# What happened to all the nice guys?



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

For years, I have been the nice guy, and for years, I have stood on the sidelines and heard this question asked by many a women. However, I have never heard a decent response until today.
While surfing the Best Of on Craigslist, I came across this nugget, and just had to share. So true, so true. Ladies, if you have been asking this question, here is your answer



> What happened to all the nice guys?
> 
> The answer is simple: you did.
> 
> ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I can't disagree with the sentiments above, having been on the butt end of the nice-guy stick all through my college years and beyond. But I did eventually find and, through perserverance, win a beautiful girl for my own.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Well, evidently the lady described in this missive is kind of shallow and a user, so he's lucky he never ended up with her. 
So, being a nice guy, he is much better off.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Put me in with Chas_m. 

I was always the nice guy... had lots of platonic girl friends who were shocked when I told them that I wanted more (but with whom I always managed to stay friends, because that was more important to me).

This caused me no end of angst in my early twenties, but I eventually found someone who had grown out of the 'date-the-biggest-strongest-richest-best-looking-guy-you-can' phase. We've been together now for decades and we're very happy, so it was worth it.

Of course I still think 20-something girls are idiots in this regard... but then 20-something human beings are none-to-bright in general 

Cheers


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

I guess she should have backed up her drive. Am i right guys?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Really, why did the nice guy want her anyway? Because she was an aloof b**** who looked hot? Isn't that kind of shallow? 

I'll bet there was a nice girl who just doted on that nice guy, but he wasn't willing to look past any physical shortcomings to find true love.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Really, why did the nice guy want her anyway? Because she was an aloof b**** who looked hot? Isn't that kind of shallow?
> 
> I'll bet there was a nice girl who just doted on that nice guy, but he wasn't willing to look past any physical shortcomings to find true love.


I agree, I think you hit the nail on the head here. The supposed "nice guy" here was just as shallow as the girl he lusted after and didn't really appreciate the friendship anyway. Then he decides to become a big a-hole like he judges all the other guys to be. Hmmmm ... I guess he wasn't really a nice guy after all, just a whiner.

I guess maybe the shallow girl who broke his heart sensed that about him. Sorry, I have no sympathy for his whining.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Me neither. Just a shallow dude masquerading as "a nice guy." _Feh_.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The supposed "nice guy" here was just as shallow as the girl he lusted after and didn't really appreciate the friendship anyway.


Maybe. I won't claim any direct responsiblity or explanation for my actions in the 80s. I think we can all understand that. 

HOWEVER, in my foggy memory of those days I seem to recall that my primary interest in the girls was more of a "I see your potential and want to nurture it" things. I know that sounds feminine, but it's basically the same motivation that creates "*** hags" (boy I'm really digging myself in here, aren't I?). 

SOMETIMES women go for the rich/tan/buff a-hole for the reasons spelled out in the post, SOMETIMES they (men and women) have more nobel motivations. Most guys here probably have a female friend who tries genuinely to be a friend. I know I do, and I'm lucky to have that.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Doesn't really even occur to the author that maybe he never was so nice a guy, does it?

Because women find "cynicism and resentment" festering just beneath his "nice guy mantle" for 10 years sooooo attractive.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Well, I think most of us exist on some sort of Platonic "ladder"-- like, say, the figurative Platonic ladder in the "Symposium", which obviously must have some baring here (since it seemed to be mentioned in passing.)

He was probably the nice-guy, but never noticed the even-less-attractive "nice-girl", below him.

Honestly, by the time university rolls around, most superficial people are seen for what they are. Nice gals and guys get together easily enough by that time.

Which doesn't, by-the-by (or does, I guess), explain my own solitude.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Straw man*

It seems to me that the guy does not understand the rules ... Which is not surprising as no one ever hands you the manual.

The rules are fundamentally different for men and women.

What makes a man is not if he can have sex. Gays have sex. It is with who and how that gets people upset. 

What makes a man is that he can go from acceptible woman to woman asking in a million ways "Will you have sex with me" and 99% of the time be rejected ... and go right on to the next one until some one says "Maybe", and then evaluate from there.

Men who cannot take the rejection can become a real problem. 

At one end are the guys, perfectly heterosexual, who just do not end up with anyone or marry late because some woman saw things in him and coaxed him out of his shell. They are afraid to overtly act.

This runs through to the guy that finally gets up nerve and as soon as the girl goes out with him once, thinks he owns her.

Past that or part and parcel with that, is the Stalker - can't take no for an answer.

Worst is the guy in denial. The instance you see in the news is the marriage that breaks up and the wife and kids are killed. " I'll make it so it never happened". Really dangerous.

As I see it women are different. They get to choose. Put on their best bait and see what shows up and then spend their time picking the one that seems to fit them best. Some women get a lot of choices ... Good Bad and Ugly. Some women get fewer. They don't go through the obvious rejection but have constant fear of having the ultimate rejection in that they don't have any choices.

This guy's whole post really appears to be "I did not have the nerve to ask directly so I wasted a whole lot of time and got hurt ... And that does not happen now"

Just my $.02 on a Friday morning.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Something interesting, from the other side of the coin:

You aren't a nice guy; you're a hairy [email protected]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Along the lines of a few people here....

Sure, emotionally supporting a person you care for whether you are in a romantic relationship or not is a nice thing to do.

But somehow, it loses something if you are going to do it and then bitch about it later because no one is dating you. That's when it stops being someone being a nice guy and turns into someone being a doormat and getting bitter over it.

If you don't want people to walk all over you, don't lie down in front of them and paint "WELCOME" on your chest. Either give your friendship freely and without expecting something out of it in the end, or don't give it at all.

Though bryanc's point about 20-somethings is well-taken... applies to both girls and boys.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Evolution doesn't care if you're happy...*

Fundamentally, a major cause of much of the relationship angst most of us suffer is that our evolutionary heritage drives us to be reproductively successful, with no consideration for our emotional well-being.

Women are largely driven to be attracted to whatever they perceive to be powerful men (physical power, money, cars, social dominance, etc.), because that has been an evolutionarily successful strategy for our ancestors (finding a mate that is genetically fit and who can provide protection and resources). Women tend to be picky about mate selection because they're the ones who are going to bear the metabolic cost, so they're inclined to choose high-quality mates and maximize the probability of reproductive success (i.e. successfully raising children to adulthood). If these 'high-quality' mates often turn out to be obnoxious a-holes that make their mates miserable, that's not really important from an evolutionary POV.

Males are largely driven to be attracted to whatever they perceive as sexually receptive (what is "sexy" in females obviously has socially learned aspects, but a great deal of it is purely physical, and it is surprisingly congruent from culture to culture). Males tend to be less picky because, evolutionarily, they've had to invest less in reproduction, so 'as many partners as you can get away with' has been a good strategy: maximize your opportunities, even if some of them are not ideal. Similarly, from an evolutionary POV, if this means you have to spend a lot of time with some dumb b*tch you really couldn't care less about, that's not evolution's problem.

As a species we've only recently adopted monogamous behavior (and this is still clearly a socially learned, rather then genetically encoded characteristic). Most primates have complex social mating systems with dominant males keeping harems, but with both subordinate males and females cheating quite frequently. These behavioral patterns still have a lot of significance in human sexual behavior.

I think it's worthwhile considering the evolutionary basis of our sexual desires, because they can get you in a lot of trouble, and knowing what sort of directions your instincts are likely to push you can allow you to prepare yourself, and avoid making bad decisions that 'seem like a good idea at the time.'

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: I have to say I agree.

I do know what really happend to all of the nice guys though--they are working as social workers and computer technicians at low rates of pay.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, a major cause of much of the relationship angst most of us suffer is that our evolutionary heritage drives us to be reproductively successful, with no consideration for our emotional well-being.
> 
> Women are largely driven to be attracted to whatever they perceive to be powerful men (physical power, money, cars, social dominance, etc.), because that has been an evolutionarily successful strategy for our ancestors (finding a mate that is genetically fit and who can provide protection and resources). Women tend to be picky about mate selection because they're the ones who are going to bear the metabolic cost, so they're inclined to choose high-quality mates and maximize the probability of reproductive success (i.e. successfully raising children to adulthood). If these 'high-quality' mates often turn out to be obnoxious a-holes that make their mates miserable, that's not really important from an evolutionary POV.
> 
> ...


I agree fully, if only the larger part of the world would agree instead of listening to Religion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> I agree fully, if only the larger part of the world would agree instead of listening to Religion.


What is religion saying that you think the larger part of the world would be better off ignoring based on what Bryan said?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, a major cause of much of the relationship angst most of us suffer is that our evolutionary heritage drives us to be reproductively successful, with no consideration for our emotional well-being.
> 
> ——— _snip_ ———
> 
> ...


I was wondering when someone would present this perspective and who better than our resident science guy. Well presented.

I have no reason to not believe that much of our behaviour is genetically encoded, and that many of us act in particular ways based on this. It seems like a plausible explanation for a lot of what I observe humans doing. 

But I do have a problem with people using this theory as a free pass for their actions. Guys who cheat on their partners or who simply act like total asses towards women saying that "it's just my evolutionary programming". Or women who use similar excuses for their unrepentant stalking of male "success objects".

I don't think bryanc was saying to use it as an excuse, but rather to factor it into our examination of motivations and I think that is valid. But many people who come across this tend to use it as an excuse for continuing to be un-evolved.

The great things about humans and to an extant many of the more intelligent species is that we can choose to ignore genetic encoding and do things out of conviction to greater ideals than our own survival or simply out of compassion. I'm sure I'm genetically programmed to not go hungry, but I can choose to go on a hunger strike for a cause. I'm sure I'm genetically programmed to not get killed but I can choose to go towards a pretty sure death battling a superior opponent in an attempt to protect others.

Much of the problems we are encountering with our growing world population putting a strain on the carrying capacity of this earth has to do with us acting based on unexamined programming, feathering our own nests in competition with all others. I'd like to think we can do better than a yeast culture in a container that will eventually reproduce to a size of population that ultimately consumes all its available resources and dies off.

I know I'm going out of the direct subject matter here, but I think that just giving in to our unexamined encoded impulses or accepting them as inevitable leads to this kind of view of the whole world as an inevitable survival of the fittest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Great post, GA... I just want to comment on a couple of your points



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...But I do have a problem with people using this theory as a free pass for their actions.


Re-reading my post, I realize that I didn't make this point, and I completely agree with you. What I was trying to build up to (and completely failed to follow through on) is that we should be alert to the circumstances where our evolutionary programming is likely to make us behave stupidly, and/or unethically. Thank you for making this point for me.



> The great things about humans and to an extant many of the more intelligent species is that we can choose to ignore genetic encoding and do things out of conviction to greater ideals than our own survival or simply out of compassion.


Damn straight! But I'd rephrase that to say that we can choose to fight our instincts on the basis of higher cognitive functions... but you can never _ignore_ them. What's worth remembering is that you've got to pick your fights. Your instincts for survival, and reproductive success have got about four-and-a-half-billion-years of success behind them, and you aren't going to have much success if you place yourself in constant conflict with your instincts. Of course, you _can_ win these internal conflicts if you're sufficiently well-motivated, and/or well prepared, but I strongly advise against making a habit of fighting your instincts.

Part of my personal 'recipe-for-happiness' is to try to arrange circumstances where you can uncritically and unabashedly revel in your biological programming. Video games, sports, sex, music, food, going to sleep when you're *really* tired, adoring your children, and even having the odd tantrum where you smash things up (in the right circumstances) are all examples.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> What is religion saying that you think the larger part of the world would be better off ignoring based on what Bryan said?


Bother. I had a long and eloquent reply to this post, but I lost my network connection while I was writing it so it didn't take, and when I hit 'back' it was gone. Now I have to try to remember what I wrote.

Basically, my point was that many religions teach people to feel guilty about their natural and essentially unavoidable instincts, and further, that acting on these instincts under circumstances engineered to cause no harm, is still just as bad (for example, many of the 'deadly sins' are great fun and cause no one any harm in certain circumstances, and can be the lesser-of-two-evils in other circumstances).

But even more importantly, religion is only one of many influences in society that lionize the irrational, and teach people to 'trust their heart' or 'go with their gut' with respect to their social interactions. While I'm well aware of the fact that we process a lot of social information subconsciously, and therefore may not be able to fully analyze what's going on rationally, the point I'm trying to make is that people should neither trust, nor mis-trust their instincts. Rather they should consider their instinctive reactions in an evolutionary context and decide rationally wether this is a circumstance in which they may be inclined to support unwise actions.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I think Bryan made some great observations. We do have natural tendencies, desires or instincts that seem to be hardwired into the human condition. I took Black's comments about not listening to Religion to mean we should just follow our animal instincts and not be governed by higher ideals (monogamy, fidelity, marriage commitment). If that wasn't what he was inferring I apologize. 

If we didn't live by guidelines outside of our animal instincts, the world would be a in chaos. 

I think GA was referring to this in his posting.


> But I do have a problem with people using this theory as a free pass for their actions. Guys who cheat on their partners or who simply act like total asses towards women saying that "it's just my evolutionary programming". Or women who use similar excuses for their unrepentant stalking of male "success objects".


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If we didn't live by guidelines outside of our animal instincts, the world would be a in chaos.


a) which guidelines would those be?? Bushcos??










FSM's?










b) is the world NOT in chaos??? seems a specious claim it would be otherwise


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gosh, Mad Magazine has become lame. I remember when the idea behind the satirical barb was implicit. Everything seems to be labeled now, in case you didn't quite get it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> a) which guidelines would those be?? Bushcos??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're getting off track macdoc. This thread is about sexual relationships, marriage and family and how the opposite sex relate to one another. What the heck does George Bush have to do with this? 
Black seemed to be saying that the traditional views of family and relationships are problematic to society. I guess you agree with that? Are you a "follow your instincts" and "if it feels good do it" supporter?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: Doc just got a bug in his "bum," but relieved himself on the screen.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Great post, GA... I just want to comment on a couple of your points
> 
> Re-reading my post, I realize that I didn't make this point, and I completely agree with you. What I was trying to build up to (and completely failed to follow through on) is that we should be alert to the circumstances where our evolutionary programming is likely to make us behave stupidly, and/or unethically. Thank you for making this point for me.
> 
> Damn straight! But I'd rephrase that to say that we can choose to fight our instincts on the basis of higher cognitive functions... but you can never _ignore_ them. What's worth remembering is that you've got to pick your fights. Your instincts for survival, and reproductive success have got about four-and-a-half-billion-years of success behind them, and you aren't going to have much success if you place yourself in constant conflict with your instincts. Of course, you _can_ win these internal conflicts if you're sufficiently well-motivated, and/or well prepared, but I strongly advise against making a habit of fighting your instincts.


I accept and I agree with your re-phrasing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Gosh, Mad Magazine has become lame. I remember when the idea behind the satirical barb was implicit. Everything seems to be labeled now, in case you didn't quite get it.


I think your memory is betraying you, MF. Mad was always lame, but if you were a 12 year-old who liked seeing the powers that be skewered in a rude and juvenile fashion, it was hilarious. I remember them hounding Nixon and Agnew in a similar fairly corny fashion. (Although Mort Drucker's drawings were amazing!) I'm sure grown-up Republican sympathizers of the time would have said it was lame too. Me, I loved all that fershlugginer stuff.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> What is religion saying that you think the larger part of the world would be better off ignoring based on what Bryan said?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


What i meant was a large part of the world (Which is religious) saying that we should not have sex and that it is a test of god etc, when that is completely unhealthy and against our (animal) nature. That's what i meant.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> What i meant was a large part of the world (Which is religious) saying that we should not have sex and that it is a test of god etc, when that is completely unhealthy and against our (animal) nature. That's what i meant.


Hi Black

I can't speak for all religions because clearly, all religions aren't the same. Many have varied and conflicting ideas on family and morality. Some are quite twisted in my opinion.
I assume you're talking about the Judeo-Christian ethic since that is dominant in our western society?
I can only speak as a Catholic on this matter and the church doesn't say we shouldn't have sex. It just says we should have it within the confines of a lifelong committed marriage. The best possible environment for raising the children that sex can and does produce and also the safest and healthiest scenario for sexual expression. 
As far as your claim that its unhealthy for us not to have sex, I'm not aware of any sickness or injury resulting form abstinence? Has anyone ever died from not getting laid?
On the other hand, I can give you a long laundry list of diseases, sickness and mental illnesses that can result from indulging your animal instincts. Not to mention the millions of unborn children killed annually because they were the unfortunate byproduct of a night of pleasure. 

If you take an honest look at the rules you protest, you'll see that following them is the safest, healthiest choice you could make.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Black
> 
> I can't speak for all religions because clearly, all religions aren't the same. Many have varied and conflicting ideas on family and morality. Some are quite twisted in my opinion.
> I assume you're talking about the Judeo-Christian ethic since that is dominant in our western society?
> ...


Thankfully man invented condoms.

There are no rules to sex, we are no different in instinct that any other animal. Animals have sex to reproduce, we have sex to reproduce. Society is now built around money and if you have a child it costs money in the end. Therefore condoms come in so we can still enjoy our animal instincts. There really is no argument here that can excuse instinct, yes society has restraints on our ability to reproduce. "In confines of a long commited relationship", they want you to have more kids so those kids will grow up and keep following the church and then those kids will have kids etc, it's how you keep a business going. Of course like every business there are catches.... if you don't follow them you're going to hell etc (fear).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: I pulled out a couple of old copies of _Mad_ and--believe it or not--they were much more subtle (a term you have to use carefully with that magazine). Did anyone relly like the Grey Spy or was she runining it for the guys?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> As far as your claim that its unhealthy for us not to have sex, I'm not aware of any sickness or injury resulting form abstinence? Has anyone ever died from not getting laid?


If I am not mistaken, it does up the risk of prostate cancer.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Thankfully man invented condoms.


Lets see how thats working out.
USA 2006: 37,000 cases of syphilis
1,030,911 cases of Chlamydia
358,366 cases of Gonorrhea
1,185,000 living with HIV/AIDS
1.3 million Abortions

I wonder how many of these poor folk landed in this mess acting on instinct?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Lets see how thats working out.
> USA 2006: 37,000 cases of syphilis
> 1,030,911 cases of Chlamydia
> 358,366 cases of Gonorrhea
> ...


A lot. Nobody ever said instinct meant everything was going to be perfect, don't assume the best of everything.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Lets see how thats working out.
> USA 2006: 37,000 cases of syphilis
> 1,030,911 cases of Chlamydia
> 358,366 cases of Gonorrhea
> ...



If only a few more people would ignore the Catholic edict regarding condoms, I'm sure these deplorable statistics would improve. 

And while I agree than no one's death has been directly linked to celibacy, celibacy is the most unhealthy of sexual perversions, and clearly leads to highly unhealthy neuroses and therefore indirectly to many undesirable consequences.

Without meaning to trivialize, I'm sure if Marc Lepine had been getting laid* regularly, the atrocities he committed would never have happened.

Similarly, the well-documented sexual deviance of many priests is undoubtably linked to the guilt they are indoctrinated to feel regarding their natural instincts. So your contention that monogamy and celibacy are the only healthy sexual behaviors is, in my opinion, comically naive.

Cheers

*note: upon re-reading this I think my meaning is still not clear... Lepine was clearly wildly unstable, and I don't think his sexuality was the root cause of this disorder. So what I'm saying here is that if he hadn't suffered from whatever psychological disorder he had, he might've enjoyed a normal affectionate relationship and not felt the need to lash out so tragically.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

bryanc said:


> If only a few more people would ignore the Catholic edict regarding condoms, I'm sure these deplorable statistics would improve.
> 
> And while I agree than no one's death has been directly linked to celibacy, celibacy is the most unhealthy of sexual perversions, and clearly leads to highly unhealthy neuroses and therefore indirectly to many undesirable consequences.
> 
> ...


Why do you say everything I'm thinking but only in a more organized and intellectual way? I hate you for this.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> A lot. Nobody ever said instinct meant everything was going to be perfect, don't assume the best of everything.


Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Its far from perfect. 
I just don't understand how you see adhering to abstinence-marriage-monogamy as the problem to overcome when its obviously the safest, healthiest path a couple could choose. Virtually all of the sickness, death and social ills related to sex depends on people rejecting those principles. 

Granted taking that path is becoming extremely difficult at this time in history. Recreational sex is being preached on every TV show and in advertising with everything from chewing gum to lawn mowers. Sex is featured in practically every song and movie. As a society, we've elevated the orgasm to a persons ultimate purpose and highest achievement. That and money which you also pointed out that our society is built around. For many people fortunate to live in the affluence of the western world, materialism has become their god, children have become a pestilence.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Or - dreaded phrase alert! - _a lifestyle choice._


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Black said:


> Why do you say everything I'm thinking but only in a more organized and intellectual way? I hate you for this.


Sorry man, but good on ya for thinking it :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I just don't understand how you see adhering to abstinence-marriage-monogamy as the problem to overcome when its obviously the safest, healthiest path a couple could choose.


For that one-in-a-million couple of individuals who happen to run into each other as their first potential sexual partners and never become curious about other people, I completely agree. However, for the other 99.9999999% of us, there's reality.

Cheers.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Its far from perfect.
> I just don't understand how you see adhering to abstinence-marriage-monogamy as the problem to overcome when its obviously the safest, healthiest path a couple could choose. Virtually all of the sickness, death and social ills related to sex depends on people rejecting those principles.
> 
> Granted taking that path is becoming extremely difficult at this time in history. Recreational sex is being preached on every TV show and in advertising with everything from chewing gum to lawn mowers. Sex is featured in practically every song and movie. As a society, we've elevated the orgasm to a persons ultimate purpose and highest achievement. That and money which you also pointed out that our society is built around. For many people fortunate to live in the affluence of the western world, materialism has become their god, children have become a pestilence.
> ...


And to think that ****-Sapiens are fortunate enough to have the plus side of the evolutionary cycle and the first thing we do after creating a language is separate ourselves from exactly what we are by calling ourselves 'Humans' and leaving and degrading 'Animals' every chance we get by coining terms like 'like a dog' etc. Our brain is a great power but also a great weakness, that weakness is our Ego (For further reading on Ego see Religion). This is why i give every animal as much respect as i would give to any person.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> \If only a few more people would ignore the Catholic edict regarding condoms, I'm sure these deplorable statistics would improve.


Yeah Bryan I'm sure all those million of people infected with STDs and killing their unborn babies are simply victims of their devotion to Catholic teaching on condoms. Clearly if the church didn't exist, these social ills wouldn't be a problem. :lmao: 



> And while I agree than no one's death has been directly linked to celibacy, celibacy is the most unhealthy of sexual perversions, and clearly leads to highly unhealthy neuroses and therefore indirectly to many undesirable consequences.


You may be a great biologist but I think your armchair psychology sounds a little out there. Celibacy is the most unhealthy sexual perversion? If thats the case, I'm sure our jails must be filled with celibate sex offenders. However, I'm sure some atheistic scientist that loathes Christianity has written a "scientific" paper about it somewhere. If you have a link I'd love to read it.



> Without meaning to trivialize, I'm sure if Marc Lepine had been getting laid* regularly, the atrocities he committed would never have happened.


Ya think? Paul Bernardo and Karla wouldn't exactly classify as sex deprived. How about Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson? I recon they didn't let any bronze age concepts of sexual morality hinder them acting on their instincts. They seemed to live quite liberal lives unscathed by those hang-ups suffered by adherents of those Bronze Age leftovers we call Christians. 



> Similarly, the well-documented sexual deviance of many priests is undoubtably linked to the guilt they are indoctrinated to feel regarding their natural instincts. So your contention that monogamy and celibacy are the only healthy sexual behaviors is, in my opinion, comically naive.


Undoubtably? Would that be up there with Al Gores Unequivocal? The science is settled?
Again Bryan do you have documented psychological studies on this or is this just armchair psychology on your part? What about the plane loads of gay and straight men that fly to Thailand and other sex tourism location in search of young boys and girls for sex? I'd bet my house there not all wearing clerical collars, in fact I'm sure the good majority of them would share your loathing of the religions that reject there morality. You figure they're just victims of guilty feelings as the result of indoctrination from those wacky Christians as well or is it possible they're just perverts? And your theory falls apart rather quickly if you look at protestant ministersSexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers that have no celibacy requirements. The truth of the matter is that clergy are small players in child sex abuse. Next to parents, the worst sexual offenders of children are the relative followed by the shack up partner. http://preilly.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/perpetrator-3.jpg



> *note: upon re-reading this I think my meaning is still not clear... Lepine was clearly wildly unstable, and I don't think his sexuality was the root cause of this disorder. So what I'm saying here is that if he hadn't suffered from whatever psychological disorder he had, he might've enjoyed a normal affectionate relationship and not felt the need to lash out so tragically.


Glad you retracted that statement because it was sounding comically naive. In fact... it still sounds comically naive.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> And to think that ****-Sapiens are fortunate enough to have the plus side of the evolutionary cycle and the first thing we do after creating a language is separate ourselves from exactly what we are by calling ourselves 'Humans' and leaving and degrading 'Animals' every chance we get by coining terms like 'like a dog' etc. Our brain is a great power but also a great weakness, that weakness is our Ego (For further reading on Ego see Religion). This is why i give every animal as much respect as i would give to any person.


Yeah we sure do make up words to separate ourselves from our fellow mammals. My favorite degrading term is "foetus". Kinda makes that little human living in your girlfriends belly with the little beating heart, eyes, fingers and such sound like some kinda mushroom or fungus growing on the side of a tree. Sure salves the conscience though when you take her into the clinic to get the little beggar dealt with so you can get back to more of that instinctive living. Like you, I don't particularily like these divisive terms like foetus and prefer to call them unborn children. Thats why I give every unborn child as much respect as I would give one that is born.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah we sure do make up words to separate ourselves from our fellow mammals. My favorite degrading term is "foetus". Kinda makes that little human living in your girlfriends belly with the little beating heart, eyes, fingers and such sound like some kinda mushroom or fungus growing on the side of a tree. Sure salves the conscience though when you take her into the clinic to get the little beggar dealt with so you can get back to more of that instinctive living. Like you, I don't particularily like these divisive terms like foetus and prefer to call them unborn children. Thats why I give every unborn child as much respect as I would give one that is born.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I was talking about how people's egos separate them from other animals, not how certain things have various names.


I don't know why you're asking brian for scientific evidence, Religion has brought these things to the table and thus Religion has to prove them first, not the other way around. It's not a 'Here disprove this, Science'.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Black said:


> I was talking about how people's egos separate them from other animals, not how certain things have various names.
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're asking brian for scientific evidence, Religion has brought these things to the table and thus Religion has to prove them first, not the other way around. It's not a 'Here disprove this, Science'.


"Religion" and "proof." That is so missing the point...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> "Religion" and "proof." That is so missing the point...



.. and so oxymoronic!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> I was talking about how people's egos separate them from other animals, not how certain things have various names.


I understood you completely.
*(...the first thing we do after creating a language is separate ourselves from exactly what we are by calling ourselves 'Humans' and leaving and degrading 'Animals' every chance we get by coining terms like 'like a dog' etc. )*
I was just pointing out how that statement was so true and that we've used the same tactic to justify killing the unborn of our own kind. Sad species we humans are.



> I don't know why you're asking brian for scientific evidence, Religion has brought these things to the table and thus Religion has to prove them first, not the other way around. It's not a 'Here disprove this, Science'.


I thought Bryan brought these theories to the table and being the good scientist he is, he surely wouldn't draw such extreme conclusions without any evidence or expect us to accept his hypothesis without question? Maybe he was speaking from his evangelical atheist persona and not so much from his rational scientific side.
I'd love to see the study showing Catholic influenced rejection of condoms among those afflicted with STDs, AIDs and those that opted for an abortion. Bryan claims those poor victims would diminish greatly if they weren't such good Catholic folk.
I'd also like to see the evidence that celibacy is "the worst" sexual perversion and that it combined with catholic guilt is the recipe for a sexual predator. If that be true, our jails must be full of sex offenders afflicted by celibacy. He also claims this despite rampant sex abuse in non celibate religions as well. Then again, in the big picture, your child is at greater risk from your live in love muffin than Rev. Joe.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's your daily reading

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Here's your daily reading
> 
> Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yeah these stories are tragic and shameful. The church should stop at no ends to correct the problem and weed out the perverts that have taken refuge in the church and assure they are brought to justice. Those that knowingly tried to hide such incidence need to be called out on the carpet and shown the door.

However, what fascinates me is the deafening silence the media and concerned folks like yourself have regarding the inconceivable fact that 6-10% of public school children across the United States have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers. Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church 

That amount of abuse makes the Catholic Scandal look petty in comparison. The media has had a laser like focus on the scandal in the Catholic church, not to be outdone by its focus on Paris Hiltons panties and Brittany Spears latest breakdown. Yet they seem to whistle past the graveyard where far greater abuse is taking place. Which begs the question, are you, is the media really concerned about the victims or is it just their favorite stick in the woodpile to bash their enemy?

That said the media should be thanked. Its brought to light a cobble of perverts that have entered the church and are forcing us to acknowledge and deal with the wolves among the sheep. Its also brought out a few wolves seeking huge cash settlements claiming abuse that never happened. Sadly, lots of that going on too. All in all, I think as the church confronts these problems, it will come out on the other side stronger than before.

I just wish concerned and outraged folks like yourself would also acknowledge the elephant in the room and devote some or your outrage and press coverage to the overshadowing number of victims of abuse from school teachers, shacked up boyfriends, protestant ministers, hospital staff, social workers, sex tourists etc. etc. etc. That is if you're truly concerned for victims of abuse? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Here's your daily reading
> 
> Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


While we're handing out reading, here's yours.

Abortion Deaths Compared to War Deaths

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I just wish concerned and outraged folks like yourself would also acknowledge the elephant in the room and devote some or your outrage and press coverage to the overshadowing number of victims of abuse from school teachers, shacked up boyfriends, protestant ministers, hospital staff, social workers, sex tourists etc. etc. etc. That is if you're truly concerned for victims of abuse?


I believe the difference is that the clergy have the special distinction of being more than just trusted public servants. The 'we're not the only ones defense' appears to be being used on your part to diminish the role the Catholic Church has played in this type of atrocity.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> While we're handing out reading, here's yours.
> 
> Abortion Deaths Compared to War Deaths
> 
> ...


Not this again... Why ruin a perfectly good discussion from the OP with this flaccid and, as MasterBlaster pointed out, inaccurate, argument?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> I believe the difference is that the clergy have the special distinction of being more than just trusted public servants. The 'we're not the only ones defense' appears to be being used on your part to diminish the role the Catholic Church has played in this type of atrocity.


Gee if I was a young guy that was sodomized by a school teacher, protestant minister or mom's live in love muffin I'd be a little ticked that nobody seems too concerned unless the guy assaulting me is wearing a Roman collar. Then everyone is outraged and screaming for heads to roll. Are those people any less victimized?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Gee if I was a young guy that was sodomized by a school teacher, protestant minister or mom's live in love muffin I'd be a little ticked that nobody seems too concerned unless the guy assaulting me is wearing a Roman collar. Then everyone is outraged and screaming for heads to roll. Are those people any less victimized?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


They aren't any less victimized, but as a society, we hold those in prominent positions, both religious and not, to a higher standard. Same way we'd be outraged if someone in public office assaulted a minor.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Gee if I was a young guy that was sodomized by a school teacher, protestant minister or mom's live in love muffin I'd be a little ticked that nobody seems too concerned unless the guy assaulting me is wearing a Roman collar. Then everyone is outraged and screaming for heads to roll. Are those people any less victimized?


Oh don't get me wrong I don't think that they are any less victimized I'm merely pointing out that when the victimizer is a member of the clergy, it's even more a sickening abuse of power. In the case of the Catholic Church, a little peppering of a hypocritical vow of celibacy thrown in for good measure.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Skewed information as usual form the religious fanatics.
> 
> They seemed to have forgotten all the non-soldier casualties of war and those that died in the gulags and concentration camps.


If they have I'd love to see where you found your numbers.

I tell ya what, lets be generous and skew the numbers for the pro abortion side and give each war 2 million US casualties even though that would grossly exceed actual numbers. Heck lets even lie some more and cut the number of abortions in half. That chart would still be deeply disturbing to me and the war dead would still be vastly outnumbered by those lives taken in abortion. The fact you can so casually blow off those numbers is a sad commentary on the times we live in.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh don't get me wrong I don't think that they are any less victimized I'm merely pointing out that when the victimizer is a member of the clergy, it's even more a sickening abuse of power. In the case of the Catholic Church, a little peppering of a hypocritical vow of celibacy thrown in for good measure.


Hypocritical it is and I have no problem acknowledging that, its inexcusable and needs to be addressed.
That said, why in your mind is it anymore hypocritical than medical personnel abusing their patients after taking the hippocratic oath, a minister thats taken a vow to be faithful to his wife and to his God, or a law enforcement officer thats taken an oath to serve and protect? Or the school teacher or child care worker you've entrusted your children to for 8 hours a day. Why would the priest breaking his vow of celibacy be so much more offensive than individuals in other positions of trust breaking other vows and oaths? 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Because of professionalism*



MacGuiver said:


> Hypocritical it is and I have no problem acknowledging that, its inexcusable and needs to be addressed.
> That said, why in your mind is it anymore hypocritical than medical personnel abusing their patients after taking the hippocratic oath, a minister thats taken a vow to be faithful to his wife and to his God, or a law enforcement officer thats taken an oath to serve and protect? Or the school teacher or child care worker you've entrusted your children to for 8 hours a day. Why would the priest breaking his vow of celibacy be so much more offensive than individuals in other positions of trust breaking other vows and oaths?
> 
> 
> ...


There are only three original professions, four if you also want to count prostitution.

Professor
Doctor
Clergy
Prostitute

They are professionals not because of any oath that they swear but because historically this cadre of people has been able to deal with the most personal of issues, demand payment for service and demand and receive rank and privilege in an era where same was reserved in the large part for the landed gentry.

Professors were/are stewarts of the mind.
Doctors were/are stewarts of the body.
Clergy members were/are stewarts of the soul.
Prostitutes were/are stewarts of sexuality in a world that denied it even existed for the most part.

Time has moved on, but those historical perceptions remain. Many others have tried to don the mantle of the professional. Lawyers to my mind have been the most successful, but even their hold is under attack.

Due to the historic connection of the clergy being stewarts of the soul, it is still considered particularly reprehensible and hypocritical when a member of the clergy breaks trust. It is the absolute worst when a man sworn to celibacy breaks trust in that fashion, is most particularly damaging to the unfortunate victim, and due to the rank and privilege afforded to these people, very difficult to root out at the single instance.

The act is even more distasteful when done by the "professional" as historically all professionals protect themselves as a class and in many cases will protect and have protected the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.

This is why I consider sexual abuse by clergy to be absolutely the worst.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Lichen Software said:


> There are only three original professions, four if you also want to count prostitution.
> 
> Professor
> Doctor
> ...


I'll grant you that it's the worst case of hypocrisy, not because a vow of celibacy has been broken but that a supposed moral authority has acted out so immorally. That said, its still hypocritical coming from a protestant minister, daycare staff, medical staff, law enforcement etc. etc., I would say a abuse from a minister of another religion would be equally hypocritical. 
But this begs the question. From a victim's perspective, why would sodomy from Rev. Dave be worst than Scout master Steve? What would do the greater damage, the hypocrisy or the sexual assault?
From the laser like focus on the Priest scandal among media and individuals, I would have to conclude hypocrisy is of greater concern than the plight of victims since we virtually ignore the rampant abuse in other institutions. Twisted priorities I think.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I'll grant you that it's the worst case of hypocrisy, not because a vow of celibacy has been broken but that a supposed moral authority has acted out so immorally. That said, its still hypocritical coming from a protestant minister, daycare staff, medical staff, law enforcement etc. etc., I would say a abuse from a minister of another religion would be equally hypocritical.
> But this begs the question. From a victim's perspective, why would sodomy from Rev. Dave be worst than Scout master Steve? What would do the greater damage, the hypocrisy or the sexual assault?
> From the laser like focus on the Priest scandal among media and individuals, I would have to conclude hypocrisy is of greater concern than the plight of victims since we virtually ignore the rampant abuse in other institutions. Twisted priorities I think.
> 
> ...


Yes they would. I am talking perception.

As for the act versus the hypocrisy - Which does the greater damage - probably the hypocrisy. It is one thing to be sodomized by the enemy. It is quite another to have it from a trusted individual in a position of power. One's faith in their personal safety would be shaken for life. "If this person does it to me, I am not safe anywhere."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Lichen Software said:


> Yes they would. I am talking perception.
> 
> As for the act versus the hypocrisy - Which does the greater damage - probably the hypocrisy. *It is one thing to be sodomized by the enemy*. It is quite another to have it from a trusted individual in a position of power. One's faith in their personal safety would be shaken for life. "If this person does it to me, I am not safe anywhere."


I guess if you'd categorize school teachers, other religious, doctors, daycare providers etc. as "the enemy" this makes sense. If these are not trusted individuals in positions of power then I don't know who is.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I guess if you'd categorize school teachers, other religious, doctors, daycare providers etc. as "the enemy" this makes sense. If these are not trusted individuals in positions of power then I don't know who is.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Do you feel that priests and Catholics in general have been treated unfairly given all the others that allegedly perpetrate the same acts? Is it any less a crime considering so many others are doing it? It feels like you are trying to diminish the blame somewhat by introducing all the others. 

Lets face it, the Catholic Church is a huge organization that not only had these pedophiles in their ranks, but they knew about it and _*covered it up*_. Bringing up all the others only diminishes the role the Catholic Church has taken. Deal with the Catholic Church then move on to the rest.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Do you feel that priests and Catholics in general have been treated unfairly given all the others that allegedly perpetrate the same acts? Is it any less a crime considering so many others are doing it? It feels like you are trying to diminish the blame somewhat by introducing all the others.
> 
> Lets face it, the Catholic Church is a huge organization that not only had these pedophiles in their ranks, but they knew about it and _*covered it up*_. Bringing up all the others only diminishes the role the Catholic Church has taken. Deal with the Catholic Church then move on to the rest.


Considering much of the western world sees the Church as THE authority on life, it is a huge impact that so many Catholic priests have commited these crimes in so many cases. As an Atheist i do not blame Religion for the acts itself, but i find that a very stressful life under religious rule can lead people to do things their body would otherwise not do (Ex: Hetero Male inmates are proven to get homosexual desires when removed from contact with females for many years on end). Whatever you it boils down to you always have to blame the individual and not the group they may belong too (Although this may be tempting to copy seeing as certain church officials seem to always blame a group and never an individual (See Marilyn Manson and Satanism or Atheism, See Golden Compass boycott)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

The Church was involved in a massive cover up. I'd say that goes beyond blaming the individual.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Do you feel that priests and Catholics in general have been treated unfairly given all the others that allegedly perpetrate the same acts?


I think I've made it pretty clear that those are my feelings. I think their is an anti-catholic bigotry at the root of many that continue to draw extraordinary attention to the church scandal yet willfully ignore the plight of greater numbers of victims at the hands of other institutions. The fact I'm arguing this matter with mostly atheists with evangelical zeal on this board is testament to that. Are they truly concerned about victims of abuse or is it the sharpest arrow in the quiver to take down the enemy they hate? 



> Is it any less a crime considering so many others are doing it?


Definitely not and hopefully an accountable church cleansed of perverts will emerge on the other side of this scandal. 



> It feels like you are trying to diminish the blame somewhat by introducing all the others.


Not at all and I've stated that before. Justice needs to be done and hopefully it will.



> Lets face it, the Catholic Church is a huge organization that not only had these pedophiles in their ranks, but they knew about it and _*covered it up*_


. 
So is the school system and its unions. Its next to impossible in the US to fire a teacher accused of abuse. They're guilty of passing the crap along just like the church had done. However most people are unaware of the problem because media mostly ignore it.



> Bringing up all the others only diminishes the role the Catholic Church has taken.


Not at all, it only shines a light on the victims of rampant abuse that are being ignored.



> Deal with the Catholic Church then move on to the rest


. Why not deal with them all? Media too busy covering Brittany Spears latest shopping trip for pregnancy tests to investigate and report an abuse crisis?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I think their is an anti-catholic bigotry at the root of many that continue to draw extraordinary attention to the church scandal yet willfully ignore the plight of greater numbers of victims at the hands of other institutions. The fact I'm arguing this matter with mostly atheists with evangelical zeal on this board is testament to that.


Being critical of the Catholic Church hardly constitutes atheism.

Also, "greater numbers of victims at the hands of other institutions"? References please.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Being critical of the Catholic Church hardly constitutes atheism.
> Also, "greater numbers of victims at the hands of other institutions"? References please.


A collection of news reports on ministers who have sexually abused children. (Kinda casts doubt on the celibacy=pedophile theory):
Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers

5 years and 27 states (teachers fired for sexual abuse) These are the ones that got dealt with. How many more got transfered, ignored or haven't been discovered?
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Dirty secrets - Teachers fired for sex offfenses

This article is particularly eye opening regarding teacher abuse and also puts it into context with the scandal in the catholic church
Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?, NRO: Why Haven't Teachers Received Same Scrutiny As Catholic Priests? - CBS News

Of coarse most people are not aware of these numbers because the media is busy chasing hard hitting news stories like Brad and Angelina. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> A collection of news reports on ministers who have sexually abused children. (Kinda casts doubt on the celibacy=pedophile theory):
> Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers


This site has got 'run by Catholics covering their collective asses' all over it.



MacGuiver said:


> 5 years and 27 states (teachers fired for sexual abuse) These are the ones that got dealt with. How many more got transfered, ignored or haven't been discovered?
> Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Dirty secrets - Teachers fired for sex offfenses


This site gives no comparison studies of the #'s of Catholic Priests involved.



MacGuiver said:


> This article is particularly eye opening regarding teacher abuse and also puts it into context with the scandal in the catholic church
> Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?, NRO: Why Haven't Teachers Received Same Scrutiny As Catholic Priests? - CBS News


See above.



MacGuiver said:


> Of coarse most people are not aware of these numbers because the media is busy chasing hard hitting news stories like Brad and Angelina.


I think the media has only begun to touch upon the staggering number of abused at the hands of Catholic priests etc. I think the cover up casts a very wide net.

When I have a bit of time I will find some stats to counter yours. Until then, keep the faith.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> This site has got 'run by Catholics covering their collective asses' all over it.


It very well could be run by a Catholic. So what? 
Did you even bother to google any of the names sited in the reports or did you just automatically assume its a lie because you assume a Catholic could have compiled the data? I googled about 15 of the names reported and news stories were found for every one of them confirming the abuse. If you ever serve on Jury duty, I pity the convicted guy if he's Catholic. 



mrjimmy said:


> When I have a bit of time I will find some stats to counter yours. Until then, keep the faith.


Hey Mrjimmy

It should be easy for you to find those stats. The media coverage has been quite extensive. But if you think your going to shock me with the numbers then spare yourself the carpal tunnel. I'm well aware of the scope of the scandal. I watch CBC too. 

Here is some more info on teacher abuse I found on wiki:

*Sexual harassment and abuse of students by teachers

Prevalence
In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students.[4] In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000 . And in a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, it has been claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.[5]*

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> It very well could be run by a Catholic. So what?


I'm simply worried about their sins of ommission.



> I'm well aware of the scope of the scandal. I watch CBC too.


Are you suggesting the right leaning news organizations are involved in the cover up? Thank goodness for the CBC!



> Indeed, it has been claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.[5]


Or 100 times more reported. The veil of secrecy shrouding the Church has been chugging along for many years.

We obviously have very disparate views on the topic. I commend you for keeping and defending your faith in the light of these scandals.

I do believe that spending more time taking the blame fully for the organization you are defending is more useful than trying to create a mini-smokescreen with the inclusion of the 'they do it to' tactic. I think the point is that the RCC has been at it a lot longer.

Take care.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> ... it has been claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.


For this to be relevant, it would have to be shown that abuse by one group of authority figures is more frequent *per unit contact*. I have no doubt that the population of school teachers is vastly larger than the population of priests, and that school teachers spend vastly more time in contact with vastly larger numbers of children than priests. If the numerical incidences of abuse are not vastly larger for teachers than priests it would be astounding. However, I would be most surprised to learn that the incidence _per child*hour_ is higher. In fact I'd be willing to bet it's a lot lower, because a horny teacher can go out at night and get laid.

Cheers


----------

