Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
I Want to be Like Mike

By enterfornone in Op-Ed
Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:33:58 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

In a recent documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir, American pop superstar Michael Jackson reveals, among other things, that he regularly has young children sleeping over in his home, in his bedroom and even in his bed.

These revelations have bought Jackson condemnation from around the world, but is this condemnation fair, or is the problem not with Jackson, but with the rest of society?


In the documentary Living With Michael Jackson, Jackson states that "The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone. It's a beautiful thing. It's very right, it's very loving. Because what's wrong with sharing a love?" But few people seem to agree.

According to Sydney's Daily Telegraph "The interview sparked a chorus of criticism worldwide". Nigel Spence, of the NSW Association of Children's Welfare Agencies stated that "It could unwittingly give encouragement to people who were seeking to exploit or abuse children". And Gloria Allred, lawyer for Jordy Chandler who ten years ago accused Jackson of molesting him, has called on Child Welfare Services in Santa Barbara to investigate Jackson's behaviour.

Another person who deems Jackson's behaviour unacceptable is Australian Family Association NSW executive officer Tery Breen. Breen admits that he often sleeps in the same bed as his six year old daughter, but claims that "adults sleeping with children who aren't their own children is obviously not right. It is not a sound practice."

But why is this the case? Jackson himself states "It's not sexual. We're going to sleep. I tuck them in and I put a little music on and when it's story time I read a book." If it is acceptable for a parent to sleep with their child in a non-sexual way, why is it unacceptable for a non-parent?

It is not only Michael Jackson who is under attack. In Australia, the US and elsewhere there is a huge shortage of male teachers, particularly those willing to teach young children. While part of it may be due to teaching traditionally being seen as a female career, many believe that the fear of being labelled a paedophile leads many would-be teachers to avoid the profession.

According to this article, the media shows "a plethora of stories alleging interference with, and abuse of, children by male teachers". It goes on to state that while many of these cases are proven in court, "a significant percentage of allegations leading to court action are found to be baseless". The article goes on:

"Male teachers face a real dilemma. It's no secret that primary children, particularly younger ones, often seek to be physically close to their teachers. Gripping the hands of teachers, giving teachers cuddles, wanting to sit on teachers' laps are manifestations of this deep-seated human need. Female teachers seem to be less at risk in this situation than males. Males may want to respond to children with humanity warmth and empathy, but are warned off by a deep societal frown.

"By contrast, middle-aged female teachers are often regarded in a `grandmotherly' way. It seems somehow much more socially acceptable for them to respond to the affection of children. A male teacher of the same age has to be much more circumspect, lest his actions be interpreted as those of a `dirty old man'.

"The challenge is increasingly exacerbated by the phenomena of single parent families. Single mothers often ask that, if possible, their children be placed with a male teacher, for the sake of masculine role modeling. The scenario can become one that creates an acute conflict within the mind of the male teacher."

US Census information cited on this web site tells us that 28% of children in the US live with only one parent, with 84% of these children living with their mother. Combine this with a shortage of male teachers and you have a significant number of children are growing up without a male role model. This results in a number of problems. For example, according to this BBC article, children without male role models are more likely to be involved in street crime than other children.

But it is not just male role models that children are lacking. This article claims that a lack of physical affection results in US children becoming more violent. The study compared children playing in McDonalds playgrounds in France and the US and found that "pre-schoolers in France playfully touched each other twice as much US children did, but while the French children acted aggressively only 1 percent of the time, the US youth did so 29 percent of the time".

According to researcher Dr Tiffany Field, "there will be even less physical affection toward children in our society as a result of teachers and day care providers worrying about accusations of sexual abuse".

In light of all of this, are we right to condemn Michael Jackson for his wish to show love and affection to the children of the world?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o recent documentary
o Daily Telegraph
o Australia
o the US
o this article
o this web site
o this BBC article
o This article
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
I Want to be Like Mike | 174 comments (169 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
I can only commend Michael (4.26 / 23) (#1)
by psychologist on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:39:02 AM EST

If this was 50 years ago, nobody would give a fuck if an adult slept with a child. It would be a show of warmth and affection. But because of the media hysteria about child pornography and pedofilia, which are very very uncommon phenomena, with a few isolated incidents overplayed, affection between adults and children is being destroyed.

Michael Jackson seems oblivous to the negative cultural change that has come over large parts of the western world, and he continues to display affection openly to children. I can only commend this, and be proud of him.

A man cannot lift a female toddler up without being accused or rubbing her bum for sexual gratification. What kind of world have they created?

The human is naturally a breaker of taboos. Perhaps it is the act of making affection between children and adults taboo that makes child molesters cross the line, and warps their natural affection into sexual affection. Maybe the cure is causing the disease.

Why this noise about Jackson sleeping in the same bed with Children? The children don't mind, and he doesn't mind. When I was young, I remember regularly going to sleep in the bed of my parents. I remember sleeping with an uncle who would tell me ghost stories. If that happened today, my uncle would be in jail.

Uhhh (3.25 / 4) (#22)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 12:32:32 PM EST

If this was 50 years ago, nobody would give a fuck if an adult slept with a child

200 years ago, men could pretty much beat their wives with impunity.  We're more sensitive now to a lot of problems - that doesn't mean there wasn't always problems.

A man cannot lift a female toddler up without being accused or rubbing her bum for sexual gratification.

Yes, they can.  I'm sure there's been lots of false accusations of bad behavior, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're also not talking about convicting MJ of a crime.  We're talking about him doing something that is really inappropriate.  

Picking up a toddler is a behavior that is appropriate contingent on a very low level of trust.  Sleeping with a kid is a behvaior that is appropriate contingent on an extremely high level of trust.  

Why this noise about Jackson sleeping in the same bed with Children? The children don't mind, and he doesn't mind

The "Children" likely had no idea what's going on or have any idea why they should mind.  It often requires adults to decide what's appropriate - and Michael not minding isn't a real convincing argument that everything was on the up and up.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

No it isn't. (5.00 / 7) (#35)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 03:36:29 PM EST

Picking up a toddler is a behavior that is appropriate contingent on a very low level of trust.

walk into a mall and pick up some strange child who just fell down. Watch what happens next.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Very true... (4.50 / 2) (#37)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 03:44:34 PM EST

How I said it was just wrong.  

What I was thinking while writing something dumb was that when compared to sleeping with a child, it is a lower trust sort of thing.  It's the kind of thing that you would usually be comfortable with if a family friend, teacher, or neighbour did for some reason.  A medium trust sort of thing.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

I can't grasp the vastness of hysteria there (none / 0) (#130)
by nusuth on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 02:53:09 PM EST

You can do that here and all you will get is a "thank you." I didn't really stay in either country for long but I think that is pretty much the case in Italy and Greece too, from what I've seen.

[ Parent ]
In Canada, it depends... (none / 0) (#136)
by jmzero on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:18:02 PM EST

Many times at malls, I've seen someone return a stray child or what have you.  If it's clear what's going on, then people won't panic (even if they just watched "Return my Baby" on the Lifetime Oxygen Network).  

However, if your intentions are vaguely questionable - like lifting a crying kid out of a neglected shopping cart - then prepare for a long day.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Perhaps k5ers inflate things a little bit? (none / 0) (#141)
by nusuth on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 07:02:41 PM EST

That seems to be a reasonable attitude. You can't get away with questionable behaviour here either,  perhaps with a more relaxed definition of what is questionable and a more violent reaction if your action falls into that group (hint: police will try to save you from the crowd, and might even fail.)

Does it really change that drastically once you pass the border? If that really is, I can't imagine how a "society" identity can survive without members showing support to each other's children. It is THE basic kind of support you are supposed to show. I must be missing something there, since USA has no trouble being a society.

[ Parent ]

It's not hysteria (none / 0) (#145)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:13:46 PM EST

It's paranoia and a slow erosion of attitudes, driven by TV news that's obsessed with violence.

American crime rates are at 30 year lows, but American people are far more worried about crime now than they were in 1970 - because it's graphically depicted on the news each night.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Yes, but (none / 0) (#39)
by Ras Bomboclaat on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:11:15 PM EST

He was talking about 50 years ago, which is very different from 200 years ago.  Also, this paedophile hysteria is a pretty new thing.  Last 10-15 years maybe.
~~ DOING NOTHING ~~ FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]
What the hell is your point? (none / 0) (#47)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:16:37 PM EST

Sometimes comparisons between two things are useful and sometimes they aren't.  Sometimes the differences between two things make the comparison useless - but we shouldn't be surprised when two things we are comparing are different in some way.  It's kind of necessary - otherwise we're comparing something to itself.

You might just as well have said "But his situation involves kids, whereas yours involves adult women!  Kids are very different than adult women!"

If you have a point, then make it.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#48)
by Ras Bomboclaat on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:22:11 PM EST

Sometimes comparisons between two things are useful and sometimes they aren't.

That's my bloody point, innit?  You starting to talk about the situation for women 200 years ago is irrelevant.
~~ DOING NOTHING ~~ FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

You're not grasping my point... (none / 0) (#50)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:39:23 PM EST

That's my bloody point, innit?  You starting to talk about the situation for women 200 years ago is irrelevant.

My point was that different!=irrelevant.  If you would have read my post and thought about it, I think that would have been clear.  Just saying "but the situations are different" isn't enough.  

The point of the original comparison was to say "Just because nobody would have questioned something in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't question it now".  And what's your point?  Between 200 years ago and 15 years ago did the world become perfect?  We can challenge the ideas of 200 years ago, but if nobody questioned something in 1987 then it must have been OK?  What's the magic year beyond which we can no longer compare things?

Again, if you have a point then make it.  Or get angry, whichever works.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Sooo... (none / 0) (#126)
by Kintanon on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 02:08:38 PM EST

Whose children did MJ kidnap in order to sleep in the same bed with?
The situation APPEARS to me as if the parents didn't have a problem with it. So... What's the deal? Someone obviously trusted MJ enough to leave their kids with him.
Then know him better than I do.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

You may wonder how this sort of thing happens. (none / 0) (#127)
by jmzero on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 02:21:52 PM EST

The Smoking Gun has a victim statement.  While MJ was never convicted for this, it may give you some idea how things "may have" worked.  

Lots of people trust people they shouldn't.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

what is it with K5 and pedophile apologists ??[nt] (2.40 / 5) (#75)
by zzzeek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:45:26 PM EST



[ Parent ]
That's why I voted -1..... (2.33 / 3) (#76)
by morkeleb on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:16:48 PM EST

All the creepy people come out of the woodwork on threads like this.


"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
It's pronounced "troll" (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by twistedfirestarter on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 03:43:32 AM EST



[ Parent ]
why ? (none / 0) (#105)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:38:53 AM EST

you are blaming 'attitudes' but those attitudes came from somewhere: a huge epidimic of child abuse and exploitation by adults. yes it sucks, yes its unnatural, but its what we have, and until we heal it, the 'attitudes' are going to stay with us.

[ Parent ]
TV exploitation (4.92 / 13) (#3)
by wiredog on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:49:04 AM EST

From The Post
But most likely, you're reading this not for a scholarly treatise on narcissism and the public gaze, but because you'd like to know if Michael Jackson could be any freakier than what we already believe him to be.

we'll spare you the faux psycho-social analysis and just tell you:

Yes.

This makes for good television, if you consider good television watching an apparently troubled individual reveal things about himself that are profoundly disturbing. One television exec ... described the show as "the longest suicide note in history."

There is obviously a prurient quality to all this. Jackson's career may be careering off course, but there's money to be made exploiting the spectacle of the car wreck.



Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

As the old saying goes (4.00 / 1) (#5)
by AndrewH on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:07:19 AM EST

Jackson’s career may be careering off course

There’s no such thing as bad publicity.


John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
[ Parent ]
Mmm. And it's our business because...? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by gidds on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:45:33 PM EST

There is obviously a prurient quality to all this.

And how!  Okay, if MJ is actually abusing children, then it may be the courts' business, but I've heard no allegations that he is.  And in any case what business is it of ours?  What right do we have to judge his lifestyle, if we're not affected?  Must we all live in the same way?

On `Question Time' this evening (a BBC TV programme in which MPs and celebrities answer topical questions from the audience), someone asked "Michael Jackson: mad, bad, or sad?"  Personally, I incline to the third view, but the time they spent discussing it shows just how much right we think we have to sit in judgement over someone else's life.

Okay, you can argue that he invited the cameras to follow him, therefore he's fair game.  But how much of that was to set the record straight about things the media has been throwing at him for his whole life?  And how much right does that give us to condemn his lifestyle?  How many of us are totally well-balanced people with no personality issues or lifestyle worries, who would have nothing to worry about if cameras followed our every move for months and millions of people discussed our every word?

Yep, didn't think so.

As far as child abuse goes, while of course I abhor it, I think the hysteria that's grown up around it helps no-one.  Maybe it helps us forget that most child abuse happens within the family.  Maybe it's fuelled by the modern idea of childhood as a time of absolute innocence and naivety, which it's never really been (though I'm not talking in a sexual sense here).  Maybe by demonising paedophiles, we can excuse the family love that we don't give our children, the time we don't spend with them, the opportunities we don't give them.  Maybe in this hysteria some people misinterpret natural family love and affection as the stirrings of paedophilia... maybe people who see that in themselves are those howling the loudest.  Maybe the rise (if it is a rise at all) of child abuse is a result of more fundamental problems in society, in the way adult relationships work.  I don't pretend to know.  All I know is that this hysteria, this compartmentalisation, this witch-hunting will only make matters worse, whether it's aimed at celebrities or not.

Andy/
[ Parent ]

missing the point (3.66 / 15) (#6)
by tps12 on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:10:04 AM EST

If it is acceptable for a parent to sleep with their child in a non-sexual way, why is it unacceptable for a non-parent?
It's not that it's unacceptable for a non-parent, but that it's unacceptible for Michael Jackson.

Not sure about that. (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by DeepOmega on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:50:43 AM EST

I agree that it's "unacceptable" for MJ, butI also think a lot of people would be freaked out if any non-parent slept with a child. Of course, it doesn't help that there's really no way to describe that which doesn't have a sexual connotation...

"I took little Mary to bed last night.... I mean, I slept with her. Wait, no, she enjoyed it! She likes spending the night! I at least make her a nice breakfast..."

Peace and much love...
[ Parent ]

MJ should move to the UK (3.00 / 10) (#7)
by Rogerborg on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:20:21 AM EST

Where, according to the police, there are quarter of a million men signed up to kiddie porn sites, or about 1% of the adult male population.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

Actually ... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:39:32 AM EST

... the total number of leads provided by "operation avalanche", the original FBI sting, was 250,000, of which aroun 7,000 are in the UK.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

Actually actually... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Rogerborg on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:58:04 AM EST

A senior source within Scotland Yard told the Dail Mirror: "The forecast is that the Visa list may top 100,000 alone. Together with Mastercard and American Express customers, plus the other major credit card providers, the projection is the total number of British men who have been accessing these sites will exceed 250,000."

I know, consider the source, but my point is that if it's anywhere near that number, then it's a bad sign for the UK.  I mean, it's hard to get a handle on how so many people could be so stupid as to use a CC to sign up to a kiddy pr0n site.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

I don't trust that (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:10:50 AM EST

The number of names they've actually been given, according to all the sources I've checked, is 7,000. That Mirror article says they're "on standby" to received 10,000 more names, and then quotes a "senior source in Soctland yard" as you cited.

It is suspicious that 250,000 is the *total* number of names the FBI has, according to everyone else. I suspect, in fact, that either the "senior source" (probably someone's PA) or the Mirror journalist is confused, or making stuff up.

And yes, it boggles the mind that there are even 7,000 people that stupid in the world.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

Another possibility (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Pihkal on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 12:03:14 PM EST

I don't know the details of the case, nor do I know the extent to which these thousands of people have already been investigated. However, I'll bet a lot of them (or a lot more than the number reported) are the victims of credit card fraud. Quite frankly, if I were to engage in something as illegal and abhorrent as child pornography, I would be damn sure to use someone else's credit card number.

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
-- Number 6
[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0) (#20)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 12:09:29 PM EST

I believe they're having considerable trouble investigating the 7000 names they have. Because acually having signed up to a kiddie porn site is not an offense in itself, they have to confiscate computers and do a full forensic analysis (scanning the disks for old deleted data, and so on) in order to find grounds for prosecution. Once they find evidence of indecent images of a minor (real or otherwise) they can prosecute. The law, as they say, is an ass. People whose CC numbers were nicked will not, therefore, be prosecuted.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
An ass may not be sufficient, though... (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 03:37:23 PM EST

It would depend on the context, I'd guess.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Not relevant. NT (2.00 / 2) (#21)
by bjlhct on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 12:16:31 PM EST



*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]
So there is a demand for child porn... (none / 0) (#78)
by trane on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:27:28 PM EST

The best solution would be, I think, to use computer generated children (so realistic you can't tell...), so that no real children are affected.

No this doesn't really have to do with MJ or the article. Just a random thought on the problem of kiddy porn sites...prosecution is unlikely to deal with the problem effectively. Either eliminate the motivation for wanting to view child porn, or accept that the motivation is valid and minimize the harm that kiddy porn can cause real children. (I'm assuming here that viewing child porn will not necessarily lead to hurting real children, in the same way that viewing pornography doesn't necessarily lead to rape.)

Anyways, carry on.

[ Parent ]

WTO wouldn't allow it (none / 0) (#80)
by enterfornone on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:52:57 PM EST

You can't bad a product simply because of the process that created it. To ban real kiddie porn you have to ban the computer generated stuff too.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Not sure (none / 0) (#85)
by trane on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:41:03 PM EST

if you're arguing for or against my theory.

My point: if the computer-generated child porn does not compromise real children when produced, and doesn't encourage real child molestation, it is a more effective solution than banning child pornography.

[ Parent ]

Of course it is wrong (4.56 / 16) (#8)
by gazbo on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:28:34 AM EST

It's obviously wrong to sleep in the same bed as a child other than your own. Just as it is wrong to comfort anyone else's children when they are crying.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

Nitpick (4.50 / 10) (#10)
by rdskutter on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:43:54 AM EST

For example, according to this BBC article, children without male role models are more likely to be involved in street crime than other children.

Isn't this more to do with the fact that single parent families are more likely to live in the areas of town where there is more street crime.


Yanks are like ICBMs: Good to have on your side, but dangerous to have nearby. - OzJuggler
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

Understanding of social science (4.66 / 3) (#17)
by subversion on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:48:29 AM EST

Generally, in a scientific study of something like this, when they say more likely they have already corrected for other factors.

So, if they say "children without a male role model are more likely to be involved in street crime than other children", what they mean is "all other factors (socioeconomic, racial, etc., etc.) being equal, if a kid has no dad he's more likely to get in trouble".

From circumstantial evidence (growing up in a middle class community) I would be inclined to agree with this; kids without a living or live-in father (i.e. both those with dead and absent fathers), or even ones who had fathers who were complete pushovers, were more likely to be in trouble and more likely to be the ones inciting the trouble in the first place.

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

heh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by adequate nathan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:49:36 PM EST

Generally, in a scientific study of something like this, when they say more likely they have already corrected for other factors.

Care to play backgammon for money?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

We see the world through the lens that is our mind (4.51 / 31) (#13)
by krek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:09:30 AM EST

I want to make a wildly unsubstantiated claim, but one that I feel is correct: People who have never thought about children "in that way" will probably have very little problem with adults sleeping with children or taking pictures of naked babies in bathtubs, mostly because they cannot easily concieve of someone molesting a child. On the other hand, those who have "these sorts of thoughts", and feel guilty about them, will, no doubt, be seeing signs of peadophilia in every kind caress, and due to their own guilty feelings will want to dish out punishment in order to feel "clean".

My reasons are not very scientific, but sound, at least in my mind, and I will give them to you. There is the common perception that many extreme homophobes are, in reality, just latent homosexuals who are having extreme difficulty coming to grips with reality. There is also the common misperception, by women, that men are liars and think only about sex, and the men who think that women are overly emotional and are overly concerned with clothing, when, in reality, it is usually the women who are constanly thinking about sex and lie compulsively (to others and primarily to themselves) and the men who are deeply emotional and place an undue importance on feminine clothing (women simply respond to this importance). But, because we can only see the world in the terms that we see it in, it is extremely difficult to see it in the way that someone else does. This leads to people explaining patterns of behaviour observed in others in terms of their own motivations, and what you get is women who see nothing but men who lie; latently, self-loathing gay men who see homosexuality everywhere and spend a large portion of their time deriding gay lifestyles; and latent peadophiles who see nothing but dirty old men wanting to get into the pants of small children where only they can magine what might take place.

Lets put this another way, picture a scene where there is a man picking up a four year old girl. Clearly, a 'dirty mind' will see how the right hand slides from the childs lower thigh up to cup her buttock, while the left hand caresses the side of her chest with the thumb sitting just over her nipple. A doctor might see the way that the childs arm is wrenched as she is picked up and how it might cause her to suffer from shoulder problems latter in life and how the hand ends up restricting blood flow in one of the main arteries under her arm. A daycare worker might see the way the child squirms as the adult picks her up and sees simply a contrary and difficult child. And a mother might see only the loving way the father looks at his daughter as he picks her up.

Argument summary: (3.60 / 5) (#15)
by zeta on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:15:10 AM EST

If you think Michael Jackson is a paedophile, YOU are a paedophile!

[ Parent ]
Contrarywise! (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by Viliam Bur on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:41:01 PM EST

If you think Michael Jackson is a paedophile, you are a thinker!

[ Parent ]
In Soviet Russia (4.30 / 10) (#27)
by enterfornone on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:44:59 PM EST

If you think Michael Jackson is a paedophile, Michael Jackson is YOU!

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Congratulations (4.50 / 6) (#30)
by krek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:50:41 PM EST

Way to take a deep, and kinda zen argument and turn it into a one sided Fox-News-type soundbite. You position at the Ministry of Truth has been confirmed.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.50 / 2) (#77)
by greenrd on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:27:14 PM EST

Is that, or is that not, what you're saying, in a nutshell? Sounds like an accurate summary to me.

If so, I'd have to disagree, although I think it probably applies to some of the screaming moralisers.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

No, that is not what I am saying. (none / 0) (#116)
by krek on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:30:16 AM EST

You guys are like the three blind men trying to describe the elephant. When you look at it from the perspective of trying to justify or condemn a socially unpopular behavior, then of course it is going to look like I am making gross generalisations about negative behavior, but in reality, I am actually making gross generalisations about behaviour in general. Subjectivity rules all human behavior.

[ Parent ]
You said it. (5.00 / 5) (#89)
by zeta on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:43:49 AM EST

That is what you're saying, isn't it? I understand your theory, but your *point* was that only those who are sympathetic to the concept of paedophilia (as in they consider paedophilia a motive to touching a child) would link this simple act of kindness to paedophilia, right? Because it's being filtered through their "dirty" mind, given a "dirty" slant.

My "soundbite" as you call it was such for a reason, to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your position. Out mind evaluates things not only based on our own desires (sexual or otherwise) but on our knowledge of how all people operate and interact. In the same way you think a paedophile would "sexualise" the act of touching a child, would not a victim of paedophilia do the same thing? What about someone whose child was a victim of it? Must they have a "dirty mind" to associate someone innocently touching their child with their child's previous molestation? Of course not. And do you think stories of paedophilia being all around us in the media cannot have the same effect?

It's ridiculous to say that only our own motives can influence us in this way. We evaluate situations based on all previous experiences, not only our own, but those we have witnessed others doing, or heard of, even second-hand (or further). To use your previous example of lying, someone who has been lied to often could be just as paranoid as someone who lies frequently themselves, but similarly, someone who rarely lies (or lies an "average amount") could have a totally irration fear of being lied to, even though they have never been the victim of this.

My basic point is that although your argument is a FACTOR in human interaction, it is hardly the only factor. When you generalise as you did, the result is my ridiculous "soundbite" where one's perceptions are all based on one's dark, hidden desires. Fortunately, this isn't the case.

[ Parent ]

Yes and no (none / 0) (#115)
by krek on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:20:11 AM EST

If you really feel that you must water it down to a single, simple statement then it would be this: "Objectivity is a figment of the imagination and subjectivity is all that there is".

Al we know and all we can know is own own mind and this includes our motivations, our emotions and, yes, the knowledge that we pick up along the way too. The thing is is that the knowledge that we do pick up has been filters by our brain and interpreted based on our motivations, emotional state and the knowledge you had gained up until that point. Life is just this giant circle of subjectivity and true knowledge cannot exist, only opinion.

[ Parent ]
In Soviet Russia (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by starsky on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 08:56:58 AM EST

Michael Jackson thinks YOU are a paedophile!

[ Parent ]
Dirty mind (4.62 / 8) (#16)
by enterfornone on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:15:12 AM EST

I think the problem is that many people, especially men, are bought up thinking that the only form of affection is sexual. It again comes back to the fact that they don't receive any non-sexual affection as they are growing up. So they come to view any display of affection as being sexual.

It doesn't just affect the way people look at kids, I knew one guy who wouldn't allow his girlfriend to hug her brother because he (subconsiously I hope) thought there was something sexual about it.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Men & emotions (4.33 / 3) (#28)
by Viliam Bur on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:47:10 PM EST

It seems to me that men are in our culture allowed only the "basic feelings", reduced to: sex, hate,... well, that's probably all.

And I often heard women complain about it.

But on the other hand, if some man shows some other emotions, it is usually again women who complain.

This gives me two questions:
1) What do those women want?
2) And why do we care (instead of feeling what we want to feel)?

Short answer to (1) may be: "Women want to complain - it does not depend on what exactly men do."
Short answer to (2): "Try to explain it to your mother when you are a small kid."

[ Parent ]

This question has already been answered, (2.25 / 4) (#31)
by danni on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 02:00:13 PM EST

women want Mel Gibson.

[ Parent ]
So ignore them. (3.75 / 4) (#56)
by bjlhct on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:04:25 PM EST

What do you care what other people think?

I don't, at least not much.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Culture and women as individuals (4.25 / 4) (#96)
by Verax on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 06:09:38 AM EST

It seems to me that men are in our culture [are] allowed only the "basic feelings", reduced to: sex, hate,... well, that's probably all.

Who is doing the allowing/disallowing? Perhaps we're hanging out with different crouds, but that restriction does not hold true for me at all.

As for women complaining about the lack of anything outside of the "basic feelings", and the women complaining about the display of emotions outside the "basic feelings", perhaps these are two different sets of women. I am not a woman myself, so I don't claim to be 100% correct here. But my experience is that women are all different. They're individuals who each have their own set of likes and dislikes, their own unique view of the world, their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. It's as if they were human beings, or something. :) I think that it is not productive to try to reduce any set of human beings down to some simple formula; whatever you wind up with will be a gross oversimplification, and, as such, pretty much useless. Sorry to be making sport of your comment here; you sound rather jaded, and I couldn't resist having some fun.

But that's not to say that analysis should be done away with completely. I suspect that it is the (very vocal) militant feminists who are doing the disallowing of anything outside the "basic feelings". This of course leaves those men who buy into that nonsense as angry, sexually frustrated individuals. Of course, well adjusted women (which make up the silent majority) don't want these shallow men with the emotional maturity of a disgruntled badger. I could be wrong, of course. Just my $0.02.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
What Women Want (4.50 / 2) (#101)
by codemonkey_uk on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:22:09 AM EST

Whatever it is, don't assume it's what they say it is, because it often isn't. Actually, in my experience, women don't know what they want. But then, how many men know what they want? Life is mindbogglingly complicated, and if anyone says otherwise, they are a liar.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0) (#144)
by greenrd on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 08:19:10 PM EST

I suspect that it is the (very vocal) militant feminists who are doing the disallowing of anything outside the "basic feelings".

What a bizarre claim. The only women who are close to "disallowing" more than hate and lust in men, are women who are only attracted to vicious thugs. And that has nothing to do with feminism.

After all, vicious thugs are more likely to be rapists, for one thing.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Apology and clarification. (none / 0) (#146)
by Verax on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:26:40 PM EST

What a bizarre claim. The only women who are close to "disallowing" more than hate and lust in men, are women who are only attracted to vicious thugs.

I suppose that can be the case, but that is not what I had in mind. What I meant by "militant feminists" was that (possibly small) subset of feminists that is convinced that all men are scum and to be scorned. If that is central to their way of seeing men, then they will be highly resistent to men presenting any other appearence.

And that has nothing to do with feminism.

Ok. Here I have to apologize. Feminism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It would not intellectually diligent of me to simply smear everything called feminism in with one sweeping statement. That wasn't my intent, but I can see how it could look that way. I do think that some brands of feminism are misguided, for example the "women are where it's at because all men are scum" brand of feminism. But I'm not going to say anything about other varieties without being clear as to what they are. Thanks for keeping me honest.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Perhaps (4.60 / 5) (#29)
by krek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:48:26 PM EST

Just for the record, I did not make any claims about where the 'dirty mind' comes from, only about what effect having a 'dirty mind' is likely to have on how you see the world and the other people in it.

I do, however, agree with your analysis, a lack of intimate, non-sexual contact as a child does seem like the sort of thing that will really mess up anyone, not just men, it just so happens that with the macho image that goes with being male comes an aversion to displaying physical affection, especially towards other males.

As a male who was extremely not-coddled as a child, I can at least testify to the fact that the lack of physical intimacy has made me somewhat repulsed by any physical contact at all. Even when just bumped by another person I tend to flinch away from that contact, and it takes a large effort of will to resist the impulse. I can also testify that this has not imbued me with any nasty peadophiliac tendencies, at least, none that have manifested themselves so far.

As for this fellow that you knew; following my pseudo-theory I would hazard a guess that this guy has entertained thoughts about his own sister (if he does not have one... well... it was only a pseudo-theory), otherwise I just do not see how this thought could have entered his mind in the first place, nor how he could be convinced that it was a real possibility.

[ Parent ]
Another Explanation (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by The Solitaire on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:47:50 PM EST

Here's another pseudo-feeling for you. Let's assume that the person has no sister. As such, he has no knowledge of what 'having a sister' is actually like. As such, he has no concept of whether or not a brother may be attracted to his sister, in a sexual way. Being the jealous type, he chooses to err on the side of caution.

There, a perfectly reasonable explanation (of an unreasonable behaviour), without resorting to being a closet insestaphile (I don't think that is a real word, but you get my point).

I need a new sig.
[ Parent ]

I hadn't thought of that (none / 0) (#111)
by krek on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:59:28 AM EST

But it still mostly fits my psuedo theory, so, uh, Thanks for the input.

[ Parent ]
Right. (4.40 / 5) (#64)
by gidds on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:38 PM EST

I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, as in the parent.  Our own insecurities and problems get projected upon others, and we think we've seen something noteworthy, when we're just seeing our own frustrated needs and inexperience.

Wasn't there a story a while back (either here or at the Other Place) about how we're all mammals, biologically, and that if we don't get affection and physical contact as we grow up, the older, reptilian behaviour comes to the fore - cruel, self-centred, uncaring, instead of the social, affectionate, physical, loving creatures we're designed to be?

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by krek on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:56:11 AM EST

But it is not just weaknesses that are projected, but strengths as well. Caring people tend to attribute the benevolent actions of others to kindness and honorable and trustworthy people will tend to trust most everyone.

As for reptilian behavior, there has been studies that confirm what you suggest, experiments with monkeys who are separated from other monkeys at a very young age. They invariably end up with developmental problems including self mutilative behavior, depression, and poor health resulting from reduced immunities as well as weakened biorhythms. They also attribute much of gang behavior to the underdevolopment of the limbic brain in favour of brain stem development (that part that controls fear, anger, territoriality, and much of the body's autonomous sytems.

A book that I found interesting was A General Theory Of Love.

[ Parent ]
but this only works case by case (4.33 / 3) (#26)
by speek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 01:42:53 PM EST

You can't apply this argument generally, because then nothing we ever say is ever about anything except ourselves. I can't say the house is small - I'm just saying I feel small. I can't say you're a liar - I'm just a liar in denial, etc. Fine - it certainly is true in a lot of cases (it's called projection, I believe). It happens. It's not something you can apply as a general principle, however. That way lies madness, IMO.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I think you missed my point (5.00 / 5) (#32)
by krek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 02:07:25 PM EST

Although, not by much.

It is not that everything we do and say is actually some subconscious transferral of our own personality onto the world at large (which is kind of what I think you are trying to say). It is that, as we walk through the world, we perceive it. We 'see' things and 'hear' things as electrical impulses produced by our sensory organs and transmitted to our brain. At this point these electrical signals have absolutely no meaning, it is not until the brain has had a chance to run this input through it's neural pathways that meaning falls out of it. Thus, the current state of our brain, which is constantly in flux, determines how we interpret the signals generated by our sensory organs.

To correct your examples, when you say that a house is small, what you are saying is that the house is smaller than what you are used to, to someone else it might be a mansion, but to you, who have stayed in real mansions, it is barely a townhouse. When you say that someone is a liar, what you are saying is that you have analysed this persons statement and that, due to several observations you have made about that persons tone of voice, word choice and body language, which you associate with lying, you have decided that they are a liar.

What I am saying is very simple really. Each person can only know their own mind and their own motivations, thus, when trying to determine the motivations and mind set of other people who are not you, you can do nothing better than extrapolate from your mind set and motivations towards the actions and behaviour of the subject.

I am not sure if that cleared it up or not.

[ Parent ]
just missed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by speek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 02:38:22 PM EST

Ok, I see what you mean. But my main objection is centered on the impression that you leave no room for the possibility for objectivity, or accurate empathy with others.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by krek on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:11:44 PM EST

Objectivity is a theoretical concept like the frictionless surface and the absolute vacum, and accurate empathy is possible under situations of extreme familiarity and extreme luck.

[ Parent ]
So (5.00 / 3) (#83)
by trane on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:32:26 PM EST

How does this relate to your statement of your theory?

In other words, how can you make a statement about projection, without it being projection itself? Maybe it's just you that projects, and you're assuming everyone else does too...

[ Parent ]

Oh Ho! Good one. (none / 0) (#104)
by krek on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:38:32 AM EST

I can't know, I can only take the data I have and treat it as objectively as I can (which is not very, as has already been said).

But, I possess something of a touchstone in the form of Kuro5hin, and through a feedback procees that will last my whole life, I will slowly approach that unreachable asymptote of reality that is the truth.

[ Parent ]
I think (none / 0) (#158)
by trane on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 10:03:18 AM EST

Science (the scientific method) is the best tool we currently have for discovering objective truth...but for this tool to work best, we must always maintain the strictest honesty with ourselves when making observations; we must always ask ourselves what biases we may have, what assumptions we are making, whether critics of our theories may be defeated on purely rational rather than emotional grounds, etc.

So I agree with the projection hypothesis; but it is important to remember that the hypothesis itself may be an instance of projection, and figure out how to deal with that possible case...

[ Parent ]

True, but remember (none / 0) (#162)
by krek on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 09:36:28 AM EST

That "Science (the scientific method) is the best tool we currently have for discovering objective truth" is a subjective opinion, one that I happen to agree with, but subjective none the less.

Just because all humans see the world more or less in the same way, does not imply that there is only one way to see the world. Just because human perception is aligned in such a way that we interpret the energies of a cesium atom as vibrations of a highly regular nature, which we happen to use to define time, does not make it so. The one thing that we all take for granted, the one thing that all of science depends on being well defined and extremely consistant, and the one thing that is the most subjective of all human experiences, is time.

At this point, how can you be sure that science is an objective experience?

[ Parent ]
objective truth vs. results (none / 0) (#168)
by trane on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:37:56 AM EST

Absolutely, the scientfic method is basically based on faith (that repeatability is important...), and our perceptions of the world are (probably) severely limited by the capacity of our senses, etc. So, no, I can't be sure that science is an objective experience; I think it is more objective than, say, religion, but ultimate proof is difficult.

The one reason to keep science above other currently available tools is that it has given us a lot of tangible results (made my life more convenient, easy).

[ Parent ]

some sense of guilt reqd. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by chu on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:47:53 AM EST

I think this only holds true sometimes and only then in cases where the accuser feels shame. As I understand it, many abusers don't actually feel that they are doing anything wrong (they know it's prohibited but that's another matter).

I did actually meet one a few times socially (found out afterwards) and it would be honest to say that he came over as a fundamentally nice and well-balanced person. I was really surprised when I found out about it. I spoke to some other people who knew him and they said it was as if he couldn't understand what he had done wrong and why people would go after him - but they also found him to be otherwise a nice and straightforward person. I think it was if something was missing in the mind - like a kind of moral blindness but with a localised effect maybe. It's very alien of course but perhaps something in psychiatry like the man who mistook his wife for a hat could give a clue.

(If you're curious about the story, basically I was told he was a social worker who had 'fallen in love' with a boy in his care and had run away with him. As I understood, it had all been dealt with by the authorities but he had to move house several times afterwards as he was being targeted as an abuser by vigilantes).

[ Parent ]

How old was the boy? n/t (none / 0) (#143)
by greenrd on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 08:08:31 PM EST


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]
not sure (none / 0) (#147)
by chu on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:33:50 PM EST

don't know, I think maybe about 10-12ish

[ Parent ]
Either that or.... (none / 0) (#137)
by cnmill on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:28:22 PM EST

...one has been molested as a child oneself.

[ Parent ]
Hehehe (2.42 / 7) (#23)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 12:37:09 PM EST

The study compared children playing in McDonalds playgrounds in France and the US and found that "pre-schoolers in France playfully touched each other twice as much US children did, but while the French children acted aggressively only 1 percent of the time, the US youth did so 29 percent of the time".

Gives a whole new meaning to "We Surrender," doesn't it, Americans? Impressive.



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


And they're a better lay too! (none / 0) (#55)
by noop on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:00:06 PM EST

"pre-schoolers in France playfully touched each other twice as much US children did, but while the French children acted aggressively only 1 percent of the time, the US youth did so 29 percent of the time"

So you're suggesting that children who grow up "touching" without aggressive violent intent wind up rolling over when the tanks come crashing through?

Whatever.

But I can attest that French chicks rock when it comes to rolling in the hay. Inventive bunch they are. Though I can't speak to French toddler chicks as I get my jollies from adults. Hmmmm, I never knew the French actually ate at McDonalds... when did McD's start serving raw hamburger with fries?

noop

[ Parent ]

It was a bad joke (4.66 / 3) (#58)
by DominantParadigm on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:42:18 PM EST

And I've never had the pleasure of bedding a French of Quebecois lady let, unfortunately. I'm going to keep trying to mack this one very cute German/French (fantastic sex done with perfect efficiency, perhaps? Hopefully I'll find out soon enough) girl I know.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
wrt France and pussitude (none / 0) (#57)
by adequate nathan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:25:53 PM EST

America has never fought one single battle as gory as Verdun, as a united nation.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Nice caveat. (none / 0) (#68)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:29:48 PM EST

Neat of you to exclude the most important US war, where battle casualties often exceeded 50%.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
I'm not claiming that Americans are wimps (5.00 / 3) (#69)
by adequate nathan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:34:35 PM EST

I have plenty of respect for the American fighting man. As Herman Wouk's Victor Henry points out in War and Remembrance, "the South was living on grass and acorns when it quit." American soldiers are not pushovers.

On the other hand, neither are the French. They lost to Germany because of incompetent generals who wanted to fight WWI over. They didn't lose because their soldiers are cowards.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

French Martial History (none / 0) (#97)
by cam on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 07:09:11 AM EST

Neat of you to exclude the most important US war

When France was invaded in 1940 the US was still a year away from declaring war on Germany. The British weere the ones that helped France defend their nation not the US.

World War I was won by the French Army and the Royal Navy. The French Army was the largest service in WWI and it was due to their courage and valour that trench warfare became a stalemate and the German Army never reached Paris. With a stalemate, the Royal Navy were able to blockade Germany and starve the nation to collapse.

The US contribution which only began in numbers in early 1918 and after the March 1918 Marne battles had no real bearing on the outcome of the war. The Marne battle of March 1918 was the final offensive the German Army was able to muster against Paris.

The American victory at Saratoga during the Revolutionary War was only possible because the French Navy blockaded Chesapeake Bay.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

You're missing the crucial factor. (3.70 / 10) (#34)
by Demiurge on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 03:04:17 PM EST

That's funny, I missed the point in your article where you note that Michael Jackson was accused of molesting a twelve-year-old boy in 1993, and eventually ended up settling out of court with his accusers for $20 million.

Are you honestly saying that it should be fine for an accused pedophilia to sleep with young children?  

Accused (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Cloaked User on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:07:17 PM EST

Not proven.

Sure, you can ask "well, if he was innocent, why didn't he fight it in court rather than paying the kid off?"

Well, maybe he just couldn't be bothered, and didn't think it was worth a mere $20m for the hassle?

Or did I miss the bit where the law was changed from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"?
--
"What the fuck do you mean 'Are you inspired to come to work'? Of course I'm not 'inspired'. It's a job for God's sake! The money's enough and the work's not so crap that I leave."
[ Parent ]

Also... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by fluffy grue on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:19:10 PM EST

I'd imagine that Jackson would prefer to give chunks of his vast wealth to the family of the child he has so much affection for, rather than put the child through the stress of a protracted court case, prosecutors cross-examining the child (usually using manipulative questioning and other underhanded tactics).
--
"Ain't proper English" ain't proper English.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Ask Jose Padilla (none / 0) (#86)
by trane on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:48:46 PM EST

Or did I miss the bit where the law was changed from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"?

[ Parent ]
I hereby accuse you! (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by jabber on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:41:39 PM EST

I hereby and henceforth accuse you of being a pedophile, a rapist, a liar and a thief.

I have no proof, and though I might be able to make some sort of case, and onvince some people that my accusation is justified, no court would find you guilty.

But, per your own logic, you must now stay away from children, women, money and anything of value, and Kuro5hin - since the validity of all your posts is now suspect.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

That's cute and everything... (2.00 / 1) (#79)
by LukeyBoy on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 10:45:36 PM EST

But settling out of court with the parents of the child he "allegedly" molested for $20 million is pretty fucking suspicious.

[ Parent ]
Not so (none / 0) (#84)
by Andy P on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:40:09 PM EST

Think about it, with all the bad publicity he was getting, no wonder he wanted to sweep it under the carpet as fast as possible.  

Two possibilities:
1)He's guilty, so he wants the case to go away.
2)He's innocent, so he still wants the case to go away.

Even if you know you're innocent, why risk a trial when you can just throw money at someone?  That doesn't prove anything other than the fact that having an open child abuse case against you is bad for selling records.

[ Parent ]

alternative explanation (none / 0) (#110)
by chu on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:56:37 AM EST

Consider that he did sleep innocently in the same room as the child. He realised that he cannot prove that he didn't commit a crime (as there were no witnesses). At the same time there would be the circumstances, which regular people with jobs, families (i.e. a judge or jury) would find weird and thus unconvincing as an explanation of normal practises in the MJ household. In the end it would come down to his word (Wacko Jacko) against a little kid (who in this hypothesis having decided to lie motivated by money would give a sterling performance). Though settling the case doesn't dispel the taint, even winning in court would leave doubt in many people's minds. So if you are MJ's lawyer, do you advise him to settle for a very affordable amount (to him) or risk court?

[ Parent ]
Sure it it. Or is it? (none / 0) (#114)
by jabber on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:16:23 AM EST

But suspicion does not equal guilt.

As the others have suggested, just because you're innocent, you can not always prove it. While we do have the clause of "beyond reasonable doubt", he's already seen as an eccentric and therefore public opinion is biased against him.

His mental state, and fiscal status, would degrade horribly if he were convicted. First off, he wouldn't last a second in prison. Second, his career would be largely over.

It is just as likely that he paid the family off to hide his crime, as it is that he was blackmailed.

[horrible pun regarding Jackson and black-male omitted to maintain a semblance of decorum in the thread]

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Two grand juries... (none / 0) (#45)
by Demiurge on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:12:13 PM EST

I think the accusations against Michael Jackson carry slightly more weight than your poor attempt at a rhetorical trick.

But note I did not say Jackson was a pedophile, I said he was an alledged pedophila.   While I realize that Jackson was never convicted, you'd have to be an idiot to not look at least a little more closely at his interaction with children after that point.  And I'd say his sleeping in the same bed with them raises a flag.

[ Parent ]
Two points (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by starsky on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 08:52:50 AM EST

a) the term is paedophile

b) You're a paedophile. Now you are also an 'accused paedophile' I assume you won't have anything to do with any kids in future, right?

I do not know whether MJ is guilty. But I do know that there's a large chance the kid was in it for the money.

[ Parent ]

Pedophile/Paedophile (none / 0) (#129)
by Merk00 on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 02:53:04 PM EST

The American English spelling is pedophile. The British English spelling paedophile. Both are correct spellings.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

Very good (2.00 / 1) (#161)
by starsky on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 03:56:32 AM EST

but I was correcting him on 'he is an alledged pedophila'. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[ Parent ]
Typo (4.00 / 1) (#163)
by Merk00 on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 09:56:27 AM EST

I think it was a typo given that he spelled it correctly the first time it was used in the sentence (emphesis added):
But note I did not say Jackson was a pedophile, I said he was an alledged pedophila.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

No (1.00 / 1) (#164)
by starsky on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:03:33 AM EST

he made the same mistake in both of his posts. You will not win this argument, so just stop.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1) (#165)
by Merk00 on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 12:02:53 PM EST

He's obviously demenstrated that he is capable of spelling pedophile correctly. My vote still goes to typo. It's not my fault you refuse to give up.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

The same typo (2.00 / 1) (#166)
by starsky on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 12:12:45 PM EST

twice, in different posts? Don't think so.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1) (#167)
by Merk00 on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 12:52:15 PM EST

In the first post, he used the term "pedophilia" which is a word but it wasn't the correct word. The second time the word chosen was "pedophila" which isn't a word. Making the same typo twice isn't unheard of. I end up doing it all the time.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

apples oranges and michael jackson (4.50 / 6) (#43)
by daishan on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 04:56:59 PM EST

You complain that kids are too violent when no male role models are present, I agree. You claim men are discouraged from teaching out of fear of lawsiuit, I agree. You claim the world would be a better place if Michael Jackson sleeps with kids? I disagree.

If I were a preteen boy who slept with Michael Jackson, I'd be all like "woot I slept with MJ".

Later on as a teenage boy I'd be like all "eww I slept with MJ". And no, my friends wouldn't let me live it down.

Regardless of his intent I still think it's creepy.

MJ is like OJ (3.00 / 6) (#49)
by maynard on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:31:39 PM EST

This documentary was originally aired in the UK and has only recently made it out to the states. What's interesting is that even in Europe people are aghast at what Michael Jackson said. Even though he verbally stated it was a non-sexual thing, even though he's never been convicted of sexual molestation, even though by all rights he's doing nothing more than my parents did when after waking up crying from a nightmare at age three. In the US, where we criminalize taking photos of toddlers in bathtubs or mothers breast feeding past three, one might expect this kind of puritanical response. But in Europe? Where women sunbathe nude? Where taking photos of your nude toddler lurching on unsteady legs in your backyard is not only normal but expected? They're aghast too?!?!?

Really, this says nothing about the different sexual mores between the US and Europe, and everything about public denunciation of Michael Jackson. MJ is just like OJ. He hasn't been convicted yet we all KNOW he's guilty. Normally I would consider this a terrible injustice against an innocent person. But let's face it, just as OJ is guilty, MJ is a total freak and almost certainly a child molester. Even sexually liberal Europeans have their limits. MJ in bed with a child?

*shudder*

And let's not forget dangling his baby out a window to show his "fans" how much he loves them. The guy shouldn't be a parent, nor responsible for children in any way, shape, or form. JMO.

--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Be like Mike (none / 0) (#51)
by sllort on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:43:27 PM EST

"At Neverland I would always sleep in bed with Michael Jackson. During our relationship Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on many occasions."

--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Your point? (none / 0) (#52)
by maynard on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:46:44 PM EST

How is what I wrote in any way inconsistent with the linked document? --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Your point? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by sllort on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:50:38 PM EST

How is what I wrote in any way a refutation of your comment?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Agreed. /nt. (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by maynard on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 05:51:40 PM EST

.

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Thought experiment (3.50 / 4) (#59)
by seb on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:03:46 PM EST

If you had a 12-year-old son, would you be happy for him to go over to Michael Jackson's house and spend the night in his bed?

Another thought experiment (2.50 / 2) (#61)
by Pseudonym on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:27:39 PM EST

Would you be more or less nervous about that than sending a 16-year-old daughter to Woody Allen's house for a sleepover?



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Well if she's 16, she's an adult... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by gordonjcp on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:00:28 PM EST

... and consequently can make decisions for herself. I'd like to think I'd raise my children with enough sense to either do the right thing, or have a good explanation.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
You have an odd idea (none / 0) (#66)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:27:21 PM EST

of when adulthood begins.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I know what you mean (n/t) (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by gordonjcp on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:36:19 PM EST


Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Adulthood begins (4.00 / 3) (#71)
by it certainly is on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:47:10 PM EST

where pubescence ends. That doesn't mean you're mentally prepared for adulthood. Indeed, some people go through their entire lives without being a responsible adult.

Note: in Scotland, you can legally marry without your parents' consent at age 16. None of this "18, but 15 to run someone over and 9 to blow someone's brains out" USA crap.

Really, I think that the US states should set the same age of consent as Hawaii.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Given that our brains don't finish growing (2.00 / 1) (#81)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:16:40 PM EST

I'm sorry, but since our brains don't finish developing until we're 19 or so, and that the last parts to finish developing are the parts related to judgement, I really can't consider some one an adult just because they're old enough to be horny.

Phasing various adult responsibilities in one at a time over a couple of years makes a lot more sense than giving a 16 year old a paper that says "you're an adult" and throwing them out the door.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
What? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by starsky on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 08:50:41 AM EST

and that the last parts to finish developing are the parts related to judgement

Do you just make this shit up or to you check it after pulling it out of your ass?

[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#107)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:52:20 AM EST

I use these things called "books". You should try them.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Nah (none / 0) (#152)
by epepke on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 11:46:33 AM EST

It's still 18 before you can drink in pubs.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
It is a cultural thing (none / 0) (#133)
by nusuth on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 04:15:29 PM EST

People basically stop acting like children when they are not supposed to act one anymore. An 18 year old is basically a 16 year old, just two years older, in urban Turkish culture. OTOH a 15 year old is usually someone very different from his/her 13 year old self. Go rural east and you'll see a 15 year old is a two years older 13. It is about what is expected from you at a particular age, how you are to act etc. 18 is not a magic number, at best, it is a compromise between 15 and 21. As far as body development goes, 21 (ensure adult body) or 15 (for most people, almost adult body) or 12 (sexual hormones and stuff) are better targets.

[ Parent ]
No... (none / 0) (#171)
by synaesthesia on Tue Mar 04, 2003 at 08:01:54 PM EST

But that has a lot to do with Michael Jackson. Fred Rogers, on the other hand... well, if he wasn't dead, that is...



Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
Hey Synaesthesia (none / 0) (#172)
by seb on Mon Jul 14, 2003 at 09:00:35 AM EST

I've been meaning for a while to reply to your most recent comment in this thread for a while, but unfortunately the discussion has now been archived.

Actually, I didn't really have a proper reply to make, I just wanted to post a comment to say that you were right and I was wrong. I really must learn not to try to take you on in a debate, as your critical faculties always run circles around mine.

I'm sure I had some sort of point to make (albeit extremely fragile, and doubtless easy for you to counter), but at the moment I can't think of it (if indeed it ever existed rather than being a product of my blind optimism), so if you don't hear any more from me soon you can take that as my acceptance of utter defeat.

Yours in wide-eyed admiration,
Seb


[ Parent ]

Hey Seb (none / 0) (#173)
by synaesthesia on Tue Jul 15, 2003 at 09:17:38 AM EST


All right, no need to be sarcastic ;) Let your epistemology do the talking.

yours,
The Lie-wam.

p.s. I have a tiny-teeny penis.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

Pah (none / 0) (#174)
by synaesthesia on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 07:26:51 AM EST

Very funny, Seb. That'll teach me for leaving myself logged in.

However, your puerile recriminations will not cover up the fact that you've lost the debate.

HAND.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

Timeline (4.16 / 6) (#60)
by evilpenguin on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:18:30 PM EST

Google never ceases to amaze me.

Above is a timeline of Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries throughout the years. I'm not even going to try to make a witty comment here, as the pictures speak for themselves.
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
The $1m question... (2.66 / 3) (#67)
by it certainly is on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:27:46 PM EST

does Mike wear jim-jams?

If he does, then all this sleeping over is OK by me. Especially if it's Spiderman pyjamas, they're so darned cute.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Character (4.55 / 9) (#72)
by DarkZero on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:48:37 PM EST

This isn't about an average man, or even a male teacher, sleeping in a bed with other people's children. This is about a man who was accused of molesting other people's children and decided to settle out of court instead of go to trial sleeping in a bed with other people's children. Rather than being an upstanding citizen with a good job and a history of working with children, i.e. a person with a good reputation for working well and in a non-molesting way with children, Michael Jackson is a person with strong marks against his character and therefore his actions are suspicious and possibly worthy of investigation.

If one of my friends tells me that he's going to take a stroll on the Atlantic City boardwalk, but that he has no interest in going into the casinos, I would believe him. I have no reason not to believe him. There wouldn't even be a doubt in my mind that that was what he was doing. However, if a friend that I suspect is hiding a gambling addiction tells me that he's going to take a stroll on the Atlantic City boardwalk, but that he has no interests in going into the casinos, my belief would not be quite as strong. In the context of this situation, he has marks against his character and probably should not be trusted. In fact, I might even go and check up on him to see if he's really telling the truth; for his own sake.

When a person with a good reputation does something sort of suspicious and abnormal, there's really no reason to investigate. Sure, it looks a little weird, but they're trustworthy and you can wholeheartedly believe that they aren't doing anything wrong. When a person with a reputation of misconduct does something sort of suspicious and abnormal, then it's not unreasonable to suspect that they're actually doing something wrong. I'm not saying you should crucify them for it, but you should certainly investigate the matter further.

It's always safer to settle out of court. (4.00 / 1) (#151)
by christonabike on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 11:55:04 PM EST

For any public figure accused of child molestation, it is safer to simply settle out of court. Anything related to children and sex is simply a topic way too fraught with emotion for many people to be considered in a logical manner. If Jackson's case had gone to trial and lasted 6 months, his career would have been over for sure. Settling, he retained at least some of his fans. Look at Pete Townshend, he will never be regarded the same way he was before, even if he doesn't go to jail. A former teacher at my school was accused of "sexual misconduct with a student" and looks likely to be found innocent. But he will never, ever get a job in this area again. He could keep his current one, sure, but the attitude of my parents and staff would make it hell.

(Note: I believe Jackson to be innocent, simply because he was never proven guilty.)

[ Parent ]
Case for public prosecution of all criminal cases (none / 0) (#170)
by splitpeasoup on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 06:21:25 PM EST

You make a good case for Jackson (or any potential criminal offender) to be prosecuted by the state in spite of any settlement he might have made with private parties.

If he is guilty, he should be brought to justice irrespective of whether the victims (motivated by greed, or whatever else) agreed to settle.

Is our legal system faulty in this respect? Namely, that it allows people to settle criminal cases out of court?

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

What has this world come to? (4.85 / 7) (#73)
by vyruss on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:02:24 PM EST

In Greece, where I come from, it is quite common for old people to approach strangers babies in the street, say hi to them, stroke their hair, etc. in a playful mood, because presumably it gives them joy to see a life so young (in contrast to theirs), especially if they don't have grandchildren of their own. But the parents' reaction to this is certainly not to start screaming, scold the old man and/or call the police. So, my guess would be that the extreme fear of pedophilia is more a cultural thing than anything.

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

Question (none / 0) (#87)
by AmberEyes on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:51:30 PM EST

Does your Greek culture extend that to fondling them?

Jackson didn't just brush their hair and call them cute, you know.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
innocent (3.00 / 2) (#90)
by manekineko on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:52:24 AM EST

He was found inncoent you know. What are you suggesting he did with them?

[ Parent ]
settled actually (none / 0) (#91)
by manekineko on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:57:58 AM EST

I looked into it, and I see he settled, not was found innocent. Still, interesting that no else came out and claim they got molested...

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 0) (#92)
by AmberEyes on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 01:32:53 AM EST

Who in their right mind would want to admit to being molested by Michael Jackson?

That's like going "Hey! I got fucked up the ass by Richard Simmons with a carrot stick, while Jane Fonda pissed all over me! Let me tell you about it in graphic detail!"

What you look for is a sharp increase in drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide amongst those suspected of being tainted by our favorite pop star.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
Um, (none / 0) (#94)
by twistedfirestarter on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 03:49:23 AM EST

you do realize that the kid who accused MJ got a cool 7 million for his trouble? Hell, if I had a chance to get half as much I'd claim to be abused to.

Not that I don't think MJ is one child molesting freak, and by all rights he should be locked up and/or re-black-ified

[ Parent ]

Sir: (3.00 / 4) (#95)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:21:48 AM EST

I find that I am fascinated by this process that you call "re-black-ification." Could you please explain the details involved? I know some people that would be most interested in such a procedure.

Cheers
DLS
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

Well, I certainly wasn't trying to defend M.J... (none / 0) (#159)
by vyruss on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 11:45:33 AM EST

...that sick f**k disgusts me. But I was just wondering why gestures that appear perfectly normal and cute to some people could appear threatening to others. Then turmeric appeared and trollificaly answered my question (in a way) ;-)

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
how prevalent are catholics in your country (1.00 / 1) (#103)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:37:26 AM EST

that might explain something

[ Parent ]
Uh (none / 0) (#121)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:22:43 PM EST

Go back to school.

What a nincompoop.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Explain something? (none / 0) (#153)
by Niha on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 07:38:02 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hiding my genitals from kindergartners. (2.75 / 4) (#74)
by dagg on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 09:19:35 PM EST

a lack of physical affection results in US children becoming more violent

Seriously, whenever any children between four and six years old are in the room, my genitals are well shielded from punchings.


--
Find Yer Sex Gateway
Okay, let's say the guy is harmless. (4.00 / 2) (#82)
by Apuleius on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:23:40 PM EST

I still wouldn't let my (as yet nonexistent) kids near him. Because he has been living in a Peter Pan world and is a bad example of what a full grown member of our species should be like. It's sad that he started the surgeries and whatever else to try to preserve a youthful look. It's sad that the parasites and hangers on that have exploited him have also encouraged his every whim and idiosyncracy to the point that he has become a freak. None of that is enough to make me hate him so long as he hasn't hurt any kid. But, he's an abject lesson in an utter lack of manhood, something that a kid should not encounter until he is old enough to separate adult examples from adult warnings.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
A big fat guy sleeps in my bed every day. (3.37 / 8) (#88)
by by on on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:53:37 PM EST

Oh wait, that's me.

uhm, well, (1.75 / 8) (#102)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:27:30 AM EST

if 'men in general' want women to not be afraid of them, then 'men in general' need to do a few things.

1. stop beating women

2. stop raping women

3. stop beating kids

4. stop raping kids

5. stop apologizing for people who do the above, and stop blaming women and kids for any of the above

6. stop making fun of people who are working against child abuse

7. stop treating feminism like a joke

8. stop joking about rape, abuse, and exploitation as a joke

9. reconsider the porn you consume

10. etc etc etc

When did you stop beating your wife? (nt) (5.00 / 4) (#106)
by codemonkey_uk on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:44:07 AM EST


---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
yes yes yes (none / 0) (#113)
by djguvnor on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:02:02 AM EST

men have to stop doing all those things but it's not only men who have built this climate of fear that we call civilised society. Men have always done these things to women and women have doubtless always done bad things back. That's not the problem is it?!?! These days everyone is looking for the worst, suspecting peopl to be bad and so we are all being bad ourselves so as not to lose out. It's getting worse too and I don't think you can realistically ask 'men in general' to stop doing all these things neither is it the solution to the problem.

visit: ukbassline.co.uk for new music by unsigned artists.
[ Parent ]
wrong (1.00 / 1) (#120)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:06:08 PM EST

wrong

[ Parent ]
Not all men... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by chrismear on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:51:01 AM EST

I think that, 'in general', the men who want women to stop being afraid of men aren't the ones who are raping women, hurting children, and 'making fun of people who are working against child abuse'.

You might have had a point if you had suggested that the average, decent, non-raping man should do more to work against the general image of 'men as evil', and do more to curb the behaviour of his anti-social compatriots, rather than just sitting there and tolerating the current popular demonisation of all men... but you didn't say that. Instead, you insinuate that most men rape, beat, and don't care when other men do it either. Sigh.



[ Parent ]
no i didnt (1.00 / 1) (#119)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:05:22 PM EST

but you certainly seem to be more hung up on the image than on the cause.

[ Parent ]
Oh really? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by Kintanon on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 01:36:45 PM EST

You said:
"if 'men in general' want women to not be afraid of them, then 'men in general' need to do a few things."

So... How does that NOT imply that 'men in general' are performing the actions you then listed below?

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

well... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 03:49:47 PM EST

actually you are right. i worded it pretty badly.

[ Parent ]
WOOHOO!! (5.00 / 3) (#132)
by Kintanon on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 04:11:58 PM EST

I got Turmeric to admit he was wrong! Even if it was a tiny little thing! Do I get bonus points? Is there an awards ceremony? Where do I go to pick up my free luggage?!

>:)
Kintanon


[ Parent ]

uhm (none / 0) (#138)
by turmeric on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:47:52 PM EST

i dont know

[ Parent ]
Get with the program! (3.50 / 2) (#139)
by epepke on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 06:58:46 PM EST

Feminist par excellence Susan Brownmiller describes rape as something by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear (italics hers).


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Woohoo! Modded down by greenrd! (none / 0) (#149)
by epepke on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:04:12 PM EST

The quote is accurate. Find a copy of Against Our Will and check it out. And this book has been used as a text for criminology majors at the University of Illinois. Check that out, too.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Right (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by mstefan on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:31:59 PM EST

Oh, and don't forget...

11. Stop generalizing about wide swaths of the population of which you have no personal knowledge.

Point of fact, your apparent assertion that 'men in general' are abusive rapists and child molestors says a lot more about you than it does about that half of the population you're condemning.



[ Parent ]
Damn, there goes my sunday night. [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by RyoCokey on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:13:45 PM EST



Pacifism in this poor world in which we live -- this lost world -- means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.
-- Francis Schaeffer,
[ Parent ]
Going down the list, and looking at the problem. (none / 0) (#140)
by Verax on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 06:59:42 PM EST

if 'men in general' want women to not be afraid of them, then 'men in general' need to do a few things.

I count myself among the general male population. This subject reminds me of a time that I was driving in the early morning, and had to slow down to check some written directions. A lady was jogging in the same direction that I was driving, but I had not noticed her. Apparently she noticed me, and abruptly switched directions. At first I was puzzled, but then realized that it looked suspicious that a car would be slowly driving behind a jogger. In a way, I was hurt that anyone would think of me as a threat; that's not what I'm all about. But, her actions were quite reasonable. It's sad that things should be this way.

Anyway, let's run down the list

1. stop beating women

That's easy; I never have to begin with.

2. stop raping women

Piece of cake; I've never raped anyone.

3. stop beating kids

I have never beaten any kids.

4. stop raping kids

Like I said, I've never raped anyone.

5. stop apologizing for people who do the above, and stop blaming women and kids for any of the above

I've never been inclined to condone that behavior, nor have I blamed the women or kids who are beaten or forceably raped.

6. stop making fun of people who are working against child abuse

I don't recall making fun of anyone for working against child abuse.

7. stop treating feminism like a joke

Can you be more specific, here? Many different things are called "feminism." Exactly what is your idea of feminism?

8. stop joking about rape, abuse, and exploitation as a joke

I'm not inclined to joke about those things.

9. reconsider the porn you consume

I have, several years ago. I don't know about other guys, but this one was tremendously difficult for me, and there were many setbacks. I don't know if it's at all similar, but through the process, I've gained compassion for those who have struggled against alcoholism and drug addiction.

I understand that viewing or reading pornographic material has subtle, but very powerful negative effect on overall society with regard to how human beings relate to one another. If it is ok for the participants in pornography to treat one another in that way, if it's ok to present that satisfying any sexual inclination should be satisfied regardless of how and in what context, then how can we expect those who watch it to be completely unaffected? Advertisers know full well how images, and especially sexual images, reach down into our internal wiring and affect our behavior. Advertisers are, of course, interested in bringing about purchasing behavior. But is it really reasonable to assume that a change in purchasing habits is the only thing affected by seeing these images?

Your message is an clearly an example of the "hasty generalization" fallacy; if you ask "men in general," I'm sure that you'll find very nearly all of them will have responses similar to mine, with the possible exception of those who are in the clutches of addiction to #9 here. However, I can see past that to what your core point is, and I think that I agree.

I have to ask, though, how is pornography made? If the women who participate are forced into sex, why isn't that prosecuted as rape? And if they are not forced, then don't they bear the same burden of responsibility for their contribution to pornography as you suggest (with your 10 points) that badly behaved men should bear for their own actions?

I have to also ask what is the responsibility of society (male and female members) as a whole? Similar to the subtle, yet powerful way that pornography shapes our attitudes, elective abortion also has a subtle but powerful effect. If it is ok to kill human beings who simply because they are inconvenient, then why is it also not ok to belittle them, beat them, rape them, and film them doing degrading things? After all, if human life isn't valuable simply because it's human life, then some people can much more easily justify what they do to those human lives that they consider worthless (or that they don't even recognize as human).

10. etc etc etc

That's not very specific. If you have concrete recommendations, it would be much easier for others to consider acting on them if they were stated clearly.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
going down the list (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by mikelist on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:25:28 AM EST

I agree with most of the points made, but I think that porn use is a symptom rather than a cause of intimacy and respect problems. When you consider the diverse range of what you can reasonably define as porn, this seems to be very obvious. I'm going to suggest that your decline in porn usage is caused by a more realistic attitude towards women and people in general that you reached in hashing this out yourself.

[ Parent ]
Glass half empty or half full? How's about both. (none / 0) (#160)
by Verax on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 04:08:09 PM EST

I think that porn use is a symptom rather than a cause of intimacy and respect problems

I'll agree that it can be a symptom. But I do not think that, in this case, causes and symptoms have to be mutually exclusive. Using a drug addiction analogy, it can be anti-social attitudes (rebellion) that leads to trying hard drugs. So it would be fair to say that the anti-social behavior is a cause of the drug use. However, once having tried hard drugs, an addiction itself can lead to crimes to perpetuate the habit. So it is also fair to say that the drug addiction can lead to anti-social behavior (the criminal activity).

So, although it is perhaps not as obvious, I would suggest that porn use can be both a symptom and a cause of intimacy and respect problems.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Role & Partner Models (none / 0) (#108)
by Kuranes on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:52:23 AM EST

I think there is also a big problem with media-displayed male role-models, which often are accepted by women as partner-models. Female "good friends" of mine I almost had relationships with at school often lamented to me how mean those men were. As if I was an elected representant of these *mean* *mean* *mean* men ;-).

Suggestion: Change your taste in men! (c) Placebo

Of course, there are differing individuals, but role models are still a big problem.

Another interesting aspect would be the strange socioeconomic 'mating' phenomenon of male wealth and female beauty. What about that?


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
Mahatma Gandhi did it too (3.66 / 3) (#112)
by Quietti on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:59:39 AM EST

The old wise man Gandhi used to fall asleep with a virgin teenage girl in his arms. Of what I recall reading in his biography, he said it kept him youthful.

--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by nazhuret on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 12:44:00 PM EST

Now there's a pickup line in the making.

"I just want to stay young..."

[ Parent ]

The question has to be asked: (5.00 / 2) (#125)
by webwench on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 01:38:48 PM EST

Was the girl still a virgin when Gandhi woke up?

[ Parent ]
Yes, (none / 0) (#128)
by shaunak on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 02:23:41 PM EST

She still was a virgin.

[ Parent ]
In the ass doesn't count. [n/t] (2.00 / 4) (#134)
by RyoCokey on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 05:12:36 PM EST



Pacifism in this poor world in which we live -- this lost world -- means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.
-- Francis Schaeffer,
[ Parent ]
Which biography? (none / 0) (#142)
by Verax on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 07:19:01 PM EST

Of what I recall reading in his biography [...]

Was this an autobiograhy? If not, who is the author, and what is the name of the book?

Thanks.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
The way I heard it (4.50 / 2) (#150)
by epepke on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:07:33 PM EST

The way I heard it was that is was some kind of test for his vow of celibacy. At best, it seems to me rather unkind to the young women.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Re: Mahatma Gandhi did it too (1.00 / 1) (#154)
by banstyle on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 10:44:31 PM EST

I heard he rubbed his bald head in oil and rubbed it all over her naked body, too. (c:

__
"Everything done in weakness fails. Moral: do nothing." -Nietzsche
[ Parent ]
but wasn't she... (none / 0) (#156)
by mikelist on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:16:09 AM EST

of a culturally appropriate age? I would think it would unacceptable if a failure to maintain his celibacy would have resulted in sex with a child (status as accepted by Hindu practice of the time).

[ Parent ]
You are misinformed (or, On Gandhi and Sex) (none / 0) (#169)
by splitpeasoup on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 06:06:55 PM EST

Gandhi never said it had anything to do with keeping himself youthful. You are misinformed and your post is more than a little misleading.

Gandhi did have a practice of sleeping in the same room as young women, often his nieces (not in their arms though). As epepke mentioned, Gandhi said this was to test his vow of celibacy. Given that Gandhi was not ever known to lie about anything, and his views on sexuality were puritanical to the point of being weird, there seems little reason to doubt his statement.

For instance, Gandhi strongly maintained that all sexual gratification (including masturbation, and including normal marital sex between husband and wife), if not undertaken for the express purpose of procreation, was fundamentally wrong and sinful, a view that was undoubtedly excessive even relative to conventional Indian conservatism with regard to sex.

My personal theory on Gandhi's horror of sex is that it stemmed from his association of sex with his father's death. For those not familiar with his autobiography, what happened is this:

When Gandhi was fifteen, his father was seriously ill, and expected to die at any minute. Gandhi, always a dutiful son, was maintaining a vigil by the deathbed, but at one point took a break to make love to his newly married wife, during which short interval his father died. Needless to say, he was bitterly unhappy and filled with guilt at this. Besides his conscious belief that he had failed his duty and been led away by temptation, he must have been also indelibly subconsciously traumatized by the concurrence of his father's death and his act of sexual intercourse, something which would have explained his lifelong ultra-conservative, obsessive, ideas on sex.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

Here's something you may find interesting (4.00 / 2) (#148)
by P funk on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 09:33:50 PM EST

From The Smoking Gun

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/mjdec1.html

In light of the creepy new Michael Jackson documentary, below you'll find the bombshell court document that first raised allegations that the singer was involved in inappropriate behavior with a young boy. The September 1993 declaration was sworn by a 13-year-old California boy who sued Jackson for, among other things, sexual battery, willful misconduct, and emotional distress. The child's declaration includes a graphic account of alleged sexual encounters with Jackson at the performer's Neverland Ranch and various hotels. Four months after the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit was filed, the two sides announced that the matter had been settled, though terms were not disclosed. News reports have estimated that Jackson paid north of $15 million to settle the tawdry action. No criminal charges were ever filed in connection with the teenager's charges. In the new documentary, Jackson says, "I have slept in a bed with many children," but notes that, "When you say 'bed,' you're thinking sexual. It's not sexual, we're going to sleep. I tuck them in...It's very charming, it's very sweet."

You can read the 4-page declaration by clicking the link at the top of this document.


when I was a kid... (none / 0) (#155)
by mikelist on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:10:43 AM EST

I had to share a bed with my youngest brother, as soon as he toilet trained. If that's all there is to it, cool. but I doubt it somehow. At the most innocent it's still creepy, an adult having other people's children in one's bed. Where does he find parents who accept this?

I Want to be Like Mike | 174 comments (169 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!