When you add all the cases of physical and psychological abuse of children, and the fact that these forms of abuse are still seen as 'normal' by many people especially parents, it's no surprise to me the world is as fucked up as it is. I really wouldn't be surprised if 6 or 7 out of 10 of all of us here have been messed up in some way...

Tremolina said:

HotGritz said:

You know what I suspect? I suspect those family members that look the other way may have been abused themselves or maybe they feel ashamed and value public opinion over the safety and well being of their own child. I don't know what else could possibly make a parent sit by and allow their child to be sexually violated. I mean damn....its like watching a murder and just walking away. Its a good thing I don't run this world because I would lock up the people who knew about the abuse right along side the abusers. The prisons would be far more overcrowded than they already are. Fuck child molesters and the people who roll with them!

That's what I mean. Prisons and frying pans filled with acid would be crowded with people you probably know and would have never thought.

I have heard several stories from abused women who did come forward. For example they told their grandmother, because they thought grannie would listen and they didn't want to hurt mommie. But grannie then tells the girl that nothing happened and she's just imagining it...

Denial, shame, fear, guilt, conflicts of interest and a lack of love and care for the child are usually reason why nothing happens, to begin with...

[Edited 12/14/11 9:15am]

http://prince.org/msg/100/372565

See that terrible thread about a father raping his little girls in a manner that is too sick for words...

And mama?

Tremolina said:

When you add all the cases of physical and psychological abuse of children, and the fact that these forms of abuse are still seen as 'normal' by many people especially parents, it's no surprise to me the world is as fucked up as it is. I really wouldn't be surprised if 6 or 7 out of 10 of all of us here have been messed up in some way...

THREE of my lady friends have been molested and TWO of my guy friends. I'm still having trouble processing it. Another friend's brother was raped as a child. When you realize how close to home it hits; you become very angry hence my vat of acid commentary. I have zero tolerance for these fuckgerms. Just kill them and be done with it I say.

HotGritz said:

Tremolina said:

Most (sexually) abused children are actually (sexually) abused by their own parents or other sibblings.

Well that leaves everybody else's kids less at risk doesn't it? Truthfully, its a lose-lose situation. So what do we do? Not allow men to be coaches at all? Its harsh, unrealistic and even unreasonable but I'm fine with it if even one kid is protected.

With all due respect, HotGritz, women are just as capable of such crimes against children. Sad but true.

I don't think all men should be banned from being coaches or running children's charities. There are good men who care out there. It's just people like Sandusky who ruin the chances to do good for everyone else. No one, man or woman, can do something nice or show kindness to children without someone giving them the side-eye.

HotGritz said:

Tremolina said:

When you add all the cases of physical and psychological abuse of children, and the fact that these forms of abuse are still seen as 'normal' by many people especially parents, it's no surprise to me the world is as fucked up as it is. I really wouldn't be surprised if 6 or 7 out of 10 of all of us here have been messed up in some way...

THREE of my lady friends have been molested and TWO of my guy friends. I'm still having trouble processing it. Another friend's brother was raped as a child. When you realize how close to home it hits; you become very angry hence my vat of acid commentary. I have zero tolerance for these fuckgerms. Just kill them and be done with it I say.

Don't get me started, I've heard so many heartbreaking stories...

I try to look at it objectively as possible but what I see then is that this has always happened. Everywhere. In all levels of all socities, by all races, genders and ages.

For so LONG and so many times judged as 'normal'. And when not, then swept under the rug.

It's just so terrible to see that and then realise there is nothing you can do...

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

HotGritz said:

Well that leaves everybody else's kids less at risk doesn't it? Truthfully, its a lose-lose situation. So what do we do? Not allow men to be coaches at all? Its harsh, unrealistic and even unreasonable but I'm fine with it if even one kid is protected.

With all due respect, HotGritz, women are just as capable of such crimes against children. Sad but true.

No doubt but the statistics don't lie. Men are far more likely to rape and dare I say more capable and they are more likely to be violent in their sexual abuse. Women abusers, from what I've read, are more like the Mary Kay Latourneau (sp) type. Their victims tend to be older and more often opposite sex although same sex abuse among females occurs as well.

I don't think all men should be banned from being coaches or running children's charities. There are good men who care out there. It's just people like Sandusky who ruin the chances to do good for everyone else. No one, man or woman, can do something nice or show kindness to children without someone giving them the side-eye.

Unfortunately, the bad men have ruined things for the good men. Think of that one dude who got on the plane with explosives in his sneakers. Now we all have to take our shoes off before boarding. It sucks but it is necessary. If we have to prohibit men from working with children in order to reduce the risk of children being abused then i've no problem with that. Maybe in the meantime more of the good men will be active participants in the much needed war against sexual predators.

All i know is if I was a single mom and some dude came up to me talking about "your child is so pretty" or trying to meet my kid early in the dating process I would tell him to get the fuck on before he get shit on!!!!! Wouldn't leave my kid alone with no males possibly not even his/her daddy. Glad I only have a dog.

HotGritz said:

If we have to prohibit men from working with children in order to reduce the risk of children being abused then i've no problem with that.

It's just a matter of time before the first stories about female child rapists in child care services surface. Or stories about women beating children up. You know, it's really just because our modern day media is so focused on it, that we hear so much about it. Imagine what you would read, see and hear if all the FAMILY cases would be reported on too...

Tremolina said:

HotGritz said:

It's just a matter of time before the first stories about female child rapists in child care services surface. Or stories about women beating children up. You know, it's really just because our modern day media is so focused on it, that we hear so much about it. Imagine what you would read, see and hear if all the FAMILY cases would be reported on too...

Now those stories have surfaced and surfaced again. It seems, and this is just MHO, that the women are more likely to beat a child and the men are more likely to rape a child. Not sure if that has to do with how we process anger and sexual frustration.

HotGritz said:

Tremolina said:

It's just a matter of time before the first stories about female child rapists in child care services surface. Or stories about women beating children up. You know, it's really just because our modern day media is so focused on it, that we hear so much about it. Imagine what you would read, see and hear if all the FAMILY cases would be reported on too...

Now those stories have surfaced and surfaced again. It seems, and this is just MHO, that the women are more likely to beat a child and the men are more likely to rape a child. Not sure if that has to do with how we process anger and sexual frustration.

Yeah they have and what has society done?

You may be right about a difference between men and women, I am not sure. It's all abuse in my eyes.

Tremolina said:

HotGritz said:

Now those stories have surfaced and surfaced again. It seems, and this is just MHO, that the women are more likely to beat a child and the men are more likely to rape a child. Not sure if that has to do with how we process anger and sexual frustration.

Yeah they have and what has society done?

You may be right about a difference between men and women, I am not sure. It's all abuse in my eyes.

HotGritz said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

With all due respect, HotGritz, women are just as capable of such crimes against children. Sad but true.

No doubt but the statistics don't lie. Men are far more likely to rape and dare I say more capable and they are more likely to be violent in their sexual abuse. Women abusers, from what I've read, are more like the Mary Kay Latourneau (sp) type. Their victims tend to be older and more often opposite sex although same sex abuse among females occurs as well.

I don't think all men should be banned from being coaches or running children's charities. There are good men who care out there. It's just people like Sandusky who ruin the chances to do good for everyone else. No one, man or woman, can do something nice or show kindness to children without someone giving them the side-eye.

Unfortunately, the bad men have ruined things for the good men. Think of that one dude who got on the plane with explosives in his sneakers. Now we all have to take our shoes off before boarding. It sucks but it is necessary. If we have to prohibit men from working with children in order to reduce the risk of children being abused then i've no problem with that. Maybe in the meantime more of the good men will be active participants in the much needed war against sexual predators.

All i know is if I was a single mom and some dude came up to me talking about "your child is so pretty" or trying to meet my kid early in the dating process I would tell him to get the fuck on before he get shit on!!!!! Wouldn't leave my kid alone with no males possibly not even his/her daddy. Glad I only have a dog.

"If we have to prohibit men from working with children in order to reduce the risk of children being abused then i've no problem with that."

I don't think you mean that. What effort have you put into banning Boy Scouts, PE or high school sports?

Don't get me started on the Boys/Girls Clubs or Big Brothers.

What about keeping men away from children at church events?

What about family events during the holidays? Should it just be women and children, as too much is generally going on to watch men?

HotGritz said:

Tremolina said:

It's just a matter of time before the first stories about female child rapists in child care services surface. Or stories about women beating children up. You know, it's really just because our modern day media is so focused on it, that we hear so much about it. Imagine what you would read, see and hear if all the FAMILY cases would be reported on too...

Now those stories have surfaced and surfaced again. It seems, and this is just MHO, that the women are more likely to beat a child and the men are more likely to rape a child. Not sure if that has to do with how we process anger and sexual frustration.

You think rape is about sexual frustration?!

SUPRMAN said:

HotGritz said:

"If we have to prohibit men from working with children in order to reduce the risk of children being abused then i've no problem with that."

I don't think you mean that. What do you think i mean then? You think I'm okay with one or two kids getting raped as long as most men get to keep their job? Please.

What effort have you put into banning Boy Scouts, PE or high school sports?

Actually, if you must know, I don't support boy scouts period. I find them useless and an attraction for pedophiles. As for PE and high school sports, well so many schools no longer have PE and some have eliminated high school sports. I am only politically active in my state and whenever petitions arise to strengthen child protection laws or stiffen sentences for those who sexually violate kids trust and believe my john hancock is on there.

Don't get me started on the Boys/Girls Clubs or Big Brothers. Go ahead and get started. We might be on the same page here. I think these organizations were started with the best intentions but lets face it, just as theives who want money know to go to the banks so goes it that pervs who want kiddie ass know to go to where the children generally are and are in large numbers. At risk youth are easy targets.

What about keeping men away from children at church events?

This is interesting in that it depends on what men and what events you are talking about. Are you talking father/son events where mothers are also present? Events that take place outdoors? Family retreats? Are you talking members of the church or strangers from the outside? Your question requires clarification.

What about family events during the holidays? Should it just be women and children, as too much is generally going on to watch men? Sure, why not? Like Chris Rock says, every family has a molester uncle in it. So if you know you have a perv in the family then why invite him (or her) to the holiday celebration? Why leave children unsupervised and unattended? I think there is plenty women can do to protect their children from male predators if they get out the fashion catalog and off their ass and actually MOTHER! Yeah I'm saying it. Bitches done got lazy!

SUPRMAN said:

HotGritz said:

Now those stories have surfaced and surfaced again. It seems, and this is just MHO, that the women are more likely to beat a child and the men are more likely to rape a child. Not sure if that has to do with how we process anger and sexual frustration.

You think rape is about sexual frustration?!

Partly yes. You can't be naive enough to think rape is about one thing and it is the same thing for all who commit this heinous act. Just as murder, battery and robbery have many motivating factors, so does rape.

HotGritz said:

SUPRMAN said:

You think rape is about sexual frustration?!

Partly yes. You can't be naive enough to think rape is about one thing and it is the same thing for all who commit this heinous act. Just as murder, battery and robbery have many motivating factors, so does rape.

That's like saying men who can't pay for sex become rapists.

Men don't rape because they want sex. It's a lot easier to jack off.

Show me something on rape and rapist that attributes it to sexual frustration that isn't Freud.

Murder, battery and robbery I agree but may have different motivations but that doesn't apply across the board to all crimes.

That's like saying Sandusky was sexually assaulting young boys because he wasn't getting any from his wife. Who believes that?

SUPRMAN said:

HotGritz said:

Partly yes. You can't be naive enough to think rape is about one thing and it is the same thing for all who commit this heinous act. Just as murder, battery and robbery have many motivating factors, so does rape.

That's like saying men who can't pay for sex become rapists.

Uh you're a bit confused here. Sexual frustration does not equate to men who can't pay for sex and last time I checked, paying for sex with a minor was illegal in all 50 states so not sure how you extrapolate sexual frustration to be in the same realm as prostitution.

Men don't rape because they want sex. It's a lot easier to jack off.

Not all men are content with jacking off. Just like not all people are content with getting a job, some would rather steal for a living. Sex is an integral part of one's psyche and if one is drawn to children/kids but lives in a society where such attraction is imoral and illegal, I imagine said person would be very very sexually frustrated and hard to please by more accepted, normal and conventional means e.g. getting an adult and willing partner.

Show me something on rape and rapist that attributes it to sexual frustration that isn't Freud.

Show me something on rape and rapist (those that rape adults versus those that rape kids and also include opposite sex and same sex rape) that isn't rooted in 1970s Kinsey textbook psychology.

Murder, battery and robbery I agree but may have different motivations but that doesn't apply across the board to all crimes.

Same argument can be made with regard to sex crimes. Did you just trip over your own tonge?

That's like saying Sandusky was sexually assaulting young boys because he wasn't getting any from his wife. Who believes that? That's not what I'm saying and you know better. Sandusky probably didn't lay a hand on his wife. Most likely he married her because she was a good beard and cover for his sexually frustrated, in the closet, child raping ass. But of course, you question whether he raped anybody so I'm not surprised by your statement.

HotGritz said:

SUPRMAN said:

That's like saying men who can't pay for sex become rapists.

Uh you're a bit confused here. Sexual frustration does not equate to men who can't pay for sex and last time I checked, paying for sex with a minor was illegal in all 50 states so not sure how you extrapolate sexual frustration to be in the same realm as prostitution.

Men don't rape because they want sex. It's a lot easier to jack off.

Not all men are content with jacking off. Just like not all people are content with getting a job, some would rather steal for a living. Sex is an integral part of one's psyche and if one is drawn to children/kids but lives in a society where such attraction is imoral and illegal, I imagine said person would be very very sexually frustrated and hard to please by more accepted, normal and conventional means e.g. getting an adult and willing partner.

Show me something on rape and rapist that attributes it to sexual frustration that isn't Freud.

Show me something on rape and rapist (those that rape adults versus those that rape kids and also include opposite sex and same sex rape) that isn't rooted in 1970s Kinsey textbook psychology.

Murder, battery and robbery I agree but may have different motivations but that doesn't apply across the board to all crimes.

Same argument can be made with regard to sex crimes. Did you just trip over your own tonge?

That's like saying Sandusky was sexually assaulting young boys because he wasn't getting any from his wife. Who believes that? That's not what I'm saying and you know better. Sandusky probably didn't lay a hand on his wife. Most likely he married her because she was a good beard and cover for his sexually frustrated, in the closet, child raping ass. But of course, you question whether he raped anybody so I'm not surprised by your statement.

Where did I question whether he raped anyone?

You can be so selective. I was questioning how someone rapes someone 16 times.

I still do.

You may not find that odd or bizarre, but there has to be more than repeatedly being surprised and assaulted. Which is not saying or implying that there was any consent involved.

As someone else stated, he could have used threats to coerce repeated contact.

I'm sure Sandusky's wife married him because there would be no sex . . .. . .

SUPRMAN said:

HotGritz said:

Where did I question whether he raped anyone?

You can be so selective. I was questioning how someone rapes someone 16 times.

I still do.

You may not find that odd or bizarre, but there has to be more than repeatedly being surprised and assaulted. Which is not saying or implying that there was any consent involved.

As someone else stated, he could have used threats to coerce repeated contact.

I'm sure Sandusky's wife married him because there would be no sex . . .. . .

Re-read your posts. You have most definitely implied that a rape may not have occurred and you have also implied that if it did occur, the child somehow let it happen.

I'm not being selective. I am reading your posts and the words which you have no doubt carefully used in order to incite a debate of sorts.

And you continue with the comment "Sandusky's wife married him because there would be no sex". Truth is, none of us know why they married or why she stands by him or if she will abandon him in the event he is convicted. If he is indeed attracted to young boys, then I would venture to guess there was little to no sex between she and him.

All we have to go by with regard to his marriage is what's been reported which isn't much. If we look at past high profile marriages (think McCreary or Haggert) that involve any sort of illicit, immoral, and illegal sexual acts its often the same outcome: the wife is an ardent supporter of the husband at the onset of accusations and somewhere down the line when thoe accusations are shown to be facts, the wife claims she didn't know or was somehow bamboozled herself.

I could give two fucks and a biscuit about any woman married to a child molester. They know, they just play dumb because the truth is too much to deal with.

HotGritz said:

SUPRMAN said:

Where did I question whether he raped anyone?

You can be so selective. I was questioning how someone rapes someone 16 times.

I still do.

You may not find that odd or bizarre, but there has to be more than repeatedly being surprised and assaulted. Which is not saying or implying that there was any consent involved.

As someone else stated, he could have used threats to coerce repeated contact.

I'm sure Sandusky's wife married him because there would be no sex . . .. . .

Re-read your posts. You have most definitely implied that a rape may not have occurred and you have also implied that if it did occur, the child somehow let it happen.

I'm not being selective. I am reading your posts and the words which you have no doubt carefully used in order to incite a debate of sorts.

And you continue with the comment "Sandusky's wife married him because there would be no sex". Truth is, none of us know why they married or why she stands by him or if she will abandon him in the event he is convicted. If he is indeed attracted to young boys, then I would venture to guess there was little to no sex between she and him.

All we have to go by with regard to his marriage is what's been reported which isn't much. If we look at past high profile marriages (think McCreary or Haggert) that involve any sort of illicit, immoral, and illegal sexual acts its often the same outcome: the wife is an ardent supporter of the husband at the onset of accusations and somewhere down the line when thoe accusations are shown to be facts, the wife claims she didn't know or was somehow bamboozled herself.

I could give two fucks and a biscuit about any woman married to a child molester. They know, they just play dumb because the truth is too much to deal with.

If you see it as implication, that is your perception.

I would have no problem simply stating it.

Wow... I wanna say so much here... SUPR, I don't know what to say about YOUR comments so I'm just gonna avoid your posts, but I agree with Gritz. We gotta teach kids to watch out for strange ass motherfuckers be it in your family or out of it.

As for Jerry, dude, if you don't get jail for this (and I hope you do get jail or some punishment), least get some counseling and stay there!

Tremolina said:

When you add all the cases of physical and psychological abuse of children, and the fact that these forms of abuse are still seen as 'normal' by many people especially parents, it's no surprise to me the world is as fucked up as it is. I really wouldn't be surprised if 6 or 7 out of 10 of all of us here have been messed up in some way...

I'm so lucky that never happened to me. I just can't imagine what a child goes through when that happens to them.