in single sex environments (and indeed women) do turn to homosexuality, for example, in the army, prison and in (British) public schools. However, it does not apply to every man. Do you visit many prisons? I know a number of former-inmates, and none of them dabbled in homosexuality while inside. They simply lived with it. Similarly, I know many gay men who have plenty of access to women, if they so desire. It's just that they don't. As a person of un-heterosexual nature myself (and I don't live in a single sex environment), I can attest that sexual attraction to your own gender is *not* a life style choice. It's offensive to say that it is. Coming out as gay or bisexual is not easy, even in our more tolerant modern society. Gay men and women still live in fear of physical assault, being heckled on the streets, intolerance, being rejected by their parents or circle of friends. Some people have kill themselves because they can't cope with it. To say this is a life style choice smacks of ignorance in the extreme. Ask any gay man or woman. They will tell you they didn't choose, and there's been periods in their lives when they wish it could have been otherwise.
Also an issue like paedophilia, can never be described as simple. Any issue regarding anyone's sexuality is rarely simple, paedophiles in particular. As I pointed out earlier, the majority of paedophiles aren't enforced celibates. They live in normal society with the rest of us. Most paedophiles aren't "turned" by celibacy, so why would paedophile preists be? It can't be one rule for one set of paedophiles, and an entirely different one for the rest.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabbi M. Yess


Priestly celibacy is the major cause of Priestly pedophilia. If God required no such celibacy upon Jewish Priests then why did the Church innovate that suffering upon its spokemen? Priests have a daily battle with their natural urges and no outlet for them. That is cruelty of human origin (not Divine) imposed upon them. Celibacy is false piety. The first Commandment in the OT is to be fruitful and multiply. Where did the Church get off rewriting God's Commandment?

[/quote]

As Beakboo said, why do celibate priests turn to children to satisfy them? Why not to women?
I would also point out Priests aren't actually forced to be celibate, they choose that lifestyle by becoming a priest in the first place. It is not something one enters into lightly. I'd guess that a lot of thought goes into all the issues involved, especially the celibacy matter. Admittedly, not all priests stick to it, but it's not a case of the tyrannical church imposing unnatural lifestyles on the priests, they choose to have it imposed on themselves.

I'd also dispute you claim that very few Rabbis have abused children. I see no reason to believe that paedophilia is any rarer among Rabbis than it is among the rest of the -non-celibate- population, or indeed the celibate population.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabbi M. Yess


Acum's Razor applies here: All matters considered the simplest answer is usually the right one.
[/quote]

I find Occum's Razor is a good place to start an investigation, but if you stop there, well, you can't have looked into it very thoroughly.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabbi M. Yess


BTW I am aware that this approach is about as popular as a snake bite but that's my job.

Rabbi Moshe Yess [/quote]

Where I come from, Snake Bite is an alcoholic beverage, and as such is really quite popular
:)

I do agree with Harlequin, even though it was me being nit-picky over the spelling. Let's not get personal... The Rabbi's opinions may be unpopular, and I certainly don't agree, but he is entitled to them, and he's putting them forward calmly and reasonably. As such, he's got a perfect right to remain here IMHO which probably doesn't count for much, but never mind.

Bilderberger suggested the Priesthood attracts homosexuals.. I'm not sure about the pomp and glamour part, but I do know many gay Christians believe their lack of interest in the opposite sex is God's way of calling them to celibacy, and so choose a celibate lifestyle. Such is the philosophy of people who can't reconcile the way the were born with the faith they grew up in.

Blimey, I feel very wordy today!
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#32
Rabbi M. Yess said:
Beakboo and Bilderberge: Due to the Eve saga misportrayal.... Christianty has defined sex as sinful. Judaism does not hold that way. If male- female sex is forbidden and evil then touching little boys becomes a "kosher" alternative" and that is REALLY SICKO IN MY BOOK! Would God Command a sin? Note: Be fruitful and multiply.
I was brought up in a strict catholic environment, and believe me, interfering with children is seen as far more sinful than sex outside marriage, and priests having affairs with women.
Hey, that happens all the time where I come from, you can't keep the priests off the women! I suspect you don't know many catholics as well as you think you do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#33
Slytherin said:
It is true than men in single sex environments (and indeed women) do turn to homosexuality, for example, in the army, prison and in (British) public schools.
The Army? Good God! Legal it may be, but don't let that fool you!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#34
You misunderstand the notion of celibacy. It is a sacrifice to God. The sacrifice of a normal family life. It does not in any way shape or form give carte blanche to abuse children. Celibacy is abstaining from sex, not abstaining from sex with women. To suggest that priests are forced to become celibate is rather naive - they know what is expected of them before they join - they don't suddenly have celibacy forced on them. No one has a gun to their head - they are quite free to leave at any point - in fact they are often pushed as far as possible to test their desire to be a priest. They can become a deacon, or a Minister of the Eucharist, without being celibate. Furthermore, they can leave the priesthood if they find they are unable to keep their vows. They are not excommunicated.

You say that homosexuality is not normal - that is your opinion, however distasteful I find it. We can agree, however, that there is nothing normal about paedophilia. Therefore no normal man, celibate or not, would indulge in it. I have no problem with homosexual priests - only active homosexual priests, and only because it goes against their vow of chastity.

I wonder what excuse you would have for paedophile teachers, boy scout leaders, policemen, social workers etc.

Another point - a priest is expected to devote all his energy to his flock. A married man is expected to devote all his energy into his family. You cannot serve two masters. Furthermore, a priest engaging in any form of sexual relations is in breach of his sacred oath to God; he commits Mortal Sins. Furthermore, he would be blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is an eternal sin which can never be forgiven.

The thing is, a paedophile priest makes far better news than a common or garden paedophile. Even Priests fathering children make more news than, say, a vicar having an adulterous affair. It may be that celibacy, being viewed as not normal, attracts more lurid headlines. There are plenty of people who still look at a Catholic as though they have two heads.

If I were a man, I would be very insulted by your suggestion that, if I didn't have 'access' to a woman, I would turn into a child molester. If I were homosexual, I would be further insulted by the suggestion that I was only so because I was unable to 'get' a woman of my own.

If you're interested, I am a Catholic. And my knowledge of Judaism is probably as lacking as yours is of Catholicism. I hope we can learn from each other. I won't deny your comments caused me some anger and frustration, but I have tried to reply in a calm manner. If we can keep the mudslinging out of the posts, we can get on just fine.
 

monster_magnet

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Messages
756
Likes
1
Points
49
#35
Edward's portrayal of Judaism is typical of the uninitiated vis a vis Jewish Scriptures. He writes to mock. Not worthy of my time nor attention. Go discover your errors of Torah grasp on your own, Edward. Start with the Tamud which has 22 thick volumes of explanatory commentary from God on the meanings of what you misconstrue and misportray.
With the greatest respect Rabbi, my point was not to mock but to illustrate the fact that, regardless of faith, interpretation of religious texts can be manipulated to defend or promote any opinion. You have, in this thread and others, used quotes from religious texts to justify your beliefs.

It offends me deeply that you promote bigoted views and social exclusion under the guise of religious law. It saddens me greatly that you think it necessary to, quite wrongly, attack another religion because of it's practices or make sweeping statements without hard facts about Catholic priests, peadophilia and homosexuality.

I respect you and your beliefs, but being a Rabbi surely gives you the responsibility to teach others to love one another and make the world a better place, when you show your intolerence and say something is wrong you are on the road to teaching exclusion, prejudice and eventually hate.

All you need do is look at the last 100 years to realise that religion is the reason for some the grimest atrocities ever inflicted on the human race.
 

evilsprout

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,218
Likes
19
Points
69
#36
The only way I can see a link between sexuality and preisthood, is that some who are (rightly or wrongly) ashamed of their sexual feelings may use a career that requires celibacy to try and take the problem away. Ie if they're never allowed to have sex, they don't have to face up to sexual "problems". And paedophiles may be attracted to the church for the same reason as they're attracted to social work, teaching... they're in a position of trust and authority in which they have access to children.

As for homosexuality being caused by enforced celibacy, that's BS. No offence to the Rabbi's beliefs, but this seems to stem from unfounded cliches peddled from the lower-end Prison Movies. If this is case how do you explain blokes who are virgins til they're 40 and don't turn gay, or gay men who have confidently come out and are still virgins?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#37
Reply to Edward

Edward said:
With the greatest respect Rabbi, my point was not to mock but to illustrate the fact that, regardless of faith, interpretation of religious texts can be manipulated to defend or promote any opinion. You have, in this thread and others, used quotes from religious texts to justify your beliefs.

It offends me deeply that you promote bigoted views and social exclusion under the guise of religious law. It saddens me greatly that you think it necessary to, quite wrongly, attack another religion because of it's practices or make sweeping statements without hard facts about Catholic priests, peadophilia and homosexuality.

I respect you and your beliefs, but being a Rabbi surely gives you the responsibility to teach others to love one another and make the world a better place, when you show your intolerence and say something is wrong you are on the road to teaching exclusion, prejudice and eventually hate.

All you need do is look at the last 100 years to realise that religion is the reason for some the grimest atrocities ever inflicted on the human race.
Dear Edward,

I don't want you to respect my beliefs. There are many candy- assed Rabbis out there who pander to getting congregational popularity at the expense of teaching them Judaism. I am not one of them as you can well imagine. I tell it like it is.

I also do not want to be slandered as "biggoted"...PLEASE! that is a very untrue cheap shot.

No amount of love for my fellow Jew will erase the sin he commits by eating pork which is forbidden to Jews to eat. If I say that a Jew who eats pork is a sinner...that does not make me a biggot. It is a statement of fact. (Unless eating pork is the only means to save his life in which case eating pork becomes mandatory and NOT eating it is a sin!) Pork is permitted to Gentiles.

Your "love above all" theology has no basis in Judaism. The Law must be obeyed. So states God in His Bible. Not doing so brings Divine Judgement. I propose that I show greater love than yourself by addressing the Prohibitions God has given than walking la la in love with all creatures ignoring their deeds and the rationalizations for them that a self justifying mind concocts.

It astonishes me how willing people are to follow civil law for the most part-i.e. driving on the proper side of the road. God's Law however is another matter! It has been discerned into practical life application by over 3,300 years of Rabbinic scholarship of the Hebrew Bible. Even how the Bible is to be interpreted has Laws that are from God at Sinai.

As I stated elsewhere here ....If Christianity stood on its own legs without wrapping itself up in the illusion of being some kind of extension of Judaism I would say nothing about it. But it does just that without Judaism's approval. I am not attacking, my friend. I am clarifying matters you and many take as "Sacred Holy Truth." Is Christianity beyond questioning? Is any question an attack?

Every matter in Judasim is up for discussion and hard ball analysis. The more the better. That is how bottom line Law is derived after 34 pages of Talmud discuss all possible interps of just one word in the Hebrew text Torah.

This free for all Biblical interpretation agenda you propose leads to misunderstanding and that has very grave consequences. Please look at Deuteronomy 17: 9-13. The matters discussed there were the downfall of Jesus, the fundamental flaw of Christianity and what has led millions away from a healthy relationship with the Father Whom we all love and worship (eventually).

Rabbi Moshe Yess
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#39
It astonishes me how willing people are to follow civil law for the most part-i.e. driving on the proper side of the road. God's Law however is another matter!
I think you answered that question yourself with the "Eating pork is a sin" comment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#40
forgot to add this...

I don't want you to respect my beliefs. There are many candy- assed Rabbis out there who pander to getting congregational popularity at the expense of teaching them Judaism. I am not one of them as you can well imagine. I tell it like it is
You dont tell it like it is, you tell it like you belive it to be and there is a big difference. No one in this world knows for certain that god exists and therefore no one in the world can claim to know for certain what gods law is. Please if this is replyed to dont just dismiss it with "the bible says so" get out clause.
 

Mattattattatt

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
510
Likes
3
Points
49
#41
I'll go one better.

There is no certainty that the religious books we read from today are 100% accurate. Certainly, the Catholic and Christian religions AREN'T 100% true to the word of God due to mistranslation, reinterpretation and indeed the changing of church law to suit the church as an institution. I cannot speak for others as I don't fully know the traditions in which the relevant books have been passed on.

So here's my problem:

If I follow God's law, if God does indeed exist, I would follow it to the letter. It is all you can do - not pick and choose. However, I cannot be sure that what I am taught is correct, so I will not follow religion from a book. Not and expect to go to Heaven.

Oh, and you can't make it up, either.

And surely if you only follow God's word in order to simply get to Heaven, then that's wrong...

I'll follow my own path, and do what I trust is right. If I know something is wrong, then it's wrong. And as to whether God exists, I don't know. You can't rule him out. But there's so many religions telling you to worship one god and one god only, how do you choose the right one? It's Pascal's Wager x 10. I'm not a betting man.

If other people can follow a religion and know in their hearts it's right, then I have total respect for that. I simply do not have such a knowledge.
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,818
Likes
12
Points
67
#42
So what you're saying Jack is that, unless you have a direct line to G-d, you can't be sure that you're following divine law at all...

Hmmmmm...

Niles ":hmph:" Calder
 

Mattattattatt

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
510
Likes
3
Points
49
#43
I read the Bible and know there will be bits that are wrong (mistranslated), and bits will be missing. The Catholic Church is adding to the bible even now. There are also slight changes that have been made between versions, and remember the oft-quoted historical reason why protestantism was set up in Tudor times, thus saving the heads of a few queens...

Also, look at the contradictions between the OT and NT... Eye for an Eye or turn the other cheek? If God needs to change his law, or feels remorse as he did after the flood, he is fallible. And if we have a fallible god, then most Christian (church) teachings start to show cracks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#44
"remember the oft-quoted historical reason why protestantism was set up in Tudor times, thus saving the heads of a few queens... "

You mean Henry VIII was the author of Protestanism and not Martin Luther? Oh My :D

Talk about a good case for errors!
 

Mattattattatt

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
510
Likes
3
Points
49
#45
Whoops...

I mean to say the Protestant COE... I know it was around before Henry VIII...

Sloppy late night postings, although I'll admit my knowledge of the Reformation is sketchy... I'll go googling and get out the Chronicle of Britain later...
 

oll_lewis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,875
Likes
11
Points
69
#46
Rabbi M. Yess said:
For 2,000 years learned Rabbis have rejected the claims regarding Jesus of Nazareth and subsequent developments in his name. Instead of being asked why they so decided or even given a fair hearing, the Rabbis of old were immediately demonized and shut up by the sword to promote the axioms of the Church which falsely claim to be rooted in the OT.

Perhaps the good Christians of the world will now begin to question some very basic tenents of what has been misportrayed to them as "Sacred" in their Christian educations. It's about high time.

Rabbi Moshe Yess email: [email protected]
Where to start....
Ever read Issiah? I mean all of it including the chapters that are 'omited' from the origanal text in jewish vertions of the text 'coincidentaly' not long after Jesus's death and resurection.

also it is the catholic church only that promotes celabasy amoung it's preasts and it is not for religous reasons, simply to protect the propery of the church in the middle ages from going to a preists ex-wife in a divorce or being inherited to off spring. the same aplyed to monks ajnd nuns, it is and was their personal choice as to weather they want to become a prest ,monk or nun or not.

are you also claiming that there has never been a pedophilic rabbi? I'd doubt this to be the case. even non celibate prests from other chrches and religens have been caught engageing in this behaviour.

I do not presume to know every thing about the Jewish faith without doing any research so why do you presume to know every thing about the christians?
You may be aware that at a stoning jesus stoped it from going ahead by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" this is good advice as I cannot defend some of the repression that went on and events suposodly comited in the name of jesus (eg. crucades where they tryed to stop muslims entering palistine at he end of ocupation and comited many atrocitys against people who worship the same God as the Jews and Christians) you cannot criticise when horible atrosities such as killing babys and attempting to burn down the church of the nativity and stopping firefiters from reaching it are being comited by barbaric army personel who think that as well as captuering terrorists they should see how many civilians they can kill along the way as well. It is just as bad as the evil acts of suercide bombers in israil and the US. So please think before you start criticiseing. No one race or religen is perfect as over the years many people have changed things that were origanaly written or said to support their own attrocities or power kicks, sadly, this includes jews and christians (of which I am one).
I concede that some of the things I have said in this email may have caused offence to some people and if I have caused you offence I am sorry.
 

oll_lewis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,875
Likes
11
Points
69
#47
Rabbi M. Yess said:
To All,

Due to the Eve saga misportrayal.... Christianty has defined sex as sinful.
Rabbi Moshe Yess
uh, huh that so is it ? surely as leviticus (don't criticise if I spelt that wrong, please:eek: ) states that seman is an unclean emmission and that after a seman inducing event such as sex, wet dream or masturbation the person the peson (or persons) must ritualy clense themselves and remain will remain unclean untill evening that judisam defines sex as a minor sin and this was even before victorians stuck their oars in (minor because you only remain unclean untill evening if you wash).
what about oral sex administered on a man? dose this make the partner very sinful as this would be like eatting an unclean meat.
As I don't know what with being a lutherian christian and not a jew could the rabbi please answer this question for me.

All credit to Yess though he's got us all posting, hope he sticks around.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#49
Religion bad

This is a fascinating thread in a morbid sort of way.

Skimming through it, it's like a montage of anachronistic superstitions - eating pig flesh as a sin, original sin, gods who leave booby-trapped trees lying around, hair splitting over the causes and sinfulness or not of homsexuallity...

It's so much easier being an atheist!
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#50
A couple of mistakes.

Paedophiles can be either Homo- or hetro- sexual. The sexuality of paedophiles is entirely separate from the sex of their victims. In my view paedophilia is not about sex, it is about power, control and the corruption of innocence. In a way paedophillia is the wrong term, it is not child loving it is child loathing

With regard to celibacy. It was not until the 11th century that it was widely adopted and I think that it was not actually a requirement until the 9th. Oll is right that it was a measure primarily taken to secure church property to the church but there was also a problem with hereditary priests.

The term Rabbi means teacher. Any other authority applied to the position is a social construct not a religious one. From what I recall all that is required is for teachers to be honoured. 'm not even sure if Rabbis are the heirs of Levi.
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#51
intaglio said:
A couple of mistakes.

Paedophiles can be either Homo- or hetro- sexual. The sexuality of paedophiles is entirely separate from the sex of their victims. In my view paedophilia is not about sex, it is about power, control and the corruption of innocence. In a way paedophillia is the wrong term, it is not child loving it is child loathing
I don't think you have it exactly right there. Paedophilia is a sexual disorder, where the person is attracted to pre pubescents, this is thought to be caused by the "switching on" of sexuality too early (by abuse from another paedophile). It is sometimes accompanied by delusions (that the victim is "flirting" with the paedophile) which could also, presumably, be interpreted as the sub-concious making excuses for the behavior. It's a similar mechanism to fetishism. The vast majority of paedophiles and fetishists are male, because of the different way sexuality works in men. Of course not all boys who were sexually abused become paedophiles, depends how their brains are wired.
(Generally if a female is sexually abused she can sometimes (not always) react by become prematurely sexually active and promiscous, but in the vast majority of cases this is with adult men.)
So I don't think it is about power (unlike rape, which is), it's finding an inapropriate object or person sexually exciting and being weak and selfish enough to act on those desires. Which is not to say it's a disease, any more than leather fetishism is a disease.
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#52
I'll admit I had only just come across the idea of paedophillia as a non-sexual aberation. The report I saw based this on most paedophiles having marriages or other sexual encounters of varying sexual nature which they regard as being of a different nature to their aberant encounters with children.

Curse my filing system, I cannot find the original report so it was probably a comment article in the Independant.

Certainly they indulge in very different forms of behaviour (sexual or violent) from those they indulge in with adults, that is apparent from other cases. With the exception of incestual relationships they are not long-lived associations. The child - like the whore - is treated as an object, I've seen reports of where the use of the bodies is bought and sold.

Non-violent paedophiles reportedly talk about loving the victim so much they want to initiate them into, or teach them about, sexuality. This puts these abusers into a position of purported superiority to the abused

I can talk with a bit more authority about incestual paedophillia as two women I have been close to described their experience of that to me. One, the father was essentially revenging himself on the wife who had withdrawn sexual favours. The other a brother was excersising his dominance over a younger sister, even though he had other sexual outlets. These two cases are exceptional, they all are, but I sense a commonality in the purpose of the abuse.

With regard to the idea of being "lead on" or being "flirted with", you may consider it to be a subconcious adaptation, I don't. These people rarely have any feelings of guilt about their crimes, that is why they are so difficult to reform. Are they not more likely rationalisations to explain a behaviour they for which they cannot otherwise give adequate reasons.

Please understand me, I could easily be wrong; I may be seeking sense in something that makes no sense. Or it may be that I am looking for some way in which to rationalise my loathing and my unreasoning reaction that these people should be executed.

(as a sidebar the two ladies I mentioned earlier had survived their experience and, though scarred, became 'normal', indeed successful)
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#53
intaglio said:
With regard to the idea of being "lead on" or being "flirted with", you may consider it to be a subconcious adaptation, I don't. These people rarely have any feelings of guilt about their crimes, that is why they are so difficult to reform. Are they not more likely rationalisations to explain a behaviour they for which they cannot otherwise give adequate reasons.
I don't think that myself, but I know some people do. I think some of them are genuinely deluded about their victims feelings. (I've seen most normal men's attempts to read body language, and they aren't very good at it usually)
I think also we have to make a distinction between sexual attraction to pre and post pubescents. The former is paedophilia, the latter is normal human behavior, a 14 or 15 year old girl with breasts is very attractive to men, the only wickedness involved there is when these feelings are acted on.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,329
Likes
20,800
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#54
Am I the only person here who thinks that a Rabbi with strong feelings about the abuse of children might better use his time by doing something about it, rather than arguing with strangers on the internet?
 

oll_lewis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,875
Likes
11
Points
69
#55
In the church that I attend I often help supervise the sunday school and in order to supervise the sunday school or to be a member of the cleargy we have to sign a form that states that we do not have pedophilic leanings and have never comited a sexual crime (including those on adults as well) or done something of this nature for which we haven't been caught. we have to provide all our adresses for the last 15 years or so as well so they can be checked by police on the sex offenders registar.
This is called the duty of care form and I belive that as well as the church of england it is now also used by the roman Catholic church and most other churches too. To the best of my knolage it is has not been adopted by the jewish church yet, mabee Yess could reply to this to tell us if it is (this is a hint yess if you read this that I would like the leviticus question answered too, maybe by private mail if you don't want to post it on the board).

That said though about the duty of care form there will always be people who havent been convicted of a crime against children lieing on forms like these (incidentaly I can't belive how stupid that cardinal was in new york to just move that guy around the diasis) but the fact the police will be checking them on the registar should discurage some would be abusers.

I have heard statistics that 1 in 3 children in britain is sexualy abused, SURELY THIS CAN'T BE TRUE. to my knolage I don't know anyone who was abused as a kid (although I consede most would keep this quiet) so I realy hope this statistic was invented by the news of the world sunay news paper or something as if true it is horific.:(
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,818
Likes
12
Points
67
#56
Oll_Lewis said:
I have heard statistics that 1 in 3 children in britain is sexualy abused, SURELY THIS CAN'T BE TRUE. to my knolage I don't know anyone who was abused as a kid (although I consede most would keep this quiet) so I realy hope this statistic was invented by the news of the world sunay news paper or something as if true it is horific.:(
As you point out that most people who suffered from sexual abuse in their childhood would keep it quiet.

Given the number of people currently on this list I wouldn't be suprised if at least one of them hadn't been sexually abused as a child and I'd put the actuall number much higher.

Of course not all sexual abuse upon children is perpatrated upon them by adults...

Niles Calder
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#57
Oll_Lewis said:
. . . I don't know anyone who was abused as a kid (although I consede most would keep this quiet) . . .
Oh yes you (very likely) do. The two women I mentioned were friends for of mine for a long time. One I had my suspicions about when I first heard about the difficulties she had at school, the other gave no indication until she opened up to me. Knowing a little about the patterns of adaptation that the abused follow I believe there are at least 4 others amongst those I am acquainted with. As they have not explicitly told me the truth or otherwise I cannot comment further.

A similar pattern happens with spousal (or partner) abuse. Until I found out about my first case I could not see how frequent (I will not say common) it is.

If friends do open up to you about matters like these, please do not judge, do not command, do not take advantage and most of all do not offer to take revenge - that is an example of a powerplay that caused the trouble in the first place. Just be an ear they can speak into, your mouth should never enter the equation except to offer support. If they ask suggest they seek help from formal agencies. Find out what agencies there are before a friend opens up, I'm lucky I have a trick memory that can recall long lost bits of information. If in doubt suggest they ring the Samaritans - they don't just deal with suicide.

Last things do not seek out such confessions, they'll either happen or they won't. If it does happen don't let your friend suspect the strain you will be under because you will be under immense strain - nothing approaching theirs - but strain none the less. Remember your strain is bearable, theirs is not that is why they've opened up.
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,818
Likes
12
Points
67
#58
intaglio said:
Oh yes you (very likely) do. ...Knowing a little about the patterns of adaptation that the abused follow I believe there are at least 4 others amongst those I am acquainted with. As they have not explicitly told me the truth or otherwise I cannot comment further.

A similar pattern happens with spousal (or partner) abuse. Until I found out about my first case I could not see how frequent (I will not say common) it is.
Intaglio, what are these behaviour patterns?

Niles "interested" Calder
 

FelixAntonius

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,132
Likes
102
Points
94
#59
escargot said:
Am I the only person here who thinks that a Rabbi with strong feelings about the abuse of children might better use his time by doing something about it, rather than arguing with strangers on the internet?
I wonder that myself.

He comes in, flings his hat into the ring, (so to speak) & clears off again!!!!!
 

oll_lewis

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,875
Likes
11
Points
69
#60
intaglio said:
Last things do not seek out such confessions, they'll either happen or they won't. If it does happen don't let your friend suspect the strain you will be under because you will be under immense strain - nothing approaching theirs - but strain none the less. Remember your strain is bearable, theirs is not that is why they've opened up.
I don't and never would seek out such a confession. The reson why I was puzzled by the statisic was because a lot of people I know (not just friends) often come to me for advice, this first started when I was at a gathering of friends and friends (not a party just a gathering) and conviced a person not to commit sewercide, I won't go into what their problems were because if I had probems myself I wouldn't want them blabbed to others but they were quite serious and he was very upset.
I do know one person who was flashed when she was a girl but she didn't class this as abuse (mind you only because she found it funny, which not all people would, many would be quite shaken by something like that:( ) and she told me the other day that flashing is quite a widespread thing so maybe this is one reason why the stats are so high.
 
Top