satori001

Rape is about control and violence, but it is sexual control and it is sexual violence. It is so blatantly obvious that people who prefer this modern myth must go to great lengths to ignore the sexual component. As for the "all sex is rape" idea, it's out there Tom. No lie. I only introduced it here to point out that there is a contingent of feminists who'd like nothing better than to define all male-female sex as assault and battery. It's probably a lesbian faction, and only a small but (vocal) group within the lesbian population. I know that not all lesbians believe that, but some do. I've met one or two. They were friends of mine, actually, but they held that view and nothing could sway them. Their arguments were never about their personal preferences. They always appealed to some misappropriated higher principle, such as claiming that a female's physical sanctity was violated by the very act. They were great women though, and we had many enjoyable debates. I miss their company. There were a lotta laughs, when the topic was less serious.

It's just as easy to imagine someone who wouldn't dare control others BECAUSE he/she feels personally out of control.I don't think the explanation for controlling behavior is quite that simple.

This popular doctrine that rape is not about sex is eventually going to be recognized as feminist nonsense. Radical feminists believe that ALL sex is rape. Therefore all sex is about control and violence, to hear them tell it. Rape is sex. Of course it isn't "healthy," or "normal." Nobody is saying it is. But it IS sexually violent aggression, and the rapist is looking for sexual gratification, along with the accompanying desire to possess and wound his victims. To say all rape begins with one single motive is to objectify rapists, which is to misunderstand them. Now Garth persists in claiming that any such understanding represents conciliation, compromise, accommodation of these criminals. But he hasn't understood a thing I've said yet, though he is as persistent as a gnat. He takes a statement here, a statement there, always out of context, and pretends to be a part of the debate. It's true, I believe none of us are fully responsible for our actions all the time, and that we are sometimes compelled by forces (addictive behaviors) which overwhelm us, sometimes for just moments, other times for much longer. Some of those compulsions are harmless, others are tragic in cruelty and consequences. There are times when we ALL do have control, and times when we don't, when it's too late. The drunk has control BEFORE he takes the first drink. One taste and it's all over. A blur of drinking follows and he's in the car, half-conscious, on his way to killing a family of five in the oncoming minivan. I think even (potential) rapists and pedophiles can "lead themselves not into temptation but deliver themselves from evil." They need some kind of support, from a society which loathes to give it. It wouldn't take much. They are told, Turn away now, or face dire and certain consequences later. Turn away now and there will be help. Fail to turn away and we know it will consume you, and be assured the blood will be on your hands alone. And we learn as much as we can. And we make that help available. And we make those consequences real.

Garth, the more I reply to your mistakes, the longer your posts become. As for the castration example, you've misread a rhetorical question as a statement. The example of heterosexuals in a repressive society had to do with the sex drive. The "false dilemma" you thought you detected is based, as usual, on something I didn't say. Whether I'm right or I'm wrong can't even be addressed if you can not muster the requisite comprehension skills to follow what I'm saying here. It isn't that you don't possess them Garth. You're too distracted by your own thoughts to follow anyone else's except those with which you already seem to agree. Why am I discussing this? Because you have said I'm making "excuses" for pedophiles. You are wrong on pretty much everything, but especially, and unequivocally, about that.

I'll concede that rape is about "violence and control" if the rest of you will concede that "violence and control" is about sex. How many ways is sexuality expressed? One? Two? Let's see... "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Junior in the baby carriage." Is that all? Sex, you people, is not what you've seen on TV. Violence is about control. Control is about domination. Domination is about mating and procreation. Procreation is about sex. No matter how tepid and tame it may be portrayed to be in the American middle-class experience, sex is at the root of most controlling and violent behavior in the world, and that includes the animal kingdom as well as the human. (I can't speak for vegetation, but maybe Garth could share a bit.) NOT the other way around.

Tom, this little comment just got the better of me I guess. My apologies.

We've been hearing this for years. Rape is not sex, it is violence and control. Tell me then, how many castrated rapists have gone on to rape again? "Eunuchs" are not unknown historically to be capable of control and violence. But, somehow, sex doesn't interest them. Amazing, isn't it? Whad'd'ya think? Is this rocket science? For some of you, it is. You know what? There is a thin layer of nerve tissue in the human brain that separates us from our most primitive instincts. If something goes wrong with that tissue, whether it's hardware or software is irrelevant, Jeckyl becomes Hyde. There are plenty of examples in people with certain brain injuries. Now, what some of you mistake for empathy is nothing more, or less, than insight. Like it or not, we have much in common with pedophiles. They are human beings like us. They experience heat and cold, hunger and thirst, pain and pleasure... and even sexual desire. The only difference is the object of their desire, and the power of the perverting force, that twisted them in the first place, to make them act upon it even in the face of the direst consequences. Our revulsion means nothing to them. Nothing at all. Suppose YOU lived in a country where heterosexual behavior was a crime in most ordinary circumstances - not only criminal, but considered morally and spiritually perverse. Maybe most of you have forgotten your teenage lust, but you were willing to break rules, to disregard the morality of others, to quench that desire. A lot of people were put to death for "normal" feelings in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan not long ago, especially women. Of course, theirs were crimes of seduction, sin and perversity, and "control" of course, not mere sex. And that's only "normal" sex. Something that can warp a force as fundamental as the human sex drive can make people forget all about danger and risk, not to mention the modern conventions of "right and wrong." My point of view is the result of being a thinking parent. I think about the best ways to remove dangers from my daughter's path. And I see that your lynch mob approach has wonderful results to show for itself. Every day, pedophiles are gladly turning themselves in, to be beaten, stabbed, burned, tortured, mutilated and/or murdered - because that would motivate anybody, as long as it would make y'all feel better. Right? Some of you live in a childish and imaginary land where the good guys always prevail and once the bad guy is clobbered, everyone lives happily ever after. Come to think of it, that pretty much describes the Way Ministry, so it's not unfamiliar territory for you, is it? Me on the other hand, I'm just naive enough to recognize reality. We need an approach that works to rid the parks and schools and chat rooms and family rooms of this menace. I also think, if society gave these people a chance to reform, we'd see much stronger enforcement and harsher punishment for those who did not. Those who are caught, or who have been caught, should never be permitted to rejoin society. Whatever the reason for leniency in the present system, and I don't see any good reason, it would have far less support. The trouble is, I want to save a little girl's life, and many of you just want revenge after the fact, which is your own version of "violence and control."

He gave her his name, his phone #, his office #, his position at DHS, his photo... I wouldn't call this a "cry for help," by any means, but he was just begging to be caught - at some level. Think about it. How does somebody rise to his level of responsibility, Assistant Press Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security? Luck? This is somebody with the subtlety and skills to become the spokesman for the most high profile department in our government these days. And this same individual is found on his home PC "chatting" with a 14-year old girl (in his mind) who has told him that she's recovering from leukemia. He offers her some sympathy then tells her what he'd like to do to her. It should be obvious to anyone that the evil he was committing was compulsive. It blinded him. Has anyone thought about how he was caught? Just luck? He was being monitored, probably by some department responsible for keeping surreptitious tabs on government officials, looking for security leaks. The monitor realized what was happening and a phone call was made to a police internet crimes unit to check out a certain chat room. Just a hunch. Shouldn't Doyle have expected to be monitored? Of course. Hello? Homeland Security? This thing blinded him to the obvious risks of his behavior to HIMSELF. If he didn't see the potential harm he could do himself, did he see the real harm he might do to a child? I don't think he did. The point is, the sex drive compels human beings to behave irrationally. The gay community is a good example. There is an AIDS epidemic and yet many persist in having "unprotected sex," infecting themselves and their partners as if blind to the behaviorally spread plague of death around them. So how do we reach these people, and how do we (as a nation, society and culture) approach the possibility of interrupting their behavior? 12-step programs? They're fine when the compulsion is a "victimless" crime, like over-eating, drinking or drug addictions. Counseling? That's okay for people with hand-washing compulsions, or harmless obsessions. But what about pyromaniacs? Or molesters? They hurt people. And they don't seem to care about themselves that much. They have an instinct for self-preservation, for example, they conceal their identities, and occasionally even kill their victims to prevent discovery. But are they really protecting themselves, or just protecting this "demon" so it can be free to strike again? I don't know the answer, but I know the public's lynch mob mentality is as primitive and ineffective as ever, and more likely to get an innocent person killed than have any impact on an apparent epidemic. If we are to effectively interrupt these predators before they get their 117 odd victims (in the case of the "average molester"), we need to understand the mechanism of compulsive sexual drive. We need to recognize that the sexual drive is cyclical, and that the predator might be reached at it's low end. We need to make use of our knowledge, to exploit what we know. If all we want to do is beat our chests in righteous anger then let's not change a thing. You all want more punishment? Fine. Burn them alive. Will that stop them all? Not a bit. The obsession does not fear death or consequences. It exists to fulfill itself, nothing more. Brian Doyle's life is over. His humiliation is probably worse than death (to him). He is a leper, a pariah, a piece of filth in the eyes of everyone he ever cared about. His career is finished. His future is prison, possibly resulting in his own murder, and a life of abject shame. Look what it's cost him. You think he didn't know it could happen? All of your anger and threats are useless. We need to be smarter about this. I am very sorry for every victim, but the past can't be changed. The future could be changed, which means preventing future victims (if you care about them too), but we have to wake up and do it ourselves. The alternative is to wait for the predators to stop themselves, because we've scared them sooooo much. Good luck.

InvisibleDan, That was damn funny.

No, I think it was Halliburton.

Thanks Tom.

Excellent contributions, but especially oenophile, whose contribution is grail baby, grail!

Thanks David. I tried Franzia once, about a year ago. Might have been a bad year (or month?), but it had a fairly harsh acidity to it. Now I'm no connoiseur, but that's how I'd describe it. It was sweet too, and I thought the sugar was added to improve an otherwise bad grape.

I find it odd that 700+ Muslim clerics wanted an Afghanistan man put to death because he converted to Christianity, but I find it more odd that "moderate, mainstream Islam," you know, the vast majority of wonderful Muslims who live and work among us, have not voiced as much as a peep of protest against the latest example of draconian Islamic intolerance. Sure, the nice Muslim couple down the street won't put a "shame on you, Taliban" sign in their yard, any more than I would if some Americans disgraced our country (the guards at Abu Ghraib, for instance). But like a Greek chorus, there was a loud outcry of revulsion from all the public voices that speak for my demographic group about the "humiliation" of prisoners. The corresponding disappointment we'd expect from the public voices of "moderate, mainstream Islam," whether domestic US outlets or the official media in Muslim nations has, er, failed to materialize. There is something disturbing about Muslim prayer. I think their prayers' physical behavior creates the mindset of a "zombie" - or at least, one of utter subjection and obedience. Zombie-like. Try it, just going through the motions. Get on your knees, raise your hands over your head, then lean forward so your head and hands are on the floor. Now do it again, and again, and again, and again... Now imagine a room or hall full of others doing the same thing. Is it any wonder they seem to riot on command in these 3rd world countries, at the whim of some robed goon resembling Charlie Manson, where the average education may be little better than grammar school, and a stern religious grammar school at at that? What's the answer? I dunno. The radicals don't fear death, and they're sure not afraid of killing others. Killing seems to be their First Commandment, wherever they meet with the least resistance. Pork warheads maybe? We're gonna need to be creative.

In my book, table wine is a reasonably priced, but very palatable every day wine. I'm partial to reds, but it could be either. I've gone the route of other Philistines, starting with Boone's Farm and other varieties of pop culture approximations. Mateus Rosé was the classy stuff back in college. In the 80's "white zinfandel" became the new gateway drug to better wines. In the 90's Merlot seemed to take over. Now, maybe it's Shiraz or Chianti or... something else? Seems like there's more awareness of variety than in the past. What I'd like to know from you people out there, you wine-o-philes as it were, is NOT the finest, priciest, snootiest bottle of spoiled grape juice you've ever had, but the finest (commercially available) stuff you could drink (and afford to drink) every dang day. This thread should appeal to anyone who likes wine. I'd love to learn more about it. If you make your own wine, or collect it, or invest in it, that might make a good topic for a parallel thread. Let's keep to drinkin' wine on this one. "To your health."

Chas, I don't quite understand what you think you're reading. It isn't what I'm writing. It's clear to me that you're so certain of what you think I'm saying that you've only skimmed my posts. For instance, where you say something like "but the crime has already been committed..." referring to the safe harbor idea. That is exactly opposite of what I said. No Chas. You didn't read it correctly. If I'm talking down to you, it's not intentional. But you haven't understood me, and I don't think it's so complicated. I am willing to discuss or defend what I've said, but it gets a little nutty when I have to defend myself against things I plainly haven't said, and it's right there in black and white. There are a lot of people here who have been hurt by pedophiles. You can't come in here and say I'm defending the pedophiles in front of them. You'd be wrong anyway, but on this thread it's damned irresponsible. What do you think my agenda is, anyway? To make the world safer for pedophiles? If you think so, then you ARE an idiot. No, I don't think you are. I do think you're being a little rash because it's an emotional topic and it got the better of you. (No, that's not condescending, that's the truth. When I consider what you're saying above I'd be within my rights to say a lot more about it. Your comments are far more offensive than they are just wrong.) I have a little girl and I am constantly watching for evidence of some predator. I look for evidence. I look for hints of evidence. I look for nuances that might suggest hints of evidence. I do that because she's too young to understand, and I don't want to frighten her. But I know one thing for sure. I've met pedophiles, and I didn't recognize them. Maybe they're relatives, neighbors, co-workers, day care workers or God knows who else. I cannot read their minds. But I am sure that at least some of them don't want to be, and some of them have not yet acted out. I wish there was some place for them to get help because I know that if they don't get help they will eventually get to work on that statistical list of victims. But those people aren't going to get help because there is none out there. There is nothing but contempt and rage waiting for them. So they stay quiet, and it builds, and it builds, until opportunity knocks. Maybe it will be my little girl knocking on that door. That scares the hell out of me, so don't you dare lecture me, do you understand? Do you GET IT? Frankly, I don't give a damn whether you do. Few do, few will. Righteous rage will rule the day. But it is the wrong approach. But never mind. Wave your pitchforks, light your torches, lynch the bastards, if you can find one - and you can't. As for Kathy's question, I've given that some thought. Family members are no different than anyone else. Some of them will just be predators, others will have bouts with their conscience before they give in. I think a family member with a dark secret will keep that secret, so what's wrong with keeping the help he gets secret too, if it will encouage him to GET help? This is too dangerous a threat to meet it with some kind of witch hunt. That's what Martindale did with his purges, remember? Get rid of the homos! he demanded. Did it work? Two words: Donna, Rosalie. You tell me. I don't think so. If you need help understanding what I've been saying, Linda Z seems to have understood what you have not. Maybe you could ask her nicely to explain it to you. I've used up what little patience I have with people who exercise their right to miss the point entirely.

Chas, I wrote three brief posts on the topic. Rather than summarize what was sufficiently clear, I'll ask you some questions. Did I say anything about active pedophiles being told to "go and sin no more?" Anything about letting them off? Did I say anything about consequences, punishment, retribution? Did I say anything about "potential" (mostly undetected, innocent of any wrong-doing) pedophiles who may need serious help and support but are terrified of the likely consequences of being discovered? Try to understand what I mean by "redemption" in this context. It doesn't mean a free pass. It means a chance for troubled individuals to redeem their future, before they do any harm. It means the willing submission to strict guidelines, accountability, responsibility, and enforcement. In my mind it would require DNA testing and fingerprinting, possibly wearing an electronic ankle bracelet, letting authorities know where they are , regular visits with specialized couselors and physicians employed by law enforcement. It might mean voluntary medication or sterilization. They would be in a program similar to one for paroled sex-offenders, but without the offense, and without the public record. Their compliance would make them far easier to catch if they ever did commit a crime, and therefore less likely they ever would. Actual offenders who turned themselves in would be guaranteed not to receive the death penalty, and guaranteed not to be placed in general population where they would probably be killed. Whatever incentives they are given to surrender would have to be balanced with the necessity of punishement. Think of it as a kind of plea bargain. It gets them off the street. The other side of the "safe harbor" offer is this - that punishment for anyone who rejects the program is that much more severe. I no longer believe the death penalty is a viable option in this country. I also believe a lifetime in prison, deprived of freedom and comfort, is a better punishment than our bizarre execution rituals, where the prisoner must not feel the least bit of pain but go softly to sleep. The problem with prison is that it's too comfortable for a lot of them. I would change that too. Bring back chain gangs, maybe. Let's see the really bad ones petitioning the governor for the right to be executed - because they hate prison. When that day comes, we're back on the right track.

Chas, you're talking about retribution, which is fine. But I'm talking about redemption. Let those who earn retribution receive retribution, and those who earn redemption, redemption. I've said how, and I've said why, maybe you read through it a little quickly.

I would not offer the "safe harbor" to a caught and convicted molester. I have no problem with harsh punishment. This isn't about feeling their pain and letting them off. It's about healing and prevention. There are plenty of people who feel the urge to steal, kill, and destroy, and they don't do it. They find the strength, they do what they need to do. Some people aren't strong enough on their own. BEFORE they strike, if they can find a support system - might be an electronic monitor of some kind, or some kind of chemical treatment - it might make all the difference. Sure, those people get to live their lives among us, and we might not know who they are. Sorry but that happens now, and those people are unsupervised and teetering on the brink, some of them. Wouldn't it be worth trying to save some of the kids who might otherwise fall prey? The requirement would be that they'd never committed a pedophile crime. But if they had, there would still be consideration (mercy of some kind) for having turned themselves in, based not on the past, but upon the future for which they'd taken responsibility by stopping themselves. It's not about revenge, which feels good and changes little, but about prevention, which you can't feel but makes all the difference. It doesn't apply to every case you can imagine. I'll admit, it's a deal with the devil, but on the other hand, it's a deal the devil might not like either. This is a pipe dream, obviously. -- On a side note, I remember excathedra being censured recently without appeal for raising this subject in pretty frank terms, and yet her comment might be tame by comparison with this thread. Nice to see the board has returned somewhat to it's former stature, for the time being.

Kill 'em all. Then they'll be gone. So simple. That idea is so far from workable, it's a form of denial. Who should kill 'em? Rambo? Spiderman? Not that it could ever happen, but I think we could prevent many of these crimes by asking for the pedophiles' help. Sudo's starting to foam at the mouth about now. Here's what I mean. I just don't think a lot of pedophiles want to do it, especially the first time. They have an "itch" they didn't choose, and it wants to be scratched. I think they fight it, just as gays often repress their impulses because they know it isn't accepted by society. They fear the consequences, sure, but they may also resist becoming what they themselves reject. Where is the "support system" for them? What, other than harsh but uncertain consequences and society's loathing, helps them to "just say no?" Not a damn thing, as far as I know. Remember Vic's example of the alcoholic in the back of his church? Vic may have been a fraud, but the example rang true because that's human nature and we recognize it. Human weakness + shame = more weakness. A dispassionate, even compassionate program of "Help us help you." Maybe it would mean chemical castration, or some variation, at public expense, no questions asked. "You aren't evil, please stop before you do something that is." Would it reduce incidents? Don't know. Depends, maybe. I'll leave it to the social theoreticians. It might at least be more effective than a lot of fitful indignation and empty threats that only serve to isolate these people long before we know who they are, and, I believe, make them far more dangerous.

I'm a little conflicted about this issue. I don't know the statistics but I understand that most "predators" were at one time abused themselves. Not everyone abused becomes an abuser. Not every abuser was abused. But today we hate these men for what they've done, and we love the children who've been so harmed. In 15 or 20 years, those victims will yield the next wave of predators. Will we then hate them, and only love the next wave of victims? Should we round up the kids and punish them now, because statistically many will "go bad" later? There are reasons few of these people seek help. First, they probably don't see the harm. They rationalize. "Sex feels good." "Our culture is repressed, it's natural to express love in every form." "This is the way God made them." The DO know they will be reported, stigmatized, persecuted. In the face of so much risk, they still do what they do, but hide it. And there are their enablers, too weak and ashamed to turn them in, usually because it's in the family. So the child is sacrificed. I'm not saying I don't harbor a smoldering rage toward any adult who would exploit a child that way, and like any other parent, I would have murderous intentions toward anyone who touched my own child. But what if my child had become a victim? Sure, the perp would be dealt with. But what of the ticking time bom that MAY have been set? Do I ignore it, pretend nothing happened, hope for the best? Do I hound my child with threats and supplications not to "turn out like that?" Do I stick her in counseling three days a week until she's 18? And what if none of it worked? What if, like the innocent bitten by a b-movie vampire, the curse is transferred? Do I then have her "dealt with?" These questions are unanswerable really. The answers are only found along the way by those who must walk it, and not easily. But we've been living in a fantasy land of right and wrong, and the requisite blinders have hidden the obvious from our eyes. Abberations from the "norm" are out there, and our moral preconceptions and prejudices serve nothing or no one - not the victims, not the predator compelled to strike for the first time. We aren't really dealing with the problem. We should not excuse the crime. But it's time the crime stopped being against US, stopped being about our own shock and indignation and outrage, and once again became a crime against the children. And when we remember that, we may remember that those priests were once altar boys, and some of them, maybe many of them, were themselves childhood victims in this cycle of pedophilia. I'd suggest a law-enforcement sponsored "safe harbor" for people who feel compelled to commit certain kinds of crimes. That place would protect their identity, but track them too, and provide support they need to resist destructive impulses. There would be rules (where to live, etc), and in exchange there would be help. For those who don't seek help, far more severe retribution for their crimes.

Yes, the question is stupid. As a rhetorical question, it might have born some fruit, but junior wants an empirical answer from a subjective question. He doesn't know what he's asking, and he doesn't know what he's asking for. It's like asking, "What was Dr. Wierwille's most disappointing trait?" 1. He published other people's work as his own. 2. He had a phony PhD from a mail order degree mill. 3. His ministry made God into his pimp in order to make born again sisters in Christ, "more precious than rubies," yada yada, his sex toys (he might have been thinking "concubines") 4. He cheated on Dotsy twice before breakfast every chance he could 5. He chose the most obnoxious, self-serving, brown-nosing, suck-up from hell he could find to be his successor 6. Underneath a pretty nasty mean streak was a pretty savage cruel streak. 7. Other I dunno. Like CK's question, the choices are just the tip of the iceberg, and the "one best" answer is different for each person. The point is, it's not a good survey question. It's a shallow and thoughtless survey question. Stupid, in other words. Unless you open it up for discussion. CK is unwilling to do that because he instinctively knows he's already over his head. He'd rather refuse to discuss it than risk learning something.