Technically, Bill Donahue is almost right.

Homosexuality only means a same gender attraction and has nothing to do with age.

Erotic imagery in general is denoted by the suffix “philia” of which there are many categories. Those which are subject to a psychiatric diagnosis are generally called paraphilias and the age related ones are a subset known as chronophilias.

Under chronophilias, there are again several categories. Often they are denoted by age but since different people reach developmental milestones at different ages, it is probably better to go with a developmental point as far as where one falls on the general chronophilia spectrum. However, just for point of discussion, we can call pedophilia an erotic attraction to people between 7 and 12 pedophiles.

There are even two other categories of attraction to children.

Nepiophilia is an attraction to babies (let's say under the age of 3)

Infantophilia is an attraction to older children who have not started school yet (let's say age 3 to 7)

Pedophilila, as noted above would be an attraction to the 7 to 12 age group.

Hebephilia is an attraction to those currently experiencing puberty. Call that ages 12 to 15.

Ephebophilia is an attraction to young people who are basically past puberty. Call that ages 15 to 18.

Teleiophilia is an attraction to adults. It is considered a diagnostic category because some young people are attracted to matured individuals. Students who have the whole “Hot for Teacher” thing going on are the case example.

Past that, there is even Gerontophilia which is an attraction to old people.

So yah, some priests may be pedophiles while others are either hebephiles or ephebophiles. If there is a question about getting abusive priests into the appropriate treatment for a specific condition, then one would need to correctly understand what that specific condition is.

However, there is another factor at work here and that is that some sexual liaisons are inappropriate. As far as that goes, understanding the specific attraction is less of an issue and understanding that a particular sexual liaison is inappropriate is where one should look first.

Consider a case where one adult likes to have straight sex with another adult. The specific liaisons may still be inappropriate. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Many of his rather well documented sexual encounters have been inappropriate. Even when, as in the case of Monica Lewinsky, the specific is that it was consensual, he still ought to have kept his zipper in the upright position.

Ditto a priest who is working with an adult woman. If she came to the priest for some form of counseling on whatever issue was troubling her, well, it would be abusive of the priest to get her in bed. No question of age is at play here but the abuse of one's position remains. This much is true of the priests who like kids, regardless of where they fall out on the chronophilia spectrum. The abuse of power is at least as much of a problem as the age of the victim.

Look at it this way. If some general 40 year old guy likes to pick up the young thing, that is fine as long as she is at least 18 (depending on specific local laws of course but 18 is generally fair game). If she happens to be 17+51 weeks, then technically he could go to jail but it would be a rare prosecutor who would go there.

On the other hand, if she is 21 and he is her therapist, then we have a huge problem.

As I say, understanding the specific diagnostic category which an abuser falls into is useful in getting the abuser some help may be useful in getting the abuser right with society. However, abuse is still abuse.

And in the case of the RC church, it remains a fact that then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict repealed the old rule (if you keep silent past 30 days, you are summarily excommunicated until you come clean) with the rule that you are forever excommunicated if you break silence before the abuser is beyond the reach of civil law is another problem entirely.

While I know you like to be unusual and all that, I must disabuse you of this.  Many, many people don't feel abused even as adults when they are able to comprehend they were molested.  And it goes for women as well as men.  Lots of reasons, but I won't bore you with them.  My knowledge comes from being stuck in an "adults molested as children" group therapy when I didn't qualify as I was never molested.  And boy, did they try to stick the label on me.  I'm teflon coated.

Eh, that doesn't even sound illegal.

Sex ("third base" ) is obviously illegal as per statutory rape.  Making out is definitely legal ("First base", and probably "second base" ). 

I'm not sure which side of the line hand jobs fall on.  Probably depends on the state.

Adult women giving hand jobs to adolescent boys... sounds more like charity than molestation.

The important points are the risk involved- for lack of informed consent (assuming minors can not give it), if there are no risks, there's no problem- and the nature of the memories (e.g. traumatic or not).

Whether or not somebody is taking advantage of authority?  Does that really matter to the person on the other end?  If they think they want it, that's about as far as it goes to wanting it (provided there aren't any unknown risks).

The difference is that infamous psychological experiment where a guy in a white coat tells the subject to torture an actor.  You remember, the actor is supposedly connected to an electric shock treatment of some sort.  The white coat tells the volunteer subject that the goal is to "cure" the actor and the subject must shock the actor.  The actor proceeds to yell when the shock is "small" and "die" if the subject lasts that long.  The surprise was how many usually very nice people "killed" the actor.  Further surprise was the years of therapy the subjects needed.

That's nice people.  When people who were abused do not get therapy, they often turn into abusers.  And when they are in a position of authority, they are more likely to get compliance. 

You have a daughter and you are catholic.  The nice priest has a sleep over - somewhere - at his house, camp out, doesn't matter.  You believe a bunch of other children and maybe some other adults are going along.  So you send your daughter.  And she is raped.

Now, imagine some dirty weird guy off the street asks to take your daughter for a sleep over.  Right.

Or, let's say your psychologist insists you need to have sex with him/her in order to get well.  You are a sexual abuse survivor and your self-esteem and rational abilities are off kilter.  What happens?

Or, you are a sexual abuse survivor and some dirty weird guy off the street wants to have sex.  What then?

Yeah, it ain't always that clear or simple. 

As for boyfriends, more young women should learn to say, "Go sit in a corner and play with yourself."  Very effective.  Usually the jerk off leaves and doesn't come back and I say good riddance. 

Yes, but that's only about deferred responsibility.

You aren't responsible for your actions because you were told to do it.  That doesn't necessarily factor into the force of coercion itself; it just mitigates the consequences of action to a certain extent.

I think you underestimate the force of emotional blackmail.

No, I have been subject to emotional blackmail.  It is not a fun situation to be in.  However, I have always been an onery cuss and I stopped submitting at about age 4 -  except for my mom who was a past master at it.  Which may be why I can resist anyone else. No one can compare to my mother - my in-laws were amazed when they met her and wondered out loud how I could have grown up so sane.

I have every sympathy for someone who is subjected and consequently submits to emotional blackmail.  I am aware most people are not able to resist the pressure.  Hence, the repeating of that particular study.  I always thought the point was that normal people have a terrible time resisting pressure from authority figures.  The subjects did not refuse to accept responsibility for their actions which was why many of them required follow up counseling.  They felt very badly about not being able to tell the white coat guy "no".  They felt they had failed as a caring individual.  It was in part because of the long term damage to these subjects that we have the rules for research review boards today.

Cj, perhaps you are just stronger than most others, or desensitized to it.  But you don't really strike me as the type to be vulnerable to authority either (if it is a force, which it may be).

Even in the case where somebody were vulnerable to one and not the other (by being desensitized, perhaps), I don't believe that makes the bottom-line any different.

In my view, pressure is pressure; it comes in subtly different shades, perhaps, but I see no fundamental difference between the two from a moral standpoint.

As to the force of authority:

I see what you mean there, and you may have a point- it could still be a force of some kind.

However, I think the sense of responsibility comes in after the fact; during the process, I believe it is mitigated in the mind's projection of the future consequences.  It's only in hindsight, I suspect, that it comes back to it that they "could have said no".

You may be right, though- it could be a force.

In that study, I believe that was the point.  But do a study on emotional blackmail, and I would bet almost anything that you'd find the same result if the consequences of the action were negative.

Whether one pushes you or pulls you, you're still being forced.

I would argue that people feel badly when emotionally forced as well.

Researcher:  "Kill this kitten, it's necessary for the experiment.  You won't be responsible."

Jerk boyfriend:  "Kill this kitten or I will break up with you and not love you anymore"

I think an argument can be made as to how badly the consequences of those actions make people feel being the ultimate magnitude of the wrong of the means... but I don't think that makes the means/forces fundamentally different.

While I generally haven't used false threats (as most people do- since I follow through), I've used some kind of "emotional blackmail" before:

Girl:  "I'm too ugly."

Me: "Stop insulting yourself.  Now give yourself ten compliments, or I'm not going to talk to you anymore."

The end result is, of course, that the person unlearns a self-degrading habit, and improves in self-esteem.  Repetition is amazingly powerful.

I've made girls exercise, improve their diets, forced them to go out and talk to people more.  Emotional blackmail is profoundly powerful- although I'm glad my conscience doesn't have to bear any strictly selfish use of it, though of course the "for her own good" is subject to my own judgment which may be debatable.

I have been tempted to, but have yet to use emotional blackmail to get a girl to stop believing in gods or spirits/magical nonsense.  Seems like a grey area that isn't clearly to benefit her... although I certainly think free thinking, being freed from superstition, is beneficial.  Hmm...

Anyway, my point is only that I've been in the position to understand the power of emotional blackmail such that I can not see the difference between that, and any other position of authority.

Even if "Authority" of the teacher/priest type is a significant force (rather than just temporary mitigation of responsibility), I don't think that makes it any worse than use of emotional blackmail, or even deceptive threats of any kind (assuming the authority is using deception in addition to power).

lofl!

Weird, yes.  Dirty - eh.  No worse than most guys.

This is self-justification.  If you have to justify the means, then you are not comfortable with said means.  And why is that?  (Don't answer me, the question is rhetorical.  Think about it.)

I am not a wild fire, thank you.  Neither is your girlfriend.  From my experience this method will escalate into swampy murkiness.  (I like that sentence!)  The two manipulators (you and the other source of emotional blackmail) will have to keep upping the blackmail as you compete for the "prize" - the third person's psyche.  And for all you know, the person being blackmailed is aware and consents.  Then it is for you to butt out.

I only point out the blackmail, I don't try to blackmail people in return.  Maybe if you read Don't Shoot the Dog by Karen Pryor.  She is the grand master of clicker training - or as now known amongst school kids, "arc" points.  She says that positive reinforcement will work on your friends and family if they don't know about it.  The minute they become aware of the manipulation, they will refuse to cooperate.  So if you point out the manipulation, it should cause the person to start moving out of being manipulated.  Try this, instead.

I don't know about any other female, but for me, the minute a boyfriend started trying to nudge me around - "you would be so pretty if you <lost> <gained> 5 pounds" (yeah, I heard it both ways) - I learned to leave him and not come back.  Love me as I am or get lost.  Maybe if you cared for someone exactly like she is, fat or not, healthy or not, tall or short, whatever, you would have better luck finding a special someone.  Remember, we all get less healthy and less attractive as we get older- even you.  While some of which may be avoided through careful diet and exercise, some is beyond our control.  If you can't imagine loving someone when they are old, chubby or skinny, wrinkly and/or ill, then you aren't ready for a long term relationship.

I don't see any way to make emotional blackmail illegal.  I don't believe in slippery slopes, what I believe is no two people can agree on anything.  And finding a place where most people would agree is a line between acceptable and unacceptable would take more time than it is worth.

I can imagine times when authoritative abuse is less damaging than emotional abuse as well as vice versa.  So I guess I will have to say in my opinion they are roughly equal except for the legal aspects. 

I can't think of an objective way to measure emotional control.

Except for choice, there isn't a sharp line.  If it is someone's choice to give a boyfriend that kind of control, then the boyfriend may take advantage of it if so inclined.  You may grant that kind of authority to a religious leader.  Or doctors or psycho-therapists.  Some people will be able to say "no, I don't think so".  But others are just as helpless before a boyfriend or girlfriend, priest, doctor, or psychologist as they are before a policeman or judge or swat team.

Okay, I'll buy this.  Though I think the toilet analogy is not accurate.  You can reach in the toilet with something other than your hand, you know.  That is a physical problem, not emotional.  Your emotional response in that case is related to your knowledge of the physical consequences.

The consequences in this case are increasing someone's emotional dependence rather than increasing their independence.  Is this what you wanted?

Yes, I have met women and men like this - physical and/or religious abusees.  (That's not a word, but it should be.)  Law enforcement is only involved if the physical abuse escalates to hospitalization - and even then the abusee may opt out.  Or if the neighbors complain.  Religious abuse is only on the radar if it leads to physical abuse. 

In the case of physical abusers, they often select victims who are of a size to be abused.  That is, most of them wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole - I am not small, was never small, and am very muscular for a woman.  They almost always select someone they can abuse easily, someone smaller and not particularly able to defend themselves.  Someone who is already afraid before they even start.

And something else I have learned - the hard way - people who don't want to be helped, can't be helped.

No, most people are not like me - or you.  We are capable of saying - bullshit, fuck off.  And so we are resistant to manipulation for the most part.  My husband has learned not to "recommend" changes in my life style to suit himself. 

I'm guessing you are hanging out with the wrong crowd.  Self sufficient strong people hang out together and won't allow a manipulator within ten feet of them. 

There is the possibility that they will wipe your dust off their feet and go find someone who isn't a manipulator.

Yes, it is very much slower.  But real learning is.  Again, from training dogs - anything with a brain stem learns in the same way - if you teach a dog using luring, it is not as effective as capture and shape.  

Luring -  you hold a treat over the dog's nose and move it backwards above his head.  He will sit in order to follow the treat.  Or, force him into a sit by pushing down on his butt.  Reward by giving the treat. 

Capture and Shape - you wait, clicker and treat in hand, until the dog sits on his own.  You click and reward.  Move around so the dog stands up.  Wait until he sits, then click and reward.

Luring works, but you will always have to lure for the old commands as well as the new commands for the rest of the dog's life.  With capture and shape, the dog internalizes "sit".  The first command will take the longest to get.  After that, the dog will offer behaviors to get a click and reward and learning will happen much more quickly.  This is how the Seinfeld dog was taught, all capture and shape.

So, to put it in context.  If you manipulate someone to change their life style, they will probably need someone to nag for the rest of their lives.  If they learn to change their life style on their own, it will take longer the first time.  But after that, they will learn to change much more quickly and the change will be permanent because it is internal.

I didn't mean my comment only in the physical sense.  Though your example was physical - healthy life style - and so was mine - change your weight.  We could have used examples like, "eat whole grains and more fruit and vegetables".  Or even, "be a vegetarian and jog every day".  Or, "stop smoking", "leave that abusive church", "don't drink sodas, soft drinks, pop", "lay off the grande macchiatos"......

That is what many people have learned from relationships around them as they were growing up.  It is what I learned as well.  Not all of those things, but my family wasn't perfect by any stretch.  It is and was never easy being something your family is not.  So you need to find people with exceptional families or find someone who can grow beyond their family.  I am not pretending it is easy as people like this are not a dime a dozen.

I just don't see it that way.  I can be manipulated, but I am quick to see it and then I am out of there.  For me, choice is a sharp line.  Here - manipulation.  There - freedom.  To get there from here, one small internal step.  The physical steps may take time and effort, maybe even money and resources.  But once the internal step has been made, freedom becomes possible.

I guess if a person has never attempted a behavior on their own without being manipulated (lured), they have to learn to offer behaviors (capture and shape).  And that is going to be harder for those who have never been allowed to offer independent behaviors that are accepted by their friends and family.  It is not impossible, however.  People have brains the size of cantaloupes, not the lemon-sized brain of a dog.  And therefore, people are capable of much more complex learning than dogs.

Redirecting may not increase emotional dependence, but I think we can agree it doesn't decrease it, either.  And so independence is not achieved unless the person internalizes a desire for change.

I checked with a psychologist I know who is also female.  She agrees with me.  It is possible to force someone into a temporary change due to emotional blackmail.  "Eat vegetarian or I walk," only works until one of you walks.  And your friend may revert to previous habits when you are not around if they were only vegetarian <or whatever> because it was a condition of a relationship.  "Oh, Blake is not here and it is lunch time - BIG MAC!!!"  "Hey, I broke up with Blake today.  Go out with me to Outback and we'll have a big ol' steak in celebration."  Your friend won't change permanently until she internalizes the change.  External pressures work, but only while the pressure is applied.

All I can give you is my own experience.  Once I stopped looking at the guys I was immediately attracted to and started looking at the ones I considered just a little nerdy, maybe not the physical style I thought was sexy, I found the right guy.  Dummy me had been hanging around dumb asses when I out rated them in the IQ department by at least 50 points.

I don't know if that is specifically your problem, but just ask yourself -- where do I hang and what kind of people hang there?  Where else could I go to find people who might be fun to be with?  Don't worry about potential relationships, just go for fun.  If you are having fun, you will find people who are also having fun at the same place.  Not a bad place to start.

Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say here.

Probably not - people who do not want to change, who do not want to acknowledge the manipulation, don't.  All you can do is point it out and stand back.  If nothing happens, move on.

That is why alcoholism counselors talk about hitting bottom.  Where bottom is will be different for different people.  But they have to decide they have hit bottom or drying out is only temporary.

For dogs, just a pencil eraser size is large enough for anything.  For people - well.  Karen Pryor says people can be trained with just a positive word.  So you can train your self by saying "good!"  The hard part for most people when training is to train only one thing at a time.  Using Ms. Pryor's example, if you want to train yourself to be a better racket ball player, you start by praising yourself for speed or accuracy first, then training for the other.  Pick only one at a time - speed or accuracy.

So training someone to not be manipulated, means selecting one thing at a time.  Acknowledge that you are being manipulated.  Realize you can do something about it.  Figure out what steps you can take with the resources you have.  Take the first step out of the situation.  Reinforcement may be nothing more than an encouraging word at each step of the way.

Most people make the mistake of trying to train too many steps at once.

If a dog started training by being lured, you can largely forget them offering behaviors later in life.  People are not dogs and can be encouraged to change how they respond to emotional pressure.  But like dogs, they will revert to old habits if put under enough pressure. 

You start by giving sincere positive reinforcement when and as appropriate.  "I really like the way you fix tabbouleh."  Skip adding, "But must you make mac and cheese out of a box?"  I was not aware of how often I was critical and how seldom I was supportive until I started paying attention to what I was saying.  Try to be at least 75% positive, the more the better.  Try to not say anything negative. 

Hey, I'm talking about your behavior, not the person with the problem!  If you are careful to be positive, the other person will be more willing to listen to you and to assign value to what you say.  Which will allow you to start gently pointing out the emotional quagmire they are in and to have them really listen to what you are saying.  You can reinforce them by responding positively to their questions and concerns. 

Never minimize the difficulty they will probably have seeing your world view.  Never roll your eyes.  I read where they can predict how soon a relationship will break up by the number of eye rolls during a conversation between two people.  It wasn't what was said, it was the back story of contempt that predicted a break up.

Books and videos on dog training, but they apply to people as well.  Don't shoot the Dog  "Clicker Magic" The Other End of the Leash   The Culture Clash  Click for Joy

I don't know; I've forced people who were shut in out of self loathing to go out and talk to/meet random people, and compliment themselves to the point that they become social- and from there greater emotional independence is achieved.

Identify the problems, and solve them for the person (though the person has no idea why I'm making her do these things), and it's still a fix.  However, that of course doesn't teach her how to solve other problems she has by herself.

Right, I'm well aware of this for particular issues that the person might not fully understand.  When somebody is doing something because of me, it becomes associated with me (either positively through loyalty, or negatively through consequence), and as soon as the association changes, so does the action.

I asked one girl if she was eating vegetarian because of me, or herself.  She said partly me, and partly herself.  I tried to explain that it needs to be 100% her, so she should learn her own reasons, and decide for herself.  At least an attempt at motivating internalization- I don't think it quite got through though.

Vegetarian diets are a bit different from atheism, though.  One is expression of opinion (e.g. consistency with the opinion that "Animals don't deserve to suffer" or "the environment should be protected" etc.)- one is quite evident fact.

People can change their opinions more easily- and under emotional pressure, opinions are very fluid and tend to conform to those of others.  It's a bit harder to ignore facts once they've gotten through, though (theists typically make use of denying the facts instead of understanding them).

While obviously somebody may tie the emotional state of an opinion to her relationship with me (e.g. care more about animal welfare or the environment because I do) and that may change, I find it unlikely that intimate factual knowledge would, no matter how she feels about it or me.

As such, if I forced a girl to learn calculus, I don't think she'd instantly stop understanding it as soon as she hated me.  Likewise, if I forced a girl to learn about her religion, general science, logic, and philosophy- ultimately resulting in inevitable disbelief once I've crushed all of her rationalization with education- she's not going to forget all of those things when she's not with me or decides she hates me.  What emotional manipulation can do is force her to listen and understand it, even: "you will memorize all of these apologetic arguments, and successfully refute them all in your own words every day, or I walk"

And of course, there are some pretty decent tests of disbelief, like willingness to commit blasphemy (a primitive lie detector could at least pick up any stress or concern under these situations).

Vegetarianism:  Yeah, maybe she'd grab a burger when I'm not around.

Atheism:  That's going to be a little less reversible relative to her mood.

So if I started with a Christian who was already vegetarian for her own reasons, that might be a good fix.  If I could put up with the time it took to fix her.

This is why I don't go to bars.  The nerdy types aren't as social, though.  Maybe a star-trek convention or something...

Time investment aside, this kind of thing is really too emotionally draining for me.  I need to see results- having that happen over and over would really just depress me.

Yikes... yeah, I try to do too much at once.  Every one of those steps, actually, in the space of twenty minutes in some cases.

I'm very patient when I know something is going to work, but when there's uncertainty there, I can't stand the waiting very much- particularly with important things.

I think perhaps this is something worth doing for less important things to avoid pushing hard, but I doubt I could use this tactic to separate somebody from a religion-- I don't know that I could bear that pace.  And I really think that learning is something emotions won't undo so easily, even if it's a bit forced (some people still remember how to spell and do their times tables after primary school, which is pretty impressive for forced memory retention; it's not as good as curiosity, of course- maybe not by a hundred times- but it can still work).  If I forced a start with learning, though, to get past the first hurdle (religion is BS), I may be able to use "capture and shape" to encourage further curiosity and critical thinking to make sure she doesn't relapse later (which unless I forced her to memorize *every* possible apologetic argument and its counter, it a possibility if she heard a new one).

I'm going to try this with some smaller things, some minor insecurity... maybe I'll figure out a way to work it that I can go with.  *positive* *positive* yeah... I'll see if it works.

I'd like to do a more thorough study on something like that to determine the mode of reversion.  I've seen reversion on evolution before, and it usually has to do with apologetics taking a detour around things (offering alternative explanations/rationalizations).  I've never seen anybody who understood it well reverting.

Not really an option for me.  All of the girls I've met, with whom I agree on each point (and those are very rare), have been pretty severely emotionally damaged- if not changing in knowledge, an ideology, or belief, they need "fixing" on account of numerous emotional issues (usually involving self-loathing).

This is killing me... nearly an hour of talking and I don't feel like I've made progress.  And this is such a small thing!

I've gotten Christians to denounce their god faster than that.

I'm going to stick to it, though.  If you remember, ask me in a couple months and I'll let you know how it works (if even by then).