Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Yet another Republican pandaphile

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Yet another Republican pandaphile
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I was speculating on the possibility that overly repressive puritanical parenting may increase the likelyhood of their children becoming abusers as an explanation for why these hard core family values Republicans become sexual abusers in so many cases.

I think this puts the cart before the horse. It seems more likely to me that they cling to a strident social conservatism to deal with the cognitive dissonance of having abusive urges but knowing them to be wrong. See "The Tea-Room Trade" and the concept of the "breastplate of righteousness".

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:28 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

I didn't mean to suggest that the abusers had been sexually abused as children,

You may not suggest that, but I do.
This is what Gebhard et al. (1965) and Groth (1979) found, but other studies have gotten mixed results.

Quote:

but rather that they may have been sexually repressed as children.

I suggest that, too.
This is what Goldstein, Kant, & Hartman (1973: 144) and Rossman (1976: 66) found.

Now to explain this apparent contradiction:
I think the mental health professionals are making a mistake by using the same term to apply to two different maladies.

It seems that genital offenders, or those who crave sex with children, tend to be sexual abuse victims whereas pregenital offenders, or those who are content with exhibition and voyeurism, tend to come from a puritanical upbringing.

I say this because a study of adolescent sexual offenders against children
found that 54% of the total sample had themselves been victims of sexual or physical abuse, as opposed to only 12% whose only offense was looking or showing (Renvoize, 1982: 73).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gebhard, P. H.; Gagnon, J. H.; Pomeroy, W. B.; & Christenson, C. V. 1965. Sex offenders: An analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row.

Groth, A. N. 1979. Sexual trauma in the life histories of rapists and child molesters. Victimology 4: 10-16.

Renvoize, J., 1982. Incest: A family pattern. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rossman, P. 1976. Sexual experience between men and boys: Exploring the pederast underground. New York: Association.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:28 am Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

Yes, I know, and I was serious when I wrote

Quote:

Now there's a hypothesis worth testing.

Hater Depot wrote:

As a whole, they stick to social conservatism, but even though they are much more likely than Democrats to offend, it is by far not even the majority, as you seem to suggest here.

tomato wrote:

ontheway wrote:

I didn't mean to suggest that the abusers had been sexually abused as children,

You may not suggest that, but I do.

This is what Gebhard et al. (1965) and Groth (1979) found, but other studies have gotten mixed results.

A lot more has come out since Gebhard (who worked with Kinsey, btw) did his work, and Groth dealt mostly or exclusively with incarcerated or clinical populations. Also, his categorization of offenders into "fixated" and "regressed" is not one given much credence among sexologists.

See my earlier post re: the "abused abuser" hypothesis.

Quote:

I think the mental health professionals are making a mistake by using the same term to apply to two different maladies.

To what term are you referring here?

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:38 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Hater Depot wrote:

As a whole, they stick to social conservatism, but even though they are much more likely than Democrats to offend, it is by far not even the majority, as you seem to suggest here.

Sorry, but I don't find this sentence clear at all. Can you re-state?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:15 am Post subject:

Hater Depot wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Hater Depot wrote:

As a whole, they stick to social conservatism, but even though they are much more likely than Democrats to offend, it is by far not even the majority, as you seem to suggest here.

Sorry, but I don't find this sentence clear at all. Can you re-state?

I agree that Republicans generally stick to socially conservative positions. Republican party workers are much more likely to be involved in a sex offense against a minor than their Dem counterparts. The vast majority of Republican party workers are not involved in sex offenses against minors.

You seemed to imply that most Republicans had the socially conservative ideology because they suffered from abusive urges; that is your (sole) explanation of their ideology.

Sorry if I was unclear. Thanks for the chance to restate. Anyway, do I have it all wrong?

Old Gil

Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:21 am Post subject:

Come now, furries are a fact of life.

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:15 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Hater Depot wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Hater Depot wrote:

As a whole, they stick to social conservatism, but even though they are much more likely than Democrats to offend, it is by far not even the majority, as you seem to suggest here.

Sorry, but I don't find this sentence clear at all. Can you re-state?

I see. Actually, by "they" I was referring only to the people that ontheway was - social conservatives who abuse. ontheway seemed to be saying that repressed social conservatives are more likely to abuse, but I think abusers may be more likely to become social conservatives as one method of avoiding responsibility for abusing. Others convince themselves that kids love them and seek them out sexually.

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

To what term are you referring here?

The P word.

Quote:

Victorian prudery seemed to have the same effect.
Victorian England abounded with child-lusty adults, of whom Louis Carroll was only the best known.
The Diary of Francis Kilvert abounds with angelic and supernatural descriptions of preadolescent girls encountered by the diarist.

Quote:

See my earlier post re: the "abused abuser" hypothesis.

I DID see your earlier post about the abused-abuser hypothesis.
What about it?

Quote:

Groth dealt mostly or exclusively with incarcerated or clinical populations. Also, his categorization of offenders into "fixated" and "regressed" is not one given much credence among sexologists.

That seems to be his faculty advisor's idea, not his.
The Dissertation Abstracts lists three dissertations, of which his was the third, which pertained to fixated and regressed offenders. All three of those dissertations were at the same university with the same faculty advisor.

Quote:

A lot more has come out since Gebhard (who worked with Kinsey, btw) did his work

I know. That's why I said "other studies have gotten mixed results."
I checked the Psychological Abstracts and the Dissertation Abstracts up to 1999.
That was when I came to Korea.

I admitted in a private correspondense that you were a threat to me.
Am I a threat to you too?
I don't mean to--or at least I didn't mean to until now.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject:

tomato wrote:

bacasper wrote:

To what term are you referring here?

The P word.

What's the matter? Can't even bring your self to type out the whole word?

Quote:

See my earlier post re: the "abused abuser" hypothesis.

I DID see your earlier post about the abused-abuser hypothesis.
What about it?

It was refuted.

Quote:

I admitted in a private correspondense that you were a threat to me.
Am I a threat to you too?
I don't mean to--or at least I didn't mean to until now.

To bring a private, personal correspondence onto a public message board is not only a violation of netiquette but also TOS. I am not sure why you feel the need to go this route.

You asked in a pm if I were planning to do the same as you, to which I replied in the negative.

Excuse me if I am a bit "correspondense," but exactly how are you threatening me?

Please do not continue any personal correspondence publicly, as I will only entertain it in a pm.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject:

From this first-hand account of how the issue worked for this young pedophile we gain insight:

Quote:

Through most of my life I have been fiercely individual, resentful of power and fearless of challenging authority figures. In eighth grade I was a Communist. Suddenly in the chaos of sexual discovery I became a Republican. I pledged my allegiance to the law; I supported the war in Iraq with all my heart, and red-white-and-blue became my favorite colors. John Ashcroft was my hero, during the year that ensued. I became soft-spoken and mindful of my place as a child with no rights. Far from the wild protester who had risked (and lost) a great many things the year before to combat abuse of power by authorities around me, I swore to follow blindly anyone with power. Why? Because suddenly I needed to prove to myself that I was a good person. I needed to prove that I was not one of the tormented, sick souls that I had written about before. I found myself at odds with the messages in society. I felt that the only way to redeem myself was to swallow every message sent by the media and my peers about what was 'acceptable.'

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe