April 06, 2007

• More victims of NIMBY. It's the fate of all socially marginalized anymore. The scary part is increased risk for street crime. Thanks HW. One of my pet peeves is society demanding an outcast system rather than dealing with issues that cultivate risk.
• I played under bridges a lot as a kid. I came within an inch of losing my virginity under one. Back then we kept our sex offenders among the clergy.
• sex offenders must live at least 2,500 feet from schools It's not entirely clear to me that's the only reason they're under the bridge, but that sure is a stupid law. That's like thinking your kid is safe because a sex offender won't go to the trouble to walk half a mile.
• This stops being such a divisive issue once you have children. Or know a rape victim. Suddenly, the problems that sex offenders have finding apartments seems just a little bit who-gives-a-shit. I think that the fact they are under that bridge at all is a testament to the law-abidingness and general equanimity of the human species. My personal opinions - having seen up close the consequences of rape - are of a less tolerant nature.
• but where will the trolls live, fes? (won't someone please think of the trolls?!)
• I disagree, Fes. Sex offenders are people, and still have rights. I'm all for locking people up who pose a danger, but not all sex offenders pose the same danger. The fact is that someone who has consensual sex with a 15 year old can be declared a sex offender and have their lives ruined by these draconian laws. One of the men profiled was only awarded 3 months probation - I don't know what he did, but by the description it could have been as simple as propositioning a 14 year old. I was propositioned many times at that age, and maybe the men who did so deserved to be scorned, but not to have their lives ruined. These laws are applied without thought or sense. Moreover, these laws probably make the offenders more dangerous. They are being austracised from society, cut off from social controls. Soon they will have nothing to lose.
• Fes posted what I couldn't put into words. I don't want to argue which offenders are dangerous and which are not, I just want my daughters and grandaughters safe. I don't think they should be under a bridge, but I do think that they should be removed from society to the extent that they are housed seperately away from the rest of the population. As well, they should have their movements monitored. Certainly a 21yo that has consensual sex with a 15yo has not committed the same crime as a 46yo that molests several children, and the penalty, if such, shouldn't be the same. But right now, the law is the law, and if someone chooses to put themselves outside the law, then there are sanctions that will be taken.
• It's a pretty solid test for the breeders versus the non-breeders, at least here in the US of A. The breeders are more afraid that somebody's going to RAPE THEIR BABIES than, I don't know, kill 'em dead. Because the unholstered toddler-seeking penis of their fantasies is apparently more terrifying than any butcher knife, cheap handgun, or Oldsmobile-wielding octogenarian. Any policitian can score points with the paranoid mommies of my country by passing some crap tracking law. Who could resist? Yes, Chester the Molester is a menace. But more so than any other sociopath? If I decide to show off my new THUG LIFE tattoo by knocking over a couple of minimarts with a shotgun, I may get sent away for two to ten, but I won't have to live under a bridge after my furlough from gaol. Not immediately, anyway.
• Everyone needs a place to live. Homelessness is not a safe place for predators of any kind. Where do you think the concept of trolls may have came from but not something such as this? Historic bridges have histories. Such as this. I would be content to know where they are; specific colonies or remote access communities. Otherwise I still believe every person has the need for a home of their own, wherever or whatever. well I did say it was an issue to me.
• I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. You, goetter, are an asshole and a troll. Yeah, I'm a breeder. Guess what, your mother was one, too. And I imagine, like me, she does/did not want her child molested or hurt in any way. This society has a serious problem, and you apparently aren't any part of the solution.
• Thank you for that thoughtful and enlightening answer, Blue. I'm glad I can depend on you to remain true to form.
• Wow, I'm glad to see that Florida has institutionalized a system that pushes people off the lowest rung of Maslow's hierarchy. That's an awesome way to breed more criminal activity. Sometimes I wonder if places like Florida are doing this intentionally with some sort of ulterior motive.
• Having had a thirty year career dealing with offenders I have few delusions about any criminal types. The sexual abuse of a child is most usually done by a relative or well known family acquaintance. These guys under the bridge are simply the ones with no one to pick up the threads of their lives and hide them away again. Most diddlers go back to their own lives even if caught and legally confronted. If we did an anonymous george thread on which monkeys were introduced to sex inappropriately I'd wager a high number of members have stories. The real baddies, the sociopath sex offenders, get the attention and detention. The middle class and clergy are forgiven and embraced as wayward and the ugger ones end up under a bridge, trolling.
• If we as a society determine that punishments finish (end of sentence) but risk remains (name still on sex offenders register), it behooves us to make it possible for those who have "served their time" to make some sort of safe reintegration into society. If this means dropping proximity laws, which let's face it are arbitrary and (as has been pointed out assume a certain lethargy on the part of the predator), then so be it. Is the principle of "punishment leading to rehabilitation" more important than the need to keep sex offenders a defined (and arbitrary) distance from schools? As a breeder, I'm nevertheless puzzled by the overwhelming demonization of child sex abuse. I know it's a very very very bad thing, but we have a weird attitude to it. For example, one of the tabloid newspapers in Britain, as part of its "campaign against pedophiles", published a list of known sex offenders. Now, these people had served their sentences and were on a register. But of course some bloke with the same name as one of the offenders had his house firebombed, as you would expect in cases of this type. I don't know what to do with regard to pedophilia. It's repulsive and sick and I'd probably murder anyone who preyed on my kids. But, and this is a big but, we need to think about what we mean by incarceration and sentencing in this context. Our treatment of sex crimes, especially those involving children, is dangerously inconsistent with the rest of the criminal justice system.
• > Where do you think the concept of trolls may have came from but not something such as this? Very good point.
• So you mean goetter lives under a bridge? GramMa, I totally share your disgust with pedophiles. But they are, still, people. We should treat them as such. It's not PC to say this, but the line between who's of legal age and who isn't is pretty arbitrary, and the difference between a 15 year old and a 19 year old can be really minor, depending on the individuals, in terms of both physical and emotional maturity. Meanwhile: The ones who are touching small children? I have much less sympathy for them. But they, too, are people, with the potential for rehabilitation, the potential to add something positive to the world. I think goetter has a real point -- that it's interesting how we simultaneously demonize pedophiles in a very public way (TV sting shows, etc.), but just don't talk about other forms of sociopathy that may be as bad or worse for society. It's a completely reasonable line of discussion, and I kind of think you owe goetter an apology.
• What HawthorneWingo said. It's far too easy to score political points when some moron wants to demonize sex "for the sake of the children", without actually addressing the very complex and often contradictory issues involved. This ridiculous 2500 ft. rule is entirely capricious, and makes no sense whatsoever. Is the molester who is 2600 feet away from a school suddenly less of a threat to the students? Of course not. The artificially extended adolescence imposed by our prudish society is a biological travesty, no one with any grasp developmental biology or even basic common sense believes that some "crime" has been committed when a 16 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy, as an example.
• THe crime isn't that they're living under a bridge, but the=at they were released in the first place. As dxlifer said, "reformed" pedophiles are few and far between. I'd have no problem with life sentencing to some sort of in-between facility where they could leave to go to work but could be closely monitored.
• Everyone says that "reformed" pedophiles are few and far between. Are they, though? I have no idea; I've just always accepted common knowledge as fact. Does anyone know anything more solid/scientific about this claim?
• society demanding an outcast system rather than dealing with issues that cultivate risk Well said, dxlifer. For me, this story is about local governments (specific to Florida in this case), that are completely avoiding the core issues - the ones that could *really* make a lasting difference to society. For example, look how Orlando has dealt with its homeless population. Avoidance is not going to solve anything. I am a parent to two beautiful children. I also have friends who were rape victims. Who-gives-a-shit? I do. When a person in this situation finds prison to have the better quality of life, what's to stop them from grabbing a few kids and having their way with them (a guaranteed ticket back to the big house)? It makes absolutely no sense, and attitudes as such will only allow greater harm in the long run. How is stuffing sex offenders under a bridge going to make my children any safer? As a child, bridges were some of the first places I chose to play at. A parent should arm their children with the knowledge of how to react and deal with the unknown. When I was 11 years old, I was almost kidnapped by two men in a car. The driver tried to coax me into the back, where another man was hiding in a large blanket. I didn't hesitate to turn and run. I credit my mother and father, for taking the time to speak to me honestly and bluntly - as to many of life's harsh realities. I didn't think I would have ever encountered such an instance, but it happened (in small farmtown USA nonetheless). Just my opinions anyway... I realize this can be a very sensitive topic.
• Yep, a rule like this strikes you as being a headline way of "addressing the porblem" which wins some feel-good points for the legislator proposing but fails to address the issue or reduce actual risk much if at all.
• You, goetter, are an asshole and a troll. Surely we can do better than this.
• No harm, no foul. I certainly could have made my point more sensitively. Or maybe Cul de Cheval, Idaho is lousy with Canadian sex tourists. Hard to say. I will say that there is a class of -- not going to use the apparently volatile "b------" word (big big faux on my part, and I am sorry about that slip) -- breeding mothers who go absolutely fucking cross-eyed with rage when you suggest that any part of current American sexual offender public policy is hyperbolic. And apparently BH belongs to that body. I have met, and inadvertently offended, her ilk before. For the record, I think that motherhood, maternal protectiveness, parental protectiveness, and proactive vigilante dismemberment of anything that threatenes your spawn are all excellent and extremely desirable things. You wouldn't believe how tribe-protective even we selfish nonbreeders can be (my wife jokes about my vigilantism regularly). I just see the intersection of this, mass hysteria, and whoremongering politicians as bad for public policy.
• I've walked both sides. My daughter was abused. It wasn't until years later while at a training sessions on recognizing and working with sexual abuse victims that I sat there and slowly realized the speaker was describing the problems I'd been having with daughter, just entering puberty and being very bizarre in behaviour.. It was the sickest most sinking feeling in the gut conceivable; worse than when my parents died. I continued since that day in 1987 to deal with my daughter and the offenders I must meet professionally. And I still don't know how I did it. Big time compartmentalizing I guess. Now I have the luxury of choosing my clients and don't bother with them. How about incest that we proclaim as the ultimate taboo but has been documented since such documents began, as in Ancient Egypt. Now that's a real dichotomy for me. It happens every day folks. At some point we totally eradicate the practice of inbreeding or perhaps stop pretending that it doesn't happen.
• Goetter, if you'd read my comment carefully, I said molesters and rapists, and I will emphasize convicted molesters and rapists, should be kept apart from society and monitored. I never said they should sleep under bridges--that's not monitoring, for one thing. And I never said their identity should be divulged to the community, but serious background checks need to be done before offenders are placed in positions of public trust. You don't have a clue as to WHAT my complete thoughts on this subject are, so don't automatically place me in a political 'body' you apparently despise. I don't know what 'ilk' you may have offended before, but I belong to the ilk that has firsthand knowledge of the damage rape can do, as well as having seen more than one life ruined by molestation--one child was molested repeatedly since the age of three by a stepfather, and as soon as that asshole was out of jail, he molested her again at fourteen. Recidivism is a serious and documented problem among both rapists and molesters. I’m not denying there can be community hysteria, however many people have seen the effects of abuse on children and women, both sexual and physical. It's a pretty damn common problem. One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). This is according to the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey (PDF, 305KB), National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998. A total of 17.7 million women have been victims of these crimes. Child abuse is horrifically common: 15% of victims are under age 12 29% are age 12-17 44% are under age 18 The statistics are according to the 1997 Sex Offense and Offenders Study, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice and 1999 National Crime Victimization Study. Present some other figures if you don't like these. Let's suppose it's only one in ten women. Let's suppose those child abuse figures are inflated. That still means someone you know has had their life impacted by an abuser. It's not about sex, it's about power, and there is a large segment of the male population that glories in power over women and children. The spectrum runs from slavery, to disfiguring their bodies, to rape and physical abuse, to denying equal pay for their work and deriding their concerns about rapists and molesters. Although I don't like them, I don't object to your opinions as much as I despise the inflammatory way you prefer to express them. You might want to discontinue the use of the expression "breeding mothers." Not only is it disrespectful of women who have made a choice your wife has not, it's redundant. However, I am curious; do you refer to your mother as a breeder to her face?
• You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, Blue. Whatever. I've seen it firsthand, too. I post under my own name, so I won't go into further autobiographical detail. Not anybody else's business what happened.
• You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, Blue. Goetter, I don't think so. The breeders are more afraid that somebody's going to RAPE THEIR BABIES than, I don't know, kill 'em dead. ...the unholstered toddler-seeking penis of their fantasies... ...paranoid mommies... Yeah, I am a breeder, as well as a grand-breeder. Yeah, I am afraid someone's going ot rape my babies and grand-babies, as well as kill them dead. Yeah, I am afraid of a toddler-seeking penis-for anyone's toddler. And it's no fantasy that it happens. Yeah, I am a paranoid mommy and grand-mommy, if you like. I really do want to know the answer to my question. I'm not trolling, I am asking you if your opinion and behavior is consistent with your emotions. Do you refer to your mother as a breeder to her face? If you do that, and you and she don't feel it's disrespect, then fine. If you won't do that, because either you or she would feel there is some disrespect, why do you refer to other women that way? Breeder appears to have a loaded connotation with you, indicative of contempt for women (and couples) who have chosen to have children. It certainly has a loaded connotation for me. I equate breeder with someone who gives no thought to the consequences of reproduction, and who doesn't take care of their children. I resent being referred to with that term. Goetter: In an effort to produce civil dialogue, exactally what is it in my above post that you disagree with? I apologize for my calling you names. That was a childish knee-jerk reaction to the wording of your post.
• You don't have a clue as to WHAT my complete thoughts on this subject are Of course I didn't and still don't, though I now have a much better notion, thank you. I was initially operating from only I don't want to argue which offenders are dangerous and which are not, I just want my daughters and grandaughters safe. ... You, goetter, are an asshole and a troll. ... your mother ... you apparently aren't any part of the solution. The RAINN site is useful, and tells us 93% of juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attacker. So of what use bridge sequestering? That's what I call mass hysteria. I also don't see conflating adult rape with child abuse as useful.
• I never suggested that making abusers homeless and having them under bridges is of any use. And I did say they should be housed and monitored by the authorities. I do have a problem with perpetrator privacy in that within this age of information publishing, it's possible to find out a lawful citizen's private information such as personal history, income, credit status, and other information they may not want made public, yet an abuser or rapist, who has put themselves beyond the pall by committing a crime of violence is accorded privacy. We live in a strange world. Nevertheless, I don't think publishing an abuser's name is a solution. The mass hysteria you speak of can be viewed as concern for an ongoing problem as well as over-reaction. This concern was the impetus for publishing names and creating unworkable laws. It was a failure in an attempt to solve a social problem. We now know, and I believe most thinking people agree, that this is not the answer. As far as conflating rape and child abuse, it's all part and parcel of the same issue. We pick an arbitrary age to declare that the same crime against persons is abuse or rape. An adult may have better coping skills, but it is still a violent sexual crime of power. You never did answer my question. I assume there is some cognitive dissonance attached.
• it's all part and parcel of the same issue I disagree, but sincerely appreciate your elaborations. You never did answer my question. I assume there is some cognitive dissonance attached. You're welcome to assume whatever you like. Your viewpoint is so gynocentric, and mine so disrespectful, that I don't think I can help matters by elaborating or explaining. So let's allow my gaffe to stand on its own two misshapen feet.
• *assesses goetter's misshapen feet. OMG you pervert! *throws book at goetter and flees
• The Mayo Clinic on pedophilia. From the article: The published rates of recidivism are in the range of 10% to 50% for pedophiles depending on their grouping. Some studies have reported that certain classes of pedophiles (eg, homosexual, nonrelated) have the highest rate for repeated offending compared with other sex offenders. Generally, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles have higher recidivism rates than heterosexual pedophiles. Incest pedophiles generally have the lowest rate of reoffense. The more deviant the sexual practices of the offender, the younger the abused child; the more sociopathic or antisocial personality traits displayed, the greater the treatment noncompliance; and the greater the number of paraphilic interests reported by the offender, the higher the likelihood of reoffense. Several actuarial and self-report tests have been designed to help physicians and law enforcement officers predict which individuals are at higher risk for repeated offense, but currently no single test or combination of tests can accurately identify the future activity of an individual In a study of the characteristics of individuals who repeatedly offend, Beier found that one fourth of heterosexual pedophiles (n=62) and half of homosexual and bisexual pedophiles (n=59) repeated offenses (as evidenced by repeated arrests for a sexual violation or a self-reported violation) during a 25- to 32-year period. Beier noted the characteristics that predict repeated offenses for homosexual and bisexual pedophiles were (1) being exclusive pedophiles, (2) being of average to above average intelligence, (3) being middle-aged at the time of the primary offense, (4) abusing children aged 12 to 14 years, (5) engaging in coitus at an earlier age than non–repeat offenders, and (6) having a diagnosed personality disorder. Repeat offending heterosexual pedophiles were characterized as (1) having poor family relationships and support, (2) having engaged in intercourse before the age of 19 years, (3) being middle-aged or older at the time of the index case, and (4) having initially abused young children (3-5 years old) who were unknown to them. Most of the repeated offenses occurred 10 years after the initial offense. Whether this delay was initially due to successful treatment, incarceration, or other factors is unknown. Lots more info here.
• That looks about right from my experience. It doesn't save anybody though when you can still find such as The Power of Sexual Surrender (1958) being espoused.
• Good god, dx. As I have shown in previous articles an amoral elite power fosters feminism as part of a long-term agenda to dislodge western civilization from its religious and cultural moorings. The tax-exempt foundations, the elite media, the CIA and the Communist Party of the USA are all behind the promotion of sexual dysfunction in the guise of feminism. The purpose is to destroy the nuclear family, decrease population, stunt human development and destabilize society. Our government is part of this elite agenda that aims to create a materialist, fascist "New World Order". Feminists who oppose the NWO are unwitting agents of it. *boggles*
• I think they're after our precious bodily fluids too.
• Stalking the Bogeyman, a powerful piece by a pedophile's victim intent on revenge (from 2004).
• Male victims usually have a worse time as they consider it too un-masculine to admit. So the anger comes out against themselves or others.