Looking For Reasons to Complain

As a result of my Larry Craig post receiving links from Balloon Juice and from Salon, I’m receiving flak for allegedly equating homosexuals with child predators. :::shrug::: I took special care to specify that the two groups aren’t the same and even mentioned (in the comments) that it seems to me that more little girls are being violated by men than are little boys. None of those who are up in arms about my “equation” seem aware of a recent post of mine about James P. Finn--a former Air Force colleague and a deserter—who was recently arrested for downloading child pornography, who is an online “pedophile advocate” and who has a preference for young boys. In the post, I stated that, in the eighties, we pretty much knew that Finn was a homosexual, but that some of us were beating ourselves up for not knowing that he was a pedophile.

However, when some people see the words ‘homosexual/gay’ and the phrase ‘child predator’ in the same sentence, knees will automatically jerk, apparently. I guess I’m not really surprised, since La Shawn Barber received the same reaction last year when discussing the demeanor of John Mark Karr.

Jeff Goldstein has written several posts about the concept of intentionalism: the way in which we all assign meaning to the words of a given speaker/writer and to the concepts which the speaker/writer attempts to convey. My critics choose to ignore the objective definitions of words and concepts used and choose to assign their own definitions, naturally to my detriment. Therefore, I can be accused of saying that all homosexuals are child predators even after having composed this paragraph

Perhaps men so inclined [to prey on little boys] wouldn't take the chance on grabbing a boy in such an enclosed space--one from which such a predator would not have an easy avenue of escape--but is that a chance which you would take with your son? And even if there are no child predators present, seeing/hearing two men boinking in the restroom is not something which I would want my [hypothetical] son to have to experience.

Two hypothetical men are having relations in a restroom but no child predators are present. Gee, how could I formulate such a situation if I thought that all homosexuals were child predators? Could it be that some of my critics cannot find legitimate reasons to complain about my Craig post and are, therefore, inclined to make sh*t up?

(One critic assigns meaning that may be accurate: overprotective parent. Though I’m not a parent, I can imagine that I would be a bit overprotective toward my children of either gender, considering the prevalence of predators of all stripes these days. There’s a reason that, in the seventies, I and my little girl friends were able to stay gone all day, but my sister wouldn’t dream of allowing her oldest daughter—a nine-year-old—to have the same freedom.)

In fairness, I realize that there are quite a few stereotypes which homosexuals have to oppose (and, by the way, I do know a few things about combating a couple of other sets of stereotypes). I would advise my critics, however, to reconnoiter the target a bit more closely and, before lashing out, to make sure that said target is really an enemy.

Comments

[Billy]

I'm still just floored that despite--in THREE consecutive paragraphs--you allude to how "dangerous" it is for young men/boys to enter a bathroom that might have gay men, that you're SURELY not trying to link the gay men to the safety issues of those boys. That's as disingenuous as it gets.

Please tell me, then. Why, if the gays are not child predators, would the bathrooms be dangerous? Pray tell.

[Wrymouth]

Face it, B: you were *obviously* equating child predation with homosexuality. Over two people say you were, so that settles it.

The tens of people who see your viewpoint with clarity are *obviously* mistaken.

O, snap!

[baldilocks]

Why, if the gays are not child predators, would the bathrooms be dangerous? Pray tell.

Because I would not want my young son(s) "seeing/hearing two men boinking in [a] restroom." I wouldn't want them to think that public sex was normal/correct.

[Stormy70]

Take it to a hotel, not a public restroom. I wouldn't want my kid exposed to anyone having sex in a bathroom. Don't these guys have any self-respect? Why let yourself be used so cheaply, just get a room.

[worn]

Being one of the commenters who I supppose might be accused of 'targeting' you as an enemy, I just want to say this wasn't my intention. I am more than willing to accept your explanation & that what some people took away from your post is not what you were trying to say. Instead, I was advocating tighter prose that might avoid your getting pilloried by the hysterical. Problem is that (in my humble opinion) the pedophila angle had no place in your original post - it wasn't a part of Senator Craig's arrest narrative and thus by you including it within your imagining the possibility of exposing a hypothetical son 'tearoom trade', I think it is not unreasonable for a reader to take away that you thought there was a connection of sorts between the two.

So I was heartened to read this:

"In fairness, I realize that there are quite a few stereotypes which homosexuals have to oppose (and, by the way, I do know a few things about combating a couple of other sets of stereotypes)"

I had been formulating a response that attempted to illustrate my point via said (ugly) stereotypes, basically using your original post and just substituting a few of the nouns & verbs that would do this.

But now it's a beautiful sunny Saturday I'm suddenly struck with lack of desire to finish the reply, reminded as I am of an old colloquialism from where I come from: "That's like two mules fighting over a turnip."

So I'll go away now. Just wanted you to know it wasn't my intention to be insulting.

[RHJunior]

Ugly reality time:

Fact One: There are, statistically, a far higher number of same-sex molestation cases annually than male-on-female or female-on-male. In fact the numbers may be worse than as listed, because for some time the U.S. Justice department recategorized any instances of male-on-male molestation where the victim was over 13 under less-offensive sounding categories....

Fact two: The percentage of child molesters in the homosexual community is several times greater than that found in the population as a whole. Which is only mathematically inevitable, when a large number of sex predators who like to play with little boys ALSO like to play with BIG boys on the side.

Fact three: the phrase "chickenhawk" originally referred to homosexual men who went out and took fresh young underaged chickens---ahem--- under their wing. (Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it the next time you read about a "gender identity counselor" in a public school.) The pursuit of underaged males to "initiate" is a standard feature of the gay sex scene.

And all of the above is especially unsurprising in light of the extreme sexual license that is a normal feature of the "gay" culture and community.

[baldilocks]

Worn:

I can put an "angle" any place I wish, since I'm paying for this space.

I had an opinion--a "what-if" scenario; I put it down using objective words which illustrated the *opposite* of what you and some others said. Again I'd say that some have chips on their shoulders--or guilty consciences (not you).

I had been formulating a response that attempted to illustrate my point via said (ugly) stereotypes, basically using your original post and just substituting a few of the nouns & verbs that would do this.

I'll help you: use black crime or mention that my father is African.

I'll probably just laugh or make a follow-on joke--as I've done before--because I don't have a chip on my shoulder about who I am.

You have indeed been polite, however. Thanks.

RHJunior: Surely there are links which demonstrate all those 'facts'--or is it just your opinion?