Yes, I know: chimps, monkeys; apples, oranges. Shut up.
A beautiful, if blasphemous, post.
Just came here directly from Ms Zoe's blog after reading Friday's main post and 69 comments (now I know why I think of you as Pony Boy).
Do you think perhaps these organised religion types are *trying* to drive away members? Can you see this working elsewhere?
"Hey, come and join our darts club! Improve your hand/eye co-ordination, join in tournaments and, oh yeah, get molested by the organiser on a weekly basis."
It's just not right.
Yum, fruit loops.
You're lucky you don't live in the Middle Ages.
If you did you might have your blog cut off.
Much as I'd like to blame these self-proclaimed holy men, what are we to say about parents who williningly send their children to spend unsupervised time with a weird man who has publicly stated he's avoiding girls? Are these parents also telling their kiddies "and if a strange man offers you candy to get into his car, be sure to accept? It's free candy, after all!" And if not, why not? What's the difference?
Hello CharlesNSteele, and welcome. I have to take you to task for unfairly simplifying the Abbot and his ilk as 'publicy stating he's avoiding girls'.
More accurately - and forgive me the pedantry here - he's announced: "I am avoiding girls, but only because their Devil Holes want to devour my Jesus Rod."
So: let's not blame the parents, in that light.
Celibacy. Chastity. Hmmm. Big fields.
You seem to be stating that sex is compulsory. Like shitting, which clearly is. But is sex, clearly?
Food for thought. Watch this space.
Shame about the Buckfast guy. He should have stuck to the bevvy. But as Jonathan King also pointed out - it's very difficult to defend yourself against things alleged to have happened between twenty-five and FORTY years ago.
You do have to ask why the victims took so long to complain. And the answer is often that they've fallen on hard times due to drink or drug addiction and see the chance of a fast buck.
No, sex isn't compulsory. People can choose, obviously, to abstain. Funny how sometimes that doesn't work out for them, though. So, maybe, commit a little harder: snippety snip.
No, I don't have to ask why the victims took so long to complain - I understand pretty well that when people are abused, intimidated, threatened and comprehensively disempowered by an authority figure, they do not see complaint as an option.
Shame on King, and anyone else, that implies malice is the likelier reason. I can think of a damn good reason why he might claim that, though.
Commenting by HaloScan
