Lack of sex partners leads to inappropriate sex--it's natural

[ronburgundy]

The vast majority of priest assaults on kids are still secrets, so its not so hard to keep those secret. With an adult relationship, the moment the adult doesn't want to have that relationship they are likely to tell others that they had sex with the priest. They didn't break any vows. So they have no reason to keep it a secret. The kids have fear of authority that keeps them quiet, plus (unfortunately) a strong sense of shame and guilt. They were involved in "shameful" event that will bring them unwanted attention if they make it public. Even when they become an adult, they often don't want to be categorized as someone that was molested, so they keep it hidden.
Regardless, what matters is what the priest believes is true about being able to keep kids quiet vs. an adult. While things have changed alot in the past decade, for centuries they were able to keep kids quiet about it.

Consequences most certainly have massive impact on sexual behavior and choice of partner. Countless homosexuals lived their lives having sex with a gender they had no interest in, solely due to consequences. Countless heteros have married and had sex their whole lives with people they were not attracted to, because of social coercion to marry for reasons other than attraction. And as too prevalent as molestation is, it would be far moreso if there were no consequences for it, as their would be infinitely more infidelity in all types of relationships.

How exactly do we quantify a vast amount, if it's still secret? The rest of your supposition is just as specious. Your understanding of human relationships is tenuous.

We can estimate it by examining the observed drastic increase in the number of publicized cases and the observed drastic change in reaction of others (parents, community,society, and the church itself), high tolerance for and even acceptance of abuse of kids in the past, plus information on the notable decrease in the societal power of the church and its ability to hide such cases and silence those making accusations.

All of this combines to tell us that the rates of kids being abused by priest has at minimum been similar in the past, and most likely much higher. Yet we know that the number of people reporting such instances publicly was almost zero for the past 20 centuries up until recently. We also know that the age at which people are willing to reveal such abuse to them is getting much younger, showing that keeping such abuse a secret was much more common in the past. The explosion of accusation that began in the late 1990's were primarily adults making accusation of abuse they had kept secret for decades, and the Church hasn't bothered to investigate thousands of cases because the accused priest was already dead before the secrets finally came out.

The logical implication is that that vast majority of instances of priest sexual abuse have remained secrets, because up until recently it was rather easy to keep such abuse a secret.

What I said was, "Threat of consequences has never been an effective deterrent."

Correct, which means you are claiming that consequences have no impact on human behavior. If they have impact, then it means they reduce they alter the frequency of the behavior and that means they are a deterrent. Effective deterrents do not require that they completely eliminate the behavior from ever occurring again under any circumstance.

You used this argument to deny that priests using the veil of celibacy to avoid consequences for their actions could have anything to do enabling priests to engage in child sex abuse. Which implies that reliable predictable punishment for any and all instances of child sex abuse would have had zero impact on the number of priest abusers or their number of victims. That is absurd and contradicted by the most basic and established behavioral science.

There have been times in which I recall I took incredible risks for the sake of a sexual encounter. I was able to consider the consequences of being discovered and decided she was worth it. Looking back, I can see that while I had accurately judged the consequences, I had greatly over valued the reward. Such is the nature of love. I also see that nothing would have stopped me, short of physical impossibility. Fortunately for myself and society, I've always been attracted to females of my approximate age, so while prison was not a threat, angry fathers, were.

Even if that was true, and I doubt it, it would only mean that under some extremely rare circumstances, people will put pursuit of a chosen sex partner above all possible consequences including threat of death. But that is not the case 99.99% of the time. Virtually every person that has lived since the dawn of civilization (and thus social consequences) has had a patter of sexual encounters and lack of encounters that has zero resemblance to what the pattern of their sexual experiences would be in a world without any consequences and only the satisfaction of immediate sexual desire to determine choices.

IOW, consequences are a massive deterrent and reward that alter people's decision of whom they have sex with.

 

[Bronzeage]

[....
Even if that was true, and I doubt it, it would only mean that under some extremely rare circumstances, people will put pursuit of a chosen sex partner above all possible consequences including threat of death. But that is not the case 99.99% of the time. Virtually every person that has lived since the dawn of civilization (and thus social consequences) has had a patter of sexual encounters and lack of encounters that has zero resemblance to what the pattern of their sexual experiences would be in a world without any consequences and only the satisfaction of immediate sexual desire to determine choices.

IOW, consequences are a massive deterrent and reward that alter people's decision of whom they have sex with.

I appreciate the effort you put into your response, but you bounce between absolutes and generalizations to argue far beyond anything I proposed.

What lover ever feared death? Certainly not Romeo.

ROMEO
With love's light wings did I o'er-perch these walls;
For stony limits cannot hold love out,
And what love can do that dares love attempt;
Therefore thy kinsmen are no let to me.
JULIET
If they do see thee, they will murder thee.
ROMEO
Alack, there lies more peril in thine eye
Than twenty of their swords: look thou but sweet,
And I am proof against their enmity.

Desire has the power to eclipse consequence and leave only denial in the light.