Sex Offenders

Hey, isn't honesty ALWAYS the best policy? I think so, regardless of the consequences. If the offender has been through the system, there is no double jeopardy, so it's not like they are really being persecuted for the same crime twice. Neighbors have a responsibility to be forgiving, but not stupid and careless. I mean really, how many people are REFORMED in the justice system? Many end up coming out of it worse criminals than they went in. Sure it should be public knowledge. Wouldn't you care to know if someone who had been prosecuted for child rape was living next door to you if you had a child playing in your back yard? This would not give anyone the right to judge, or to harass, but just to be cautious. The problem with this scenario is the lack of forgiveness and support. Maybe if this former criminal were accepted, and people tried to reach out to him/her, they may find love and acceptance that they never had before, and their hearts would change, so that they were no longer the dangerous person they once were. Optimistic, I know, but that's the way it's supposed to work. If this offender is humiliated and persecuted and harrassed by neighbors and the public in general, then what would be their motive to change or reform? It seems that they would end up even worse off. So, in summary, I would say let the people know the truth, but the truth is a big responsibility to handle. What the people do with that truth is what matters. They can react sensibly, or they can go on a witch hunt.

God loves you and so do I!
Yesss!!! And I hereby nominate tiassa and Boris as co-chairs of the "Sexual Predator Welcoming to the Neighborhood Committee" :)

But, seriously, Lori - 'tis true, what you have said here...
I thought I would cite a Nov. 4, 1999 "Seattle Post-Intelligencer" article entitled "Oregonians push for law to keep child rapists away from schools".

Such is the title.

Quote: "The initiative by two Portland-area attorneys, including former state Rep. Bob Tiernan, also calls for officials to notify residents at least 180 days vefore placing violent offenders--murderers, rapists and arsonists--in their neighborhoods and to write an impact study detailing an offender's criminal record and outlining a neighborhood safety plan."

I'll tell you what I like about this initiative:

* It is going before the voting community directly, not through exploitative legislators.

* Said community--specifically, that in which the initiative's writers live--in the past, struck a bargain with a sex offender convict--and this one I can appreciate. Realizing that they did not want this man in their community, and realizing that he would be a threat anywhere, they opted to take collection and send him away to college on the grounds he never return to the community. It seems they've given this one some thought, for once.

* It would amend the Oregon constitution, something Oregon voters love to do. This would clear Oregon state courts from the judicial review process.

* After passage by the people, the final draft of the law will see a Supreme Court test case almost immediately. If it passes Constitutional muster there, I can in no way oppose this.

Now, what's wrong with it? Simply put, it includes arsonists and armed robbers. That's the central problem. Certainly, the supporters can push the sex offenders part of it, tell the voters that to vote against the initiative is to vote against children. But here we are, with a new aspect to consider in this forum.

We've heard why people think your sentence shouldn't end when it's over if you're a child molester. What about the rest of it?

Incidentally, I'm curious what people think about 180 days notice? Do you think we'll see an increase in gun sales around the community? How will that impact this already ugly subject?


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Leticia-My cannons are aimed at rapists. You're correct about the definition of "sex offender", and I should have defined that early on in my barrage. The couple in the bathtub should have sued the kid's parents for invasion of privacy, but I'm no lawyer. As for prostitution, I see no reason why it should be illegal. As long as it's between consenting adults, who's it hurting? Should any marital problems arise because of it, that's what marriage coundelors are for, and this thing they call "statutory rape" really needs another name. Exhibitionists are a chapter unto themselves. It's the shocked reaction they're turned on by, not the prospect of sex. Homosexuals? Hey, to each his or her own. The states have no right to regulate that as long as both parties are adults. Oral or anal sex is a matter of personal preference. Child pornography sellers should be locked away. The people who make child pornography (knowingly) should be shot. The people who buy child pornography (knowingly) should be shot right along with them. Sex in public? I know the old arguments; it's as natural as farting, it's a beautiful thing, etc. I'm no puritan, but get a room. If you have to do it where people can see you, there are theaters where you can paid for it (and quite nicely, too). Maybe it's the excitement of the possibility of getting caught that turns you on, in which case I say be prepared to pay the piper if you do. But if you haven't been hauled up on it yet, either no one can see you (and therefore no one is offended), or those who can are enjoying the show (and therefore no one is offended). At any rate, no one is being hurt by your actions. No harm, no foul.
I suppose what it all comes down to is capacity for empathy. While a lot of people on this board seem capable of sympathizing with the victims, it seems many of us have real trouble seeing the world from a criminal's perspective.

Imagine that half a lifetime time ago, you went and did a really stupid and cruel thing. And now, you are paying for it. Day in, and day out. For the rest of your life. How do you think this would reflect on your behavior, your goals, and your future? Do you have the superhuman restraint and infinite patience to absorb the endless days, weeks, months, years, and decades of public lynching, or will it eventually drive you so far up the wall that you end up committing mass murder?

I am not arguing for releasing pathological criminals into unsuspecting communities. But in my opinion, even outright execution is a more merciful punishment than a scarlet letter. All I'm saying is that the "offender registry" programs are inhumane -- and if you are trying to protect communities from ex-cons, then you should look for other methods. It's sad that so many of us are so pigheaded and inflexible when it comes to finding a means to an end.

I am; therefore I think.
Wow, Boris. So, it's more humane to kill someone than to let the public know of thier past crimes? Damn, now THAT'S harsh. You're one mean s.o.b.

[This message has been edited by JMitch (edited November 06, 1999).]
I think maybe the main decisive factor should be the likelyhood of repeat crimes. Perhaps they should put a time limit on the notifications? Say, after a certain length of time, (depending on the severity of the crime), if there's been no repetition of the crime the offender could just be on the list, instead of having their community notified. Like a probation period! This way, the folks that just made a single mistake wouldn't have to keep paying over and over again, while the true predators would hopefully be at least slowed down. And wouldn't it be easier for a child to come forward about an attack if the attacker was known to be a criminal? I mean for the child - it might help reassure the poor kid that it's not their fault, they did nothing wrong, etc, that the problem lies in the attacker.

The other side of this is of course for the victims - how long do they have to keep suffering for the crime? If a guy rapes & murders someone, how long does that victim's family suffer and pay? Is it fair that after 10 years or even after 20 or 30 years the criminal gets to go back to a regular life, while his victim's parents, siblings, spouse and children get to suffer nightmares and are frightened of strangers for the rest of their lives?

It's a hard question, I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I do have a 'problem' like this in my family, so I know firsthand how much damage this kind of thing causes. In our case, the perpetrator got off scott free - he lived to a ripe old age and died without ever facing up to the damage he has done. The victims in the family are still damaged people. Most are in abusive or failed marriages, either as the victim or as the abuser. One had his son taken away from him because of this - that son is now beating and abusing his own girlfriend. The damage done by one man has trickled down through the generations. Perhaps this case isn't really relavant, for some reason nobody ever had him arrested, so we don't know how much healing could have occured if he had been locked up and prosecuted. But I know he preyed on other children in the neighborhood, and that probably wouldn't have happened if there had been signs posted or neighbors notified. In his case, he was a sick predator, and had no control, nor any wish to have control over his 'urges', and he deserved to be reviled and feared. It's really too bad nobody in my family had the guts to stand up for themselves, but I can see how a child that's been molested and beaten since before they can remember would have a hard time facing authorities. And of course he was a sneaky bastard, so most of the adults had no knowledge of it. (Or so they say.)

I checked out your links (Nov. 5 post).

Okay I'll keep it short. I won't pick any issues for the 404 at

Otherwise I saw a couple of registries, a registry history, and a newspaper article.

I have three responses:

* A "Child Sex Offender" list would have listed half the boys in my junior high. Extending the numbers to cover ages 15-18 would include the greater portion of my high school male classmates.

* The News & Observer article nicely covered the argument of whether sex offenders should be let out of prison at all. Nice Band-Aid, but will it cure the cancer?

* What does it say when the Maryland online registry contains a warning against vigilantes? Isn't that as hollow as a cigarette-pack warning? Or perhaps a Rated-R restriction notice? I thought it was interesting, though, that the Virginia registry listed misuse of the information as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Now, is that an additional charge? Or does the brick in the head or the four masked guys with bats or whatever ... is that a misdemeanor, or a felony as well as the misdemeanor?


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
truestory -
Consider this; an innocent man is convicted of a sex crime. After serving time in prison, he is released to try to reform some semblance of a life. However, with his name broadcast and distributed wherever he tries to go, he is incapable of finding a place to live out his days in peace. How would YOU react if your entire town not only hated you, but knew where you lived, and had some idea of what you deserved? How long would it be before somebody like Oxygen would meet you in a restroom and inflict their version of justice upon you?

Consider also those who were truly rehabilited, or those who have grown out of the stage in which they were a danger to society. One point of view is "you screwed up, so tough rocks, bub". I rather think this is a coward's way out. The problem with these people may or may not be fixable. Your choice is whether or not to TRY to fix it. If you don't try, you certainly won't succeed.

Lastly, consider those who actually did it, and are likely to do so again. My opinion on these sorts is to simply leave them in their cells as long as it takes, until they become harmless, or death takes them. Of course, some would still slip through the cracks in this system.

What needs to be decided is whether the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. A few cracked eggs, eh? I can't accept that. Sacrificing a few to make the rest of us feel safer is not justice, it is persecution.

Another thing to think about is whether this will actually deter such crimes. I'm certain that it will in some cases, as with any percieved increase in punishment. However, it will not deter all. Suppose a sex offender moves to a town after being released from prison. The town, under this plan, is notified, and that person is suddenly under a great deal of scrutiny, and pressure to leave. Suppose that he does it again anyway. What now? If the system didn't work, it obviously needs changing.. should we throw it out in favor of a new scheme? Or should we try to increase the effectiveness of the current one? Maybe such offenders should be forced to distiguish themselves from "normal" peope somehow? A yellow star sewn into their shirt, perhaps...

How do you know where to stop in removing these people's rights? How is your judgement better than mine?

Oxygen -

Frankly, you disgust me. If you inflicted such torture on some one, regardless of your flimsy rationalization, you would be no better than those you target. Mankind is capable of far more mature and humane retribution than your brutal 'eye for an eye' mentality. If you impart upon an offender an act of cruelty equaling their own, how are you telling them that it is wrong to do so?


"Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind." - Robert Ingersoll
What would YOU suggest we do? Let's assume the perp has sexually assaulted a four-year old child and left him or her to die in a pile of garbage at the side of the road.

You assume that I'm Batman or something, that I don a patriotic leotard and go out hunting for these bastards in my Oxygenmobile. (Action figures available at all Toys 'R' Us stores now! Complete with Divine Retribution Action Grip and Holy Hellfire Rocket Propelled Homosexual Horse Launcher).

When I feel anger, I feel it in its' entirety. I do not deny my emotions. I vent them full-force, but I never just act on them. This subject happens to be one of my buttons. An opinion was asked for, and I gave one that illustrated my feelings.

I now see things from Lori's point of view. God is her button, rapists are mine.

I don't know if any sex offenders of any sort live in my neighborhood. Given the nature of this part of town, it wouldn't surprise me. If this knowledge came to me from a reliable source (not back-fence gossip), I would make every attempt to move. Alas, the economy here would make that a difficult process, but I would not feel very at ease until I got into a decent neighborhood without such denizens.

This is my response for the real world, void of emotion and speaking from my restrained half:

A community has a right to know of any danger, real or potential, present in its midst. A community has the right to protect itself against these dangers. As far as the perp goes, he or she should have thought about that. "Heat of the moment" just doesn't fly in my book. You can think it all you want, but if you decide to do it, be prepared to pay the consequences.

I only take this path in the real world because it is illegal to shoot them.
Oxygen -

What would I do? Assuming there was proof, of course, I'd lock the bastard up, or commit him to a hospital, depending on the circumstances. How long? As long as possible according to the law.

Its rather obvious that you feel all of your anger. I do as well, but I do not allow it to influence my judgement. Committing a crime out of revenge is just as bad as for another reason.

The real question you need to ask yourself is what you would do if shooting the person WAS legal. Going by what you have said, I would guess that you'd grab a revolver and murder the person, rationalizing that he deserved it. The purpose of laws is not to dictate ethics.

Another question I would like to pose, is this; What is it that sets sex crimes apart? Why is it more anger provoking than assault, arson, or murder?


"Another question I would like to pose, is this; What is it that sets sex crimes apart? Why is it more anger provoking than assault, arson, or murder?" (FyreStar to Oxygen, 11/16)

An excellent question ... unfortunately I have no set answer. So if I might stick my nose in here with a few considerations.

The United States, a couple of decades back, went through a period of prohibition against capital punishment. Before that, however:

* In 1935 in Alabama, rape was a capital crime
* In 1850 in Kansas, a cow was hanged for sorcery
* We have always been able to kill someone deemed treasonous, respecting due process.

I think, in the case of Alabama rapes, there was a fundamental revulsion to the crime. For a period, I held the personal belief that rape should be a capital crime, so long as murder is. With murder, the suffering is secondary ... the victim is dead and probably doesn't care; the vengeance is for the living. The sentiment here is that a rape survivor must continue in the psychological nightmare-world such a crime creates. Thus the effect of the crime is longer-lasting than the moment of bullet- or icepick-impact, or whatever the killing blow is.

I think that sex crimes take on an almost religious significance. Were it simple knowledge or even simple logic that formed the core of our sexual psychologies, it would be much easier to manage the aftereffects of a rape. However, one of the most devastating lines I've ever heard was my high-school girlfriend apologizing that she couldn't be a virgin for me. Okay, I see that's a heavy burden. I even felt it, then. But retrospect tells me that the artificial value we place on virginity was a motivating factor in her guilt.

And this device--this sense of burden assigned by artificial social standards--obstructs much of the recovery process for any crime victim. Do you get nervous and make pro-minority statements when standing at a bus stop to appease a person of different heritage? Seems sitcom stupid, to me. Do you pussy-foot about and coddle people who are already back from long illness and trying to start normal life again? Seems counterproductive. What about someone recovering from a sex crime? They see and hear when friends bite their tongue out of alleged sensitivity. They feel guilt watching their world react in such a frightened manner, and a terrible frustration at the perception that they are somehow not still the same person. All of this builds up on rape survivors. Or, so I've heard (that disclaimer's for you, Oxygen!)

The problem seems to be, then, that the emotional burdens of sex crimes outweighs, say, the emotional burden of some punk stealing and smashing your car. And here is the nearest thing I can figure about why we react the way we do to sex crimes. And what, with a parade of mothers and fathers and sisters through courtrooms and across television shows spilling their interpretations of grief ... that's why they argue so much about punishment, and not about why the crimes happen.

Of course, that's all the nearest I can figure.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 16, 1999).]

You are saying that the impact of rape is defined by the society, and not by the act itself. In effect, society continues to punish the victim after the fact, even through well-meaning "sympathy".

Does that mean that in the absence of such societal burden rape is no worse than any other physical assault, such as beating someone bloody with a club? Physical damage is about the same. Now, I don't know if there ever was a society which truly placed no psycological burden on the victim at all, but I do know that until 20th Century very few women had a say in whom they were to marry. In a sense, almost all sex was rape, and some feminists claim it WAS, literally.

But if a woman is raised to accept the fact that something is as basic as marriage is out of her hands, that she belongs to whoever pays her father most goats, doesn't that take a sting out of rape? When I was a kid, I read "Thousand and One Nights". In some stories a rascally hero would sneak into a sultan's harem and have his way with sultan's wives. At the time (I may have been 12 or so) I wondered "Didn't the wives have anything to say about it?". The answer, of course, they did not. One man bought them, and another stole what was not his, but to the woman involved, there was little difference. (Of course, every hero of "1001 Nights" was a handsome and wonderful lover, but let's talk about reality.) Assuming the thief neither beat them, nor was a lover out of legend, did sultan's wives have nightmares for the rest of their lives? Or was it a case of "One cock as good as another, and please Allah don't let the guard wake up"?

It's a dangerous area to tread, eh? I cannot define what happens for a victim during that moment of the crime itself. However, we can assess what damage the survivor allows us to know. Consider:

* You walk into a room where several of your friends are eating lunch. They're discussing a movie that you, also saw. But, because they know you were raped, the discussion about this dark, violent movie comes crashing to a halt and a whole table of people are trying pointedly to not look at you. Day after day after day after day after day .....

That's more of what I'm getting after. Certes there are those wounds attached to the crime itself: Bang! you're a statistic flouted every two weeks on the news ... and the news is never good. Boom ... there goes an inherent sense of social trust and human security that you may never recover. And such are the wounds of various crimes. So, yes, sex crimes do carry a similar impact as other, less intimate crimes.

Many of the medical risks of rape are present in other crimes. Even a homeless junkie presents a greater threat of accidentally causing your death than many rapists do by intention.

It's hard to reconcile any of it. But when we add social prohibitions and stigma to the formula, it becomes flat-out dangerous. Of the example I offered ... she was tearfully sorry she couldn't give me her virginity; she thought of herself as a slut because she knew what semen tasted like when she was eight; she felt guilty that she had to prosecute a family member; she felt guilty that anybody ever found out (after all, it wasn't nice to badmouth your parents in her household). Among the reasons for acquittal was that she apparently did not fight back hard enough--nobody heard an eight-year old scream. And every day she looked out at the people who walked as closely as they could through this fire with her and felt horribly; telling people to go away, that she'd dragged them too far down this nightmare-road.

Physical and social boundaries were, by comparison, easy to redraw. But the biggest challenge to recovery came from shucking those stupid social stigmas that just burned at her heart.

Does any of this make sense?

* * * * *

A couple of quick points/responses/comments:

* rape/arranged marriage: I personally feel that all marriage constitutes the grounds for rape. Britain decided, in the nineties, that a wife was not her husband's property.

* On that same notion, regarding arranged marriage ... it is not an excuse if one person claims not to have known better. But what of an entire culture? And how do they realize the "wrongness" of such a custom? And what constitutes the "rightness" that they perceived?

* views of rape: At the University of Oregon, I took a human sexuality class that included anthropological and zoological perspectives. Among the material we were subjected to was a study in which the feminist author cited felines, waterfowl, and insects as all committing rape.

And these last points have no direct, intended relevance. They were a couple of the first things to mind while reading your post. The effect of these ideas might play significantly in my philosophical development, but by and large they are incomplete ideas.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Does this mean I don't get to market my action figure? I already designed the Oxygen Fortress of Vituperative Vehemence, with a stable for three horses... ;)

On the subject of shooting the guilty (not the presumed guilty, but the actually guilty), I would think that this would be a federal position not too unlike the people who throw the switches for the various forms of capital punishment we have today. I wouldn't just hunt them down because I might get the wrong guy or gal. I'd want to be sure beyond a doubt. That vicious streak in me would have the soon-to-be-out-of-our-way shot by the winner of a lottery of sorts. Sales of the tickets could go to programs that help the victims.

By the way, if anybody thinks I'm way out of line with my sentiments, try giving "A Modest Proposal" a read. I don't remember who wrote it, Bacon, I think, but you should be able to find it from the title. It's a hoot!
tiassa -

You are correct about the increased psychological burden left to the victim, not only by the attacker, but also the society. It is a violation of the most intimate and protected part of the physical body, which is why victims feel much less secure afterwards. However, it seems that in designing penalties, people often place vengeance as the primary means for their decision. Certainly, they have right to feel angry, but do they have the right sentence the offender to death? Or to continue to punish the offender after their official punishment has been carried out? That is part of the grounds for my disagreement with Oxygen.

I've noticed that the public's awareness and response to sex crimes has increased as the public focus on sex itself has increased. Do you think this is something akin to a fad, that will settle itself out in time, to a more "normal" level? (in either case)

In addition to what you were saying about the victim not being able to get past the crime due to people's reactions to them - Another similar problem is the enormous amount of sex-related media out there. If they watch TV, Movies, read newpapers, magazines, books, etc., they are constantly exposed to reminders of the crime. On one hand, this could make them feel worse, but on the other, it may help desensitize them to the pain caused by the reminders.

I still don't understand why the crusading goes on for rape above all else; the greater emotional impact certainly has something to do with it, but there are often times when it is a friend, family member, or random do-gooder forwarding the cause. In such cases, I wonder if they would still be doing so if the victim was murdered instead. I can't picture a father standing over the corpse of his daughter and saying "Well, at least she wasn't raped" and then retiring to his recliner and remote control.

Further thoughts?

Hello FyreStar,

Believe it or not, I have heard families of female murder victims who were at least slightly comforted when they found out that there was no evidence of sexual assault. To them, this meant that their daughter, sister, mother, aunt, grandmother, niece would not be subject to the sick scrutiny of others who would tend to think that she was somehow "responsible" for what happened to her.

Sexual crimes against women (even when they ultimately end in murder) sometimes add an unpleasant aspect to the thought processes of some who "analyze" the crime... Have you ever heard something along the lines of, "Oh, well, she must have asked for it" when a sexual crime is perpetrated against a woman? I have. Putting a female victim on trial for a sexual crime which was committed against her will is, unfortunately, a common occurrence in American society.

The mere fact that a "woman" is the victim of a sexual crime sometimes causes certain people to believe that she was somehow responsible for the attack by virtue of her feminine gender.

Sick, but it happens.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 30, 1999).]

It's all the burden of the sacrifices we choose. Does that make any sense? We choose our justice to look like this ... sometimes it's inadequate, but what can you do? We choose to raise children in a psychotic world, expecting them to be "normal" ... (when the "deviant" people become the majority, can we give all the happy, "normal" people downers? sorry, irrelevant).

We choose with our sins. I've seen good, intelligent people derailed by marital spats... geniuses gone to waste because of petty sexual jealousy. Start with the fights couples have over, say, a husband's straying eye. Or better yet ... a girlfriend once yelled at me because another woman whom I'd never met looked at me with demonstrative appreciation--y'know, drunk people checking each other out.

If that kind of pettiness is as standard as it seems ... if the "Jerry Springer" psychology is truly that powerful in American culture, what chance do kids have? 1 in 4 women you know will be raped during your lifetime. Bang! Technically, I should be at my quota but something tells me the statistic's on the low side. With only the negatives as the focus, what will growing minds foster? All abstract ramblings ... apologies if nothing makes sense.

I think public awareness of sex crimes is like E. coli. The media has changed the way they approach previously sensitive material. We hear about it more now because we've found the ultimate ratings gig: it's sex, but you're supposed to be morally offended and therefore self-superior while gorging yourself with it. "Puritain pornography", I've heard it called, but that was on NPR.

I'm not sure this is helping anything ... thanx for putting up with it.


"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I think American culture is very confused in regards to sex and violence.

I have actually spoken to a few mothers who have said (in all seriousness) that they allow their children to watch all the violence they want on TV and in movies, but if sex is brought up they will change the channel or leave the theater. Can you believe that!? No wonder people are so messed up!

Parents are too uncomfortable with their own sexuality to discuss it rationally with their children. They end up saying stupid things like "just say no", and "sex is for marriage", when it is very obvious that you just can't say that to a 15 year old that has so many hormones running through their blood! You got to start educating your kids about sex BEFORE puberty. That gives the kid a chance to make up their MIND before their body does it for them. And they'll be much more likely to stick to a decision or resolution of their own than to obey a rule handed down by a parent.

I don't know any percentages off hand, but do you guys know how many 14 and 15 year olds (boys AND girls) that are having sex nowadays? And what happens when a parent discovers their children are sexually active? Some parents are okay, of course, but I knew a lot of kids when I was growing up that were terrified of telling their parents they were having sex. One girl I knew was kicked out of her house because her father found out she had let a boy feel her up!! Is that a healthy attitude?? That same girl (who was 15 when she was kicked out) ended up homeless, living from friend to friend, boyfriend to boyfriend. She dropped out of school and I hear became a prostitute. Greeaaat. Her dad sure did her a favor! I'm sure there are similar stories for boys. How many sex offenders are coming from these uptight families? How many were "sexually strangled" as teens - told they would go to Hell or go blind for masturbating, for Pete's sake!

America needs to take a deep breath and stop panicking about sex. Sex is natural, sex is GOOD! Nobody should ever feel guilty or bad for indulging in a consentual sexual relationship - it's what keeps our species alive (literally!). I think if sex was more open, more accepted, it would decrease sex crimes hugely.
again it seems we are vibrating on the same wavelength, you almost always manage to air my sentiments exactly, or pretty much.
Are you an air sign? or is it fire? d'you cry when you see a sad movie? do you ever choke up when listening to certain music? are you sometimes shocked by things a lot of people don't seem to care about? but sometimes you shock those same people with outrageously radical remarks? are you into hot 'n spicy food? am I psychic?