Source: Fingerprints of Jackson, boy on magazines

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/11/jackson/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Fingerprints of Michael Jackson and those of his accuser have been found on "pornographic magazines" seized during a raid on the pop singer's Neverland ranch, a source familiar with the case told CNN.

Investigators raided Jackson's Los Olivos, California, property based on allegations of child molestation in November 2003 and seized a variety of items from the entertainer's estate, including items from his bedroom and master bath, sources said.

Investigators reportedly found a "collection" of pornographic magazines, and other periodicals in those rooms, and fingerprint testing was later performed on those materials, sources said.

CNN has also learned that authorities seized wine bottles found on the property, and those have been forensically tested as well, sources said.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville will decide what can be introduced as evidence in the trial, set to begin January 31.

Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to charges of child molestation, conspiracy and giving alcohol to his accuser, a cancer-stricken boy who lived for a time at the ranch.

The boy and his family also claim to have been held captive on the property.

They were also there when Jackson was away, and allegedly had "free run" of the property in the entertainer's absence, a source told CNN.

They were "into everything," crashing golf carts and being generally "disruptive," the source said.

The boy appeared with Jackson in a British television documentary in February 2003.

It is not clear in what room at the ranch that sheriff's investigators found the wine bottles. At a recent court hearing it was disclosed that a hidden wine cellar was build beneath the Neverland arcade. The entrance for the basement-type area was concealed behind a juke box facade, which swung open to reveal the top of a staircase that led down to the cellar.

A week ago, Jackson gave sheriff's investigators a DNA sample at his ranch. The meeting had been arranged by Jackson's defense lawyers, and Jackson cooperated fully, a source said.

[GODDESS6]

in a word:
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!~ :distress: :shocked: :distress:

[greatdarkwing]

IMHO, there is no crime worse than child molestation...the man should burn! :mad:

~Alex

[Hawkeye]

IMHO, there is no crime worse than child molestation...the man should burn! :mad:

~Alex

Not this kind of Child Molestation. I mean yeah this is bad, but this is like first class child molestation. The Child Molestors on the street who abduct and torture chilldren and molest them and occaisonally hurt and KILL them, those guys should burn. MJ should be toasted slightly. I mean getting paid tons of money and getting the treatment these gets get, not comparable in the slightest bit to other cases of child molestation. MJ is sick and this is wrong AND i don't like him in the slightest for his music so don't think I'm defending him because I'm an MJ fan, but there are crimes worse then this.

[gldstwmn]

Not this kind of Child Molestation. I mean yeah this is bad, but this is like first class child molestation. The Child Molestors on the street who abduct and torture chilldren and molest them and occaisonally hurt and KILL them, those guys should burn. MJ should be toasted slightly. I mean getting paid tons of money and getting the treatment these gets get, not comparable in the slightest bit to other cases of child molestation. MJ is sick and this is wrong AND i don't like him in the slightest for his music so don't think I'm defending him because I'm an MJ fan, but there are crimes worse In then this.

Like what?
In a sense what he is doing is worse. He gains their trust and then molests them. The man obviously has some kind of compulsion and the people around him have been enabling him for years-otherwise they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is completely sick and twisted. It ruins the victims for life. They are unable to ever trust anyone again and it manifests itself in everything they do from that point forward. Most molestation victims know their abuser.
It will be interesting to see how his defense team will spin this.

[Johnny Stew]

I think someone who harms a child should be punished severely, no matter what.
Having lavished your victims with gifts, etc., doesn't alleviate the severity of what you've done. Pampering them while abusing them is simply some sort of warped rationalization.

If Michael Jackson is guilty of this crime... and circumstantial evidence, at least, has always been pretty damning... then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[SuzeQuze]

I think someone who harms a child should be punished severely, no matter what.
Having lavished your victims with gifts, etc., doesn't alleviate the severity of what you've done. Pampering them while abusing them is simply some sort of warped rationalization.

If Michael Jackson is guilty of this crime... and circumstantial evidence, at least, has always been pretty damning... then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Molestors also cannot be rehabilitated so when they get out of jail they will offend again. They should get life, IMO. This crime is extremely insidious because often those who were abused become abusers and the awful cycle continues.

[BTFLCHLD]

IMO, anyone who is guilty of causing harm to a child, the punishment should be severe.

I would like to comment on magazine fingerprints being used as evidence. I myself have stumbled upon a room where there were magazines of illicit content (okay already it was a playboy! HA!) and flipped through a few pages....say the person is arrested for some type of sexual crime...could I then guilty by finger association? :shocked: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

This evidence DIRECTLY links MJ to his accuser in a sexual situation. It will be VERY hard for MJ to refute this. His ONLY argument is the accuser found the mag. and looked at it without MJ knowing it. After all, fingerprints alone cannot establish the time they were put there. I suppose that situation is possible and it is even possible that the accuser looked for the mag and put his prints there on purpose (remember this accuser's family (I think this is the same one) has tried to extort before) - This defense, however, will fail because MJ will have to take the stand to refute it and the cross will go something like this "why were the porno mags accessible in ANY way to minors, which you admittedly have there ALL of the time - and how did they even know about them." - I cannot think of a good response to that - can anyone here :shrug: Also, it will be interesting to see what the actual content of the mag. is. Playboy is one thing, but there are others that are for fetishes, etc. MJ is in trouble here and unless the jury believes some sort of "plot" against MJ (which I doubt they will based on the evidence I have seen - which granted is not all of it) - he will go to jail.

Also, it will be interesting to see what other tests of the mag. reveal. It could be the accuser's fingerprints reveal he had the same lubricant on his hands as MJ (assuming MJ's reveal lubricant)

Again, I just do not see MJ getting away from this DAMNING evidence.

[dissention]

His ONLY argument is the accuser found the mag. and looked at it without MJ knowing it. After all, fingerprints alone cannot establish the time they were put there.

Exactly. They shared a bedroom together on more than one occasion and the kid could have found it under Jacko's mattress while Jacko was in the bathroom brushing his teeth or bleaching his face. This is some pretty piss-poor evidence, IMO, and even though I think he's guilty as sin, I don't see this "evidence" as any such thing. It doesn't prove molestation in the least, it only proves that Jacko neglected his duty to protect children from such material while in his home. It's damning in that manner, but not when it comes to sexual molestation. I sure hope this isn't all the prosecution has or else they'll be looking at a hard case to win. And if Jacko is convicted on this alone, he'll have a ball when he appeals his conviction.

[BTFLCHLD]

It could be the accuser's fingerprints reveal he had the same lubricant on his hands as MJ (assuming MJ's reveal lubricant)


<img src="http://tinypic.com/wivjt">
You think of everything...right down to the LUBE!!!
:]

[strandinthewind]

Exactly. They shared a bedroom together on more than one occasion and the kid could have found it under Jacko's mattress while Jacko was in the bathroom brushing his teeth or bleaching his face. This is some pretty piss-poor evidence, IMO, and even though I think he's guilty as sin, I don't see this "evidence" as any such thing. It doesn't prove molestation in the least, it only proves that Jacko neglected his duty to protect children from such material while in his home. It's damning in that manner, but not when it comes to sexual molestation. I sure hope this isn't all the prosecution has or else they'll be looking at a hard case to win. And if Jacko is convicted on this alone, he'll have a ball when he appeals his conviction.

I agree - I wish it were stronger - and it may be that once all tests are run, etc. BUT - the reason I think it is daming is MJ will HAVE to take the stand to refute it - and trust me, MJ has no intent of EVER taking the stand - it would be suicide for him to do so because he cannot then avoid the prosecutor's leading questions. No one else can do this for him because his prints are on the mag. I suppose he could have a servant testify that the mags. were kept under lock and key - but then how did the boy get access to it without MJ giving it to him. Finally, most peds show their victims some sort of porn to get them aroused and them they make their move.

Again, I just do not see how Jackson is going to explain this one away, esp. considering public sentiment for the most part has already convicted him and his actions have done NOTHING to stop that.

[dissention]

I agree - I wish it were stronger - and it may be that once all tests are run, etc. BUT - the reason I think it is daming is MJ will HAVE to take the stand to refute it - and trust me, MJ has no intent of EVER taking the stand - it would be suicide for him to do so because he cannot then avoid the prosecutor's leading questions. No one else can do this for him because his prints are on the mag. I suppose he could have a servant testify that the mags. were kept under lock and key - but then how did the boy get access to it without MJ giving it to him. Finally, most peds show their victims some sort of porn to get them aroused and them they make their move.

Again, I just do not see how Jackson is going to explain this one away, esp. considering public sentiment for the most part has already convicted him and his actions have done NOTHING to stop that.

I think it all depends on all of the evidence that the prosectuion has. As much as I'd like to see the sick bastard locked up, I have the feeling that the prosecution just doesn't have a heckuva lot to work with. I've gotten the feeling from day one that this whole thing was a scavenger hunt and just now they've found some potentially damning evidence. BUT - if this is all they really have, Jacko has absolutely nothing to worry about. It could be taken care of and done away with in the closing argument in the same manner that the two of us explained it away above.

So, while I do think he will be found guilty and should be found guilty, it shouldn't be on this ****ty evidence. :laugh:

On another note, I was watching CNN yesterday morning when this broke and the news alert they had was as if Osama had been captured. And the headline was so salacious and distasteful: "Jacko's Prints Found On Porn Mags." :lol:

[amber]

I feel like I saw on the news that they found pretty compelling evidence to do the original massive search. They had not been able to bring this to trial before, so I think they really found something fairly hot to be able to go ahead with the investigation, et. al.

[SuzeQuze]

I agree - I wish it were stronger - and it may be that once all tests are run, etc. BUT - the reason I think it is daming is MJ will HAVE to take the stand to refute it - and trust me, MJ has no intent of EVER taking the stand - it would be suicide for him to do so because he cannot then avoid the prosecutor's leading questions. No one else can do this for him because his prints are on the mag. I suppose he could have a servant testify that the mags. were kept under lock and key - but then how did the boy get access to it without MJ giving it to him. Finally, most peds show their victims some sort of porn to get them aroused and them they make their move.

Again, I just do not see how Jackson is going to explain this one away, esp. considering public sentiment for the most part has already convicted him and his actions have done NOTHING to stop that.

Yeah, taking the stand would be suicide for him because every time he opens his mouth he digs himself in deeper. Good point about molester's common use of porn which, hopefully, the prosecution will use in its arguments.

[SuzeQuze]

...

On another note, I was watching CNN yesterday morning when this broke and the news alert they had was as if Osama had been captured. And the headline was so salacious and distasteful: "Jacko's Prints Found On Porn Mags." :lol:

It scares me what passes as hard news these days. These types of alerts should be reserved for real news. On Faux I saw one of these when Ben and Jen broke up, I was like, um is that really news? Everyone saw it coming. It's celebrity nonsense and should be under "entertainment news". Blurring news and entertainment is very scary.

[estranged4life]

Not this kind of Child Molestation. I mean yeah this is bad, but this is like first class child molestation. The Child Molestors on the street who abduct and torture chilldren and molest them and occaisonally hurt and KILL them, those guys should burn.

turning 'em into a "Brigsford Charcoal Brisket" is too easy, I say we bring back the nice Christian-like "Impalement"...Hell, I would volunteer to be the new milliennium's "Vlad the Impaler" in that case :thumbsup:

Hurt a child, lose your life...Simple as that!

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

It scares me what passes as hard news these days. These types of alerts should be reserved for real news. On Faux I saw one of these when Ben and Jen broke up, I was like, um is that really news? Everyone saw it coming. It's celebrity nonsense and should be under "entertainment news". Blurring news and entertainment is very scary.

Money - pure and simple. This sells and it sells well. When the tide changes and the networks will as well :nod:

[GateandGarden]

Well, I guess I'm the only here who thinks there's a chance he's innocent. :sorry: I know the popular opinion with the public is that he's guilty, but I've gotten to the point where the consensus means absolutely nothing to me. The porn magazine evidence seems weak, as diss already explained. To believe beyond any shadow of a doubt that he did what he has been accused of, I have to have real proof. I'm thinking I may not ever see that, though.

Not that I don't think it's weird for a grown man and a boy to share a bed. But Jacko's done lots of things that I think to be weird, and I don't assume he's a criminal. On the other hand, I know y'all aren't assuming, since there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence and he certainly has a way of saying and doing things that don't help his case.

As for the comments earlier on in the thread about the severity of his crimes (if he has committed them), I have to say that I think he should be punished severely as well, but not as severely as someone who mercilessly tortured, molested, and murdered a child. (I'm thinking that should be obvious). I just don't agree with the assertion that he may have done the worst thing that one can do, because of the scenario I just mentioned. But I don't mean to downplay the harm in manipulating a child into trusting you and then betraying him or her in that way. As someone already said, that will follow a child around his or her entire life.

But am I the only who thinks it's very likely that there's something very wrong with this guy, mentally?

Hillary

[amber]

But am I the only who thinks it's very likely that there's something very wrong with this guy, mentally?

Hillary
No. I think they should've busted out an insanity defense. I mean, that guy is CRAZY. And, I think there is much more evidence then we are privy to, as intimated by the police who originally obtained warrant to search Jacko's ranch. You don't get a warrant like that, for someone that famous and rich, based on little or nothing, i tell you what. :wavey:

[estranged4life]

But am I the only who thinks it's very likely that there's something very wrong with this guy, mentally?

Hillary

he's definitely a sad pathetic & mentally messed up person...

Do I think he's guilty or innocent? Who cares...I am sick about hearing about him everyday on the news (Which nowadays is as entertaining as having yer wisdom teeth yanked out without anesthetic)

What next, Michael's camp says it was Bigfoot's hand print on the porn mag, Not the noseless wonders, that was sent down from JFK's U.F.O. that the FBI created to frame him to get the media's mind off of OBL & Iraq???

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

No. I think they should've busted out an insanity defense. I mean, that guy is CRAZY. And, I think there is much more evidence then we are privy to, as intimated by the police who originally obtained warrant to search Jacko's ranch. You don't get a warrant like that, for someone that famous and rich, based on little or nothing, i tell you what. :wavey:

For any insanity offense to work, it would have to be demonstrated by the defense that Jackson's mental problems prohibited him from being able to tell what is right and what is wrong or some other similar test. That will be very hard to prove in this case because of all of the deception Jackson has been involved with.

[BTFLCHLD]

13 months later the revelation of prints on a mag :confused:

I disagree in that MJ will be "forced" to take the stand to defend himself on this evidence...it can and most likely will be refuted by his lawyer and any number of consp theorists without testimony from MJ

For example, this scenario of how the prints surfaced:
Officer handing mag to def, "have you seen this?"
Officer handing mag to vict, "have you seen this?"
Of course... "they" are never this sloppy :rolleyes:

As always I will reserve my personal "verdict" until the trial and evidence is revealed.

As I typed earlier, IMO, anyone who is guilty of causing harm to a child, the punishment should be severe.

IMO, should he be found not guilty of these specific charges, by MJ's own admission of "sleeping" with children, that is enough to warrant some sort of stipulation (e.g. no association with children under 18.) So fin what if he has to go to bed without his milk and cookies! :shrug:

[amber]

For any insanity offense to work, it would have to be demonstrated by the defense that Jackson's mental problems prohibited him from being able to tell what is right and what is wrong or some other similar test. That will be very hard to prove in this case because of all of the deception Jackson has been involved with.
yeah, i figured that. I'm sure that wouldn't work (although, i think maybe his mental problems do prohibit that :shocked: ) but i do think he is very crazy. Great. I'm taking a break from writing my big law paper (with oral report, six o'clock tonight!) to talk about law... :laugh: :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

Money - pure and simple. This sells and it sells well. When the tide changes and the networks will as well :nod:

That's interesting because it makes me change the channel so as not to fill my head with drivel :shrug: I bet a lot of people are tired of it. The network news is already bad enough, now there's "too much" flu vaccine in some places, isn't that supposed to be good? What passes for news astounds me.

As companies keep doing things just for the money they are going to self-implode. There has to be a quality product being sold or it will eventually be rejected. The shocking headlines are no longer shocking. Maybe a thoughtful story would catch people's interest now, "Hey look, that's different."

[dissention]

Well, I guess I'm the only here who thinks there's a chance he's innocent. :sorry:

1. Instead of proving that the first boys allegations were "lies," he paid him off from anywhere between $15-$30 million. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of a crime that was baseless and couldn't be proven, I certainly wouldn't pony up five cents, let alone tens of millions.

2. The first boy to publicly accuse him of molestation knew of and described in great detail the marks on Jackson's genitals. When Jackson was stripped by police, the marks described by the boy were coroborrated.

3. Jackson's bedroom is rigged so that if anyone comes near it, doors lock and alarms go off.

4. A secret storage closet filled with unmarked videotapes was made public when one of Jackson's employees shot a video of the house and leaked it to the media. The closet and the tapes mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter.

5. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as children.

6. Some of his old business associates have come forward and claimed to have seen him slip alcohol to young boys.

7. Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around...

There's more where those came from. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

That's interesting because it makes me change the channel so as not to fill my head with drivel :shrug: I bet a lot of people are tired of it. The network news is already bad enough, now there's "too much" flu vaccine in some places, isn't that supposed to be good? What passes for news astounds me.

As companies keep doing things just for the money they are going to self-implode. There has to be a quality product being sold or it will eventually be rejected. The shocking headlines are no longer shocking. Maybe a thoughtful story would catch people's interest now, "Hey look, that's different."

I think the ratings support them. I think the people that get the J-Lo and Ben interview get the ratings boosts. I also think the networks know they do not have to take any risk by branching out into something new. They can recognize and follow trends almost immediately these days :shrug: Finally, I do think the main media does report the headline political news. I know they are lambasted for not reporting what many think is relevant in situations like the Iraq War, but they do report on the war and most of the stuff happening there. I mean no one buried the prosoner abuse story, etc. That all saw the light of day - granted not enough for some people and I am not about to get in that argument again :laugh: So, I think the media presents things like J'Lo, etc. because the majority of the people want to see it and I think the presentation of this does not significantly get in the way of presenting the major political, etc. news. I also think the advent of the 24hr. news channels gave them FAR more time to fill - but Liz and Ruchard certainly made headlines in the 60's WAY before the dawm of cable news networks :shrug:

Anyway - foor for thought!! :cool:

[amber]

1. Instead of proving that the first boys allegations were "lies," he paid him off from anywhere between $15-$30 million. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of a crime that was baseless and couldn't be proven, I certainly wouldn't pony up five cents, let alone tens of millions.

2. The first boy to publicly accuse him of molestation knew of and described in great detail the marks on Jackson's genitals. When Jackson was stripped by police, the marks described by the boy were coroborrated.

3. Jackson's bedroom is rigged so that if anyone comes near it, doors lock and alarms go off.

4. A secret storage closet filled with unmarked videotapes was made public when one of Jackson's employees shot a video of the house and leaked it to the media. The closet and the tapes mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter.

5. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as children.

6. Some of his old business associates have come forward and claimed to have seen him slip alcohol to young boys.

7. Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around...

There's more where those came from. :laugh:
Yipes! And there we have part of the masses of evidence i was referring to!

[dissention]

I think the ratings support them. I think the people that get the J-Lo and Ben interview get the ratings boosts. I also think the networks know they do not have to take any risk by branching out into something new. They can recognize and follow trends almost immediately these days :shrug: Finally, I do think the main media does report the headline political news. I know they are lambasted for not reporting what many think is relevant in situations like the Iraq War, but they do report on the war and most of the stuff happening there. I mean no one buried the prosoner abuse story, etc. That all saw the light of day - granted not enough for some people and I am not about to get in that argument again :laugh: So, I think the media presents things like J'Lo, etc. because the majority of the people want to see it and I think the presentation of this does not significantly get in the way of presenting the major political, etc. news. I also think the advent of the 24hr. news channels gave them FAR more time to fill - but Liz and Ruchard certainly made headlines in the 60's WAY before the dawm of cable news networks :shrug:

Anyway - foor for thought!! :cool:

That reminds me. :laugh:

I was watching TV Land's "100 Greatest Television Moments" while I was wrapping presents over the weekend and Leslie Stahl cracked my ass up (and I love Leslie Stahl). One of the moments was the "wardrobe malfunction" and she said "That's all the news talked about for days, for weeks. Nevermind that there's a war in Iraq that needs coverage." She said in such a deadpan, dry way that it reminded me of Bea Arthur. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Just to play devil's advocate :laugh:


1. Instead of proving that the first boys allegations were "lies," he paid him off from anywhere between $15-$30 million. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of a crime that was baseless and couldn't be proven, I certainly wouldn't pony up five cents, let alone tens of millions.

True - but lawsuits are settled everyday and back then, that $$$ was not that relevant to him - it would have been like most people paying $1,000 or so. Also, the legal fees for Jackson would easily have been $10 million and there is chance he may not have won due to disfavorable public opinion. So, this is not that relevant.

2. The first boy to publicly accuse him of molestation knew of and described in great detail the marks on Jackson's genitals. When Jackson was stripped by police, the marks described by the boy were coroborrated.

Anyone of Jackson's personal servants could have seen these markings and passsed them on for $$$$$$$. I mean much info. about celebrities is bought from their help. So, why should this be any different. Also, the kid could have spied on Jackson at the bequest of his parents in an attempt to export Jackson.

3. Jackson's bedroom is rigged so that if anyone comes near it, doors lock and alarms go off.

Many rich people have these types of panic rooms. This is not that out of the ordinary in their world even if it is to us.

4. A secret storage closet filled with unmarked videotapes was made public when one of Jackson's employees shot a video of the house and leaked it to the media. The closet and the tapes mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter.

Nothing illegal of of ped. nature has ever been proven to be on those tapes. They could have been work product and he moved them and the closet after he discovered the sotrage place had been disposed of. Also, if he had tapes of all of these children (and according to that there were a bunch of tapes) - wouldn't at least ONE of them be coming forward :shrug: None have. That is strange :shrug:
5. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as children.

6. Some of his old business associates have come forward and claimed to have seen him slip alcohol to young boys.

Perhaps true - but none of that has been proven. AND - weren't some of these people disgruntaled :shrug: Again, where are these kids? Certainly if it happened in the quantity that suggests, at least one of them would be coming forward :shrug:

7. Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around...

That is not exactly true. He has little girls and boys over there based on the pics. I have seen.

Thus, I think other than the genetalia markings, the rest are of no damning nature. The fingerprints on the porn are far more damning.

In any event and no matter the evidence, he will be convicted without a doubt in my mind based on what I have seen.

[dissention]

That is not exactly true. He has little girls and boys over there based on the pics. I have seen.

Show me a girl who goes over to the Neverland Ranch and shares his bed and I will show you the six breasts that jut out of my back. :wavey:

As for the rest, need I point no further than Scott Peterson. It isn't that anything has to be proven, it's all of it put together. With all of it put together side by side, it's simply impossible to refute it all and still have credibility. And that will be Jacko's downfall, especially considering that he has zero credibility to begin with.

[amber]

Hmmm, those were more like "Phil, prince of heck" arguments compared to the original arguments. But, it could well be enough of a defense. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Show me a girl who goes over to the Neverland Ranch and shares his bed and I will show you the six breasts that jut out of my back. :wavey:

As for the rest, need I point no further than Scott Peterson. It isn't that anything has to be proven, it's all of it put together. With all of it put together side by side, it's simply impossible to refute it all and still have credibility. And that will be Jacko's downfall, especially considering that he has zero credibility to begin with.

Sorry - I thought your statement "Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around..." meant at parties and things like that. As for spending the night, I do not know the answer to that. Where are you getting your info. that it is only little boys?

As for the rest, I agree and sadly so for the most part because I think the state has to make its case with things other than :"common" panic rooms, the words of disgruntled people, and other circum. evidence.

[strandinthewind]

Show me a girl who goes over to the Neverland Ranch and shares his bed and I will show you the six breasts that jut out of my back. :wavey:

Will you be needing a special bra :laugh: :wavey:


Mankiewicz: "Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?"

Wegner: "To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855/

Here is another:

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=2017

[gldstwmn]

Also, it will be interesting to see what the actual content of the mag. is.

I believe I read in a reputable source (although I can't remember now) that it was Barely Legal.

[gldstwmn]

Again, I just do not see how Jackson is going to explain this one away, esp. considering public sentiment for the most part has already convicted him and his actions have done NOTHING to stop that.

They were already trying to explain it away by saying the child and family "ran wild" and had "free roam" of the house whne Jackson was away. I don't believe that for a second.

[amber]

I believe I read in a reputable source (although I can't remember now) that it was Barely Legal.
Wait, that doesn't make sense with his obvious predilictions... :confused: :confused:

[strandinthewind]

Wait, that doesn't make sense with his obvious predilictions... :confused: :confused:

Yes it does. Jackson may be a homosexual, but that does not mean his victims were. They would be turned off by a man's mag. Also, if Jackson were a homosexual, that is not dispositive of his pedophilia. When shown pics of pre pubescent boys and girls, almost all peds. become aroused by both. They are attracted to the pre pubescent youth and the ability to control them. That is different from a homosexual and heterosexual.

[GateandGarden]

Yes it does. Jackson may be a homosexual, but that does not mean his victims were. They would be turned off by a man's mag. Also, if Jackson were a homosexual, that is not dispositive of his pedophilia. When shown pics of pre pubescent boys and girls, almost all peds. become aroused by both. They are attracted to the pre pubescent youth and the ability to control them. That is different from a homosexual and heterosexual.So, that implies that pedophilia is a sexual orientation all its own, and doesn't that invalidate the claims made by the religious right that a large percentage of pedophiles are homosexual men, since, according to what you've said, one can't be both?

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

So, that implies that pedophilia is a sexual orientation all its own, and doesn't that invalidate the claims made by the religious right that a large percentage of pedophiles are homosexual men, since, according to what you've said, one can't be both?

Hillary


Ped. is its own sexuality - Peds. are attracted to the youth and gender really is irrelevant. That most reported cases are from homosexuals doing Ped. activity is disarming though - but men touching prepubescent girls happens all of the time as well and, as evidenced below, more common than men touching little boys. And - yes, you can be a homosexual and a Ped. just like you can be a heterosexual and a Ped. Many Peds. lead normal hetero or homosexual lives and commit Ped. acts on the side.

Here is some info (emphasis supplied):

Paraphilias

Paraphilias are attractions that in extreme forms are socially unacceptable deviations from the traditionally held norms of sexual relationships and attractions.

The key features of a paraphilia include repetitive, intense, sexually arousing fantasies or behaviors that usually involve objects (for example, shoes, underwear, leather or rubber products), the infliction of suffering or pain on oneself or one's partner, or having sex with nonconsenting people (for example, with children, with helpless people, or in rape situations). Once these arousal patterns are established, usually in late childhood or near puberty, they are often lifelong.

Some degree of variety is very common in healthy adult sexual relationships and fantasies. When people mutually agree to engage in them, noninjurious sexual behaviors of an unusual nature may be an intrinsic part of a loving and caring relationship. When taken to the extreme, however, such sexual behaviors are paraphilias, psychosexual disorders that seriously impair the capacity for affectionate, reciprocal sexual activity. Partners of people with a paraphilia may feel like an object or as if they are unimportant or unnecessary in the sexual relationship.

Paraphilias may take the form of fetishism, transvestic fetishism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, masochism, or sadism, among others. Most people with paraphilias are men, and many have more than one type of paraphilia.

Fetishism

In fetishism, sexual activity makes use of physical objects (the fetish), sometimes in preference to contact with humans. People with fetishes may become sexually stimulated and gratified by wearing another person's undergarments, wearing rubber or leather, or holding, rubbing, or smelling objects, such as high-heeled shoes. People with this disorder may not be able to function sexually without their fetish.

Transvestic Fetishism

In transvestic fetishism, a man prefers to wear women's clothing, or, far less commonly, a woman prefers to wear men's clothing (cross-dressing). In neither case, however, does the person wish to change his or her sex, as transsexuals do. Cross-dressing is not always considered a mental health disorder and may not adversely affect a couple's sexual relationship.

Transvestic fetishism is a disorder only if it causes distress, results in impairment of some type, or involves "daredevil" behavior likely to lead to injury, loss of a job, or imprisonment. Transvestites also cross-dress for reasons other than sexual stimulation, for example, to reduce anxiety, to relax, or, in the case of male transvestites, to experiment with the feminine side of their otherwise male personalities.

Pedophilia

Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with young children. In Western societies, pedophilia is defined as sexual fantasy about or sexual relations with a child younger than 13 by a person 16 or older. Some pedophiles are attracted only to children, often of a specific age range or developmental stage, whereas others are attracted to both children and adults.

Although state laws vary, the law generally considers a person older than 18 to be committing statutory rape if the victim is 16 or younger. Statutory rape cases often do not meet the definition of pedophilia, highlighting the somewhat arbitrary nature of selecting a specific age cutoff point in a medical or legal definition.

Pedophilia is much more common among men than among women. Both boys and girls can be victims, although more reported cases involve girls. Pedophiles may focus only on children within their families (incest), or they may prey on children in the community. Force or coercion may be used to engage children sexually, and threats may be invoked to prevent disclosure by the victim.

Pedophilia can be treated with psychotherapy and drugs that alter the sex drive, with varying results. Such treatment may be sought voluntarily or only after criminal apprehension and legal action. Incarceration, even long-term, does not change pedophilic desires or fantasies.

Exhibitionism

In exhibitionism, a person (usually male) exposes his genitals to unsuspecting strangers and becomes sexually excited when doing so. Further sexual contact is almost never sought, so exhibitionists rarely commit rape. Most exhibitionists are younger than 40 and may or may not be married. Exposure of genitals to unsuspecting strangers for sexual excitement is rare among women. Provocative dressing by women is increasingly accepted by society as normal. In addition, social venues in which women can expose themselves are not uncommon, and such behavior may not constitute a mental health disorder.

Voyeurism

In voyeurism, a person becomes sexually aroused by watching someone who is disrobing, naked, or engaged in sexual activity. It is the act of observing (peeping) that is arousing, not sexual activity with the observed person. Some degree of voyeurism is particularly common, more among boys and men but increasingly among women. Society often regards mild forms of this behavior as normal. As a disorder, voyeurism is much more common among men; it may become the preferred method of sexual activity and consume countless hours of watching. The amount and variety of sexually explicit materials and shows available to men and women have increased significantly, but engaging in these activities lacks the element of secret observation that is the hallmark of voyeurism. The Internet has made voyeurism easier to engage in without the neighborhood prowling traditionally associated with this behavior.

Sexual Masochism and Sadism

Sexual masochism involves acts in which a person derives sexual excitement from being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise abused. Sexual sadism involves acts in which a person derives sexual pleasure from inflicting physical or psychologic suffering on another person. Some people act out their sadistic urges with a consenting partner (who may have sexual masochism); rarely, some act them out on nonconsenting victims. Fantasies of total control and dominance are often important, and the sadist may bind and gag the partner in elaborate ways.

Some amount of sadism and masochism is commonly play-acted in healthy sexual relationships, and mutually compatible partners often seek one another out. For example, the use of silk handkerchiefs for simulated bondage and mild spanking during sexual activity are common practices between consenting partners and are not considered sadomasochistic.

In contrast, the disorder of sexual masochism or of sexual sadism takes these acts to an extreme and can result in severe bodily or psychologic harm and even death. For example, masochistic sexual activity may involve asphyxiophilia, whereby the person is partially choked or strangled (either by a partner or by the self-application of a noose around the neck). A temporary decrease in oxygen to the brain at the point of orgasm is sought as an enhancement to sexual release, but the practice may accidentally result in death.

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_merckmanual_frameset.jspzQzpgzEzhttpzCzzSzzSzwwwzPzmerckzPzcomzSzmmhezSzsec07zSzch104zSzch104czP zhtml

Here is another site:

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

[GateandGarden]

Thanks for all that info., Jason.

That most reported cases are from homosexuals doing Ped. activity is disarming though - but men touching prepubescent girls happens all of the time as well and, as evidenced below, more common than men touching little boys.Why do you suppose it is that so many of the reported cases of such acts involve gay men and boys? I've seen websites where statistical data was used to attempt to prove that most gay men are pedophiles because there are so few gay men to begin with (relative to heterosexuals) and so many cases of gay men molesting young boys.

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for all that info., Jason.

Why do you suppose it is that so many of the reported cases of such acts involve gay men and boys? I've seen websites where statistical data was used to attempt to prove that most gay men are pedophiles because there are so few gay men to begin with (relative to heterosexuals) and so many cases of gay men molesting young boys.

Hillary

Easy - it is easier to hate fags :shrug: Sad - very true.

[amber]

Yes it does. Jackson may be a homosexual, but that does not mean his victims were. They would be turned off by a man's mag. Also, if Jackson were a homosexual, that is not dispositive of his pedophilia. When shown pics of pre pubescent boys and girls, almost all peds. become aroused by both. They are attracted to the pre pubescent youth and the ability to control them. That is different from a homosexual and heterosexual.
I didn't think about the mag being for someone else.
Jackson likes boys better
thanks for the homo/hetero lesson :thumbsup:

[GateandGarden]

Easy - it is easier to hate fags :shrug: Sad - very true.Do you think the media purposefully reports more cases of men sexually abusing boys to mislead the public?

Hillary

[amber]

I think they report when girls are kidnapped and molested quite a bit. I don't see that many reports of boys, except for when someone from the catholic church does it. :shrug: But almost every girl i've ever met has been molested, so that's a lot of reporting. :distress: (glad i escaped that particular fate) :)

[dissention]

Will you be needing a special bra :laugh: :wavey:


Mankiewicz: "Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?"

Wegner: "To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855/

Here is another:

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=2017

One female. :laugh:

I guess he knew after that night that girls were not for him. ;)

[strandinthewind]

One female. :laugh:

I guess he knew after that night that girls were not for him. ;)

Well, no - it was at least two - that is unless you do not count Nicole Ritchie was a female :laugh: :wavey:

[sparky]

So, that implies that pedophilia is a sexual orientation all its own, and doesn't that invalidate the claims made by the religious right that a large percentage of pedophiles are homosexual men, since, according to what you've said, one can't be both?

Hillary


EVERYTHING invalidates this claim. It has been and always will be an attempt by our own little Taliban to associate homos with the most depraved behavior possible.

[strandinthewind]

Do you think the media purposefully reports more cases of men sexually abusing boys to mislead the public?

Hillary

Yes, I so in the sense that they know that the story of a man touching a boy will sell more because people in general think gay people are dirty and more prone to this type of activity than straight people even though the medical sources cited above indicate otherwise. Such is the state of bigotry in the U.S.

[strandinthewind]

EVERYTHING invalidates this claim. It has been and always will be an attempt by our own little Taliban to associate homos with the most depraved behavior possible.

Yep - and the public inherently accepts it as a general rule. Sad - very true.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Yep - and the public inherently accepts it as a general rule. Sad - very true.


Pedophilia is recognized by the DSM-IV as a mental health disorder of behavioral disinhibitions. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it has been ruled out as such by the DSM-IV. I dunno why people relate the two. I do hear a lot more about girls being molested, but they seem to blow up the info when boys are in the situation.

[GateandGarden]

Pedophilia is recognized by the DSM-IV as a mental health disorder of behavioral disinhibitions. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it has been ruled out as such by the DSM-IV.And I've talked to idiots who say it never should've been taken out of the DSM-IV. :mad:

Hillary

[amber]

Yes, I so in the sense that they know that the story of a man touching a boy will sell more because people in general think gay people are dirty and more prone to this type of activity than straight people even though the medical sources cited above indicate otherwise. Such is the state of bigotry in the U.S.
Um, i hate to bust up the party, but i don't hear more stories of men touching boys :shrug: Mainly i heard about it when the huge thing with the catholic church broke (which makes sense) and Michael Jackson. I hear quite a few stories about girls being kidnapped, molested, etc. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Um, i hate to bust up the party, but i don't hear more stories of men touching boys :shrug: Mainly i heard about it when the huge thing with the catholic church broke (which makes sense) and Michael Jackson. I hear quite a few stories about girls being kidnapped, molested, etc. :shrug:

I have no idea what you have heard, but the media reports or reported mostly only the priests touching little boys. Certainly, the Priests touched little girls, but those seemed to go by the wayside when compared to the boys. Also, the public accepts as a general rule that all gay men want to touch little boys and really cannot help themsleves - the same cannot be said for heterosexual men. Put it this way, most straught people recoil (albeit to differing degrees) when they hear that a gay guy is teaching middle school. They do not do so when they assume the guy is straight. Sad - very true :shrug:

Note - I am not saying that all people think this way. I am just saying that the majority of people in America seem to think gay people are okay until they have to have gay people around their kids (thank the Catholic Church for that on IMO) or give gay people any rights that make them equivalent to straight people.

[amber]

I have no idea what you have heard, but the media reports or reported mostly only the priests touching little boys. Certainly, the Priests touched little girls, but those seemed to go by the wayside when compared to the boys. Also, the public accepts as a general rule that all gay men want to touch little boys and really cannot help themsleves - the same cannot be said for heterosexual men. Put it this way, most straught people recoil (albeit to differing degrees) when they hear that a gay guy is teaching middle school. They do not do so when they assume the guy is straight. Sad - very true :shrug:

Note - I am not saying that all people think this way. I am just saying that the majority of people in America seem to think gay people are okay until they have to have gay people around their kids (thank the Catholic Church for that on IMO) or give gay people any rights that make them equivalent to straight people.
Actually, I think it was because there were more men molested. more men brought suits against the priests. Relatively few girls have brought suits, or reported molestation. There have been suits from women about priests taking advantage of them, but not as little girls, as women. :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

Just because a man is molesting a little boy - that does not make him homosexual - there are many cases of hetero men molesting boys etc...

In fact - the profile of a pedophile - many of them are straight, religious and know their victim :nod:

Trying to tie homosexuality with pedophilia is an underhanded and misleading tool of the religious right...in real news reports about the priests who abused children (believe me - it may not have been widely publicized but many girls are also molested by priests...) were not automatically labeled as gay...:shrug: - it's not a gay/straight issue - it's something all on its own.

[DrummerDeanna]

Actually, I think it was because there were more men molested. more men brought suits against the priests. Relatively few girls have brought suits, or reported molestation. There have been suits from women about priests taking advantage of them, but not as little girls, as women. :shrug:

I don't know about modern day reports and such - but I know many grown women who, as children, were molested by priests....

It's long been a problem that is only recently come into the limelight...

why? Well - in the past kids were seen/not heard....kids who dared say a priest did something to them were often not believed it was a case of "your word against mine" and so it was a harsh environment that very much favored the vicimizer rather than the victim - in today's world however a victim has more rights, more support and people generally take these things very seriously...so a lot has changed....and continues to...

[skcin]

Pedophilia is recognized by the DSM-IV as a mental health disorder of behavioral disinhibitions. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it has been ruled out as such by the DSM-IV. I dunno why people relate the two. I do hear a lot more about girls being molested, but they seem to blow up the info when boys are in the situation.

You are correct, Nurse Curtis. I think it's just easier for ignorant people to link the 2 instead of trying to free their closed minds. :distress: It's almost more...accepted isn't really the word I want to use...less offensive (?) to people if it's a man molesting a girl than a boy. More scandalous if it's a boy, makes a better story for the media I suppose :mad:

Anyway...I worked on an adolescent psych unit for over 4 years. We had a few kids, boys and girls (between the ages of 14 - 22) who were "sexual predators." It is very sad and very scary that these kids really can't be helped. Not to say we didn't try, but it's much more difficult than treating depression, or bipolar diorder or something like that. Those disorders, in most cases, can be treated successfully with meds & therapy. Granted, it doesn't always work 100%, and adjustments of meds are frequent, but at least there's some hope.

With pedophiles, you can try to use counseling/therapy all you want. It doesn't matter. They KNOW that it is wrong, most of them don't WANT to do it but they literally cannot control their urges. This illness makes it pretty much impossible. They will continue to violate kids until they are locked up or chemically castrated.

We had a girl that was horrifically abused until about age 8 or 9. She was also mildly developmentally disabled. She started abusing other kids so she was sent to us. We tried all kinds of meds on her to decrease her sex drive, along with counseling. Didn't do a damn thing - as she got older, she got worse. She had to leave the locked unit (they can stay until they're 21) and nobody else would accept her (she was "too sick" for a group home for the developmentally disabled, but "not sick enough" for the psych center.) She eventually went to a group home, which is not a locked unit. She has priveleges & is able to go out on her own. I am waiting to see her name in the paper telling me she ruined another kids life & gotten arrested. :distress:

Some pedophiles do want to stop. These are the people who completely shut themselves away from society so they are never near a child, or they make sure they get caught molesting so that they can be locked up & kept away from kids - but then what happens when they're released? A few opt for hormonal therapy, which basically eliminates ALL sexual function (no orgasms, no erection, no sexual feelings AT ALL) but it's voluntary & many people stop taking the hormones - would you want to take these meds if it meant never having a sexual feeling ever again? And if you knew that all you had to do was stop taking them to get aroused? Come on, unless it's court ordered (which I don't think it can be - I may be wrong about that) it ain't gonna work.

It was extremely difficult to work with these kids every day & develop a theraputic relationship with them & then find out their history. Nice kids, seemingly just like everyone else, love to go to the movies & play video games & play sports.....and they are severely mentally ill with no real hope in site. Every single kid I worked with was abused when they were young children, so were they born with the illness? Did their abuser cause it? Was there always something wrong, but the abuse made it worse? Who the hell knows? It makes me very upset to see what terrible things can happen to a person and know there's nothing I can do about it. They do not want to be this way. I'm not trying to drum up any sympathy here, not by any means. I guess I just want everyone to know the other side. Yes, they are sick, quite literally. Monsters? Well, I guess monsters can't help being monsters either. They really need to be locked up forever to be kept safe from themselves and others, IMO.

That being said, I don't know if Mike's guilty for sure, but I guess I don't know if OJ's guilty for sure either. :laugh: I just know there's been weird sh*t going on at Neverland & I sure as hell wouldn't let my kid go there.

Nurse Paula :angel:

[strandinthewind]

Just because a man is molesting a little boy - that does not make him homosexual - there are many cases of hetero men molesting boys etc...

In fact - the profile of a pedophile - many of them are straight, religious and know their victim :nod:

Trying to tie homosexuality with pedophilia is an underhanded and misleading tool of the religious right...in real news reports about the priests who abused children (believe me - it may not have been widely publicized but many girls are also molested by priests...) were not automatically labeled as gay...:shrug: - it's not a gay/straight issue - it's something all on its own.

Exactly - and the Catholic Church has been doing it because they know people already hate gay men. That is horrendous of them :mad:

[amber]

Exactly - and the Catholic Church has been doing it because they know people already hate gay men. That is horrendous of them :mad:
So you're saying the catholic church is promoting the idea that all those priests accused of molestation are gay, because they know people already hate gay men. Does that mean they're trying to make people hate the priests in their own religion? Just trying to get a clear idea of what you're saying... :confused: as it compares to Paula's point - I thought she said the priests were not automatically labeled as gay. :confused:

[madformac]

So you're saying the catholic church is promoting the idea that all those priests accused of molestation are gay, because they know people already hate gay men. Does that mean they're trying to make people hate the priests in their own religion? Just trying to get a clear idea of what you're saying... :confused: as it compares to Paula's point - I thought she said the priests were not automatically labeled as gay. :confused:

I think you are going to get child molesters in pretty much any type of work. I think it's covered more in the media when it's celebrities, priests, policemen, judges and teachers because somehow the general public believe they should be beyond this type of crime which to me is a bizarre idea because the crime is the same whoever they are..

I think it's a smart move for the catholic church to promote the idea that child molesting priests are all gay because the general uneducated American public will have an easier time believing it rather than trying to swallow the idea that actually, child molesting priests are mentally ill people of either sexuality.. I really do think there is a large section of society that believe anybody gay is gay because they are maybe mentally unwell and they can be "cured" :rolleyes: , so by that assumption they can then link child molestation to the same concept... It's a genius idea because there are so many uneducated and uninformed people in the world, many of them brainwashed by their chosen religon, that they will believe this bull****..

Personally I have no time for religons. They are governed by a minority of narrowminded egocentrics, tripping on controlling the masses with what they say. This is just another classic example of it in action.. :wavey:

[amber]

Nice post. I was trying to find out if the catholic religion was actually promoting that.(that the boy molesting priests were gay) I didn't hear about that. :confused:

[DrummerDeanna]

I
I think it's a smart move for the catholic church to promote the idea that child molesting priests are all gay because the general uneducated American public will have an easier time believing it rather than trying to swallow the idea that actually, child molesting priests are mentally ill people of either sexuality.. I really do think there is a large section of society that believe anybody gay is gay because they are maybe mentally unwell and they can be "cured" :rolleyes: , so by that assumption they can then link child molestation to the same concept... It's a genius idea because there are so many uneducated and uninformed people in the world, many of them brainwashed by their chosen religon, that they will believe this bull****..




Okay -but the Catholic Church isn't labeling these abusing priests as gay! At least not in any news or other story I've seen - maybe I'm missing something here.

I am Catholic - and I've NEVEr in my life heard anyone trying to scapegoat these priests as saying they're gay...:shrug:

[madformac]

Okay -but the Catholic Church isn't labeling these abusing priests as gay! At least not in any news or other story I've seen - maybe I'm missing something here.

I am Catholic - and I've NEVEr in my life heard anyone trying to scapegoat these priests as saying they're gay...:shrug:

They can't come out and say it publicly because they will get their asses sued off. I think it's more subtle... The odd hint, a few carefully chosen words in the right ears.. Rumour spreads and soon the masses get a misguided view of things.

As far as sexual abuse is concerned in itself you do hear a lot of stories regarding priests lately, but then again, I'm sure this sort thing has gone on for many years.. In years gone by, victims and the families of victims made sure it was kept quiet for the idea it would bring shame on the family if people knew. Now, thankfully, it's not deemed a taboo issue anymore and people are coming forward.

[amber]

Okay -but the Catholic Church isn't labeling these abusing priests as gay! At least not in any news or other story I've seen - maybe I'm missing something here.

I am Catholic - and I've NEVEr in my life heard anyone trying to scapegoat these priests as saying they're gay...:shrug:
Yeah, i hadn't heard that either, but i believe Strand said it on the previous page... :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

It's almost more...accepted isn't really the word I want to use...less offensive (?) to people if it's a man molesting a girl than a boy. More scandalous if it's a boy, makes a better story for the media I suppose :mad:

At its essence, it's another case of sexism. Despite decades of advancement in woman's rights, females are still considered by many to be "the weaker sex."
Women, under the prevailing notion, are softer, more vulnerable, more timid, etc. They are not sexual aggressors and they're not "strong."

So, for people who live their lives with this outdated notion somewhere in the back of their minds, it's nothing shocking to think of a female in the role of victim.
However, it IS shocking to them to think of a male being victimized. Males are supposed to be aggressive, in control, powerful, and then some.

Girls are sensitive, while boys don't cry. Males initiate sex -- females do not.

This is one of the biggest reasons it seems to be a more scandalous story if a young male is sexually abused.

[madformac]

At its essence, it's another case of sexism. Despite decades of advancement in woman's rights, females are still considered by many to be "the weaker sex."
Women, under the prevailing notion, are softer, more vulnerable, more timid, etc. They are not sexual aggressors and they're not "strong."

So, for people who live their lives with this outdated notion somewhere in the back of their minds, it's nothing shocking to think of a female in the role of victim.
However, it IS shocking to them to think of a male being victimized. Males are supposed to be aggressive, in control, powerful, and then some.

Girls are sensitive, while boys don't cry. Males initiate sex -- females do not.

This is one of the biggest reasons it seems to be a more scandalous story if a young male is sexually abused.

Perfectly written post dude. :cool: :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Okay -but the Catholic Church isn't labeling these abusing priests as gay! At least not in any news or other story I've seen - maybe I'm missing something here.

I am Catholic - and I've NEVEr in my life heard anyone trying to scapegoat these priests as saying they're gay...:shrug:

There has been some scapegoating, most definitely. Here's an example. (Though, of course, William Donohue is an extremist nutjob....)


'South Park' episode upsets Catholic civil rights group


The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the US is upset by a "South Park" episode poking fun at the sex abuse scandal plaguing the Catholic Church and has issued a statement about its displeasure.

The statement, by League President William Donohue, was issued on 2 July after he viewed promos for the episode, according to the league's Web site; the "South Park" episode aired the following day.

The league, according to network officials, is upset because the episode portrays priests as pedophiles instead of homosexuals, not because "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker took on the issue.

In the statement, Donohue writes: "The scandal in the Church is not about priests having sex with prepubescent boys. It is about priests having sex with postpubescent young men. The former is called pedophilia and the latter is called homosexuality.

"If Stone and Parker really had guts, they would do a show on gay priests. But, of course, like so many other intellectually dishonest elites in our society, they will go to any length to protect homosexuals."

[Johnny Stew]

Here's another article related to the Catholic League's outrage at that 'South Park' episode, and the reason for their anger. The article also further illustrates the Catholic League's opinion on homosexuals....

Catholic Church Peeved By 'South Park'

Predictably, the Catholic Church is not amused by the "South Park" episode that poked fun at the current sex scandals plaguing the religious institution. Not so obvious, is the reason why they are so upset.
It's not because show creator Matt Stone and Trey Parker point out the hypocrisy of the very place where people are supposed to go for sanctuary has been, for many, a source of even more horrific problems. Or, that even though church higher-ups kept shuffling around abusive priests rather than either turning them in or, at the very least, keeping them away from parishoners. No, it's because "South Park" portrays the priests as pedophiles rather than homosexuals.

In a statement released about the episode, Catholic League President William Donohue says, "The scandal in the Church is not about priests having sex with prepubescent boys. It is about priests having sex with postpubescent young men. The former is called pedophilia and the latter is called homosexuality."

"If Stone and Parker really had guts, they would do a show on gay priests. But, of course, like so many other intellectually dishonest elites in our society, they will go to any length to protect homosexuals."

Comedy Central, the network that airs "South Park" photocopied Donohue's statement and provided it to the nation's TV critics Friday, July 12 during their Summer Press Tour presentation.

Donohue does not address the assertions that many of the priests accused of sexual misconduct were not actually homosexual, or any of the charges about abuse of power being currently leveled against the church. However, he does cite a Washington Post survey that said out of 60,000 priests surveyed less than 1.5 percent had been involved in sexual misconduct with minors -- or admitted to it.

In conclusion, Donohue asserts that the "2 percent of our society which is homosexual accounts for over half the AIDS cases in this country," ignoring the actual estimate that 10 percent of people are homosexual and the statistics that the highest rising AIDS demographics are taking place between heterosexual men and women in the African-American communities.

"If the statistic on priests merits an episode on 'South Park,' it is fair to ask why the figures on gays and AIDS don't merit a whole season of fun?" asks Donohue.

[amber]

There has been some scapegoating, most definitely. Here's an example. (Though, of course, William Donohue is an extremist nutjob....)


'South Park' episode upsets Catholic civil rights group


The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the US is upset by a "South Park" episode poking fun at the sex abuse scandal plaguing the Catholic Church and has issued a statement about its displeasure.

The statement, by League President William Donohue, was issued on 2 July after he viewed promos for the episode, according to the league's Web site; the "South Park" episode aired the following day.

The league, according to network officials, is upset because the episode portrays priests as pedophiles instead of homosexuals, not because "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker took on the issue.

In the statement, Donohue writes: "The scandal in the Church is not about priests having sex with prepubescent boys. It is about priests having sex with postpubescent young men. The former is called pedophilia and the latter is called homosexuality.

"If Stone and Parker really had guts, they would do a show on gay priests. But, of course, like so many other intellectually dishonest elites in our society, they will go to any length to protect homosexuals."
Whoa! Well, there's at least one who is trying to pass it off as "homosexuality"! Yuck, that guy is a retard. No offense to retards...

[DrummerDeanna]

Yuck - what horrid articles....crazy - that's the first I've seen of someone trying to scapegoat the scandal....

Though - I must also admit the church I've been attending for the last 10 or so years is very progressive and liberal in the Catholic eye - though it is a Catholic church...so haha..that may have something to do with it...

[GateandGarden]

"If the statistic on priests merits an episode on 'South Park,' it is fair to ask why the figures on gays and AIDS don't merit a whole season of fun?" asks Donohue.Aw man. That's the worst part. :mad: :rolleyes:

This is the first I've heard of this Donohue guy. Man is he an idiot.

Hillary

[GypsySorcerer]

I attend a Catholic church, but what is this Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights? :shrug:

[wondergirl9847]

Why aren't priests allowed to get married? They need an outlet like any other person and it seems that if the Catholic Church could change that rule, things might be better. I'm not Catholic, and I'm curious as to why this has never been addressed.

[DrummerDeanna]

I attend a Catholic church, but what is this Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights? :shrug:

Right - I've never heard of them either :shrug:

[GypsySorcerer]

Why aren't priests allowed to get married? They need an outlet like any other person and it seems that if the Catholic Church could change that rule, things might be better. I'm not Catholic, and I'm curious as to why this has never been addressed.


They believe in Paul's call for celibacy among the faithful. Of course, Paul didn't demand people not get married, but he encouraged followers to remain single.

EDIT: I disagree with the CC's teaching on this one (among other things) but I don't link celibacy with pedophilia.

[GateandGarden]

Why aren't priests allowed to get married? They need an outlet like any other person and it seems that if the Catholic Church could change that rule, things might be better. I'm not Catholic, and I'm curious as to why this has never been addressed.Well, it was addressed long ago, back when Martin Luther started the Protestant religion--he had many problems with the Catholic Church, and the fact that priests couldn't marry was one of them. And I would guess that's why Protestant religions don't hold that belief to this day. As for the modern Catholic Church, I'm guessing they're just still behind the times, because you would think this would have been changed by now. But this is an institution that was just recently willing to admit that Galileo was right.

(Sorry for stating the obvious a little too much there).

Hillary

[skcin]

At its essence, it's another case of sexism. Despite decades of advancement in woman's rights, females are still considered by many to be "the weaker sex."
Women, under the prevailing notion, are softer, more vulnerable, more timid, etc. They are not sexual aggressors and they're not "strong."

So, for people who live their lives with this outdated notion somewhere in the back of their minds, it's nothing shocking to think of a female in the role of victim.
However, it IS shocking to them to think of a male being victimized. Males are supposed to be aggressive, in control, powerful, and then some.

Girls are sensitive, while boys don't cry. Males initiate sex -- females do not.

This is one of the biggest reasons it seems to be a more scandalous story if a young male is sexually abused.

Yes - that's what I was trying to say in the first part of my post! Thanks for making more sense, lol.

Paula

PS - As a side note, 2 of the patients we had that were the worst pedophiles happened to be girls. One was a 14 year old girl "in a relationship" with a 37 year old woman. Man, did she get messed up. The woman did go to jail for a couple years for statutory, but I believe they stayed in contact (although it wasn't legally allowed) & planned to resume their "thing" when she got out.

The other girl was sexually abused for several years by friends, family, men, women, whoever (I think the parents used to "sell her" for dope if I recall.) She ended up a sociopathic pedophile, very scary chick. She would ask for hugs (which in general was not really done, but if one of the kids was having a bad day, we'd hug them if they asked for one) but we NEVER cold hug her cuz she would literally get aroused. It's a shame that she can't have any sort of affection without sexualizing it.

[wondergirl9847]

Thank you for the explanations. :thumbsup:

[GateandGarden]

They believe in Paul's call for celibacy among the faithful. Of course, Paul didn't demand people not get married, but he encouraged followers to remain single.

EDIT: I disagree with the CC's teaching on this one (among other things) but I don't link celibacy with pedophilia.It seems that using that logic, the Church would encourage celibacy for all Catholics, not just leaders in the Church. :shrug:

Hillary

[skcin]

EDIT: I disagree with the CC's teaching on this one (among other things) but I don't link celibacy with pedophilia.

Me neither. I think if there is an actual increased incidence, it may be because the men have had these feelings since adolescence & maybe they thought becoming a priest would "cure" it? Just throwing it out there. :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

They believe in Paul's call for celibacy among the faithful. Of course, Paul didn't demand people not get married, but he encouraged followers to remain single.

EDIT: I disagree with the CC's teaching on this one (among other things) but I don't link celibacy with pedophilia.


Yeah - I also disagree with that part of Catholicism...I, myself, think that priests should be allowed to marry - and further I believe women should be able to be priests!!! Either way - I also don't associate that with pedophilia...but it's one of the ways that, yes, the Catholic Church is still a behind the times.

[GateandGarden]

She would ask for hugs (which in general was not really done, but if one of the kids was having a bad day, we'd hug them if they asked for one) but we NEVER cold hug her cuz she would literally get aroused. It's a shame that she can't have any sort of affection without sexualizing it.Oh gosh. I just had to say that that's so sad. :(

Hillary

[DrummerDeanna]

Me neither. I think if there is an actual increased incidence, it may be because the men have had these feelings since adolescence & maybe they thought becoming a priest would "cure" it? Just throwing it out there. :shrug:


That is one possibility - that oddly also works for the homosexuality thing -well not really the same but still...

The official Catholic teaching is it's okay to be gay - but it's not okay to act on being gay :rolleyes: Okay - well that presents quite a nasty situation for a gay devout Catholic - I have a friend who felt he had NO other option than to become a priest....so he's a priest...so interestingly there are a high number of gay priests....still...I don't think that and the pedophilia thing are hand in hand at all...

[GypsySorcerer]

Yeah - I also disagree with that part of Catholicism...I, myself, think that priests should be allowed to marry - and further I believe women should be able to be priests!!! Either way - I also don't associate that with pedophilia...but it's one of the ways that, yes, the Catholic Church is still a behind the times.

The CC is very behind the times when it comes to sexual matters. On most everything else, they're actually very progressive. Most Catholics I know are quite liberal and open-minded. I guess it's the "establishment" that's the problem.

[GateandGarden]

The CC is very behind the times when it comes to sexual matters. On most everything else, they're actually very progressive. Most Catholics I know are quite liberal and open-minded. I guess it's the "establishment" that's the problem.I've had the same experiences. All of the Catholics I've known that I can think of at the moment were/are very open-minded, more so than many other religious people I've known. So I agree that the problem is teh "establishment."

Hillary

[DrummerDeanna]

The CC is very behind the times when it comes to sexual matters. On most everything else, they're actually very progressive. Most Catholics I know are quite liberal and open-minded. I guess it's the "establishment" that's the problem.

Yep. Agreed - perhaps when the very old and stickler Catholics die out things will finally start to change for the better...

[GateandGarden]

Right - I've never heard of them either :shrug:Here's their website if y'all want to look at it--
http://www.catholicleague.org

Hillary

[Villavic]

[url]


The boy appeared with Jackson in a British television documentary in February 2003.



Was the boy who appeared very close to Michael, friendly and lovely to him?? Now he is the accuser? Well, that is also pretty weird. Isn't mr. Money involved?? :confused:

No, I'm not justifying MJ, it is evident all prooves are more against him, seems there will be no escape for him this time. But similar to past accusations, there is still something weird in all this.

[amber]

It seems that using that logic, the Church would encourage celibacy for all Catholics, not just leaders in the Church. :shrug:

Hillary

wait, did you just use the words "logic" and "church" in the same sentence? :confused: ;)

[strandinthewind]

Christy - the main reason priests are not allowed to get married is due to the heritance issues. If a priest comes from a wealthy family, which in olden days was the case, the Church wanted the property due that person. This a brief comment on a huge issue that has many facets, but that is one of them. Nuns cannot marry because they are married to God and if they had a child, the same heritance issues apply.

Here are some articles:

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Celibacy.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week532/cover.html

Note: there are many many articles - these are just a few.

Also, I think religion is a great thing and I think the Catholic Church has some great qualities. But, the way they behaved in the pedophile scandal was just pure evil. I mean they KNEW priests were doing this and instead of stopping them from having contact with kids, they just hushed it up and sent these predators in the guise of a priest (who kids are taught to trust :eek: ) to another town where they started doing it again. That is just sick and unforgiveable to me. Then, the Pope, who also has some great qualities, refers to the lawsuits on this as "The American Problem." I do not think I can ever forgive the RCC for this - sad - very true.

BTW - the RCC absolutly has said it is a gay problem. They talked about banning gay priests - yet Peds. fondle little girls too - but there is no talk about banning heterosexual priests :shrug: And that, my friends, is just the tip of that iceberg. Do a google search on this topic. Your will not believe the stuff out there.

[DrummerDeanna]

BTW - the RCC absolutly has said it is a gay problem. They talked about banning gay priests - yet Peds. fondle little girls too - but there is no talk about banning heterosexual priests :shrug: And that, my friends, is just the tip of that iceberg. Do a google search on this topic. Your will not believe the stuff out there.

Okay - I actually do remember reading an article about banning gay priests - then I had a big discussion with folks from my church about how pedophilia isn't a gay issue - I had totally forgotten about that until reading your post...weird....

Anyway - thanks for the posted links and interesting background information - I think you may find that Catholics are often less knowledgeable about their religion than others lol - sometimes not always....

[SuzeQuze]

I think the ratings support them. I think the people that get the J-Lo and Ben interview get the ratings boosts. I also think the networks know they do not have to take any risk by branching out into something new. They can recognize and follow trends almost immediately these days :shrug: Finally, I do think the main media does report the headline political news. I know they are lambasted for not reporting what many think is relevant in situations like the Iraq War, but they do report on the war and most of the stuff happening there. I mean no one buried the prosoner abuse story, etc. That all saw the light of day - granted not enough for some people and I am not about to get in that argument again :laugh: So, I think the media presents things like J'Lo, etc. because the majority of the people want to see it and I think the presentation of this does not significantly get in the way of presenting the major political, etc. news. I also think the advent of the 24hr. news channels gave them FAR more time to fill - but Liz and Ruchard certainly made headlines in the 60's WAY before the dawm of cable news networks :shrug:

Anyway - foor for thought!! :cool:

Well, I don't expect them to stop reporting on J-Ho and such but they use the BREAKING NEWS graphics and foreboding music to introduce it, thus framing it as "real news" when it is fluff. My criticism is more about the way it is reported as real news, the newscasters are very serious, it seems crazy to me.

[SuzeQuze]

I believe I read in a reputable source (although I can't remember now) that it was Barely Legal.

Omigod, there is such a mag? I was going to make a tasteless joke that the mag was "They only look under age" or something like that, bleck.

[SuzeQuze]

Yep - and the public inherently accepts it as a general rule. Sad - very true.

Do they? Man, am I naive on this, must be from living in a progressive state. The public is stupid. (we are not the pulic :laugh: )

[amber]

Omigod, there is such a mag? I was going to make a tasteless joke that the mag was "They only look under age" or something like that, bleck.
Yeah, that's what it is.

[SuzeQuze]

This absolutely DISGUSTS me. I suppose the church defines an 11 year old as a "young man"? WTF????

Here's another article related to the Catholic League's outrage at that 'South Park' episode, and the reason for their anger. The article also further illustrates the Catholic League's opinion on homosexuals....

Catholic Church Peeved By 'South Park'

Predictably, the Catholic Church is not amused by the "South Park" episode that poked fun at the current sex scandals plaguing the religious institution. Not so obvious, is the reason why they are so upset.
It's not because show creator Matt Stone and Trey Parker point out the hypocrisy of the very place where people are supposed to go for sanctuary has been, for many, a source of even more horrific problems. Or, that even though church higher-ups kept shuffling around abusive priests rather than either turning them in or, at the very least, keeping them away from parishoners. No, it's because "South Park" portrays the priests as pedophiles rather than homosexuals.

In a statement released about the episode, Catholic League President William Donohue says, "The scandal in the Church is not about priests having sex with prepubescent boys. It is about priests having sex with postpubescent young men. The former is called pedophilia and the latter is called homosexuality."

"If Stone and Parker really had guts, they would do a show on gay priests. But, of course, like so many other intellectually dishonest elites in our society, they will go to any length to protect homosexuals."

Comedy Central, the network that airs "South Park" photocopied Donohue's statement and provided it to the nation's TV critics Friday, July 12 during their Summer Press Tour presentation.

Donohue does not address the assertions that many of the priests accused of sexual misconduct were not actually homosexual, or any of the charges about abuse of power being currently leveled against the church. However, he does cite a Washington Post survey that said out of 60,000 priests surveyed less than 1.5 percent had been involved in sexual misconduct with minors -- or admitted to it.

In conclusion, Donohue asserts that the "2 percent of our society which is homosexual accounts for over half the AIDS cases in this country," ignoring the actual estimate that 10 percent of people are homosexual and the statistics that the highest rising AIDS demographics are taking place between heterosexual men and women in the African-American communities.

"If the statistic on priests merits an episode on 'South Park,' it is fair to ask why the figures on gays and AIDS don't merit a whole season of fun?" asks Donohue.

[SuzeQuze]

Me neither. I think if there is an actual increased incidence, it may be because the men have had these feelings since adolescence & maybe they thought becoming a priest would "cure" it? Just throwing it out there. :shrug:

OR, they wouldn't ever have to answer their mother's question, "Why aren't you married yet?"

~Cynical Suzy

[dissention]

Okay -but the Catholic Church isn't labeling these abusing priests as gay! At least not in any news or other story I've seen - maybe I'm missing something here.

I am Catholic - and I've NEVEr in my life heard anyone trying to scapegoat these priests as saying they're gay...:shrug:

Exactly. The Catholic Church is not out there saying that the priests are gay. They're doing no such thing. What they are doing is covering it all up and allowing it to happen.

[dissention]

Why aren't priests allowed to get married? They need an outlet like any other person and it seems that if the Catholic Church could change that rule, things might be better. I'm not Catholic, and I'm curious as to why this has never been addressed.

I don't understand how that would prevent child molestation. :shrug:

[dissention]

BTW - the RCC absolutly has said it is a gay problem. They talked about banning gay priests - yet Peds. fondle little girls too - but there is no talk about banning heterosexual priests :shrug: And that, my friends, is just the tip of that iceberg. Do a google search on this topic. Your will not believe the stuff out there.

What they say and what they do are two completely different things. :woohoo:

[wondergirl9847]

I don't understand how that would prevent child molestation. :shrug:

I would think that if priests were allowed to marry, they would be less likely to find a source in children to fulfill their needs. I don't know if that would be true, but it seems logical. Priests are priests, but they are still men, who have urges, as most humans do.

[GateandGarden]

I would think that if priests were allowed to marry, they would be less likely to find a source in children to fulfill their needs. I don't know if that would be true, but it seems logical. Priests are priests, but they are still men, who have urges, as most humans do. Based on what Paula was saying about pedophiles (having worked with several), I don't think that's likely at all--that having children (or anything else, for that matter) could cure them if they have a serious need for sexual activity with children. In fact, I would be afraid that they would target their own children.

But, of course, I think priests should be able to marry for other obvious reasons, just like I think women should be able to be priests as well.

Hillary

[dissention]

I would think that if priests were allowed to marry, they would be less likely to find a source in children to fulfill their needs. I don't know if that would be true, but it seems logical. Priests are priests, but they are still men, who have urges, as most humans do.

Not if pedophilia is a mental illness, though. A pedophile won't abstain from certain behaviors just because they're married, they're actually more likely to commit certain acts because they feel stifled by their marriage and don't feel as if their sexual urges can be properly met by their domestic partner.

[strandinthewind]

Not if pedophilia is a mental illness, though. A pedophile won't abstain from certain behaviors just because they're married, they're actually more likely to commit certain acts because they feel stifled by their marriage and don't feel as if their sexual urges can be properly met by their domestic partner.

I know this is what the literature teaches. However, I just cannot get rid of the feeling that if "they" were getting a steady diet of consenual sex from their partner that could at least possibly somewhat quell their other needs. But, I know married men and women with a healthy adult sex life still are sexual predators on all levels (rapists, peds., etc. ) - so that indicates I am wrong here.

[amber]

I know this is what the literature teaches. However, I just cannot get rid of the feeling that if "they" were getting a steady diet of consenual sex from their partner that could at least possibly somewhat quell their other needs. But, I know married men and women with a healthy adult sex life still are sexual predators on all levels (rapists, peds., etc. ) - so that indicates I am wrong here.
very true, that you are largely wrong. What about all the dads and stepdads that molest their daughters? They are getting sex... :shrug: I read a study that approximately 1/20 men are molestors. that's pretty high. :shocked: :distress:

[GateandGarden]

I read a study that approximately 1/20 men are molestors. that's pretty high. :shocked: :distress:Sheesh! That's really hard to believe!

Hillary

[amber]

Sheesh! That's really hard to believe!

Hillary

Yeah, it was a statistic, so i figure it might be a bit lower. But even skewed to, say, 1/50, that's still incredibly disturbing. But again, almost every girl (and some boys) i know were molested, so it seems possible :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

Yeah, it was a statistic, so i figure it might be a bit lower. But even skewed to, say, 1/50, that's still incredibly disturbing. But again, almost every girl (and some boys) i know were molested, so it seems possible :shrug:There's only one girl I know personally who admitted to me that she was abused, and I don't know any guys. Don't know why.

Hillary

[amber]

There's only one girl I know personally who admitted to me that she was abused, and I don't know any guys. Don't know why.

Hillary
I'm not sure it comes up in regular convo. But as a matter of fact, i can't think of any girls i know who haven't. There are some past friends i had that hadn't, but...tell you what, i sure thank my lucky stars that wasn't me...

[GateandGarden]

I'm not sure it comes up in regular convo. But as a matter of fact, i can't think of any girls i know who haven't. There are some past friends i had that hadn't, but...tell you what, i sure thank my lucky stars that wasn't me...Well, I didn't just mean people with which I've had regular, on-the-surface kinds of conversations. I was thinking of close friends. Many have suffered a good bit of emotional abuse at home, and some had a parent who got a little violent occasionally, but no sexual molestation.

This makes me interested in finding some statistics about what percentage of females are molested. Statistics always have that obnoxious tendency to be off, though. I've never known when to trust them.

Hillary

[amber]

Well, I didn't just mean people with which I've had regular, on-the-surface kinds of conversations. I was thinking of close friends. Many have suffered a good bit of emotional abuse at home, and some had a parent who got a little violent occasionally, but no sexual molestation.

This makes me interested in finding some statistics about what percentage of females are molested. Statistics always have that obnoxious tendency to be off, though. I've never known when to trust them.

Hillary
Exactly. I usually assume statistics to be close - ish, depending on who is reporting them. As i recall, the people offering the statistic seemed reputable.
That's good that people you know haven't been :thumbsup: But the variance of the people who did it in my group freaks me out - grandpa, brother, dad, stepdad (a very common one), uncle, stranger...yikes :shocked: :distress:

[GateandGarden]

I'm really sorry that your friends have been through all that, Amber.

On a far lighter note, why are we still up? :laugh:

Hillary

[amber]

I'm really sorry that your friends have been through all that, Amber.

On a far lighter note, why are we still up? :laugh:

Hillary
I'm up, because it's only 10:55, i got home from class 45 min. ago, and i'm meeting my friend at Karaoke night at the gay bar by my house in a bit :D

[GateandGarden]

I'm up, because it's only 10:55, i got home from class 45 min. ago, and i'm meeting my friend at Karaoke night at the gay bar by my house in a bit :DYou just had to tell me about karaoke night at the gay bar and make me jealous, huh? :laugh: Well, it's 1:00 in the morning here. After I typed that post, it occurred to me that our time zones were pretty different, so then I felt kinda silly. Well, have fun and do some FM karaoke for us! That would be cool!

Hillary

[amber]

You just had to tell me about karaoke night at the gay bar and make me jealous, huh? :laugh: Well, it's 1:00 in the morning here. After I typed that post, it occurred to me that our time zones were pretty different, so then I felt kinda silly. Well, have fun and do some FM karaoke for us! That would be cool!

Hillary
I wish you could go. Then someone else could sing stevie, too, and you would be around people who are really nice, accept you, and like you (and flirt with you! :laugh: ) I wasn't trying to make you jeal. But it's nice to say that there are whole cities that aren't like the people you meet :shrug: Maybe i was hoping it would be inspiring? :D I must now put on my most powerful tool - MASCARA!!! strangely, it totally transforms my face! :p

[dissention]

I know this is what the literature teaches. However, I just cannot get rid of the feeling that if "they" were getting a steady diet of consenual sex from their partner that could at least possibly somewhat quell their other needs. But, I know married men and women with a healthy adult sex life still are sexual predators on all levels (rapists, peds., etc. ) - so that indicates I am wrong here.

If they aren't really interested in the sex to begin with when it comes to their partner, they won't feel as if they are benefitting from it at all. That leads to feelings of unfulfillment and only makes them more likely to commit illegal acts against minors. Being in relationships that they don't have any interest in only serves to fan the flames. They want what they can't have even more.

[GateandGarden]

I wish you could go. Then someone else could sing stevie, too, and you would be around people who are really nice, accept you, and like you (and flirt with you! :laugh: ) I wasn't trying to make you jeal. But it's nice to say that there are whole cities that aren't like the people you meet :shrug: Maybe i was hoping it would be inspiring? :D I must now put on my most powerful tool - MASCARA!!! strangely, it totally transforms my face! :pOh, it did make me feel good to read about you going to the gay bar; it was another reminder that there are straight people out there who are that cool. :) I hope you had fun last night!

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

If they aren't really interested in the sex to begin with when it comes to their partner, they won't feel as if they are benefitting from it at all. That leads to feelings of unfulfillment and only makes them more likely to commit illegal acts against minors. Being in relationships that they don't have any interest in only serves to fan the flames. They want what they can't have even more.

True - but I think some of them are in relationships with adults that they are interested in. They are interested in both. Sort of like the spouse who loves their spouse and is happy with them - but also loves to cheat. In the instant case, however, that cheating is not innocent - it is predatory and sickening.

[dissention]

True - but I think some of them are in relationships with adults that they are interested in. They are interested in both. Sort of like the spouse who loves their spouse and is happy with them - but also loves to cheat. In the instant case, however, that cheating is not innocent - it is predatory and sickening.

It doesn't matter if they're in relationships with other adults that they love, it doesn't negate the fact that in their heads, something is missing and something is unfulfilled. I don't think you can compare cheating spouses with spouses who happen to be pedophiles, Jason. Cheating spouses don't suffer from mental illnesses that urge them to poke around, pedophiles do and the urges are illegal.

[strandinthewind]

It doesn't matter if they're in relationships with other adults that they love, it doesn't negate the fact that in their heads, something is missing and something is unfulfilled. I don't think you can compare cheating spouses with spouses who happen to be pedophiles, Jason. Cheating spouses don't suffer from mental illnesses that urge them to poke around, pedophiles do and the urges are illegal.

I know that and I am not arguing with you. I said it seems like and then refuted that :shrug: So, stop arguing with the wind :cool:

BTW - some cheating spouses do suffer from a disease - nymphomania and the like. Granted, non-consenual sex aside, that is not illegal like a ped., but it is a disease nonetheless :shrug: Do I hear ya saying you are wrong once more and for the third time this week :p :lol: :] :wavey:

[skcin]

BTW - some cheating spouses do suffer from a disease - nymphomania and the like. Granted, non-consenual sex aside, that is not illegal like a ped., but it is a disease nonetheless :shrug: Do I hear ya saying you are wrong once more and for the third time this week :p :lol: :] :wavey:

Sure, a select few cheaters may be nymphos, but all people who have sex with kids are pedophiles. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Sure, a select few cheaters may be nymphos, but all people who have sex with kids are pedophiles. :nod:

I know that and did not say anything contrary to that.

I was just yanking Diss' chain because he was being argumentative (pot calling kettle black I agree :laugh: ) when he said "Cheating spouses don't suffer from mental illnesses that urge them to poke around" - a statment about which he was wrong :wavey:

[skcin]

I know that and did not say anything contrary to that.

I was just yanking Diss' chain because he was being argumentative (pot calling kettle black I agree :laugh: ) when he said "Cheating spouses don't suffer from mental illnesses that urge them to poke around" - a statment about which he was wrong :wavey:


I know you were, but I couldn't resist pointing it out anyway. Of course, if you insert the words "most..." or "the majority of..." before Diss' cheating spouses statement, he's right. ;) Shhh, I won't tell if you won't!

[strandinthewind]

I know you were, but I couldn't resist pointing it out anyway. Of course, if you insert the words "most..." or "the majority of..." before Diss' cheating spouses statement, he's right. ;) Shhh, I won't tell if you won't!

LOL - poor Diss = always needs a helping hand!!!!!! :angel: ;) :laugh: :laugh: :D

[wondergirl9847]

Then, why is there a ridiculous percentage of priests who molest children? Is it a coincidence that that particular vocation has a lot of child molesters? It's just wierd to me that so many molest and happen to be Catholic priests who cannot marry.
:shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Then, why is there a ridiculous percentage of priests who molest children? Is it a coincidence that that particular vocation has a lot of child molesters? It's just wierd to me that so many molest and happen to be Catholic priests who cannot marry.
:shrug:

I think it happens alot more than we think. I think the priests are just ion the public light more because it is more newsworthy - i.e. priests are supposed to have a higher level of trust to them.

[wondergirl9847]

Yep, I thought about that after I posted, about how the media warps information. Still, I just can't believe it's so common and can't be helped out by changing the rules.

[amber]

Yep, I thought about that after I posted, about how the media warps information. Still, I just can't believe it's so common and can't be helped out by changing the rules.
I also have this other parallel theory that maybe a lot of people who decide to become priests were molested by priests when they were younger. Molestation is very cyclical; many who were abused grow up to become abusers. Maybe they think it will be a good place for them to "hide" their proclivities, while still practicing them, just as their abuser did :shrug:

[dissention]

BTW - some cheating spouses do suffer from a disease - nymphomania and the like. Granted, non-consenual sex aside, that is not illegal like a ped., but it is a disease nonetheless :shrug: Do I hear ya saying you are wrong once more and for the third time this week :p :lol: :] :wavey:

Then you should have specifically mentioned nymphomania when you tried to make your point instead of lumping cheating spouses with pedophiles. ;)

[dissention]

I know that and did not say anything contrary to that.

I was just yanking Diss' chain because he was being argumentative (pot calling kettle black I agree :laugh: ) when he said "Cheating spouses don't suffer from mental illnesses that urge them to poke around" - a statment about which he was wrong :wavey:

I took issue with you lumping cheaters and pedophiles together, it was bogus. :wavey:

[dissention]

Then, why is there a ridiculous percentage of priests who molest children? Is it a coincidence that that particular vocation has a lot of child molesters? It's just wierd to me that so many molest and happen to be Catholic priests who cannot marry.
:shrug:

Surely you wouldn't blame any of their behavior on not being allowed to marry. :shrug: If we're dealing with pedophiles, no marriage is going to cure them. It's a mental illness.

And no, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think the Catholic Church pretty much encouraged it in their actions and it spread like a virus once priests saw what they could get away with. It became something where if you did it, you wouldn't have to worry because the church would abet you and just ship you off to another state.

[dissention]

I think it happens alot more than we think. I think the priests are just ion the public light more because it is more newsworthy - i.e. priests are supposed to have a higher level of trust to them.

No, it was more "newsworthy" because the church itself covered it all up over the years and allowed further abuse to occur. :shrug:

When The Boston Globe broke all this about three years ago, that was the big story; the fact that the church did nothing about any of this and just shipped them off somewhere else to avoid scandal. And they don't even want to compensate the victims for the horror they endured. How anyone can support such an institution is beoynd me. Have your faith in God and the Bible, but why have anything to do with this church that encouraged child molestation? In MA, you can't go a freakin' day without hearing about any of this. The pehophile priests around here are even tied to the murders of young boys. What is simply unbelievable about all of this is how the church looked the other way. It's f*cking sick.

[dissention]

I also have this other parallel theory that maybe a lot of people who decide to become priests were molested by priests when they were younger. Molestation is very cyclical; many who were abused grow up to become abusers. Maybe they think it will be a good place for them to "hide" their proclivities, while still practicing them, just as their abuser did :shrug:

I think that these pedohpile priests became priests because they knew they'd have full access to their prey. :nod:

Did you ever read Brian Moore's "The Statement"? It has nothing to do with child molestation, but it's about how the Catholic Church helped to hid Nazi war criminals over the years and it's utterly fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. Great book.

[amber]

I think that these pedohpile priests became priests because they knew they'd have full access to their prey. :nod:

Did you ever read Brian Moore's "The Statement"? It has nothing to do with child molestation, but it's about how the Catholic Church helped to hid Nazi war criminals over the years and it's utterly fascinating and incredibly hard to put down. Great book.
No, I haven't read it. It sounds fascinating. why were they hiding Nazi war criminals? though, is there really anything the catholic church hasn't done :rolleyes: Do you recall around what year it was published?
But I just asked tusk guy about the subject, and he said there was a rat line from germany to south america through the vatican. Vatican had a lot of pull in South America (cause it's so catholic), and they just shipped them there and virtually gave them new identities. :shocked:

[dissention]

No, I haven't read it. It sounds fascinating. why were they hiding Nazi war criminals? though, is there really anything the catholic church hasn't done :rolleyes: Do you recall around what year it was published?

There's nothing that gaggle hasn't done, dear. :laugh:

It's fiction, but it's based on true events. I think it was published in '96. They made the movie last year with Michael Moore and Tilda Swinton, but I was very underwhelmed by it. It didn't translate well at all.

The main plot has to do with French Nazi's and how they began exterminating Jews before the the Germans even told them to. One of the chief French Nazi's who orders the premature executions escapes punishment and works his way up into a high political office, whereas one of the other Nazi's escapes from prison and the church hides him for over fifty years. A female judge gets the opportunity to search for the escapee in '92 because of a new human rights law in France, so the other Nazi and the Church try to assasinate him in order to protect the secrets of what they did during WWII. You should read it, it's fab. :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

No, it was more "newsworthy" because the church itself covered it all up over the years and allowed further abuse to occur. :shrug:

When The Boston Globe broke all this about three years ago, that was the big story; the fact that the church did nothing about any of this and just shipped them off somewhere else to avoid scandal. And they don't even want to compensate the victims for the horror they endured. How anyone can support such an institution is beoynd me. Have your faith in God and the Bible, but why have anything to do with this church that encouraged child molestation? In MA, you can't go a freakin' day without hearing about any of this. The pehophile priests around here are even tied to the murders of young boys. What is simply unbelievable about all of this is how the church looked the other way. It's f*cking sick.

That is what I meant - but this cover up is not the worst - the suits started YEARS ago in the late 80's and rec. lots of press then. I actually worked on one of the cases :eek:

Also, that it was priests made it more salacious to the media - for example, I am sure lots of cover ups get busted by the cops all of the time - yet they ain't making the news :cool:

BTW - we agree on this - so there is no need to argue :D

[strandinthewind]

I took issue with you lumping cheaters and pedophiles together, it was bogus. :wavey:

blah blah blah - split those hairs Mr. I know (I think) I'm not wrong when I do :wavey:

[dissention]

That is what I meant - but this cover up is not the worst - the suits started YEARS ago in the late 80's and rec. lots of press then. I actually worked on one of the cases :eek:

Also, that it was priests made it more salacious to the media - for example, I am sure lots of cover ups get busted by the cops all of the time - yet they ain't making the news :cool:

BTW - we agree on this - so there is no need to argue :D

I hate to say it, but I would have had such an incredibly hard time believing ANY case of alleged sexual abuse in the 80s, dear. :laugh: Especially with Geraldo's "Satanic Panic", the McMartin's (those poor souls), and the Fells Acre scandal. :eek: Accusing someone of molesting your child was chic back then, unfortunately, and the cops investigating such ridiculous claims presumed guilt immediately.

[dissention]

blah blah blah - split those hairs Mr. I know (I think) I'm not wrong when I do :wavey:

You've done enough hair splitting for the both of us, dear. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

You've done enough hair splitting for the both of us, dear. :woohoo:

Well, when you have only one hair to split :shrug: :cool: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I hate to say it, but I would have had such an incredibly hard time believing ANY case of alleged sexual abuse in the 80s, dear. :laugh: Especially with Geraldo's "Satanic Panic", the McMartin's (those poor souls), and the Fells Acre scandal. :eek: Accusing someone of molesting your child was chic back then, unfortunately, and the cops investigating such ridiculous claims presumed guilt immediately.

Well, in many of those cases, the Church was arguing too much time had elapsed and the statute of limitations had run. Once that barrier was overcome - it was pretty ugly for the Church.

But, yes, many did fraudulently claim - sad - but true

[dissention]

But, yes, many did fraudulently claim - sad - but true

That's an understatement. :laugh: Back then, accusing someone of child molestation was as hip as Jordache acid washed jeans. :laugh: