Implications of a Priest's Actions

[luvnaturism]

Today we are hearing that the Italian priest who, news media allege, "molested" Mark Foley admits to inappropriate conduct, but insists that there was never anything sexual in their relationship.

We may or may not ever learn whether the priest is telling the whole truth, but he is admitting to these circumstances that apparently involved both Foley and a friend of the same age:

-- The priest gave Foley a nude msssage.
-- They were nude together on an overnight trip (may have been a camping trip; not clear on that).
-- They were nude together in a sauna.

Obviously many will now automatically judge that the situations were sexual, because that's what happens when people are nude. Implications from that line of thought can only make more people even more suspiscious of family naturism.

However those of us who have been around longer may have a different pespective. My eyebrows did go up when I heard about the nude massage, but the rest of it wouldn't have been a cause for concern when I was Foley's age.

Throughout high school our gym classes swam nude under the direction of a male teacher. If he was giving swimming lessons in the water, then he was nude too. Since he had several classes in a row, it wasn't unusual for him to be nude for the entire class. That's just how it was, and we never thought anything of it. It was definitely not sexual.

As an adult I did quite a bit of volunteer work with kids that involved camping and hiking in remote, isolated settings. There were several occasions when male adults and boys skinnydipped together. Usually the boys initiated it, but I can think of a couple of times when I suggested it when we were on a hot, dusty hike and came onto a good swimming hole. That's just the way things used to be.

But now most people can only see these activities in one light: they MUST have been sexual. As I said, the implications of this case aren't positive for family naturism.

[luvnaturism]

Today we are hearing that the Italian priest who, news media allege, "molested" Mark Foley admits to inappropriate conduct, but insists that there was never anything sexual in their relationship.

We may or may not ever learn whether the priest is telling the whole truth, but he is admitting to these circumstances that apparently involved both Foley and a friend of the same age:

-- The priest gave Foley a nude msssage.
-- They were nude together on an overnight trip (may have been a camping trip; not clear on that).
-- They were nude together in a sauna.

Obviously many will now automatically judge that the situations were sexual, because that's what happens when people are nude. Implications from that line of thought can only make more people even more suspiscious of family naturism.

However those of us who have been around longer may have a different pespective. My eyebrows did go up when I heard about the nude massage, but the rest of it wouldn't have been a cause for concern when I was Foley's age.

Throughout high school our gym classes swam nude under the direction of a male teacher. If he was giving swimming lessons in the water, then he was nude too. Since he had several classes in a row, it wasn't unusual for him to be nude for the entire class. That's just how it was, and we never thought anything of it. It was definitely not sexual.

As an adult I did quite a bit of volunteer work with kids that involved camping and hiking in remote, isolated settings. There were several occasions when male adults and boys skinnydipped together. Usually the boys initiated it, but I can think of a couple of times when I suggested it when we were on a hot, dusty hike and came onto a good swimming hole. That's just the way things used to be.

But now most people can only see these activities in one light: they MUST have been sexual. As I said, the implications of this case aren't positive for family naturism.

[usmc1]

I think those who would judge those events as being sexual would do so because one of the participants claimed they were. Foley said the guy "molested" him. I don't hink that molested could be interpreted in any but a sexual way. But, there are a couple here who will no doubt wage pre-emptory nuclear sematic attack on "molested" to enlighten us to its postive meanings.

Sorry, I digress.

But, since Foley said he was molested by the guy, and I think the guy has acknowleged that it happened, we can safely asssume that those "camping" or "skinny dips" were less than innocent.

I'm of that generation where our "Y" swim classes were in the nude--and locked in the throes of puberty, we drove ourselves nearly mad with our conjectures about the YWCA girl's swim classes (what we wouldn't have done to see Margery B**** nude)--but none of our instructors ever touched me or anyone else in a sexual way.

I just don't think right-minded people will make the leap from Foley to condemning family nudist activities. I think, though, the core opposition will attempt to use it, but, again, I just don't think it will play out that way.

Especially when the preponderance of priestly pedophile pawings took place in non-nude, rather benign, circumstances.

I think what it does prove though is that most sexual predators were at one time themselves victims of predators. Offenders cause victims who become offenders who cause victims who become offenders.

[luvnaturism]

quote:

Originally posted by usmc1:
I think what it does prove though is that most sexual predators were at one time themselves victims of predators. Offenders cause victims who become offenders who cause victims who become offenders.

I completely agree with this comment. There is a clear generational aspect to molestation, though that's not at all the same as saying that every victim becomes an offender.

[Caipora]

According to the Washington Post,
"Mercieca said that he regarded their trips to skinny dip in Lake Worth, or to local saunas, as well within the cultural bounds as he understood them in Brazil, where he said he attended seminary and spent his first years as a priest."

The Post then quotes a victimologist as saying that, "I can't speak to the culture in Brazil but I can speak to the culture in America and speak to basic standards of morality..."

I can speak to the culture in Brazil, and can back up the priest. In terms of small children, I've seen boys skinny-dipping in the fountain in front of the cathedral. There's a bridge in the center of town that has the Times Squarish role of "most heavily trafficed place in town" and I once saw a man crossing the bridge with a naked two-year-old on his shoulders. He got only a few amused head shakes. And in the opera house at one end of the bridge, I saw an opera that ended with about four dozen naked children running on stage.

It was normal in much of the county 150 years ago for boys to be kept naked up to the age of five, rich and poor alike (see Gilberto Freyre's Casa-Grande and Senzala). There's been a lot of discussion here (see the thread on school showers) about whether smaller families and larger houses are responsible for younger Americans' discomfort with group showers and other nudity. Brazil has larger families and smaller houses. It's no longer the case that a bathing suit is an expensive item, and I don't think that even the case forty years ago.

On a beach like Copacabana, you don't get people naked or topless, but Copacabana is also one of the most densely populated places on Earth - Rio is squeezed between the mountains and the sea. But on deserted beaches, of which there are many, and waterfalls, of which there are also many, or lakes, or ponds - yes, Brazilians do skinny-dip.

And your average Brazilian girl has the figure for it.

Again, what disturbs me about Foley's hypocricy is not what he practiced, but what he preached. He was great at pushing buttons, and he found that the "nudity=sex" button works really well. On his disgrace, he tried the "It's not my fault, I'm a lush" button and found it didn't work. Now he's trying the "It's not my fault, I was molested as a child" button, and it seems to be working so far, maybe because it rather than pinning the blame on an un-attackable bottle, it provides a human sacrifice.

When he blames it on a bottle, a lot of people came forward and denied that Foley drinks to excess. He was seen a lot at parties, and his comportment around the demon rum was just vastly different than that of, say, Ted Kennedy. It's much more difficult to find witnesses to his behavior around Catholic priests forty years ago. Maybe that's why he picked this lie when people wouldn't buy the bottle as an excuse. But I'll guess he's lying this time, too.

- Caipora

[NakedGary]

None of the Priest's actions [if there was any] would make Mark Foley become gay.

Homosexuality is not a learned sexual orientation.

Is not Mark Foley using this situation to downplay his inappropriate actions with male Pages?

Most child molesters are heterosexual, married, and have high occurrence of re-molesting pre or post rehab or incarceration from what I have read.

[usmc1]

What Gary said. But, children who are molested or "sexualized" by an adult very often become offenders themselves. Virtually all do encounter some very severe emotional problems as adults.

It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Adult men or women who engage in sexual acts with children of different or same sex are engaged in a sexually dysfunctional act having nothing to do with homosexuality, lesbianism, or hetrosexuality.

So, we might be able to think that Mark Foley was a homosexual male, who was victimized by an older male (who by the way displays typical sexual predator minimization of his acts, by saying "he enjoyed it".) who in later life acted out the same behavior by becoming an offender himself.

But, Gary's point is right on, most chicken hawks are married men with children. I'm not so certain though that they would fall on the heterosexual marker on the sexual continuum.

[Caipora]

"The Rev. Anthony Mercieca, 69, speaking by telephone from his home on the Maltese island of Gozo ..."

If Foley is a "Chicken Hawk" ...


Does that make Mercieca a "Maltese Falcon"?


- Caipora

[sw1sweendog]

so nakedgary,on what authority or expertise do you have ,that homosexuality cant be taught.are you saying i cant be taught to be gay?

[PascoDoug]

quote:

Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
so nakedgary,on what authority or expertise do you have ,that homosexuality cant be taught.are you saying i cant be taught to be gay?

I suppose you can be taught to "act gay" but no one can teach you to actually be gay and to genuinely have an attraction to and enjoy intimacy with other males.

[Bob S.]

It really does not matter what the priest said. He is the one who is now on the defensive. Of course he is not going to state that he did anything sexual. He did admit to inappropriate conduct that Foley, as the young victim, says was sexual.

Everything is in the intent of the action, how it is interpreted, and of course the action itself. luv, all three of your examples, the massage, the camping trip, and the sauna can be interpreted in different ways. But the important thing is why the priest did them and how the young Foley felt about them.

In trying to explain his actions by his past exposure, Foley is not going to be successful. Not all abusers have been abused and not all people who have been abused will go on top abuse others. The cycle of abuse always has a start, and will have an ending given the right kind of help.

swdog:"on what authority or expertise do you have ,that homosexuality cant be taught.are you saying i cant be taught to be gay?"

Homosexuality has been shown in hundreds of species in the animal kingdon and we are a part of that kingdom. As Doug mentioned, anyone can be taught how to have homosexual sex, how to be able to kiss a member of the same sex, how to live with that person, but it would not change the fact that the person is not homsexual.

Physical attraction, love, lust, these are involuntary aspects of who youy are. You can't control who you find attractive. You can't help who you fall in love or lust with. That can't be changed. You can, however, choose how to act.

Bob S.

[Baron Lake]

Dang! Pasco, Ya mean I been wasting my money on all these lessons?
Can't say they havn't been fun though.
If somebody is only acting do they need a Actors Equity card?
b.l.

[David77]

quote:

I suppose you can be taught to "act gay" but no one can teach you to actually be gay and to genuinely have an attraction to and enjoy intimacy with other males.

Pasco,
I like your response, and I feel sure your post means sexual intimacy. Psychological intimacy of male friendships is enjoyed by "everyone" - gay or straight.

[nimrod]

"I'm not a homosexual, but I'm willing to learn. Is there a special class for that?"
Bill Murry Stripes

[PascoDoug]

quote:

Originally posted by David77:
Pasco,
I like your response, and I feel sure your post means sexual intimacy. Psychological intimacy of male friendships is enjoyed by "everyone" - gay or straight.

Yes David that is exactly what I meant.