It's impossible to watch the news today without hearing about church sex scandals; about these incurable monsters who abuse the innocent. But, dare we ask, what made the monster?

Does celibacy make an abuser?

Many people have said that requiring priests to be celibate has opened the doors for those attracted to children, if not itself made them attracted to children. In fact, the Catholic church has stopped recruiting priests directly out of Junior High. Many have considered the idea that early celibacy causes stunted sexual attractions, thus explaining attractions to Junior High aged people. In fact, some priests have used that as an excuse to explain their attractions. Yet, attractions are set from birth. Requiring the oath of celibacy simply invites those who do not accept their attractions or those with very low sex drives.

Do attractions make an abuser?

Many people use two words interchangeably, although one means to be attracted to young people and the other to abuse a young person. Does being attracted to someone force you to abuse them? A "normal" heterosexual man would never question the viability of his attractions because his are accepted, yet he doesn't have to rape a woman to prove he's straight. Attractions are something everyone is born with and question only if they don't match the accepted label for "normal". Yet, even if society tells you that you're "weird" or that "you should want perverse sex", that doesn't mean that you buy it. Attractions are part of your personality, but so is a disgust for violence or a predilection for it.

Does abuse makes an abuser?

Many people believe that being abused makes someone into an abuser. Numerous examples have been given of a child raised in neglect and abuse becoming a violent and cruel abuser. Yet, does a person's past really control him? People have free will and are responsible for their own lives, even if biology or events effect them. Some believe in the change and the scar of child abuse, but I have this to say: People don't change. They can learn to see things differently, but their personalities never change. Someone may be seen at a party and his friends will say "that's not him", but it is. You give someone more freedom and their true self comes out. If someone is violent, they were born that way and only need the opportunity to let it out. It's just like a woman who everyone says is "such a great person", but speeds and cuts people off when she drives. An expressive person can never become shy and visa versa, although shy people are constantly told or try to "overcome" their shyness. They force themselves to talk in public and they'll always have to work hard at it because they can't change.

I don't remember part of my childhood and many clues have led some to believe (and myself to ponder) that I may have been abused (yes, that kind of abuse). Yet, would I ever become an abuser? Of course not. People react two ways after abuse (whether or not they remember it). One is to internalize it and the other is to externalize it. Yet, internalization is often more violent than externalization. Like any pain in life, internalizing it can lead to self-abuse (whether physical or psychological). Externalizing it often makes it come out in constructive ways. Holding it inside is never constructive. The pain of loosing his son led John Walsh on a crusade against abuse. He didn't go out and kill someone else's son, so why should an abused child grow up to abuse another child?

Does a repeat abuser make a monster?

Many people believe that "once an abuser, always an abuser". Certainly what I've said seems to reaffirm that, but keep in mind that humans have free will and are therefor responsible for what they do. Even if violence is "in their blood", so to speak, other things are there too. Certainly, if someone feels that abuse is the only way to gain the contact with youth they crave, it does make it easier to abuse again. Some try therapy to change, but you can't replace a circle with a triangle and say they'll be alright with a substitute for their violent and abusive nature. It would be like trying to masturbate to an image you're not attracted to in order to change your attractions. It doesn't work. It will surface in an uncontrollable way if you forcibly suppress it. Yet, there are outlets. Imagine what would happen if males didn't have sports. Sure, many women say "but they're so violent", but would it be better to let that violence out at home? You can't substitute violence, but you can give it a safe outlet.

Does adult/child sex make a monster?

Many people assume that a sexual relationship between an adult and a teenager (called a "child") is always abusive. Some miracle happens when they turn 18 and their eyes are open to understand sex and be capable of consenting. It wasn't always thought of this way, but now a fifteen year old is "a little kid". Did having sex with the priests destroy the boys' lives? Look at the men who are claiming the abuse. The majority weren't raped. They just didn't understand what was going on to the extent that they "understand" now. They were gay (i.e., attracted to men) and had gay sex and enjoyed it. Their minds had questions, but their bodies accepted it without fighting. Sure, if they were kicking and screaming then it was a violent rape, but ignorance of what is happening doesn't traumatize someone. They traumatize themselves later when they become adults and interpret their memories. Now they blame the problems in their lives on that sex act (i.e., "If I hadn't had that relationship, I wouldn't be gay."). They weren't suffering as "kids", but now, as adults, they think their adult problems are related to what happened as "kids". Their attractions didn't change. They never could have been "normal". The problem is that they don't accept themselves., so they look for someone to blame. It's easy when society points the finger for you. Yet, a negative experience is a negative experience. It doesn't destroy someone's life. Many "kids" dread school and are teased constantly, but they don't grow up unable to go on with their lives. It's only if they hate themselves, and that works independently of abuse. Maybe if I hadn't been abused, then I would be normal. Oh, please. There's no chance I'd have been normal. Part of living a sane life is accepting who you are. It doesn't mean jumping for joy over it. It just means accepting it.

What makes a monster?

Society focuses on abusive relationships with negative outcomes to maintain the current social ideology. Yet, without mentioning any names, there are many famous people who have had positive experiences because they accept themselves. These generally occur between two people who share the same attraction (to youth) or where love and not just sex is involved, despite differences in ages. For example, perhaps the most famous living male singer had a relationship with a teenage boy, but the boy refused to testify when everyone told him that he was abused. This famous singer also had a relationship with a famous child actor and the now grown actor cherishes their "special friendship". Another, a child country singer, entered a relationship with an adult because both love boys and being young. And, just in case you're naively thinking that the adult made the child a child lover, I'll give the example of a certain pop singer in a "boy band" that has had a long relationship with his younger brother, another pop singer, yet the younger brother has turned out "normal" compared to the older brother who will always love boys. Additionally, outside of such relationships, many people, from musicians to filmmakers, all have a love of boys and it shows in their work.  The problem is that, although the vast majority of Caucasians are attracted to at least one gender of teenagers, caucasian society (US, UK, Canada) says that an adult and a teenager can never have a non-abusive relationship. Affection can never be returned, or so they say. This is why a man who could have been happy with a friend to love abuses a boy he cares nothing for. He hates because he hates himself. Society tells him how horrible he is. He will never fulfill his desire to be noticed by a boy he's attracted to. Consequently, he may perceive an attractive boy as taunting him and his attractions (even if the boy is not). Society oppresses him until he lashes out. What made the monster? We did.

Previous | My Thoughts | Next