Beat It

MJ (Mousavi Junta) Tips? (10.00 / 7)

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:36:50 AM CDT

I had hoped, (4.33 / 3)

  that any references to the dead baby-raper on this site would be limited to observations that at least we finally know what will get 'merkins into the streets or some such. No tips for you!  

A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. D

---

by: Antibi @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:45:43 AM CDT

such a forgiving soul (0.00 / 0)

no jury duty for you!

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:48:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forgiveness... (3.00 / 2)

is I think between him, his god, and his victims. I apologize if I seem overly harsh but... (always a but) I have little patience with rapists and/or people who harm the powerless for their own pleasure. Being quite wealthy he could (if anyone could) have gone to the best therapists, isolated himself, something... instead the SOB built a goddamned playground in his back yard. Fuck forgiveness.

A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. D

---

by: Antibi @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:16:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

his self mutilation (0.00 / 0)

and O.D. for a little touchy feely didn't gratify ya? Yer a hard taskmaster Antibi...

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:20:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I expect (4.00 / 2)

  that he was a very unhappy person and I wouldn't wish his childhood on anyone. That being said, should anyone feel gratification over something like this? No. He can do no more harm to himself or others and that's good. At the end of the day however "a little touchy feely" is exactly how you should describe the next rape story you encounter and see if that seems appropriate to the victim. I think they might surprise you.

Lastly, I didn't mean to get into a pissing contest with you over this. I expect you didn't mean to find yourself defending a rapist today. I'll tip you a 5 for posting a diary, (which is more than I ever do), and we'll call it pax? Nice arguing with you!


A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. D

---

by: Antibi @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:39:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't take from "rape" (5.00 / 3)

it's power as a word by applying it to what I suspect happened...."molestation" might not be right either but seems strong enough to me.

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:57:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dear god durrati (6.00 / 2)

Please do not diminish the horror of childhood molestation by saying it is not as bad as rape. It is at least as bad. Please do not insult survivors of sexual abuse everywhere by claiming that they have suffered some lesser offense. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Bill Donohue's of the world.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:11:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no, Curmudgette (6.00 / 2)

you don't get to play that with me, a thirteen year old boy made the allegations and I have been a thirteen year old boy and what was alleged I would definitely not call rape. If it happened it was a crime, it was a sin, it was wrong but it ain't what a Bosnian woman would call rape.

I'll ask you what I should think when the charges involve a thirteen year old girl....

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:37:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What bullshit. (4.00 / 1)

It's not up to you to decide what the trauma is like for any other person, who survives any type of sexual assault. I know a number of male survivors, and if you think it's less traumatic for them, you're kidding yourself. And, what sexual acts play out as part of that abuse are also irrelevant to how survivors feel. Childhood sexual abuse is probably the worst thing a person can experience. It cripples people for life. It makes alcoholics, drug addicts, and self mutilators. It creates suicidal depression. And, in some cases, it makes monsters. You know why child molesters have to be protected from the general population in prisons? Because so many of those prisoners were molested as little boys, and they have a whole lot of rage. Sorry, I have no patience with people who diminish the horror that children go through when someone they look up to and trust exploits that trust for their own gratification.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 21:34:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've had this discussion with friendz of mine, all dudez, who have had similar experiences. (3.67 / 3)

Your mistaking a 13 yr old boy for a child. A thirteen yr old boy is a sexual being. A horn dog, in fact. And curious as shit with no recourse (hopefully) to check it out with 13 yr old grrls. In fact, you should be quite glad for the grrls that the boyz are often willing to check it out with each other, instead....

Most boyz have had gay sex with other boys or men before they are 13.

Altho, I wouldnt know...just what I heard from others.

[:oO

Anyway, our roundtable consensus is that early teen gay sexual experiences are not generally traumatic for boyz, unless they become confused about their sexual id as a result. And even then, they are only experiencing the same confusion they would later have experienced anyway, perhaps more traumatically.

How many lives (not just theirs but womens, and their own children) have been ruined by men who pretend they are straight until well into adulthood? (hello, Melvin!).

Its like the 15 yr old kid who bags the hot skkkool teacher.

This is considered abuse and so on, but for reals? Uhhh, no....the only thing traumatic about that is the rest of yur sex life goes downhill comparatively after reaching that pinnacle.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 21:57:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of the duez, older by several years, now about 70, meaning he reached (4.00 / 2)

teenage in the early fifties, kept us in stitches with his story about growing up dirt poor in rural Oklahoma. There was a gay dude in the little town there who used to service the teen age boyz regularly....and never demanded reciprocation.

Or so he claimed....

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:08:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This guy said he kept visiting the gay man regularly, maybe even increasingly, as (4.00 / 2)

he began to date grrls.

Who among us males doesnt remember the particular agony of unrelieved adolescent blueballz on a Saturday nite?

Well, this friend of mine knew where to find his relief in the Oklahoma panhandle.

Bet on it.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:16:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would add (6.00 / 1)

that the same sex part of the issue is largely irrelevant. There are some boys who would be more traumatized by the shame of abuse by a male, in a homophobic society, but the it ends there. This is about abuse, not homosexuality.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:18:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course. But its about more than "abuse" by individuals...its abuse by society against individuals (0.00 / 0)

To me, its about people defining right and wrong for others without specific knowledge of individual thots, feeling and perception.
Its about making victims where there isnt need to make victims.

The criminal industrial complex is about making us products to be warehoused, to give people jobs dehumanizing other people.

I see that you are well meaning but I also see your mentality leads straight to dehumanization of others, when you truly can have no clue about the specific circumstances.

You dehumanize yourself, we dehumanize ourselves, by allowing 1 in 20 of our citizens to be jailed, and a far greater number convicted, on probation/parole and merely waiting to be returned.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 00:09:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a very big difference (6.00 / 3)

between sex play between peers and molestation by an adult. I am very much of the opinion that most of the age of consent laws should be changed to reflect not just age, but age disparity. The authority of an adult, or even much older child changes the dynamics dramatically.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:16:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like everything else, it all depends on the circumstances. I think you are being too RIGID (ha ha) (4.50 / 2)

My own first experiences were at 12 were with a longtime neighborhood friend who was 15.

And I believe that if its a problem, its going to be discovered. If its undiscovered (as is most male sex among heterosexual males) its not a problem.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:21:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again. (6.00 / 2)

What you're describing is consensual behavior between peers. Nothing wrong with that, which I thought I made quite clear in my comment. And, again, I would ask you to please not conflate consensual adolescent homo-erotic experimentation with actual abuse. I really hate it when people get all wrapped up in sexual preference questions when we're talking about abuse. The Catholic Church is still talking about its "homosexuality problem" when they're problem is sexual abuse of minors by priests and other church employees. BIG difference. I don't happen to think homosexuality is a problem. I, personally, could give a hang whether some priests are fucking each other. It's the abuse of minors that they need to account for.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm talking about consent yes. Abuse is defined by the circumstances. Or should be. Not simply by your rigid standards (0.00 / 0)

When I was 20 my girlfriend was 16.

We had a sexual relationship.

She aggressively pursued me. This isnt unusual at all. Younger teenage grrls generallyare attracted to older guyz. Most young women are sexually attracted to older guyz. Grrls in their late teens to early twenties often date guyz in their late thirties to mid forties.

Her parents knew me. They didnt like me. But she did. Were it left up to you I would have been jailed, right?

The priest example is over the top. Not relevant to the discussion. Here, you have abuse of power issues, akin to sexual harrasment, except worse.

In the case of my Okie friend, he was the pursuer of gratfication from an adult when he was a minor.

Your mind set leads inexorably to bad law and criminalizes victimless activity.

Your mindset, shared by so many small minds in this dubious country leads inexorably to jailz and prisons filled to the brim with people who shouldnt be there.

Pyrrhiod.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:59:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

donk, (6.00 / 4)

I suppose the question is, does "society," or whateverthefuck, have the obligation to set limits on this?

I think that it does.  The only question is, where?

Would I toss a 20 year old boy into court, much less priosn, for sex with a 16 year old?  Fuck no.

But where should the line be drawn?

Is it OK for a 23 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl?

How about a 30 year old man with a 12 year old girl?

I, sure as shit, think it should be illegal.

When you say that 13 year old boys are sexual animals, you are correct.  It's amazing that any of them get through algebra, for fuck's sake.

But a middle aged man with a 13 year old boy is abuse.

 




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:24:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no doubt (3.00 / 1)

that's really not what we're debating, should it be called rape?

I watched video of the Letterman protesters and this one old hag kept saying "Letterman raped Willow with his mouth!"

Aside from the cheap laugh is that bitch the logical destination of this argument?

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:35:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's this I hear (7.00 / 2)

about you trying to get banned from Big Orange?

In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

---

by: Paul in San Francisco @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:42:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

makin' a pretty good case, too.... (0.00 / 0)

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:44:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How so, durrati? (0.00 / 0)

I do not understand your meaning.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:57:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just a joke (6.00 / 1)

Karma, but you know you're bellin' the cat over there....

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 09:42:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm? (0.00 / 0)

Well, shit, you know how enamored I am of Hamas and its anti-Zionist supporters.





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 00:02:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two things you must always remember about I/P (5.00 / 1)

1) Never let it get to you
2) We are right, and they make fools of themselves
3) Never let it get to you

In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

---

by: Paul in San Francisco @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 00:41:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"We are right" (0.00 / 1)

I'd say.  Waaaay right.  But, wrong on the issues.  No right of return for the ethnically cleansed Palestinians is now called a Jewish State of Israel.  And being totally defensless and living in the shadow of a nuclear armed state is now call being demilitarized.  Alice doesn't live here anymore because she's gone through the looking glass for a meeting with Netanyahu.  Peace

---

by: imhotep @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:33:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would treat boyz and grrls differently first of all. (0.00 / 0)

12 and 13 yr old grrls need protection from 30 yr old men, or lesbians for that matter. They need protection from 16 yr old boyz, too.

12-13 yr old girls must be treated differently than 12-13 yr old boyz and diffferntly than 15-17 yr old boyz and girls.

Lets end the charade and admit: Grrls and boyz are different, emotionally physically and hormonally, sexually.

Men and women are different.

if you have a sexual predator thats different than If you have a genuine relationship.

Unfortunately, in our criminal justice system, its all treated the same. Statutory rape, child molestation.

That hot blond school teacher in Florida a few years back. She molested the 15 yr old boy? Wright....believe me if that was molestation, then I would desire plenty of that type of molestation. We both wished we could have been molested like that at 15, dont we?

The school teacher in Washington state and the student. They had a child. They were forcibly separated but when the boy reached 18, if I recall they married. That woman did hard time Crazy.

I would ask, where are the parents through all of this ongoing "molestation"?

Where were Jacksons "victim's" parents? What are their responsibilities? Was the boy more harmed by jackson or by his mother? Was there sex involved?

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 00:38:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I expect (4.67 / 3)

DavidByron could set you straight on this nonsense about men and women being different. We're exactly the same, and men are always victims, dammit! I kid. I kid. But, in all seriousness, I think that blanket assumptions that boys and girls are different sexually, should be mitigating, when it comes to questions of age appropriate sexual contact, are also foolish. As I said below, I know a number of male molestation survivors, and it's not so different as you might think. Yes, boys tend to have a more aggressive sexuality than girls, and think they're ready for sex at an earlier age, but that does not mean that they are any more emotionally mature. Studies have shown that teens, in general, are extremely irrational when it comes to a variety of decision-making processes. It is the rare teen who should actually be making adult decisions, and their hormones should not be making the calls. Their hormones are doing all kinds of wacky things.  

I would ask, where are the parents through all of this ongoing "molestation"?

Where were Jacksons "victim's" parents? What are their responsibilities? Was the boy more harmed by jackson or by his mother? Was there sex involved?

I made the point, further down, that child molesters target children of less than stellar parents. I don't think it's remotely mitigating, in terms of the molester. Just because parents aren't adequately protecting their kids, doesn't mean the law should not. Quite the contrary. In Jackson's case, there was the added wrinkle of celebrity, and what that did to win over the trust and adulation of children and parents, alike. I don't know if he really molested some of these kids, but I think it's very, very likely, for reasons I have enumerated on a variety of threads; reasons that include having had some direct exposure to his utterly insane family. And, there is a big difference between what he is accused of doing, and the consensual age disparate relationships discussed. One of the major red flags with him is that he set up an extremely kid friendly environment. This is something that is very common with child molesters; though rarely on that scale. Many of them set up their homes with video games and other kid friendly toys, as a lure. If he did what he was accused of, it's not about an unlikely relationship striking up. It's about setting and baiting a trap because of a preference for kids.

I agree with you overall that the law is too cut and dried on a lot of this. For instance, I don't think people who have the kinds of consensual young adult/teen relationships should be branded for life, as sex offenders, in the same way that pederasts who stalk playgrounds are. Also ridiculous is the growing trend of girls being prosecuted for distributing child pornography because they're emailing nude pics of themselves to their boyfriends. It's ludicrous. But, I do think that adolescents need some legal from predators and even from their own impulses.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:03:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Studies have shown that human beings act irrationally. Pyrrhiod. (0.00 / 0)

You mention the trauma of boyz being molested. Sure. Again, ITS ALL IN THE INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT.

The teenage boyz I mentioned having sex with their teachers are not being molested. Pyrrhiod. And yet they were criminalized, their teachers were criminalized, and publicly humiliated, ruined for life. Why?

We are just going circular now. As you note, we are in agreement when actual molestation occurs. Children,(ie pre-pubescent) without a doubt...when subjetced to abuse from authority figures and sexual predators, without question.

But it is the last sentence in yur comment where the crux of the matter lies and where we find the tendency to go overboard.

You want to legally protect young people from themsleves, meaning you wish to criminalize normal human desires and impulses.

This tendency to see solutions by criminalizing normal behaviour which you happen to abhor, is itsef abhorrent, at least to me.

I submit, your mentality, which I see as a typical feminine urge, by the way, (shared by both women and men, especially an entire new generation of girly men) to be protected beyond all reason from our fears, at the very steep cost of human compassion, freedom  and justice. This attitude is what leads our society, ultimately, to confine millions, mostly all men, for nothing more than their socioeconomic status and/or the colour of their skin.

At the cost of our souls.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 11:25:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's right. (6.00 / 2)

Feminine is bad. Masculine is good. Whatever.

Yes, teens do need to be protected from themselves, and the studies I refer to showed a pattern of far more irrational decision making than your average irrational adult. Personally, I think human beings are not as evolved as we think we are, overall. And, while I agree that there needs to be some fine tuning, and case by case considerations, I still think kids need to be protected from adults. To roughly quote Marc Maron. "We all want to fuck 16 year old girls. That's why there's a law."

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 11:32:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not what I said or meant at all. and you know it. (0.00 / 0)

I'm out. You cant discuss this rationally. Plus you insist on repetition of the same dull point, which isnt even accurate.

I dont know who Mark Maron is but if thats what he said it is not at all representative of guyz I know or have known. If he's less than 25, OK. If he's older, he's a freak and not representative. Pyrrhiod.

You're way out there in left field now. LALA land.  

Later.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 17:29:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullshit. (0.00 / 0)

It's exactly what you said:

I submit, your mentality, which I see as a typical feminine urge, by the way, (shared by both women and men, especially an entire new generation of girly men) to be protected beyond all reason from our fears, at the very steep cost of human compassion, freedom  and justice.

As a woman, I find that insulting. As a friend to sensitive men, I find that insulting. I am sick to death of the use of feminizing language as an insult, as if it were an obvious negative.

Marc Maron is a comic, and like most comics what he says is funny 'cause it's true. The value placed on youth and virginity as a thing to be sexually exploited is ubiquitous. But then, I'm sure you're above looking at all the "barely legal" porn to be found on the internets.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 18:23:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly? I never look at porn. I havent even looked at playboy in decades (0.00 / 0)

I masturbate to memories of reallife encounters from the past. Luckily, I have a wealth of memories.

[:o)

And I stand by what I said. Society suffers greatly when it becomes overly feminized just as it does when it becomes overly masculinized.

There must be balance, in all things, or its "off." Modern life is most definitely "off."

And I blame MEN for that, meself included. Men walking away from the responsibility of child rearing, in particular.

As for the comedian, I am an aficionado of humour. Sometimes I am humourous myself. That guy is not funny, based on what you repeated, altho maybe you didnt fully replicate his comic timing in the retelling. Comics often exaggerate for the comic effect of shocking the audience.

I cant say this any more clearly to you. Dudez arent normally attracted to 16 year old girls once they get past about 22-25. Perverts, sure. The occasional Traci Lords, who looks and acts much older, of course. But these are OUTLIERS. You are freaking over the rare exceptions, not the norm. Overreaction. Why your mentality is dangerous. Its deluded.

Since as long as I can remember (I'm 59) I have not been seriously attracted to a woman of less than about 28. I cant remember being sexually attracted to a teenager in forever. OK. I had a brief fling at 37 with a 19 yr old receptionist. But I ended it quickly because it didnt feel right (plus I was married at the time, a slight inconvenience).

I once had a business partner, an ex world champion/olympic gymnast, who used to chase young girls into his 40s. We used to hit the N. Dallas bar scene every nite, me just to get drunk and watch him play. Meat market city. I maybe got lucky twice in 4 years. My success with women never came from one nighters. I find it way too much work for too little payoff. But he enjoyed the chase. Competitive type. Always keeping score.

Even he never ventured below what he would meet in a bar, meaning 21- 28 or so. And usually, like 97 times out of 100, the younger girls would just laugh him off. He was seriously outdated. A joke to them. A caricature. One time a girk he met told him that she remembered her mother telling her about him as a someone to avoid. He'd been on the singles scene so long he'd once slept with the mother and was now hitting on the daughter! RIOTOUS! We all used to make fun of his "moves" behind his back the next day at work.

SO no, most mature men in my long experience, if they want to get younger at that position at all, want to bounce 21-35 year olds, not 16 year olds.

Bet on it.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 20:32:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that balance (0.00 / 0)

is preferable. But, I disagree that society has become too feminized. It's still a man's world, and it will take a lot more feminine energy in the mix before we get even close to that balance. As for the rest of it, your experience is your experience. But, there is no denying a brisk trade in the sexualization of teens, as fantasy material. Personally, I think the laws and their interrelationship with our cultural norms have more to do with men choosing adult women. In cultures where it's legal and encouraged to pursue younger girls its rampant. Also among Mormon splinter groups, it would seem. The lesser the role of women, the more masculinized the culture, the more commonplace it is for much older men to pursue teenage girls. Iran for instance, where brides can be as young as 9. I agree with you that it speaks to something unhealthy and perverted. Isn't that where this conversation started? Michael Jackson, who was well over 20 when he was accused of molesting a 13 year old boy?

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 21:02:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Im not talking men v. women. (4.00 / 1)

I agree its still a mans world but the men are more feminized. And Im not blaming the women for that either.

I believe Paglia was right. The masculine impulse created civilization. The desire to conquer, to build to control.

Women possess these impulses too, just as men possess the impulse to nurture. At base, sex is the engine that drives life in the animal world.

When society (ie both men and women) starts to become more feminized the impulse to conquer, build to control weakens. Former disciplines weaken. The civilization grows decadent. This is a natural cycle. All great civilizations, arise, reach a peak and begin to decline. Its as inexorable as life, sickness and death to an individual organism.

Amerikkka is the final chapter of the Judeo-Christian civilization which arose out of the decline of the Roman Empire. If you dont like Paglia, try Gibbon. Both are a hard slog, but worth it, IMHO.

This is not a critique of individual women or femininity or men and masculinity. Please understand that, or we can't communicate.

Further, the issues to which you elude, that most concern you, the loosening of the ancient sexual  taboos, so to speak, fit within the context of the societal decline.  

In the most strict sense, I'm not even disagreeing with your morality.

My issue is that whe people exaggerate the reality, this results in needless crime and punishment, merely to assuage the exaggerated fears of society. And we end up incarcerating far more people than we should.

Ultimately, its repressive and harmful, not to mention ineffective at curin.

As for my experience being my experience, no doubt. But again, you imply its not applicable to society, and yet some comedian who makes a joke that exaggerates for comic effect is speaking a universal truth? C'mon Curmudgette. Thats nonsense. Its also not fair. The social norm in this country is not men seducing teenagers. Far from it. It happens, yes. Its always happened.

The polygamist Mormons are far less representative of the US than I am, for sure. And I agree that I'm looser than the norm, yet kiddies and teen sdont turn me on. Teen porn and kiddie porn are pervasive but not the norm. I dont even believe for a second that watching porn is the norm. Nor that its necessarily harmful to view porn, but thats another debate.

Sexual abuse and physical abuse are pervasive, as they always have been, but I believe we now tend to exaggerate its significane becasue its more openly discussed today, whereas in the past swept under the rug. You could argue that this is a more healthy response today. More people seek and get treatment. The treatment is more pervasive, which leads to more open discussion, and so on.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 22:05:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

Paglia has ever been right about much of anything. But, what she lacks in intellectual rigor, she makes up for in sheer audacity, so she's famous. Sorry. Hate her. Misogynist lesbians are an unfathomable horror to me.

As far as the masculine impulse creating civilization, I suppose you could make that argument. You could also make the argument that civilization itself was a mistake. One theory that's gaining ground is that agriculture, which began with the neolithic revolution, and is arguably the foundation of civilization, began a decline in our health that we've never recovered from.

Further, the issues to which you elude, that most concern you, the loosening of the ancient sexual  taboos, so to speak, fit within the context of the societal decline.

 

I don't even know what you're talking about, here. I've said nothing about ancient sexual taboos. I like to think we're evolved past ancient practices like polygamy and the keeping child sex slaves.

As for the rest of this, you're standing my meaning on its head. I never said adult males actively pursuing teens was the social norm; I said it wasn't, but that there sure is a lot of obsession with it, as evidenced by, among other things, the proliferation of "barely legal" pornography.

I dont even believe for a second that watching porn is the norm.

This is laughable. It's one of the most lucrative industries in America. The proliferation and economic viability of new technologies like VCRs and the Internet, depended on it. It's a cash cow for the hotel industry. I have known very few men who did not enjoy pornography, and that is not a criticism. I think the consumption of pornography is perfectly normal. If its not for you, fine. I'll take your word for it, but that puts you in a minority of men.

The polygamist Mormons are far less representative of the US than I am, for sure.

I never said they were the norm. I said they were and example of a purely patriarchal culture.

Sexual abuse and physical abuse are pervasive, as they always have been, but I believe we now tend to exaggerate its significane becasue its more openly discussed today, whereas in the past swept under the rug.

I don't think it's possible to exaggerate the significance of the effects of sexual or physical abuse.

With that, I must take leave of your straw men and other distortions of my meaning. It's gone beyond tedious.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 23:12:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah, yes, the old gotcha response (0.00 / 0)

Straw men? Its not possible to exaggerate the significance of the effects of physical and sexual abuse?

RIOTOUS!

Are you kidding me? What a horrid statement. If I make straw men you surely make outsized blankets for them all....to suffocate all reason.

I repeat: thinking like yours leads to the false conviction/imprisonment of millions. Direct line connection. Bet on it.

Youre little more than a bigot. No, in fact, you are a bigot. Pyrrhiod.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 04:19:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (7.00 / 1)

Straw men. When I find myself having to say over and over again: that's not what I said, I said the exact opposite, I don't even understand where you got that from... or words to that effect, it gets beyond tiresome.

Youre little more than a bigot. No, in fact, you are a bigot.

Yup. I admit it. I have a strong bias against sexual abuse and think sex offenders should be in jail. You want to call that call that bigotry, have at it. LOL

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 07:35:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, and it doesnt trouble you at all that millions are jailed in this country, the most by (0.00 / 0)

far of any western nation, as a consequence of similar "strong biases" toward "law and order", which are based on nothing more than fearful ignorance, while at same time, the very problem you seek to resolve is not cured.

Weak, repressive, tyrannical mindset.

Not too mention wholly ineffective.

Your "Right" Wing.

RIOTOUS!

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:23:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you hit full capacity (0.00 / 0)

on the ad hominem scale a while back. And, if you knew a fraction of what you think you know about me, you'd know that I loathe the prison system, as it stands. Comical, these projections you indulge.

You'd think I'd have fully learned by now that the time expended communicating with you is never worth it. You're incapable of respectful disagreement.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:43:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You loathe the prison system but you wish to criminalize more peeps anyway? (0.00 / 0)

I have a strong bias against sexual abuse and think sex offenders should be in jail

You say one thing and then another.

Honesty is respectful.

Dishonesty is disrespectful.

Self dishonesty is self disrespectful.

You are disrespecting yourself as well as me.

Bet on it.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:03:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you think that (6.00 / 1)

we should do away with the category of "criminal"?

Is there nothing that should be illegal?




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:08:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly Karma. (6.00 / 2)

The penal system sucks, so just turn 'em all loose! Yeah. That's the ticket. Actually, they've done a bit of that, because of prison overcrowding. It hasn't gone well.

Mostly, I think we should just decriminalize drug offenses and invest more in treatment. That would go a long way to reducing the prison population and it would be cheaper, but I can't see that happening any time soon.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:27:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course not, but we should be much more careful about how we define criminality (0.00 / 0)

and prosecute criminals, as well as careful about the purpose for criminalizing them, and why we are criminalizing them..Actually, 'criminalizing' is the wrong word above. I meant to say incarcerating.

This very thread showcases several highly intolerant attitudes, Curmudgette's being only one of them.

I submit that her mindset, which is shared by so many Amerikkkans, especially on the right, but obviously also on the self- described "left" (whether Curm. is actually "left" is very questionable, at least on this issue) is repressive.

There is a direct line between this mindset and the numbers of imprisoned Amerikkkans, many of whom committed victimless crimes and many many more who are wrongfully convicted, often based on their skin colour, of serious crimes of all sorts. Further, I submit the true purpose of these convictions is to assuage the irrational fears exhibited by people just like Curmudgette.

Intolerance is ugly. Sorry to get personal, but her mindset is very representative of our society at large and worth pointing out.

Now, are there sexual offenders who need to be incarcerated? Of course there are, even as we are forced to admit that the punishment has not relieved the problem at all and that the offenders are often victims of abuse themselves.

Will the circle be unbroken? Not her way it won't....

Emotion-laden reactions will only exacerbate the prison problem while not solving the problem of sexual abuse. So, in effect, her "solution" merely exacerbates society's problems.

You will see me dig much more deeply into this issue when Jim Webb introduces comprehensive criminal justice reform within a few years time...unless I'm back in jail by then too.

[:o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

donk, (6.00 / 1)

this is where you lost me.

Youre little more than a bigot. No, in fact, you are a bigot.

This is just defamation, dude, and it's entirely unwarranted.

I think you owe her an apology.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 00:16:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Srsly? (0.00 / 0)

Web definitions for bigot
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

On behalf of my jailed and imprisoned homies everywhere, I am not issuing an apology for characterizing curmudgette's bigotted stance.  

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 04:11:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Facts gleaned from the infoboobtubez, mainly from religious websites advocating against sexual abuse: (0.00 / 0)

1 in 4 US adults reported watching an ex-rated video in 200.

---Blazinggrace.com

accurate figures are difficult to attain but best estimates are that 2-3% of US males sexually abuse children.

---Catholic News Service

70-80% of child sexual abuse is performed by either close family members or family friends and acquaintances.

---CNS

Neglect accounts for 51% of reported child abuse. Sexual abuse accounts for 10% of reported child abuse.

---Dept of HHS

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 06:19:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting. (0.00 / 0)

Certainly an oldy kinda idea, but I like its straightforwardness.

But I wonder about this:

I believe Paglia was right. The masculine impulse created civilization. The desire to conquer, to build to control.

I've read Paglia and, hell, I like much of Paglia.

But would this not also imply that war is necessary to civilization?

If so, that's rather fucked up, eh?





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 01:29:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, well then, deny the truth....when have civilized people NOT engaged in war? (0.00 / 0)

Struggle is the essence of life. Bet on it.

My belief is that we are well into the decline of the West and the re-emergence of the East. A civilizational shift is taking place within the fast forwarding dynamic of the infoboobtubez era.

Just as Rome borrowed heavily from Greece to spark its ascendance, so does China's emergence borrow heavily from the West. Without capitalism, a Euro concept, they would not be re-emerging.

One hopes that global capitalism will become the ultimate replacement for war. War by other means, so to speak. Of course, we are already losing that war to them in many respects, most significantly wrt the trade deficit. Maybe thats a good for long term peace.

As long as we can service the debt.

[:o)

As I have learned the hard way in business, when someone owes you money they have all the leverage in the relationship, unless they default. And you will bend over backwards time after time to keep them from defaulting....

I dont want to exaggerate the threat here. Lord knows, there is alot of exaggerated fear on display already in this thread. I suspect our grandchildren and our children's grandchildren will be just fine. Adaptation is the key to survival.

My thesis is that globalism contains the seeds for salvation: the trend towrds multiculturalism, multiracialism will lead eventually to the end of racism and even nationalism......the elimination of which will go a long way towards establishing peace.

But of course, the basic human desire to stand out, to be unique, and yes, the need to conquer and control,  (an illusion, but a sustaining one) will always mitigate against perfect harmony. When there are no inherent differences people will invent them. Human nature.

But, in essence, I'm actually positive about the future of mankind.  

Despite all the pitfalls. A lone optimist in a sea of whiteyspherean nihilism....

[:o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 04:45:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 2)

None of us would be discussing this if not for War. Modus Ponens.

America itself.  Manifest Destiny, Revolution, 600K dead to Save the Union, Nazi Hegemony, Proxy Wars  on and on.

We all benefit and suffer from War.  With a few exceptions.  Vietnam for example (or was it.)  

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:02:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that my entire problem (5.00 / 1)

with this thread is in the essentialization of gender.

What people are doing is taking a whole series of attitudes and behaviors and then labeling them "masculine" or "feminine."

I find it interesting that some can talk about the "pussification" of America even as the US is involved two overseas wars and much of the country thinks that torture is just fine and dandy.

I believe Paglia was right. The masculine impulse created civilization. The desire to conquer...

"The masculine impulse."

This is a tenacious and old social construction that is found nowhere in nature.  It is a very old imaginary category embedded in culture, not nature.

People can be aggressive or forceful or constructive, etc, etc, but assigning those attributes a gender is purely an exercise of the human imagination.

People can be gentle or caring or nurturing, etc, etc, but assigning those attributes a gender is also purely an exercise of the human imagination.

What donk implied is that the rise of civilization, with its attendant propensity for war, is due to the masculine.

Any such claim, however, discounts other reasons for either civilization or war, such as economics or nationalism or the social tendency to create in-groups and out-groups that compete for resources.

To say that war is due to masculinity is to assign an imaginary cause.

I don't buy it because I think that neither the "masculine" nor the "feminine" exist essentially.  They are both imaginary social constructs that people force one another to live with.

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's (4.00 / 1)

tantamount to saying Men and Women aren't different.

 

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:07:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL! (0.00 / 0)

Well, I wouldn't go that far!

Of course, men and women are different.

The questions are, how are men and women different?  And why are men and women different?  And are those differences greater between the sexes or within the sexes?

Obviously, men and women are different physically, but do they tend to be different psychologically or emotionally?  And, if so, are such differences due to inherent characteristics or social upbringing or, to some extent, both?

Are these differences, whatever they may be, social constructs or somehow inherent?

Alls I know fer sure, is that I am now operating well above my pay grade.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:26:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your hung up on the labels....so lets change the labels and see if you still object (4.00 / 1)

and please remember, as I said elsewhere, I am not talking about individual biology or psychology nor even about the US.

Step back one more step and expand your view to a civilization, the seeds of which were planted in Rome near the end of that epoch.

Lets call it the "Judeo-Christian" Civilization, for lack of a better term. "Euro-Amerikkkan" also works.

And lets also understand that I am not assigning relative moral values to anything in this discussion. I'm not saying anything herein is "good" "Bad" "right" wrong," neither the civilization itself, its people, men or women.

I borrowed the terms from Paglia but we can change the descriters if they bother you or are not right.

Traditionally, civilizations in their growing, dynamic stages of development have tended towards outwardly focused activity, discovery, inventiveness, experimentation, imperialism, growth, building, conquest, hardness, physical discipline.

In latter stages they become more inwardly focused, retention-minded, conservational, softer, apathetic, rehabilitational, decadent.

(We could go on, but does this work better? I'm open to help here. I LOVE CRITICISM IF IT HAS AN IDEA BEHIND IT. Bet on it.)

Eventually, as a civilization ages, a rival or rivals develop and overtake the reigning civilization through essentially the same dynamic attributes formerly associated with the aged civ when it was younger and growing.

The young succeeds the old. Always and everywhere.

 

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:11:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 1)

but our apathy comes from something entirely different than the Romans.  

Plus, they didn't have the same historical perspective we're privy to (because they lacked the technology)

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:32:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edward Gibbon. n.t (5.00 / 2)

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:51:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here, let me put it this way. (9.00 / 2)

Let's posit that men tend to be more aggressive and women tend to be more nurturing.

I'm guessing that there is plenty of sociological data out there that would strongly suggest that this is true.

If it is true, tho, why is it true?

My strong suspicion is that it has less to do with the inherent nature of men and women and more to do with social upbringing.

(This idea, I believe, is at the core of 2nd wave feminism.  If I am mistaken perhaps someone will correct me.)

Men are taught, from an early age, to be more aggressive and women are taught to be more nurturing.

We have two imaginary social constructs, the masculine and the feminine.  These constructs are just that, constructs.  They do not exist in nature, but in society, in the social imagination.

We assign a whole set of notions and behaviors to one category or the other.  We docket them and then expect others to live up to our expectations.

I find it tyrannical, because I believe that people should be allowed to be whatever they are (so long as they are harming no one) without others trying to force them into gendered conformity.





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:39:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think, as well, (10.00 / 2)

we tend to ignore that which doesn't fit.  

We see men as aggressive and macho and male, while ignoring their nurturing or softer sides, or suggesting it's an aberration...

Like my husband the soldier.  Inherently an aggressive image (although my husband is not an overtly aggressive guy).  You could assume that he changed diapers because I insisted he change diapers, but the reality is that he could do and did do everything that I did and do for our kids, except breastfeeding, of course, and did it and does it in his own very nurturing way.

Is he a feminine guy?  Uh, no.  He doesn't nurture kids in the same way as I do, but he takes very good care of his kids.

And anyone who has spent any time at all in organizations that are mainly female knows that women can be very aggressive.  Just not in a guy way.  More subtly, probably, but still very aggressive.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:04:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Joools, (6.00 / 1)

this leads to a terrific question.

How is female aggression different from male aggression?

Don't answer, yet!

QOTD material, perhaps.

:O)




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 00:26:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hint... (7.33 / 3)

It involves Jell-O.

Or maybe not, but a couple of you guys got excited for a second there, right?

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:04:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

eeeh... (0.00 / 0)

believe it or not, men do get raped by women.  sometimes, those men are not small men, either.  sometimes, the guy thinks to himself, "i don't want to have sex with this woman.  what she's doing hurts.  i could punch her in the jaw and end it, but would i explain that to the cops?  no, i'll just tough it out, even though i'm being bent almost in half, because otherwise i'd have to admit that i was forced to have sex against my will."

just saying, things like that can happen.  although maybe it doesn't count because that person would be a man, and then forever after, it's a joke to all your future girlfriends and they don't really understand the issues you have.

If you don't know what a platitude is, it's a platypus with an attitude. -Michael Ian Black

---

by: cleverguy82 @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was not talking that kind of aggression. (0.00 / 0)

At all.

I was talking of the aggressive PTA president or the really insanely rank conscious woman who pushes you out of the way so she can talk to the General's wife.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:24:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

my bad (0.00 / 0)

i wasn't caffeinated enough to read the whole thing.  sorry, jooools.  ::hug::

If you don't know what a platitude is, it's a platypus with an attitude. -Michael Ian Black

---

by: cleverguy82 @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:59:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I forgot the context... (0.00 / 0)

of the thread I was posting in...I clicked to Karam's comment, not the whole thread.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:26:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gender is tyranny. (7.50 / 2)

It is.

I have no idea if society is too "feminized" or too macho.

When I look at the people in my world I never think, "Oh, this guy is too feminine.  This woman is too assertive."

All I know is that people should simply be allowed to be who they are... so long as they're not droppin' the bomb on my street.

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 00:54:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, well, its not that simple or individualized. (0.00 / 0)

And its not male versus female, altho some cant get beyond this trivial misrepresentation, I guess.

We all have the hardest time getting past our denial, dont we?

Some more than others....

[projection alert]

[;o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 04:50:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why I failed algebra... (7.33 / 3)

     As a 14 year old freshman, I had a pretty hot algebra teacher.

    She had a pretty face, a nice figure, and awesome legs, and she liked to wear minidresses that were fully buttoned up the front.

    She properly wore the clothes to highlight her best features, and IMHO, EVERYONE should dress to feature their best stuff.

    I purchased a tuxedo that did that for me... BUT...

    All I could think of in her class was undoing those buttons.

    No algebra ever made it through that barrier.

    When Men are faced with a pretty teacher/professor, the little head does all the thinking, while the big head waits for orders from the little head.

    My big head ONLY thought about undressing the algebra teacher babe, while my little head 0nly thought about undressing the algebra teacher babe.

    I can only hope that the dumbist assholes infesting this site will "get it.

    But IMHO, thet will NEVER happen.

    So this gets ignored, OK that.

    From what has vacuum...

     

---

by: Vacuum @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 02:26:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're making assumptions. (6.00 / 1)

I, personally, would not have wanted to see you jailed. As it happens, I had a relationship when with a twenty year old when I was 14, myself. We did, however, abstain from behavior that could have landed him in jail. In retrospect, I'm grateful that he was as responsible and level headed a person as he was. He was gorgeous and I was crazy about him, but in retrospect, I know if things had played a little differently; had he been as persistent as some other boyfriends I've had in my life, I could have suffered severe damage. In retrospect, I know that I was absolutely not emotionally mature enough to have taken that relationship to its natural conclusion. For starters, I would have wound up in a disastrous marriage, because he did want to marry me. But, I digress. Adolescents vary greatly, in terms of maturity, and they tend to think they are way more sexually mature than they are. I think adults need to be pretty cautious when they have the hearts of teenagers in their hands. I don't think there's a way to really legislate some of that. But, karmafish is right. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:39:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not making assumptions at all. Describing our frail reality as you just confirmed from yur own experience (6.00 / 1)

with your story. I appreciate you opening up and letting your personal truth shine in.

And again, I'm sayin, its all about the circumstances, individual circumstance.

Now, I have led a different sort of life than most. I have spent some time behind barz, Not prison, but plenty of jail time.

Some even recently.

[:o)

I know what the criminal justice system is. Its mostly people who committed victimless crimes and once they are caught they cant escape. They mostly return on technicalities, probation/parole violations.

Check out your county jail. See how many true criminals there are versus people simply caught in the system of a victimless crime, such as drugs or technical violation of prior release terms. Ridiculous.

I'm intelligent, relatively well to do and educated but I, too, have been ensnared same way.

Blanket thinking by well intended well meaning white folks is the root of all evil.

Of course adolescents make mistakes. Adultz make mistakes, too. ha ha.

Let us not be afraid to make mistakes for fear of being criminalized over ....drugs! Sex!
Love.

This line should be drawn very, very carefully, especially regards matters of the heart. At. Any. Age.

And one line should never be drawn to fit all circumstances. The circumstances should prevail, not some arbitrary unfeeling law.

This is the greatest inhumanity in our culture, which is historically, puritanical, smallminded and petty. Thats Amerikkka. But it doesnt have to be.

I am about two things in the Obama presiditzy. Universal healthcare and CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM.

(H/T Jim Webb)

The criminal justice system in this country is nothing short of heinous.

Amerikkka has lost its soul, if it ever had one. Please, please, do not objectify that what should remain subjectively human in each specific instance.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:59:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and this: (0.00 / 0)

My own first experiences were at 12 were with a longtime neighborhood friend who was 15.
And I believe that if its a problem, its going to be discovered. If its undiscovered (as is most male sex among heterosexual males) its not a problem.

is OK??  Oh, no...I don't think so.  It's agreed that there's something quite unhealthy about it, especially because there's a huge difference between 12 and 15.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 00:34:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

do not agree (0.00 / 0)

we got murder 1, 2 ,3, manslaughter voluntariy and non, assault with a deadly weapon, simple assault... dozens of terms for physical violence on someone else - the same should hold true for sex abuse. Words lose there meaning if misused, a donkey ain't a horse.

I don't even care if the penalties for "felony touching" are the same as those for rape and I agree the side effects can be dire - though I woiuld argue that by your teens the chances of crippling consequences diminish - unless of course other factors limit one's ability to understand or object to such behaviors or, naturally, you are forced...but in that case we have no disagreement....

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:04:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no, no. (6.00 / 1)

I have way too much experience with this issue to take what you're saying remotely seriously.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:12:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so, I was raped (0.00 / 0)

because a 22 year old hooker hit me up when I was 14? One size fits all. Maybe I shoulda got a lawyer...

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:25:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry (5.25 / 4)

with all due respect and I'm someone who thinks Jackson didn't molest these kids.

You can't keep score on sexual abuse.  There are no degrees of sexual abuse that correlate necessarily to the damage it causes.

I've know two people who killed themselves for things that occured that aren't technical "rape."

They were never the same.  

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 21:44:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

see above (0.00 / 0)

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:05:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree, durrati (6.00 / 1)

The scars left on a child by molestation are far deeper and more painful and difficult to heal than those created by rape of a woman.

And sorry, I know both.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:14:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

define child (0.00 / 0)

and, why did you not say child rape?

I do not debate traumas suffered in the two cases... I just dislike violence being edited out of the meaning of rape...I believe in the integrity of words....

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:34:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

durrati (6.00 / 1)

the "violence" is pretty irrelevant. Believe it or not, most stranger rapes happen in minutes, and while they involve being overpowered, the violence you speak of us can be pretty minimal. Most rapes are male on female and it doesn't take much for the average man to overpower and restrain the average woman. Doesn't make it any less traumatic. Doesn't make it any less rape. I also think the preoccupation with penetration (technical rape) is ridiculous. Any sexual assault is a horrifying terror. You actually feel like you're going to die, which is why PTSD is such a frequent result.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:43:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you are just wrong (0.00 / 0)

I looked up the word at at least 20 different sites they all say variations of this - "Rape is an act of violence expressed through sex, but it is not mainly about sex."

You won't have me calling an auto a bicycle....

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 10:55:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good Christ, durrati (6.00 / 1)

First off. I never said it was about sex. It's about power.

The very act of forcing or coercing someone into a sexual act is "violence." But, upthread, you tried to draw an utterly fallacious comparison between rapes in a war zone and other types of sexual assault, and it is a ridiculous distinction. My point is that it not involve battery or weapons to be rape. That is how your comment read to me. If I read into it, I apologize, but I was putting your statement into an overall context. I have lived this shit, durrati, as have many men and women of my acquaintance. You're dancing on the head of pin here, and it's insulting to the very real suffering many of us have endured.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 11:17:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

forcing or coercing (0.00 / 0)

see Cur, there's the rub forcing and coercing -

1.To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat:

mean pretty much the same thing and yet you use coercing as if it is somehow different from forcing ...

Rape is a loaded word. Palin can throw it's weight around in her accusation against Letterman, then all her crazies start throwin' it around and soon you got the man groveling around like he's got something to be ashamed of or led off to be stoned....

What next? Eyeball rape sos we got to cover up all the wommins and childrins?

Molestation says it well enough tho I still think thats a bit strong in this case as I think calling a 13 year old boy a child is a little iffy also. I wouldn't give a .22 to a child.  

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 12:10:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a big difference (0.00 / 0)

between how Palin was using the word rape and how Antibi was, and I think you know that. And, yes, 13 is still a child. Is there some difference between a prepubescent and adolescent child? Yes, but not so much of one that what Jackson was accused of doing would mean he was anything but a monster, if true.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 12:46:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that's as close (0.00 / 0)

as we're gonna get to agreement.

"Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

---

by: durrati @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 13:26:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bear in mind, though, durrati, (6.00 / 1)

That the majority of people who're raped are raped by someone who's known to them in some way or other, whether it be a friend, relative or an acquaintence.  That, imho, accounts for why so few people speak out against and prosecute the crime of rape for what it really is;  a crime of violence where the rapist dominates  his victim through power,  at the same time using sex as a tool to degrade and humiliate his victim.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 21:05:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse... (9.33 / 9)

I'd like to know where your proof is that Michael Jackson was a baby raper.

Because, while I have always had my suspicions, I am very wary of indicting, prosecuting and finding people guilty of that crime without the full force of absolute proof.

And since I have nothing but second-hand reports, innuendo, several very suspect parents of children apparently used as pawns in money-grubbing schemes and a "Not guilty" verdict (or two?)... I am definitely not going to call him a "baby raper." Not while he's alive, and not when he's dead.

And I'm sure as hell not going to forbid or even discourage people posting their reminiscences of the man he was before all that ugliness was dredged before the world, whether or not it was true.

I like Woody Allen's earlier work, irrespective of his nauseous behaviour with his adoptive daughter. I separate the art from the artist; I have to, or I'd be eschewing most of the truly great art created since the dawn of time.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 12:47:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Further, as I just elaborated on Facebook... (8.00 / 5)

It bothers me tremendously when people lob accusations of "baby raper" at someone who has never been convicted of the crime - and I say this as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse whose perpetrators were never caught or convicted.

We weren't there - neither at the purported scene of the crime, nor in the courtroom. Sometimes when there is smoke, there is merely an arsonist with a tinderbox attempting to light a fire and pin the blame on someone else -- and we'll never know.

I hope it wasn't true, but if it was, I hope those children find recovery. And if it WASN'T true, how much more terrible, both for Jackson and the children used as pawns in a terrible scheme.

It isn't my business, at any rate, to be judge, jury or soul-executioner.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 12:55:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Proof? (3.50 / 4)

  As you might suspect I have no proof. As far as I can tell from my mild familiarity with the case(s) he was as I have characterized him. I have some experience with the kind of things child molesters say and do, and even a cursory examination of some of his song lyrics and habits indicates to me that he is that kind of person. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Mr. Jackson acted like a child molester while never actually carrying out any overt acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It would help if he had gone through our legal process without the benefit of millions of dollars to insulate himself from accountability. It would be nice if anyone seemed to care what happened to his little harem over in Dubai or wherever. None of it matters though because he's dead and I'm noone. You'll excuse then I hope my lobbing, judging, and executing. This is a sensitive topic for me as well and I'm not looking forward to a week of listening to and reading about a person I consider a fucking child molester every time I open huffpost, get my newspaper, turn on the TV, or go to the grocery store, work, etc...

A poor jest, but I will not scratch it out. D

---

by: Antibi @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 13:15:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pardon Me (6.33 / 9)

He was found innocent by a jury. He did go through the CJ system.

Seems to me that most pedophilles probably carry out their evil in a clandestine manner. He was always very candid about his relationship with children.  Including terminally ill children.  

Did he cop to engaging in behavior that didn't seem particularly "normal"...yep. Nothing about him was normal.

Watch him dance and sing this fucking song for example....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW1iq4IO2k

Shit.  That's supernatural.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 15:59:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yup. (5.60 / 5)

Although there are a few exceptions...like Ron Silver.

After seeing him on the cable news shows, I really don't like seeing him in stuff -- like those episodes of West Wing are kind of ruined for me, because he's such an ass.

And Brett Spiner (?), who played Data on STNG --- I can't remember what it is that initially bugged me so much about him, but I have a gut ugh when I see him in anything...

But you know, artists are weird.  Great art is made by not such great humans, and we are all pretty dang flawed.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 16:26:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But even Ron Silver, I forgave (6.00 / 2)

because he came by his convictions -- repugnant as they were to me -- honestly. He truly, truly believed what he said and did. It drove me BERSERK, you know, because I knew him as a liberal. And I hate it that much more when a liberal goes right wing.

But hey... I could still love his work. And I actually really appreciated how Sorkin USED his rightward turn so cleverly in The West Wing...

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 19:05:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah. (5.00 / 2)

You are a better person than me, I guess.  Because I find him so repugnant during past elections that I just get that ugh you piece of worthless shit reaction, and I can't get past it.  I don't like him.

I also realized, when I wrote what I wrote, that somehow I might have suggested that I thought him a great artist.

Which no.  He is a good actor, but a great artist?  I didn't see him as that before I started to find him so completely repugnant.

I think, perhaps, that his innate smugness is what kills it for me.  I can forgive, sometimes, stupid politics, but when you combine it with an attitude that seems to suggest that he thinks he is smarter and better than all others, well, fuck you.  I don't suffer those fools gladly.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:06:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am with Maryscott (7.71 / 7)

I would agree that Michael Jackson was strange and troubled but i am not convinced he molested children.

I think he was robbed of a childhood as his father push him abusively to make money to support the family.  I always felt his child like ways, the creation of never never land was his attempt to live his lost childhood.

The allegations of child abuse could very well have been a money grab.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 13:11:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I am with Kathleen (6.50 / 8)

We simply do not know the truth of the man.

We do not.

We may have our fair suspicions, but the fact is that we have no clue, none, whether or not he actually abused children.

I suspect that he was a deeply troubled and anguished human being.

But I know that he gave considerable pleasure to millions of people all over the world through his art.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 13:41:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not to jump to conclusions about MJ here, but (4.00 / 3)

given the fact that Michael Jackson was
abused by his father during his childhood, it doesn't sound totally impossible, either, especially because, at least as often as not, if  not more, people who've suffered abuse of some sort of other, especially when they were younger, do come up to inflict abuse on  or hurt others in some way or other.  Just saying.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 14:05:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know for sure. (6.00 / 4)

But the googling research I just did suggests that the majority of sexually abused children do not in fact grow up to become pedophiles.

http://www.casanet.org/library...

at this link, the GAO concludes that it is a minority of the abused that grow up to become abusers, based on looking at 25 studies...

Here is the conclusion:

The two prospective studies concluded that the majority of victims of sexual abuse during childhood did not become sex offenders as adults. Therefore, childhood sexual victimization would not necessarily lead to adult sexual offending. In addition, the majority of retrospective studies concluded that most adult sex offenders against children did not report that they were sexually victimized as children. Therefore, childhood sexual victimization would probably not be sufficient to explain adult sexual offending.

On the other hand, these studies also said that neglect and physical abuse can increase the likelihood that the victims will become abusers.  And there are claims that Mr Jackson was abusive, so I don't know.  

Some of the REPORTED behaviors are very consistent with abusers, but again, with his money and fame, we will never know the truth.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 16:22:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lost part of the last thought... (0.00 / 0)

Since he was so famous and theoretically wealthy, although reports insist that lately he was deeply in debt, we will never know if he was in fact abusive or was the victim of greedy grasping money and fame seekers.

Personally I find the reported behaviors very troubling, because they do fit the profile and the grooming habits of a pedophile...But then again, those doing the reporting presumably could do the research to make realistic seeming claims.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 16:40:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since I personally know people who work with victims of domestic violence/sexual abuse, or who've been victims of that kind of abuse themselves, (0.00 / 0)

I'm inclined to believe that, at least as often as not, this:

abused that grow up to become abusers,

does tend to be the case.   I also agree that this:

neglect and physical abuse can increase the likelihood that the victims will become abusers.  And there are claims that Mr Jackson was abusive, so I don't know.  

makes a good deal of sense.

This whole thing, imho, is far more complex than many people realize.  While we're on this subject, at the risk of striking an ultra-moral pose:  I think that sex between adults and minors is a form of abuse, particularly if the younger person is under sixteen years of age, and a disgrace, to boot.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 20:50:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Studies just don't back that up. (6.00 / 1)

When they follow children who have been sexually abused, a majority of them do not become abusers, and a majority of abusers deny having been abused as children.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:46:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What people deny (0.00 / 0)

and what is the truth can be miles apart. In the case of violent offenders, in general, when the victim becomes the victimizer, he or she often doesn't want to identify as a victim anymore. It's the difference between feeling powerless and powerful. Who wants to feel powerless? I honestly doubt, in the absence of witnesses and third person reporting, its even possible to get to the truth of these statistics. Lonnie Athens work is interesting, though, because he eschewed statistics, and instead relied heavily on in depth interviews with violent offenders. That's how developed his theory of violentization. He found that people become violent through a socialization process in families, or other primary social groups, where violence is the norm. This doesn't speak to the sex abuse question directly, but it does speak to the likelihood that sex offenders just popped out of the box that way. Just saying, the fact that people lie -- particularly over issues that cause shame -- is a major problem of statistical gathering.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 07:50:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wonder why I'm not an abuser. (8.00 / 1)

Why I'm so violently repulsed by it, instead.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:21:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe you work it out by being an online abuser..... (0.00 / 0)

[:o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:30:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pot. Kettle. n/t (0.00 / 0)

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:53:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you agree that MSOC is abusive online, then.....LOCK HER UP IN THE CYBERJAIL!!!! (0.00 / 0)

RIOTOUS!

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:56:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just think (6.50 / 2)

you're a nasty piece of work who sees the least little disagreement from other people through prism of your own abusive reflection. I also think whatever hostility you get from other people, including MSOC, is mostly a reaction to your own abusiveness. Probably better that we didn't take your bait, but we're mere mortals, after all. For my part, I'm putting you back on ignore.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:48:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A. Joke. Fact is, you cant admit to me that you are exhibiting intolerance, so YOU resort to ad hominems. OK, big deal. (8.00 / 1)

At least do society this much of a favor:

Promise that you will recuse yorself in the future from any jury on which you are seated regarding a sexual offense.

You are too emotionally involved in the issue to be fair.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:10:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Funnily (7.00 / 1)

The above is the only comment in this thread in which I have in any way addressed your character, while you have lobbed one judgment after another at me. You have told me how I think, what I believe, and made one laughable attempt after another to characterize me. For you, it's been all about who I am and what I am, rather than what I've actually said, in comment after comment. But, I'm the one who resorts to ad hominem? Dream the fuck on. I repeat. All you do is project your own shit.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:43:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I characterized you as a bigotted, repressive, tyrannical and dangerous (0.00 / 0)

mindset, based on your own words throughout this threadand also were contained in one comment. Decidely not ad hominem.

Yet, you see my "ad hominem" attacks against you spilling down the page?

WTF Curmudgette?

I see you mischaracterizing my words just as much as you see me mischaracterizing yours.

RIOTOUS! Go back and read the comments. All in all a pretty good discussion with agreement, reason and respect on both sides.

But, I repeat, especially after this comment of yours:

please make sure you recuse yourself from any jury in the future when the case is about child abuse. You are unable to serve the cause of justice.

And that, my friend, is not an ad hominem. Its my clear understanding of your intolerance based on your own words contained herein.

ad hominem - appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments"

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:12:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your definition (8.50 / 2)

of ad hominem makes my point, although it's a tad incomplete. The point is that you made me, not the points I made, the issue. It's Latin. It means "to the man." It's not about making it personal, per se. In other words, speaking from one's personal experience is not ad hominem. Speaking about the other person's personal experience, or personality, or history, is. Making a variety of characterizations -- however laughable they may be -- of me is most definitely ad hominem; specifically argumentum ad personam. Let me help you out, so you can get it right, in the future:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:43:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thats the legal definition. We are not in court. In our context (0.00 / 0)

"my" definition applies, which is actually Mirriam-Webster's definition BTW.

I made it no more personal than you did, Curmudgette. Less so, since my personal attacks in fact, did address the substance of your arguments in the debate. A debate which I found useful, and informative...on more than one level.

Your implied definition is that all personal attacks are ad hominem.

Not true, except in court....

....where you need to stay out of the jury chair in the case of child abuse.

[;o)

J

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:05:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Legal" has nothing (8.00 / 1)

to do with it. It's the classical definition of a logical fallacy, and other use of the term is misuse. The term has nothing to do with court room rhetoric, and everything to do with public discourse and debate.

Your implied definition is that all personal attacks are ad hominem.

You are exactly wrong.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:29:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RIOTOUS! (7.00 / 1)

You are exactly wrong.

[;o)

Ok curm. I admit I'm just stringing you along, allowing your hypocrisy to grow. I admit it. Its really Dottie who turns me on....

You are exactly right.

Feel better now?

RIOTIS!

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:04:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Altho I must say, you havent tried to prove your point against me (7.00 / 1)

Show me where this applies to my argument in this thread or I'm tossing your claim out of court:

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:11:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Figure it out, Donk. (11.00 / 1)

It's not that hard. I'm not here to educate you, but I'm glad to see that you're not mangling the definition anymore; at least for now. I went to school for this shit. I was a speech and rhetoric major for 2 1/2 years, before I changed colleges to one that had no such major. I was a very successful forensics competitor throughout both high school and college. I know quite well what ad hominem means, and you clearly do not. That's not my problem. My poor husband was so aghast at your mangling of logic that he grabbed a Socratic Logic text from the shelf, so that I could help you. But, I can either continue to indulge your willful ignorance, or move on to more pressing projects. I will do the latter. But, I will leave you with this simple thought: If you don't want to adhere to the classical definition of a term, don't speak Latin. It's just embarrassing.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what yur sayin is, you spoke out yur ass and that I did not engage (0.00 / 0)

in ad hominem attacks against you.

Since you claim to be an expert in rhetoric, your charge against me, baseless as you now admit it, was made in bad faith.

This leaves you open to triple damages. My attorney, M. Supersoling, esq. will be contacting you in the moning....

And speaking of Socrates, a jury of our peer has found us both guilty.....

http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...

[;o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:53:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're an idiot. (6.00 / 1)

And I'm done being baited by your convolutions. That's not an ad hominem, btw. It's just a personal attack. Now, I need to return to my paperwork.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:57:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And then there is this, too: (7.00 / 1)

Law Encyclopedia: Ad Hominem  
Top Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Encyclopedia This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

[Latin, To the person.] A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.

Need I go one, Curm? Or are you going to substantiate your claims against me in this thread with, y'now, proof?

RIOTOUS!

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:04:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seriously (11.00 / 1)

I like the JKKK but if you want to do the rhetorical jerk off, why not use a moist towel?

Curm is good people. Why not give it a fucking rest already.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seriously...Are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)

Cos I am

[;o)

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:52:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh (9.00 / 2)

didn't have the time to really dig in to see if you were being sardonic or just a prick.  

My bad.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:05:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Definitely being a prick. (0.00 / 0)

It's what he does best.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 23:48:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You should take a look (0.00 / 0)

at Athens's work. He codified a 4 step process, and believes that up to that fourth step, the violentization process can be stopped. He, himself, grew up in a violent home and neighborhood, but had really good, involved teachers, who turned him on a different path. And, in terms of sex abuse, the vast majority of survivors are abusive to no one but themselves. They don't turn it outward and abuse.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:52:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So....knowing people who either work with victims of domestic violence or other abuse, or personally knowing people who've been victims (0.00 / 0)

doesn't suffice?  I disagree here.

This:

a majority of abusers deny having been abused as children.

in itself, indicates a huge problem;  denial is a huge part of the picture there.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:31:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No. (4.00 / 1)

It doesn't suffice.  It's anecdotal.  25 studies that have followed thousands of people is a far larger population and thus more more likely to be reality than any one person's experiences and acquaintances.

I used the wrong word.  I didn't mean deny, I meant that the studies found a majority of sexual offenders were not sexually abused as children.  Of course, some of those were actually abused as children and deny it, but some of them who claimed abuse most certainly were not.  We are dealing with a manipulative and sometimes crazy group, so one cannot always be certain of the truth, but at some point when you have a large enough population, the outliers are outweighed by the realities.

See, I also have some experience with this.  I also have known and dealt with those who are victims and those who work with both the victims and the abusers.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:18:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One doesn't have to have dealt directly with victims of sexual abuse/domestic violence (3.00 / 1)

to be aware of stuff.  Unfortunately, history does have a tendency to repeat itself at times.  I also believe that many people who were victims of sexual abuse, etc., often tend to deny having been abused in that way as a defense mechanism, which isn't healthy either.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:24:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The childlike behavior (4.00 / 3)

is very much indicative of childhood sexual abuse. I've known a number of abuse survivors to arrest, in that way, so that they speak like children into their adult lives. He absolutely was robbed of a childhood, as was LaToya, who also exhibits like a sexualized child.

I agree with you we can't know for certain, but it is absolutely true that a percentage of sex abuse survivors go on to abuse, because of repetition compulsion and a very damaged sexuality. Like Antibi, I think there were numerous tells with Michael Jackson. I would not go so far as to say I'm certain. But, the fact that he was never convicted in court is meaningless to me. Rapists and sex abusers go free every day. It's actually a very hard thing to prove, in court. No witnesses; terrified and emotionally damaged accusers.

The parents may have been angling for money. The parents may have been assholes. Here's something you may not know. Child molesters target children of irresponsible parents. They target the kids who are vulnerable and emotionally neglected; who aren't being properly protected by their parents and already have damaged self esteem. So the fact that the parents turned out to be exploitive jerks is not that surprising.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:05:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't know he's a convicted child molester ... (9.12 / 8)

much less a baby-raper, do you have links that confirm his guilt, any source that isn't anonymous?

I heard the Not Guilty decision but I missed the information you apparently have that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that he is indeed, guilty.

Could it possibly be the case that he was wrongly accused and if he was, what the toll was on his life for going through such an ordeal.  There has to be an acknowledgement that if  he is indeed innocent, that his life as he knew it was tragically over.  Most of his friends are saying he never got over it, not to this day.

They also say he was an incredibly wonderful father to his three children.  Is this what they are going to hear about their father for the rest of their lives.

Lives were ruined but it's impossible to know how severely Michael's life was destroyed, another thing we will probably never know the extent of.

His three children deserve better than reading the thoughts of those who knew him not and don't have anything better than a crystal ball to confirm.

Just my 55 cents.

I will not die an unlived life. Fuck em, I will not live in fear, I will live out loud and on the record.  

Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)  

---

by: caliberal @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:09:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The television machines (6.00 / 3)

seem to have gone 24 hr MJ. (God, who knew Maureen Orth was such a nasty bitch? I have a whole new respect for Timmeh for sticking with her all those years - it couildn't have been easy.)

Anything to avoid the Waxman-Markey bill I guess. This is the second presser in a row where Obama couldn't get a question on it for shit, so he jumped in a stole one addressed to Merkel.

pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will

---

by: melvin @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 12:14:04 PM CDT

NYT just reposted this from 2005: (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...

from the article, by a novelist and child protection lawyer:

Ask any experienced defense lawyer: the real risks are for an accused person who is innocent. A guilty defendant has many more options available.

Sure, it's easy enough to blame the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office, and hard to imagine a softer target. But a calmer look at the probable motivations behind the acquittal will suggest that the jury could certainly have perceived Mr. Jackson's accuser as a victim, and yet have been unable to come to a decision as to the identity of the true perpetrator.

No matter what the experts proclaim, this trial was not a "swearing contest," not the classic "he said, she said" situation. The jury heard the testimony of the accuser, but not that of the accused. Indeed, had the district attorney presented only the accuser, the verdict might have been otherwise. The prosecution's decision to showcase the accuser's mother - even to the extent of vouching for her in closing argument - was the skull-and-crossbones label on what it was asking the jury to swallow.

The jurors might have believed a child was sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson. But they surely believed the mother of that child was a professional scam artist, a perjurer and a fraud. (Even the prosecution acknowledged that she was a welfare cheat.) And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that they regarded her as something far worse: a mother who trafficked her own child to a potentially dangerous individual in the hope of a multimillion-dollar payoff.

How many jurors wondered why that mother had not been indicted for, at minimum, gross neglect? After all, wasn't this case all about the district attorney's office protecting a child?

Powerful stuff:

In the months since charges were filed, I have heard people profess intense anguish that Michael Jackson might "get away with it." Each time, I asked these people what other possible miscarriages of justice concerned them, past or present? I asked if they knew that in many states, including New York and California, the penalties for sexual abuse of one's own child are markedly less than those for abusing an unrelated child. I asked each of them if this incest loophole also provoked their outrage; if they were prepared to actually do anything to change such laws. Not one ever answered.

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:44:46 PM CDT

OOPS wrong link, from another firezone....here's the correct one: (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

---

by: Joseph KKK @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:46:43 PM CDT