Wall Street Journal: Men Getting Cast as Pedo-Predators

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-18 08:57pm

ArmorPierce wrote:No I wouldn't but now that you mention it. Tell me, would you mind your wife sitting on santa's lap?

What's he going to do, grope her while a whole crowd is standing there watching?

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2007-09-18 11:21pm

since there's no edit button, I think that a lot of you have such a lax attitude toward it because you never had first hand experience (or had to live through another person whom you love dearly trauma due to it) in it and cannot comprehend how bad the situation can be and how easily it can be done with no one finding out. Child services are so bureaucratic and bloated that they don't care about the children. What they care about is covering their own asses which is why you see these cases of children that was supposed to be under child service supervision dying. For all of you people that don't have experience of living in the ghettos (and I mean real ghettos not like Paterson which is not all that bad), you really can not talk about it. It can be hell particularly for young girls with literally no one they can go to including the state.

Examples, one friend raped multiple times beaten by mother for "wanting" it at 8. School called dyfus one time because she came to school with black eyes bruises and a broken nose. Dyfus came over found out that the mother was a single mother with 4 kids and they were living in relatively good condition considering there situation (mother wasn't a crack head) so case was closed and she didn't come back. This same mother had thrown acid at her when she was a baby so she has huge acid burns down her legs. Many other situations her life has been horrible because her mother would just leave her with men including friends, mother's boyfriend, and family. Funny thing is that she did this in order so that she wouldn't be running around the streets and being a whore.

Another friend was under dyfus supervision for 8 years and while in it had his arm broken by father. Dyfus getting involved just resulted in more beatings and dyfus never took him away. He finally was taken by dyfus only because after the father left the mother decided to abandon him at a kid home.

One girl was taken by dyfus because her father was an alcoholic (fair considering that alcoholics can be dangerous). However, the father had never laid a single finger on her and provided for her and kept her safe. They placed her in her aunt's home where she proceeded to get raped by several men, shown a dead body by them to scare her into keeping her mouth shut and when she finally told her aunt her aunt proceeded to beat her for making up stories. When the aunt finally believed her story she went on to believe that she did something to seduce the men.

Sounds like a tangent yeah I know but I think that there should always be a physical distance kept between adults (men in particular) and children.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2007-09-18 11:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:No I wouldn't but now that you mention it. Tell me, would you mind your wife sitting on santa's lap?
What's he going to do, grope her while a whole crowd is standing there watching?

No but you don't mind that he may be getting off to the idea of your wife sitting on his lap?

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2007-09-18 11:49pm

ArmorPierce wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:No I wouldn't but now that you mention it. Tell me, would you mind your wife sitting on santa's lap?
What's he going to do, grope her while a whole crowd is standing there watching?
No but you don't mind that he may be getting off to the idea of your wife sitting on his lap?

If he doesn't do anything, how is that different from the guy wanking while picturing his wife?

One thing is about being female is coming to terms with yeah, someone is probably using you for masterbation fodder.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-09-18 11:58pm

ArmorPierce wrote:since there's no edit button, I think that a lot of you have such a lax attitude toward it because you never had first hand experience (or had to live through another person whom you love dearly trauma due to it) in it and cannot comprehend how bad the situation can be and how easily it can be done with no one finding out.

Actually, I have. My sister and some of my closest friends have had it done to them. I know exactly what it's like. I also know that the kind of people who do this make up a massive minority of the population. I also know that being uber-suspicious, pointing accusatory fingers and cultivating an atmosphere of general paranoia is *not* the way to solve it.

<snip the 'you don't live in the bad part of town so you can't know!' bit.

I do know about it, I have lived in that situation. I know how hellacious it can be, I know that my adoptive mother had a period in her life that she would have rather slept on the streets instead of in the homeless shelters because there was less chance of her getting raped or something bad happening to her biological son.

I also know that this is a situational problem that is better addressed by improving the economic conditions of these areas, not by being paranoid about it. In the average suburbia-havens, small towns, and slightly more affluent neighborhoods (which outnumber bad ghettos by a huge margin), the context surrounding sexual assault and molestation are worlds different and should be approached in a far different way.

<snip examples>

So...a few personal anecdotes justify your blanket assertion to assume that everyone's a possible paedophile just looking for a chance to molest someone?

Y'know, generally a bit more evidence than that is needed around here.

No but you don't mind that he may be getting off to the idea of your wife sitting on his lap?

So? There's a world of difference between mental fantasies and actually acting on them. I hold brief fantasies involving every attractive person I happen to see during the day, should I be mistrusted and actively prevented from *looking* at people because I *dared* to have less-than-PG thoughts about them?

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-09-19 12:04am

Oh, and just so I don't get accused of not proposing anything better, here's my solution to this issue:

Don't be a fucking moron with your kids. Keep an eye on them, keep several eyes on them. If you have to leave them with someone else, vigorously research that person/organization. A little vigilance and forethought will eliminate a vast majority of this bullshit. The stuff that still slips through the cracks...turning into a society full of paranoid, trigger-happy jackasses will *not* solve that.

As was already brought up, a vast majority of this stuff happens *within* the family. Focus on that before you start pointing fingers at strangers.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-09-19 01:14am

Hell, all of his "examples" were within family or family "friends," which in a fair number of cases can end up like extended family as far as access can go.

And thusly, the cycle continues... A vicious cycle of sexual repression, 'deviants' thusly becoming even more isolated and weird, people getting scared of those deviants and thusly calling for more sexual repression...

Masami von Weizegger · Post by **Masami von Weizegger** » 2007-09-19 01:28am

But I wonder, how many people would accept a friend or relative who "outed" their self as someone suffering from such a defect, asked not to be left alone near children, went to therapy and so on? Would open admission, even within a closed circle, say friends and family with children of their own, cause anything more than extreme rejection and isolation?

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-09-19 01:34am

Masami von Weizegger wrote:But I wonder, how many people would accept a friend or relative who "outed" their self as someone suffering from such a defect, asked not to be left alone near children, went to therapy and so on? Would open admission, even within a closed circle, say friends and family with children of their own, cause anything more than extreme rejection and isolation?

Which is exactly why Armorpierce's proposed solution of increased paranoia actually *worsens* the problem. Basically it involves making people even more hesitant to simply tell others they have a problem because they'll quickly get slapped with sex-offender status and have their lives ruined, which leads to more self-repression, which leads to more of the twisted shit that happens.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-09-19 01:40am

Probably not, as both sides of various arguments tend to decide that such urges are either unchangable aspects of a persons psyche, uncontrollable urges that they'll succumb to at the slightest opportunity, or the worst thing since Hitler lead his Dino-riding Demon Corps to bath Europe in the blood of the unborn. (Sadly, I think there're a few people twisted enough to think that last one could have happened outside of a really bad Wolfenstein fan campaign...

)

But yeah, it's pretty much suicide to admit to having such a thought crime.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-09-19 01:43am

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Which is exactly why Armorpierce's proposed solution of increased paranoia actually *worsens* the problem. Basically it involves making people even more hesitant to simply tell others they have a problem because they'll quickly get slapped with sex-offender status and have their lives ruined, which leads to more self-repression, which leads to more of the twisted shit that happens.

On that note, there was in the news a while back, a guy who admitted he had such attractions publicly, and was almost immediately slapped with a restraining order that under any other instance would have been declared an overstepping of powers.

Don't think it's resolved just yet... and it kinda half reads as someone doing it to challenge this status-quo... but still, it shows what happens if one were to out oneself in a climate of fear like America likes...

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2007-09-20 07:13pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Actually, I have. My sister and some of my closest friends have had it done to them. I know exactly what it's like. I also know that the kind of people who do this make up a massive minority of the population. I also know that being uber-suspicious, pointing accusatory fingers and cultivating an atmosphere of general paranoia is *not* the way to solve it.

Were they raped as children? Being raped as a child and being raped is a young adult are two completely different things. I am advocating not to trust anyone completely with your kids but I am not advocating pointing accusatory fingers. They might be in the massive minority but there are still with little doubt several in your town. http://www.familywatchdog.us/

I do know about it, I have lived in that situation. I know how hellacious it can be, I know that my adoptive mother had a period in her life that she would have rather slept on the streets instead of in the homeless shelters because there was less chance of her getting raped or something bad happening to her biological son.

Can you tell me what your situation was so that I can get a better gauge if it was in that situation? Knowing that your mother experienced it many years ago is kind of a distant feed for it especially since it happened either when you were very young or not born yet. Furthermore it tends to be a lot worse for girls.

I also know that this is a situational problem that is better addressed by improving the economic conditions of these areas, not by being paranoid about it. In the average suburbia-havens, small towns, and slightly more affluent neighborhoods (which outnumber bad ghettos by a huge margin), the context surrounding sexual assault and molestation are worlds different and should be approached in a far different way.

Agreed it goes a long way in helping it in general. It is much worse it poor neighborhoods.

So...a few personal anecdotes justify your blanket assertion to assume that everyone's a possible paedophile just looking for a chance to molest someone?

Y'know, generally a bit more evidence than that is needed around here.

Well anyone can be a pedophile and you just don't know who is. The examples were to go to show how the child service program in NJ is negelectful and that many children often don't have anywhere to go or turn to. I have a lot to do and didn't have time (don't have time now, should be studying but I don't want to seem like I just come make a post and disappear) so I didn't post anything else but I'll try to dig some stuff up. NJ child services (dyfs) has been recently under a lot of shit for not doing with they are supposed to be doing and taking care of the children. Most people don't realize stuff like this because they don't believe it can be allowed to happen. A lot of people thinks that dyfs is over reactory and quick to take your children away and that they should be even more conservative in that respect. Nothing can be further than the truth they will actually very rarely remove children from their home unless the mother is a known obvious druggy or alcoholic. They are keen to make compromises and leave certain children to anguish in order to deal with others. Each case worker has maybe two or three dozen children that they are supposed to be looking after (might be wrong off the top of my head don't really recall that well). How, I ask, are they supposed to do there job if they are looking after that many children. Another reason they are very unwilling to do anything is because even if they do take the kids away, they don't have much place to put them. Space is limited.

dyfs allows kids to starve for years
governor rehauling dyfs due to their failure to protect children
8 year old allowed to be raped when supposed to be protected by dyfs
37 children died from abuse 2003 in Jersey. Half of them had already had dyfs called and visited before dying due to the abuse.

Evidence enough for you or will you continue to run around with your eyes shut and hands over your ears because you are not willing to accept that your rosy vision of the world is not as rosy as you may think. 37 may seem small, but to those 37 children whose lives are now over, the thought alone is heart-wrenching.

So? There's a world of difference between mental fantasies and actually acting on them. I hold brief fantasies involving every attractive person I happen to see during the day, should I be mistrusted and actively prevented from *looking* at people because I *dared* to have less-than-PG thoughts about them?

No, I do the same. No where did I say that you shouldn't or you are bad for doing it. What I did say is that I wouldn't want my wife sitting on no man's lap and it's your prerogative whether or not you mind that.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-09-20 07:55pm

ArmorPierce wrote:<snip pointless hair-splitting>

Hooray, when someone actually comes out and counters your "You don't understand it 'cause you haven't been *through* it" argument, you quickly retreat, dragging the goalposts with you, to "Well, mine's *totally* different 'cause she's younger, see?"

Tell you what, bring forward an argument that doesn't rely solely on personal anecdotes and shifting goalposts and it will be addressed.

Well anyone can be a pedophile and you just don't know who is.

Anyone could be a mass-murderer and you just don't know who is. Anyone could suddenly pull a gun in the middle of a fucking mall and start shooting, guess we shouldn't take that chance, eh?

Or maybe we should accept that this is an absurd minority of people, the chances of it happening are practically nil, and running along with this assumption *is* fearmongering and prolonging the problem.

The examples were to go to show how the child service program in NJ is negelectful and that many children often don't have anywhere to go or turn to.

And this applies to this debate...how exactly? I'm sorry, last time I checked, incompetent child-service providers and the chance of a random pervert molesting your kid in the mall were two seperate subjects.

<snip more childcare stuff>

...all nasty problems that need to be taken care of. But once again, all COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to the topic at hand, which is how to address the problem of random strangers molesting children.

Evidence enough for you or will you continue to run around with your eyes shut and hands over your ears because you are not willing to accept that your rosy vision of the world is not as rosy as you may think.

Okay, I feel more than justified saying this now: You're a fucking dipshit. You're a blind, ignorant moron who apparently can't keep a simple set of facts straight in his head for more than thirty seconds.

In the post where you replied to me explaining how I can relate because MY OWN GODDAMN SISTER was molested, you accuse me of holding a rosey view of the world and am blind and deaf?

I'm taking that as an assertion that I don't give a shit about what happened to my sister and am incapable of understanding any of the pain she went through.

You know what? Go fuck yourself you presumptious little shit. You want to be blatantly dishonest, at least try to keep it to subjects that don't involve someone's family and loved ones.

37 may seem small, but to those 37 children whose lives are now over, the thought alone is heart-wrenching.

Many times that number die in drunk-driving accidents. A significant percentage of that number are fucking *struck by lightning*. Just as many people die per year, on average, from attacks by fire ants.

Yes, it is bad, it is really fucking nasty. It is also an insanely small number that shows that this is an extremely rare occurance. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to draw generalities about every goddamn person you passed by on the street based on the verified actions of approximately .0001% of the population.

No, I do the same. No where did I say that you shouldn't or you are bad for doing it. What I did say is that I wouldn't want my wife sitting on no man's lap and it's your prerogative whether or not you mind that.

Liar, you went even further than that...

Earlier you wrote:You can't really trust your child with a stranger at all

Even taking the sentences around it, in context, you give *no* qualifiers as to what situations this applies in. So the natural assumption is that you mean this in any and every situation. Hell, DW even asked you to clarify it with the mall-santa example and you fucking *verified* it.

Basically you're asserting that you shouldn't trust your kids with any other adults anywhere. No matter how public it is, not even if you're standing there watching it as it occurs (again, the mall-santa example).

Let's take this to its logical conclusion, shall we?

In Armorpierce's world:

-Kids don't go to school because then they're alone in the room with an adult.

-There are no babysitters.

-Extra-curricular activities? I don't think so, can't leave kids alone with the coaches.

-Mall? No kids are going to the malls because there are all sorts of adults there. No parents either, because they can't leave the kids home with a babysitter, or in a daycare.

-Single parents are fucking screwed then. They can't have a job because they can't leave the kids at a daycare, or with a babysitter.

-Circuses, zoos, museums and movie theatres are also out of the question.

Do you really not understand the consequences of what you're proposing?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-20 07:59pm

ArmorPierce wrote:What I did say is that I wouldn't want my wife sitting on no man's lap and it's your prerogative whether or not you mind that.

And I'm sure that kind of controlling paranoid jealous behaviour is just what every woman dreams of experiencing. We're talking about a shopping mall Santa and a fully grown adult woman, for fuck's sake. Get over yourself.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-09-20 08:03pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:
Do you really not understand the consequences of what you're proposing?

Don't forget pediatricians. In AP's world you're effectively preventing your child from having effective medical care because of some irrational fear that the physician treating them is lusting after your kid.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-09-20 08:06pm

So, think he'll bother retorting with the old "I didn't take my extreme claim to the logical extensions!" bit?

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-09-20 08:24pm

ArmorPierce, can you give more real world examples of this necessary distance you are talking about between adults and children? Because reading your posts is making me think of you like those parents who won't send pictures of their kids to friends via email in case they get hacked and used, have problems taking their kids to the beach because of the amount of skin showing with swim suits, and generally are just terrified about the strangers in the vacinity of their children. (hang out ona few parenting boards and you will meet a lot of parents like this)

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2007-09-20 08:44pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Hooray, when someone actually comes out and counters your "You don't understand it 'cause you haven't been *through* it" argument, you quickly retreat, dragging the goalposts with you, to "Well, mine's *totally* different 'cause she's younger, see?"

Tell you what, bring forward an argument that doesn't rely solely on personal anecdotes and shifting goalposts and it will be addressed.

Well I was talking about rape of young children. You can tell by me bringing in the talk about child services and how they don't take care of the children that they are supposed to. Obviously rape of an adult and rape of a child are two completely different things with rape of a child often happening regular for extended period of times. So no, there is no moving of goal posts, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough but that is because I thought that people would know what I am talking about since we are discussing pedophilia, child rape, and I introduced child services. It is nearly impossible to know how it feels to be raped on the regular as a child unless you've gone through it yourself. I don't know why that is up for debate?

Anyone could be a mass-murderer and you just don't know who is. Anyone could suddenly pull a gun in the middle of a fucking mall and start shooting, guess we shouldn't take that chance, eh?

Or maybe we should accept that this is an absurd minority of people, the chances of it happening are practically nil, and running along with this assumption *is* fearmongering and prolonging the problem.

I will not accept it because fact is that it does occur (percentages goes up with neglectful parents) and it is devastating to the children that it occurs to. I will not accept it as an "acceptable statistic."

And this applies to this debate...how exactly? I'm sorry, last time I checked, incompetent child-service providers and the chance of a random pervert molesting your kid in the mall were two seperate subjects.

...all nasty problems that need to be taken care of. But once again, all COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to the topic at hand, which is how to address the problem of random strangers molesting children.[/quote]

It applies because I brought it up to show how children a lot of the times really have NO WHERE to turn to. They can turn to the school who refers them to child services who often times does NOTHING. I brought it up because I think child services is something that needs to be fixed to help child victims. It goes hand in hand with child abuse. You also asked me to back my assertion of the failure of dyfs to help children which I did.

**CONCESSION ACCEPTED**

Cut out emotional outburst

I was talking along the lines of the failure of child services in NJ, which is something that I suspect has happened many other places but am able to say that since I haven't researched that. I said child services was failing children in NJ, you didn't believe me and told me to back it up. Actually now rereading your post, it seems that you misunderstood the reason for my examples in the op you replied to. Go reread my post, it was about child services.

I'm taking that as an assertion that I don't give a shit about what happened to my sister and am incapable of understanding any of the pain she went through.

You know what? Go fuck yourself you presumptious little shit. You want to be blatantly dishonest, at least try to keep it to subjects that don't involve someone's family and loved ones.

Random bullshit, putting words into my mouth that I did not say. Read above.

37 may seem small, but to those 37 children whose lives are now over, the thought alone is heart-wrenching.
Many times that number die in drunk-driving accidents. A significant percentage of that number are fucking *struck by lightning*. Just as many people die per year, on average, from attacks by fire ants.

Yes, it is bad, it is really fucking nasty. It is also an insanely small number that shows that this is an extremely rare occurance. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to draw generalities about every goddamn person you passed by on the street based on the verified actions of approximately .0001% of the population.

I was still talking about child services here. However it happening to any child is a travesty and effort should be made to prevent it by making child services an actual working organization.

No, I do the same. No where did I say that you shouldn't or you are bad for doing it. What I did say is that I wouldn't want my wife sitting on no man's lap and it's your prerogative whether or not you mind that.
Liar, you went even further than that...

Earlier you wrote:You can't really trust your child with a stranger at all

I don't know what you are talking about. I seem to be talking about one thing and you the other. I'm talking about an adult woman in one quote and then you quote me when I'm talking about the child. You are misrepresenting the truth and I don't know if you are doing it intentionally.

Even taking the sentences around it, in context, you give *no* qualifiers as to what situations this applies in. So the natural assumption is that you mean this in any and every situation. Hell, DW even asked you to clarify it with the mall-santa example and you fucking *verified* it.

Basically you're asserting that you shouldn't trust your kids with any other adults anywhere. No matter how public it is, not even if you're standing there watching it as it occurs (again, the mall-santa example).

I said:

No I wouldn't but now that you mention it. Tell me, would you mind your wife sitting on santa's lap?

I said No I wouldn't then I bring up the next topic in an attempt to draw a parallel but Darth Wong still said he wouldn't mind so that didn't work. Admit bad grammar from me. I wouldn't want my wife sitting on another man's wife under almost no circumstance (close friends while I'm there may being the only exception).

Let's take this to its logical conclusion, shall we?

In Armorpierce's world:

-Kids don't go to school because then they're alone in the room with an adult.

No. I said you shouldn't trust anyone completely with your kids but it doesn't mean that I advocate the imprisoning of children in home. As I had said in one of my examples, that is actually how one of the kids got raped. The mother, in an attempt to protect her from her becoming a whore on the streets, locked her up in the house having her be unable to leave and run away and just wait for her rapers to come to her.

-There are no babysitters.

Wrong again. Ideally you'd take it down a notch on leaving to going parties all night long and whatever but that is impossible. Attempt to leave with parents or female relatives (not always possbile). Keep open communication with the child. This is actually another problem. Maybe even set up a spy cam. Like the other article mentioned, the guy was starting to act strangely with their daughter and that was what I was talking about in the other article. Don't think it's impossible to happen.

-Extra-curricular activities? I don't think so, can't leave kids alone with the coaches.

With plenty of other kids in public less likely to happen. Teach your child to not be alone with him or her and stick. Keep open communication

-Mall? No kids are going to the malls because there are all sorts of adults there. No parents either, because they can't leave the kids home with a babysitter, or in a daycare.

I don't know what kids at under age 12 would be doing at the mall by them selves anyway. Older children tend to go in groups. Teach them not to talk to strangers and to run for help for certain situations to a security guard or a mother in the mall and they'll be fine for the most part. It is a very public venue with security guards after all.

-Single parents are fucking screwed then. They can't have a job because they can't leave the kids at a daycare, or with a babysitter.

Daycare is best since there are multiple adults. Yes it sucks being a single parents for both the parent and the children. Kids should be at school for most of the day anyway and as I addressed babysitters is not impossible just be smart about it.

-Circuses, zoos, museums and movie theatres are also out of the question.

Pretty much addressed along with mall

Do you really not understand the consequences of what you're proposing?[/quote]

You don't seem to understand my position. Not trusting anyone completely with your children does not = locking up your children in their house. It means keep open communications with your child, having your children know what to do with people if they do or say certain things (basic stuff and knowing that it's not impossible to occur and not dismissing it if your child brings it up (goes along with open communication).

I don't think I will be able to write anymore for a while, I am very back logged in my studies right now and writing for hours here is not helping.

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-09-20 08:58pm

You don't seem to understand my position. Not trusting anyone completely with your children does not = locking up your children in their house. It means keep open communications with your child, having your children know what to do with people if they do or say certain things (basic stuff and knowing that it's not impossible to occur and not dismissing it if your child brings it up (goes along with open communication).

I think this ignores that fact that most children are unable to communicate on the level you seem to be requiring until 3 or more years old. That's a long time to go without a babysitter.

I also don't know if I agree that a child would be more at risk with an in home nanny than in a day care (you claim they are best because there are many adults).