Eric Raymond of Armed'n'Dangerous has an outstanding post on the disturbing questions raised by the church scandal about homosexuality. I initially dismissed Eberstadt's article in the Weekly Standard as a reactionary interpretation of the facts specially aligned in order to fit a pre-concieved idea of homosexuality. Raymond raises some good questions that the public at large, myself included, are reluctant to confront.

He makes the obvious point that among gay men (though not lesbians), there is a chic for young-looking men. This does not mean that all or most want to have sex with children, but rather that the prevailing standard of attractiveness lends itself to younger looking men. This is obviously not unheard of in the heterosexual world. However, despite the media glamorization of youthful sexuality, pedophilia is less common statistically among heterosexuals. Could it be that the same thing that wires people homosexual also wires them more likely to be pedophiles? Could it be that there is something genetic in homosexuals to make them more dangerously interested in the younger lot? Is there something that makes them predatory? Raymond doesn't suggest this to be the case, but Eberstadt certainly does.

I reject it.

To explain why, let's look within the priest subsection of the gay community. Surely, if homosexuals are comparitively more likely to be pedophilic predators than heteros, homosexual priests are more likely to be than the gay public at large. The question is 'why?' Perhaps the priesthood attracts perverts. Perhaps Raymond and Andrew Sullivan are right that the celibate nature of the endeavor lends itself to attracting the sexual confused and troubled or even confuses and troubles normal people after a prolonged period of time. They both might be somewhat right, but I honestly don't believe that it is limited to the priesthood or even homosexuality itself. Might it rather be the dissonance between the mores of their environment and their sex drives? The only culture that comes to mind as sexually rigid as Catholicism is fundamentalist Islam. It's worth noting that pedophilia is much more common and public in the Middle East and other culturally conservative societies than it is here. Men and boys walk hand in hand. American troops complained of sexual advances by Middle Easterners during their service.

Is there any way to prove it? I don't have the data in front of me, but it doesn't take much observation to collect empirical evidence. What heterosexual men are most likely to be pedophiles? In many cases, it's those that are rejected sexually by our environment. The stereotypical child-porn case is generally overweight and nerdy. Generally, they are undersexed and socially awkward. It is by no means limited to this profile, but this certainly seems to be one case where the stereotype fits. People who are rejected by those their society suggests they become involved with, they will naturally look elsewhere. Some will look at girls. Some will refuse to take no for an answer because they've heard it one too many times. Some don't want to risk it in the first place.

Consider, for a moment, a couple movies that come to mind. One you've probably seen and one you probably haven't. I'll start with the former. In the award-winning film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey is a father in an unsatisfying marriage to a screw. When he busts out of his cultural cage, he does so in the form of a young friend of his daughter's. It is consensual and therefore not comparable to the cases of the priests, but it certainly strikes against the norms. Indeed, he had little to gain from the relationship to begin with except a brief reprieve from sexual frustration. Feeling already alienated from his surroundings, the distinction between an "unacceptable" sexual act, such as an tryst with someone approximately his age, and a "very unacceptable" sexual act, such as a tryst with an underage girl, became blurred. There is a parallel subplot with a similar theme in the movie. He was already playing out of bounds, what's a few more feet further out?

In the movie Happiness, the viewer sees a character that is married with a child descend into sexual depravity in the most dark manner. The character's depravity is well-explored, but the source of it is not. He is apparently impotent when it comes to his (generally attractive) wife. He has a mildly feminine demeanor and strikes the viewer as a somewhat compassionate man. Then he rapes a pre-pubescent young boy. That the writer made him sympathetic and place him in an unhappy and unfulfilling domestic situation is unlikely an accident. Rather it fits a broader pattern that seems familiar to most viewers. We are apalled, naturally, but on some level we feel pity for him (though not as much as for his victim). It isn't very much a stretch to consider the character a homosexual in a place where homosexuality is strongly discouraged (upper class suburbs). At some point he married and entrenched himself in a situation that lead to great sexual frustration. Eventually, being a weak person, the dam burst and he descended into the monsterous acts that were his undoing. By being homosexual in a heterosexual environment, he would already cross the line of acceptability to the "very unacceptable" range by cheating on his wife with another man. Already well out of bounds, what's a few more feet further out?

Let me be very clear that while the case of the character in Happiness evokes pity, it does not condone or excuse his behavior. A close friend of mine was sexually assaulted not very long ago and I've watched first-hand all that's involved in the rebuilding process after something like that happens. The young boy in the movie will likely not be the same again and the character deserves to rot in hell. I shouldn't have to say that, but I want to make sure that I draw a distinction between explaining how something occurs and proclaiming it natural or acceptable. Many who are in the same situation never come close to doing what he did, so his weakness is a much greater culprit than is his social and sexual alienation. Now back to the point at hand.

American Beauty struck a chord with Americans because on one level or another they could connect with Spacey's character, the central role of the film. Happiness never found an audience due largely to the extent of the sexually depraved content. Many men likely related to Spacey's unhappy marriage, his screwish wife, and his fantasies of the young girl nearly being realized. Most men, of course, do not actually pursue the young girls, but there is likely a corrolation between those who are not happy in their marriages and those men that find Brittany Spears more desirable than Nicole Kidman. In some cases, of course, pedophilia is the cause. In many, it might be the effect of continued denial of sexual urges over a long period of time. Spears might symbolize an escape to a time where they were more sexually active (or theoretically should have been or would like to do it all over again and be so). She is also wonderfully out of reach and therefore an innocent fantasy. Not only will they never have a chance at Brittany, they will never have a chance at anyone like Brittany. That way, they remain the faithful husband living in their sexual fantasies. If they started looking at women their own age, that might be more obtainable therefore they are counterintuitively more dangerous thoughts. Most of the these fantasies are innocent and never lead to anything. In some weak people or those under more stress they can bear, they may have disastrous results.

So what does this all mean? How does it relate to the priest scandals? Homosexuals are, by and large, under more sexual stress than are normal people. They constitute less than 5% of the population and therefore have a smaller pool of partners to choose from. However, those that live in high gay-concentrated areas would then be less likely to be frustrated and therefore less likely to be socially depraved. Gays in the suburbs, while usually not emulating the rapist in Happiness, are going to have a tougher time of it and therefore are proportionately more likely to be trouble. In other words, a morally weak and sexually frustrated gay in San Fransisco may be able to control himself where a morally weak and sexually frustrated gay in suburban or rural America would be more likely to succumb and become a threat to society. A morally weak and sexually frustrated gay in the priesthood, then, not only must deal with their private demons but are also placed in a culture where the release of the sexual frustration is clear and dangerous.

So what, if anything, does this mean policy-wise? Well, as far as the priest scandal is concerned, it suggests that the celibacy requirement is contributing to the problem. It also suggests that having homosexual priests creates a problem because it makes them that much further removed sexually from their culture. Some can handle it, others cannot. As these are matters of faith and not cold practicality, I'll let the theory speak for itself and avoid making suggestive conclusions as to what specific measures would be most beneficial for the church. It does present a disturbing conclusion as to whether or not homosexual Boy Scouts leaders are a threat. The Boy Scouts are generally a suburban and rural enterprise, and those who are gay are more likely to be frustrated and therefore proportionately more likely to be a problem than their heterosexual counterparts of the other gender. I've generally opposed the Boy Scouts policy, but this puts it in a new light. I will have to think about it further.

It does suggest, however, that the creation of so-called gay communities is a positive development rather than a negative one in regards to gross depravity such as pedophilia and child abuse. It also suggests that as gays become more prominant and less stigmatized, the incidents of gay pedophilic activity with likely begin to fall as they become more comfortable and less defensive about their sexual identities. There is still the so-called "pedophilic chic" of the gay community which is more prevalent there than in mainstream society. However, that may be as misleading as current vogue of anorexic women that the media throws at us when, poll after poll, men honestly prefer women with a little bit of meat on them. That, however, is another post entirely.