Child Abuse - An Indictment of Society

the topic : of utmost gravity
the man : awe inspiring

incest laws in america. a particular factoid caught my eye. a loophole. in ny. regarding incest laws. it as been repealed yet allegedly in effect in a bunch of other states. will factoid later. lemme reproduce...

New York's law — much like that of most other states — allows the possibility of privileged treatment for a special class of offender: the perpetrator who is related to his prey. In other words, the penal code gives a discount to child rapists who grow their own victims.

In New York, sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. The law is indexed appropriately, in the chapter on sex offenses. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law provides for radically more lenient treatment.

In such cases, the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. This is not listed as a sex offense, but instead as an "offense affecting the marital relationship," listed next to adultery in the law books. It is a Class E felony, for which even a convicted offender may be granted probation. (Andrew Vachss, Op-Ed, The New York Times, 20 November 2005)

so ah. vachss! a man on a mission. intense!!
here. a few snippets, link and a "thanks for your time"

If you look at Burke closely, you'll see the prototypical abused child: hypervigilant, distrustful. He's so committed to his family of choice — not his DNA-biological family, which tortured him, or the state which raised him, but the family that he chose — that homicide is a natural consequence of injuring any of that family. He's not a hit man. But he shares the same religion I do, which is revenge." (Andrew Vachss," Horror Online, April 1999.)

Vachss coined the phrase "Children of the Secret," which refers to abused children, of whatever age, who were victimized without ever experiencing justice, much less love and protection.[8] In the Burke novels, some of these Children of the Secret have banded together as adults into what Vachss calls a "family of choice." Their connection is not biological, and their bond goes well beyond mere loyalty. Most are career criminals; none allows the law to come before their duty to their family

"There's a very specific formula for creating a monster," Vachss says. "It starts with chronic, unrelenting abuse. There's got to be societal notification and then passing on. The child eventually believes that what's being done is societally sanctioned. And after a while, empathy -- which we have to learn, we're not born with it -- cracks and dies. He feels only his own pain. There's your predatory sociopath."

now, i have a background in clinical psychology and this shit is old hat. perhaps what catches the eye is his prose an the raw emotion that bleeds thru. alright. to the point already

The difference between calling Destiny a "child prostitute" and a "prostituted child" is not purely semantic. It is more than the difference between a hard truth and a pernicious lie. It not only injures the victims; it actively gives aid and comfort to the enemy. By allowing the term "child prostitution" to gain a foothold in our language, we lose ground that can never be recovered. Look at the following examples:

*A judge spares a predatory pedophile a long prison sentence on the grounds that "it takes two to tango." Another grants work-release to a sex offender, declaring that the 5-year-old victim was "unusually promiscuous."

*A teacher is arrested for sexual intercourse with a minor student in her class. The newspapers describe the conduct as "a forbidden love affair."

*A young actor, in an interview given before his drug-overdose death, describes how he "lost his virginity" when he was 3 or 4 years old.

How have such grotesque distortions taken control of our language? To answer that question, we must first ask another: Who profits? Who benefits from pervasive cultural language that trivializes violence against children? (a god amongst men)

next up
some talmudic strictures roughly pertaining to the tp that will blow you away. i've been sitting on it for years, since only scenario was to utilize in trolling as an anti semite.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73593

Didn't you already post this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

now
its been a long strange trip courtesy of some demented old coot but i shall attempt to salvage

my objectives are to outline the sanctioning of child abuse thru the various institutions that exist within any given society. from the beginning of goddamn time to the present. no one will be spared. not even the daddy who got aroused when his preteen daughter squirmed on his lap

failing that, i shall randomly throw mud hoping for a stick


How have such grotesque distortions taken control of our language? To answer that question, we must first ask another: Who profits? Who benefits from pervasive cultural language that trivializes violence against children? (a god amongst men)

the impetus for this particular aspect of my discourse. wachss has already established the insidious ways language can aid and abet in exploitation. how ever, asking who, assigning blame, is fraught with pitfalls and is a veritable minefield
_________________________________________

i shall troll with this....

i am a denizen of cyberspace. a hardened warrior. i have seen it all. here, i have cried, been unable to watch, the little girl, bewildered, in pain, numb, blank eyed and drugged, being abused by monsters

swayed? jump aboard and contribute. time to make a stand

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the leniency. What was it?

 

off the top of my head, social services, by default, will do their best to keep a family intact

what does the sharia say with regards to the tp, sam?

 

Social services define civil jurisprudence?

Apparently the loophole was deliberately added in Illinois in 1981.

http://www.protect.org/articles/belleville_nd.shtml


Its interesting how much the thinking has changed.

Apparently at the time it was enacted, parental child abuse was not even a matter under consideration

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/opinion/nyregionopinions/20LIvachss.html

 

alright, lets figure how laws are formulated and put into books. who are the players?

as for the question, you seem surprised. tell me then, what is used to define civil jurisprudence? does the question even make sense? it is always safe to assume ignorance on my part

make an effort please. a thread consisting of one line q&A posts suck

 

Mamby-pamby, doo-gooder, bleeding-heart liberals!

Baron Max

 

i shall pay particular attention to the vice ridden republican pigs
yes siree

The Ethical Divide - Red States vs Blue States (With a Special Emphasis on Texas)

baron
you are sooooo dogmeat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and a thesis...reps molest dems rescue

nice work sam!
excellente

oh
justify the merge #3. does it look right, feel right? same goals/issues in both?
show me how i erred.

it is getting to be the case now that it would be more efficient to document entirety offline, then post
it is amazing. this meddling. sci is nuts

 

Is that better? A visual divide?

I'm writing a paper, try not to be a pest, darlin'

 

Two things:

One, people are often cruel, and this shows in all areas of life. Behavior toward children is just one aspect of this cruelty.

Two, it's not only about verbal language, but also about non-verbal language. Gestures, mimics. Clothes, make-up. Colors. Accessoires.
All these things are assigned particular meanings in a society - meanings that might be uncomfortable to express in words, but are deemed ok to express non-verbally. There is a lot more going on than is put into words, but it still contributes to how we view things.

 

she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

..she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not she loves me she loves me not


SAM! The Best Mod In The Whole Wide World!

 

yes
let me see if i can do a quick documentation on that. it was an issue, a big stink actually. allow me to first bore with a personal anecdote. tho not an exact fit, it is close enough

back in the day, living out in placerita canyon, one could find me peddling my wares at saugus speedway which was turned into a swapmeet on weekends. a little girl walked by and i got a glimpse of her tshirt. scrawled on it was (ahh, i fucking rule...pics speak louder......)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

top row, left and center

i was struck dumb. what are the conceptual underpinnings required to print a tshirt like that? here a pedo, there a pedo, everywhere a pedo pedo?

/lame

no seriously. there seem to be an implicit assumption, an acknowledgment of sorts. what about the parents? what does this say about them?

ok ok
i am really a redneck
shhh

 

Moreover, what are the conceptual underpinnings for mothers to doll up their 5-year old daughters like Barbie dolls and take them to beauty contests?!

A personal account - Just yesterday, I met my elementary school math teacher. I was reminded of several incidents at school and on excursions. We were 7th and 8th grade, he was about ten years older than we. Rather shy, timid, seemed very gentle, but tall. This teacher - well, he really behaved like a shy teenage boy. If the boys in the class would go after girls, he watched with interest. On an excursion, the whole class slept over at an inn; there was a bit of a party, a lively evening - and he, as if he really wanted to be part of it, as if he too were 14 years old. It was really odd.

My point is that many adults are actually like that, they just hide it more or less succesfully.
They have the rights and responsibility of adults, but the values and interests of teenagers.

 

Take personal complaints to PM or site feedback, lets just discuss the topic here.

 

you could'nt even set the guy straight eh?

 

I think there's more than that to it.

Abuse tends to "run in the family", abusers have often been abused themselves when they were children.

Considering this, to expose an abuser could mean also exposing his childhood and the rest of the family. This would be a scandal for the whole family, stigmatizing all.

Also, the abuser's abuser might not be alive anymore. In that case, the whole blame and punishment would ba laid on the current abuser (and his living family), while his abuser got away with it. It would be unfair.


Not to forget that if the father was the sole breadwinner, a charge of paedophilia and possibly prison sentence would seriously endanger the wellbeing of the family. He'd probably lose his job and would have difficulty finding a new one.

The legal leniency is understandable - the law had to make a choice between what it perceived a greater and a lesser evil.

 

But Greenberg,
Shouldn't that be an on the table, democratically arrived at prioritization?
Also in WW2 with men off to war women slid rather well even into physical labor positions. With this historical knowledge we know that women could hop out again in a time of national crisis.