• @dogslayeggs
    link
    English
    18 months ago

    So you think that if you put a bunch of gay men in an environment where they can’t have sex then they’ll turn to sexually abusing children?

    • @PM_Your_Nudes_Please
      link
      English
      38 months ago

      I think you missed the point of my last paragraph. It’s not about whether or not they’re gay. You sexually repress anyone hard enough, and they’ll start acting out in immoral ways. After all, if you’ve always been told that your natural feelings are immoral, then why not act immorally in other ways too? I’m sure there was also a lot of self-hatred too, in the same way that some of the loudest bigots are closeted. The kids weren’t abused because they were boys; They were abused because they were convenient targets who could be easily silenced.

      • @dogslayeggs
        link
        English
        18 months ago

        Yes, but you prefaced that with a long story about why there were so many gay men as priests. If it had nothing to do with gay men, just people in general, why did you think it was relevant to say there were a ton of gay priests?

        • @PM_Your_Nudes_Please
          link
          English
          28 months ago

          Because the gay men were part of the church specifically because they were gay, and were sexually repressed by the very same institution.

          • @dogslayeggs
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            The point is that it doesn’t matter if they were gay. Straight priests were also sexually repressed by the church. It’s the sexual repression that matters, not the sexual identity of the person. But you led up to your conclusion with a big story about gay people, which implies that gay people were somehow more inclined to acting out on repression than straight people.