Yesterday, it seemed as if the saga of Jack McClellan was the only story on the local AM airwaves. McClellan, for those of you who never watch Fox News or listen to right-wing AM radio, is a self-identified pedophile who has managed to stay scrupulously within the bounds of the law while advocating for man-girl love.
McClellan is a rather pathetic character, and not the subject of this blog post. How men talk about him is.
Yesterday evening, while driving to Pilates, I caught the beginning of the “Al Rantel show” on KABC 790. I don’t listen to conservative talk radio often, but I check in every once in a while. (I’m not trying to work myself up into a lather of lefty indignation; I just think it worthwhile to “keep tabs” on what the right is thinking and saying.) Rantel led off his show with a discussion of Jack McClellan, and spent nearly ten minutes describing what he (Rantel) would do to McClellan if he had a chance. “I’d break his camera over his nasty head and take my chances with a jury. No jury with parents on it would convict me.” (Interesting how some on the right, so theoretically in love with the American system of jurisprudence, are quite happy to call for jury nullification when it suits their interests.)
When I got home last night, I took the chinchillas out in their play room. We have a small TV in the chin room, and I read the New York Review of Books with half an eye and watched the tube with another half. (One full eye carefully monitors the babies during their out time.) I paused briefly on Fox News, and listened to old Oliver North introduce his segment about McClellan. The former Marine officer reminded all of us that before he was a sanctimonious talking head, he had been “trained to kill for a living”. He declared that if he saw McClellan anywhere near his “two lovely grand-daughters”, he’d murder him on the spot. North’s two guests did not challenge him.
I’m struck by the way in which both Rantel and North felt compelled to threaten McClellan with physical violence. Indeed, neither was capable of raising the real issue (which is McClellan’s first amendment right to be open about his attraction to young girls) without first declaring that if given the chance, he would take the law into his own hands. It’s cheap vigilantilism, of course, but it’s something more: it’s a specific kind of macho posturing. Both North and Rantel reaffirm their own masculinity by detailing their willingness to use violence. It’s stunningly puerile.
In American adolescent “boy culture”, a great deal of conversation traditionally revolves around the question of “who can kick who’s ass.” Threats of physical violence, detailed discussions of what one intends to do to one’s perceived rivals, are far more common among many middle-class boys in their teens than actual scraps. Among the young, a “beat-down” or an “ass-kicking” (or, more often, the threat thereof) is used to mark the boundaries of what is acceptable male behavior. When a boy “crosses the line” in the eyes of his peers, he will be threatened with physical violence. Most adult men who survived junior high school remember how the language of beatings was often more pervasive than the beatings themselves. As boys age, they are less likely to judge themselves by their ability to kick each other’s asses — and more likely to use sexual prowess with women as the yardstick with which to measure their own anxious masculinity.
North and Rantel would no doubt dismiss me as an effete urban intellectual, the very embodiment of a member of the coastal blue state elite whom they despise. (Gender studies? Chinchillas? Dual citizen? Pilates? The New York Review of Books? Veganism? I wouldn’t dare tell them I learned to drive on Ford pickups, dipped Skoal, listened to “Alabama” and am still pretty damn comfortable in a Western saddle.) North and Rantel would surely insist that they aren’t posturing, but rather expressing their willingness to “protect little girls from predators.” But of course, “protecting vulnerable women” is the excuse non pareil for issuing physical threats.
When I listen to men like Oliver North and Al Rantel, I don’t hear genuine worry about little girls as their primary concern. Both North and Rantel mentioned their desire to protect girls only briefly, and went on at much greater length about their own fantasies of doing physical violence to Jack McClellan. Their real focus was less on the threat to young women, and more on rhapsodizing about what they’d do and how they’d do it (and in Rantel’s case, how he’d get away with it.) In a world where the pedophile is (perhaps rightly) the most maligned figure of all, he is the perfect tool for pundits like these talk show hosts. The horridness of a pedophile’s identity, the particular details of his sexuality, make him a rare thing in contemporary public life: a figure against whom threats of murder can be made openly and fearlessly. McClellan is the ideal punching bag through whom these microphone jockeys can prove to all just how manly, brave, and virtuous they are. It’s seventh grade all over again.
What amuses me about some on the right is how self-righteously protective they are of little girls — and how willing they are to tolerate the abuse of young women just a few years older than McClellan’s targets. The Norths and Rantels of the world are the ones who decry the “feminist sex police” who “scream date rape” on college campuses. The Norths and the Rantels of the world were vociferous defenders of the Duke lacrosse team, who while apparently not guilty of rape, were certainly guilty of the sexual exploitation of a working-class African American stripper. (And guess what, folks? Any comments about the Duke case will be deleted. Not the topic here.)
Let’s be blunt here: the only difference between McClellan and a hell of a lot of men is that the former wants to have sex with girls who are pre-pubescent, while the latter are often attracted to girls still well below voting age. But the arrival of puberty is not the same as the arrival of emotional maturity. A fully-developed fifteen year-old girl is likely to be ogled by a great many older men (ask her about the wolf whistles sometime.) The eight year-olds on whom McClellan is fixated are children, deserving of protection. We are right to be appalled by the content of the fantasies he shares publicly, though we are not right to threaten him with harm. But the arrival of menarche and the development of secondary sex characteristics do not mark as rigid a line between the “pedophile” and the “normal red-blooded American male” as some imagine.
We live in a culture that fetishizes the bodies of teen girls. The most popular niche in pornography, we’re told, focuses on “barely legal” teen girls. The implication is that the men who frantically masturbate to the images of those who’ve just turned eighteen would love to be looking at much younger girls, but are held back by fear of legal repercussions and lack of easy access. How many adult men — say in their thirties or forties — are enraged that McClellan is drawn to ten year-olds, while these same men stare at high-school cheerleaders just a handful of years older than the pedophile’s targets? A ten year-old is a child; a fifteen year-old is a child. The fact that the latter may have gone through puberty in no way makes an adult man’s sexual attraction to her any more legitimate. The end of childhood is determined more by emotional maturity than by the arrival of breasts and menses, after all.
I’ll be the first to admit that I am disgusted by Jack McClellan, though I wish him no harm. But I am also disgusted by the legions of men (of whom Ollie North and Al Rantel are only two famous examples) who brag about their desire to beat the pulp out of McClellan while sanctioning the sexualization of girls just a few brief years older than McClellan’s targets. One wonders if there isn’t an element of self-loathing and guilt in the hate that’s directed towards a pedophile like Mr. McClellan.
If we’re going to protect our children, folks, let’s protect all of them. That includes those who’ve gone through puberty. And if we’re going to call a man “sick” for being attracted to a child who is, say, eight years below the age of consent, let’s apply the same term to the men who are drawn to those eight days below that same demarcation line.
Addendum: To continue my point, read this old post of mine about National Review columnist John Derbyshire. Derbyshire, who is considerably older than I am, opined in 2005:
It is, in fact, a sad truth about human life that beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. Added to that sadness is the very unfair truth that a woman’s salad days are shorter than a man’s — really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20.
Bold emphasis mine. So what’s the moral distinction between McClellan, who likes ten year-olds, and Derbyshire, who likes ‘em at fifteen?
Hugo, I don’t dismiss you for your West Coat elitism. I dismiss you as a guy who doesn’t have kids who seems inordinately concerned about the safety of acknowledged pedophiles.
Personally, if McClellan tried to interfere with my kids I wouldn’t try to give him a beat down. I’d shoot him. This isn’t macho posturing because there’s nothing inherently macho about shooting anyone or anything. All it requires is ownership of a gun and bullets, reasonably good eyesight and a functional index finger. Almost anybody can do it, and thousands of women defend themselves with a gun every year.
Not interested in proving my manliness. I’m interested in protecting my kids.
hugo, i certainly agree with your larger point and conclusion — i agree that there is a great macho inconsistency in society when it comes to young women (and/or girls) and i agree that violence is not the answer. prepubescent, barely legal and technically legal are all problematic at best and usually worse.
however, the reactions i’ve seen and heard from fathers, uncles, grandfathers, brothers and boyfriends/friends when they hear their wives, nieces, granddaughters, sisters and/or girlfriends/friends have been sexual victims are all the same: rage and the desire to hurt the perpetrator.
i don’t believe they should resort to violence. but i think that response is normal and there is a protective instinct when someone vulnerable and dear to you has been violated.
there are countless passages of scripture that unapologetically display god’s wrath (or prophets’ or psalmists’ wrath) towards those who hurt his own children. the whole of scripture reveals a merciful god but also a fierce one.
Sneha, I’d argue that there’s a thin line between an authentic desire to protect and an indignation that another male has dared to mess with your “property.” Not all male rage is the same.
And indeed, we worship a fierce God. But vengeance is His, not ours. We are agents of His love, not of His wrath.
I work with many underage girls and boys in my capacity as a youth minister. I have small nieces and nephews whom I adore. I would be angry if someone were to harm them — or even fantasize about harming them. But there’s a difference between longing to protect and longing to harm. The first is right and proper and good, the former not. If I fantasize about smashing the face of a pedophile who leers at my six year-old niece, I sin. If I am eager to make sure that my six year-old niece is kept well away from pedophiles, I don’t.
absolutely, i agree that vengeance is god’s not humankind’s and not all male rage is the same. i loathe the you-messed-with-my-property mentality. but i think that reaction of *wanting* to lash out is normal — whether male, female or divine. acting on it is an entirely different matter. we shouldn’t.
but i think that reaction of *wanting* to lash out is normal — whether male, female or divine. acting on it is an entirely different matter. we shouldn’t.
But remember that Christ warns us against murder in the heart as well as murder with the hand; the Sermon on the Mount makes that clear. Some religious and moral traditions judge morality based on action; Christians are called to consider thoughts as well. (And some would say this originates with the commandment against coveting in the OT; God calls us to holy thinking. That’s actually not that far from the Buddhist stance.)
you’re right. scripture makes it clear that the heart matters. what we think is enormously important. which is why there is a clear call to transform and renew the mind.
but i think we have to reconcile the contradiction that scripture still makes space for the frankly-my-dear-i’d-like-to-hurt-you emotional — and sometimes verbal — expression. space does not equal endorsement. space is just that — space.
we must guard our thoughts because thoughts can lead to action. but it’s one thing to acknowledge the temptation and another to enter it or even obliterate it. if we could do the latter would we need a cross? and in my understanding temptation itself wasn’t crucified. there are interval moments, however slight, between the actual temptation and the entrance therein.
i think buddhist thought, too, says that controlling consciousness involves acknowledging the reality of what’s actually there — and then letting go. desire is clearly part of the problem. but not the whole.
from what i see, right thought does not immediately result in right living — there are plenty of well-intentioned people living unjustly. wrong thought does not immediately lead to wrong living — bad people change. there are parables about that. the journey is one towards congruency — but violation triggers righteous indignation, and then, in a whole person, submission to a higher justice and the better angels of our nature.
i don’t have an answer to this, i’m trying to sort it out; but it makes me wonder and it seems more complicated…
have you seen the father in the documentary “deliver us from evil” or the father and uncle in “monsoon wedding”? the terrain of those men’s responses is powerful. i don’t believe in vigilante justice. (even over the course of the last few days i’ve been thinking about the megan’s law sex offender locator site — and how problematic it is because of the explosive human capacity to exact vengeance under the guise of justice.)
violence IS the human problem and jesus IS counterintuitive. but i also come from a particular subculture in which appropriate human response to sexual abuse is muted or even squashed. i’ve seen continued violation because men weren’t angry enough — or at all.
i also come from a particular subculture in which appropriate human response to sexual abuse is muted or even squashed. i’ve seen continued violation because men weren’t angry enough — or at all.
I hear that and respect that enormously. And this is where we have to parse out the distinction between righteous anger which names the abuse of the vulnerable as unjust and wrong, and vengeful rage that seeks to redress violence with violence.
Pacifism is not passivity. It’s peacemaking, an active and bold process. Sexual abuse deserves our anger, but we need to be more concerned with restorative justice for its victims than with doing bodily harm to the perpetrator.
me thinks we agree.
Not interested in proving my manliness. I’m interested in protecting my kids.
Chief, while I agree with one, Hugo does raise a point I’m surprised you disagree with–that protecting very young children from sexual predators is something everybody is supposed to do, but once a girl hits adolescence, she’s fair game unless Daddy or Older Brother is vigilant.
If John Derbyshire were slobbering over 10-to-14 year old girls, we’d all be reaching for our shotguns. Yet because he sets the low end of his fantasies at 15, he continues to have a right-wing column. Why?
Something that occurred to me while reading the comments… A good indicator of whether the impulse to attack is coming from a desire to protect or from a place of vengeance and/or macho posturing might be the timing of that impulse. Are you putting a gun to the hand a man in the act of harming a child (or just before he attempts to), in order to stop him in his tracks? Or are you taking a gun to the head of someone who harmed children in the past (or you imagine might in the future)? In the former case, you’re protecting someone from being victimized. In the latter, you’re victimizing someone, quite possibly to no good or productive end.
Mythago, I’m not 100 percent sure I understand your first sentence (could be a typo). And did I say I agree with Derbyshire at any point? (Hugo actually added that part after my first comment). If McLellan or Derbyshire came on to my daughter at any age prior to 18 I would respond. Derbyshire has not broken a law and, as far as I know, neither has McLellan. Doesn’t mean either of them deserve any defending, either from conservatives who happen to agree with Derbyshire on most other issues or from liberals in a race to show off how compassionate and open minded they are.
If John Derbyshire were slobbering over 10-to-14 year old girls, we’d all be reaching for our shotguns.
Would that it were so. I’ve read of more than one rape case where the perpetrator explained that he thought his 12 year old victim was 21. As long as he can show that she had breasts and was wearing makeup — or just one or the other — this seems to work pretty well as a defense. I think in the most recent case I heard of, the judge agreed that as long as a thirteen year old girl lies about her age, her molester is off the hook, since it is impossible to tell the difference between pubescent children and adults just by looking at them and talking to them. (I can dig up cites, but I’d frankly prefer not to.)
And then, one of the common complaints about adolescent girls “dressing like whores” is that it will cause grown men to lust after them. As though a t-shirt reading “porn star” will turn a normal man into a child molester, as though the only reason we don’t have sex with children is because they aren’t sexy enough — unless they tart themselves up, in which case it’s understandable. It’s a horrible mindset but not all that out of the mainstream.
Daisy,
I’d like to add: or are you putting a gun to the head (or talking about putting a gun to the head) of a man who only FANTASIZES about harming children, while NEVER having actually done so or planning to do so?
Everyone,
This is the thing that pisses me off about this issue. Why is it (aside from media scaremongering and bad statistics about recidivism rates) that people assume that of all the sexual fantasies one might have, the fantasy of sexual activity with a child is going to get acted on whenever possible?
I mean, WHATEVER you think of sexual fantasy, you have to admit that lots of people have fantasies that don’t get acted on. Lots of women who have fantasies about being raped don’t go out trolling for rapists. Lots of men who have fantasies about pissing on women don’t really have any desire to do it in real life. To take a farther-out example, there’s a fairly well-established “sex with nonhumans” genre of sexual fantasy, and people who have them don’t usually have any plans to go around doing that. And, more to the point, *wouldn’t do it even if it were legal*.
Sexual fantasies are not, in and of themselves, culpable. No matter *how* disgusting you might find them. Likewise, *talking* about even disgusting and degrading sexual fantasies — acts that would be genuinely evil if *performed* — isn’t, in and of itself, culpable.
Chief,
Your fantasy of shooting the guy in the head is a fantasy about an illegal act, same as his is. You talking about it on a public forum constitutes advocacy of that illegal act, in no salient way different from his advocacy of an illegal act. Should we shoot YOU, too?
Someone fantasizing about 12 year olds and someone paying a willing college student to dance around half naked are indistinguishable to you? How many college students do you know that are 15? I haven’t met many.
The distinction is clear in the criminal law–once a young woman hits legal maturity (and all of them are there at university), it is no longer a criminal offense to pursue them sexually or for them to degrade themselves for money if they want to do that. It may be a moral offense for many parents to have their kids sexually active at that age (and I will certainly be monitoring my daughter VERY closely during those years), but they are legally adults. We can certainly be interested in changing the law, and some of us are quite interested in that regarding the sexualization of young women period (I wouldn’t mind seeing the Girls Gone Wild folks behind bars, frankly), but as things stand, the distinction is not unclear legally.
And you don’t really do anything in this post to show that North or Rantel are inconsistent. A concern for what we now know was a massive conspiracy on the part of the prosecutor in Durham does not equal a legitimation of sexual lusting after 15 year olds. You can in fact both morally oppose college girls stripping AND recognize when guys doing something that is not criminal are getting railroaded by a politically correct prosecutor. Or do you not see that?
And, frankly, the ‘critique’ of ‘macho posturing’ is kind of…predictable from a professor with pet chinchillas that he calls his ‘babies.’ I mean, you set yourself up there, my friend, as you recognize. Maybe it’s a worldview YOU don’t understand, but some other men have less difficulty understanding what this thing you think is mere ‘macho posturing’ is about.
Not macho posturing in the slightest on my sociology professor book-reading latte-sipping largely lefty-leaning part to say that I would confront Mr. McClellan or anybody else I suspected of stalking my daughter quickly, and that if they responded to that confrontation the wrong way (like, say, by doing anything except tucking tail and going away), then things would get entertaining quickly, and I would get about the business of dismantling that guy.
That’s not posturing, that’s just reality. And it’s based not in whatever extremist feminist fantasies regarding the evil violent male that one can encounter in the world of gender studies (I’ve read a LOT of that stuff, and have an insider’s view as to how kooky much of it is, even if evil violent males DO exist), it’s based in the kind of deep commitment to the safety of family that most sane people with kids likely understand very well.
The same commitment that makes me an activist against guns and an activist against pornography makes me someone who would punch you in the face in two seconds if you threatened my wife or my child. Is that really all that hard for you to understand? If it is, then I’d suggest you’ve been in academia too long, bro.
Hugh…the sentiment is not restricted to men. It may be sinning, but I remember back when the Letourneau (sp?) case broke, and thinking that had it been one of sons, I would have curled my farm strong fingers around her throat and…squeezed.
Possibly not with the goal of murder…but certainly with the intent of establishing a fear of me so profound and permanent that it would outweigh the obsession, and my sons, (if no other mother’s 12 year old son) would be safe.
And as I search my conscience, I do admit that if there were no other effective choices, no other effective avenues to pursue, I am entirely capable of dangerous assault on behalf of my children.
This isn’t posturing…and I’m guessing that absent other effective choices, a great many parents would respond similarly…sinning be damned.
Adrienne, I’ve not read McClellan’s blog but he’s apparently doing more than just fantasizing out loud. He’s offering how-to tips for getting close to underage girls. This places him in quite a different category from your average Barely Legal subscriber or even Derbyshire.
And let me guess…not a parent either?
This places him in quite a different category from your average Barely Legal subscriber or even Derbyshire.
Well, McClellan’s more honest, I’ll give him that.
As for parenthood, Al Rantel has no children (a point he mentioned in passing last night.) If his childlessness doesn’t stop him from weighing in with threats of violence, my (presumed) childlessness won’t stop me from accusing him of posturing.
Hugh…it could be that the “posturing” you identify is, in part, the fallback position of people if the legal system fails.
I’m referring specifically to stalking. When the legal system has failed, which, in cases of stalking, happens regularly, what leeway are you prepared to grant parents determined to protect their children?
I ask, because some years back, an aquaintance of mine, to protect her daughter from an unstoppable abusive ex, cashed in her meagre savings, went to Colorado for the schooling, and now trains and breeds guard dogs that do in fact attack and disable on command…or mere trespass.
What answers do you have for people who have exhausted their choices within the legal system? What do you recommend they do?
My ultimate point is that the “posturing” may well be more about the fallback position, and not any immediate threat of deadly retaliation.
But I am also disgusted by the legions of men (of whom Ollie North and Al Rantel are only two famous examples) who brag about their desire to beat the pulp out of McClellan while sanctioning the sexualization of girls just a few brief years older than McClellan’s targets.
Any evidence for this besides their political opposition to you?
Hugh…the sentiment is not restricted to men. It may be sinning, but I remember back when the Letourneau (sp?) case broke, and thinking that had it been one of sons, I would have curled my farm strong fingers around her throat and…squeezed.
Pfft. It’s so incredibly easy to make threats in an online setting like this. I am not impressed/
Possibly not with the goal of murder…but certainly with the intent of establishing a fear of me so profound and permanent that it would outweigh the obsession, and my sons, (if no other mother’s 12 year old son) would be safe.
Butch girl, you might want to consider that if you are ever accused of a violent crime, these words may well come back to haunt you.
And as I search my conscience, I do admit that if there were no other effective choices, no other effective avenues to pursue, I am entirely capable of dangerous assault on behalf of my children.
And the law will deal with the likes of you. You can be imprisoned if you act out your little fantasy of ‘dangerous assault’.
Chief,
No, not a parent. And that you seem to be maintaining that parenthood causes violent fantasies is just another on my LOOONG list of reasons why i’m not interested in parenthood. I certainly understand the desire to lash out at those who hurt people one loves, however–it’s just not a desire i choose to entertain for long, or in public.
If this guy’s actually advocating breaking the law, that’s at least potentially different; i haven’t read his blog either, so i don’t know. If not, however, i stand by my statement: your violent fantasy is no different from his, because you are both fantasizing about harming the (legally) innocent.
Adrienne
I too have been guilty of macho posturing. When I hear about some crime or injustice, sometimes I say “If I”d been there, I’d, etc., etc.” But I don’t know how true that is, I don’t know if I’d not freeze into a helpless lump like some other folks who were actually there and did nothing. But I do think I’d at least know I should have done something, and have a sense of shame, unlike my parents (whatever one of them did to me was all right with the other.)
I recognize the difference between jumping on someone who is harming someone else, and jumping on someone who just talks about it. I am at least suspicious of anything that sounds vigilante-esque…but the shortfalls of the legal system mentioned by Ahunt complicate the mattter a great deal. I’m with Ahunt when it comes to something that sounds like a real threat–although a verbal warning might suffice in some cases. And that’s just one of the many reasons I don’t want kids.
For the record, girls who have turned from little kids into teenagers might not necessarily be physically ready to have sex either.
Very interesting Hugo, have you seen the ”Brasseye” paedophilia special? it’s a British current affairs comedy tv show which was made in the early 90s but is still a legend. Railing against paedophilia and giving simplistic public expression to our private rage on the topic is such an effective way for politicians and people in the public eye to get the public on side without actually doing anyting constructive or really looking at the issue.
The law does a good job of saving us from our own, natural, unfettered rage at such child abusers of all kinds - even if it lets things slip in other areas. We should not take the law into our own hands if possible, but I can fully understand how in individual cases this could be the only way to provide protection - especially regarding stalking.
Also - the programme addresses the ”the lady doth protest too much” aspect of much media coverage of child rape, fetishisation and abuse. The feminine ideal body shape (fashion magazines) is currently pre - pubescent and all women past 20 are encouraged to look younger. The media waits for the next crop of female child stars to be ready for the cameras and the public’s lust. And ofcourse, you can bet, as Hugo pointed out, that many of these politicians and newspaper editors own well thumbed copies of barley legal.
“Sneha, I’d argue that there’s a thin line between an authentic desire to protect and an indignation that another male has dared to mess with your ‘property.’”
If they vow to protect their daughters/granddaughters, it means they consider them to be their “property”?
I want to step away from this guy’s specific case for just a moment and make the point that what i, personally, am angry about in this is the criminalization and stigmatization of *desire*. It’s something “everyone knows”, that all people with an attraction to children will act on it, even though that’s manifestly not true of any other attraction or fantasy.
Pedophilia (which in English just means “sexual attraction to children”; it doesn’t say anything about you other than that you have this *inclination*, this *desire*) has become a thoughtcrime. And that’s just *wrong*. You don’t have to like pedophiles, or even be okay with the *idea* of pedophilia (i am disgusted beyond words by it, myself), to understand that the contents of people’s heads and (with a few performative exceptions) the words out of people’s mouths should not be crimes!
If they vow to protect their daughters/granddaughters, it means they consider them to be their “property”?
Not always — but what we often want to believe is the chivalrous protection of the vulnerable is in fact sometimes violent possessiveness.
But what of fathers who’d equally protect their sons, mothers who’d equally protect their sons, and mothers who’d equally protect their daughters? Is this also chivalry or violent possessiveness?
And, furthermore, what of women who’d protect their sisters? I have a ten year old sister, and if someone laid so much as a finger on her, I’d shoot him without hesitation. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I was sexually assaulted at the age of twelve, which naturally makes me somewhat less than objective about the subject.
People, you’ve missed the point. McClellan hasn’t “laid a finger” on anyone. This is not a post about how we respond to those who actually abuse children, it’s about the posturing about a man on the right side of the law — and why we are so much more tolerant of a John Derbyshire, a respected conservative pundit who thinks 15 year-olds are hot.
Hugo,
love how you throw slanderous insults out and then refuse to allow any discussion on it. I guess that postings here are only for sycophants you believe the same as you.
Seems hypocritical to defend someone’s public expressions of desires to have sex with children, but condem thosoe who publicly express desires to kill the aforementioned individual.
It appears that McClellan was pubilicly trying to aid pedophiles in committing ciminal activity. This would be like someone running a web site for training terrorists to create and place bombs. This should not be protected under freedom of speech. If you want to criticize the government that’s freedom of speech. If you want to help others committ crimes, that’s not.
I don’t see anything wrong with using violence to protect others. There are plenty of examples where violence is legalized in order to protect others. Now I probably wouldn’t kill a known pedophile for just talking with my child. I would get a restraining order placed on him to keep him away from my child. I would warn him that I would do everything in my power to protect my child if he persisted in attempting contact with my child after I had expressly forbid him to have such contact. This is generally illegal.
I rarely have resorted to violence but I have saved serveral people from possibly serious injuries or even death by imposing myself between a threat and those persons and offering a threat of violence in return. Some of these people who I came to their aid were strangers, others were aquaintances, and a few were freinds. Only in a couple of instances have I had to impose myself between a family member and a threat. I don’t do this because I feel the people are property. That is sick and absurd. I do however feel a moral responsiblity to protect those who are not capable of protecting themselves and especially those whose welfare is in my charge such as a child.
Certainly violence and threats of violence can be misused. However they are very much a necessary part of our society as long as we have a significant part of our society which often wishes to prey upon the innocent for reasons of self gratification. If I believed that anyone was a clear and immenient threat to a child, not just mine, and that the only way to stop that child from being seriously injured was to kill the threat, then it would take exceptional circumstances to keep me from doing all in my power to protect the child. Not because I feel that I have to prove my machismo or any other such stupidity. No, I would do it out of a sense of responsiblity to protect the innocent. Now I sincerely hope that I’m never faced with such a situation. But if I am the choice has already been made.
He may be on the rght side of American law, but in many other countries he would have been locked up a long time ago. If American law permits this man to provide an ongoing manual for child abuse then it has failed, disastrously in this instance. That should be recognised. Also, I am highly doubtful that a man such as this has never ”laid a finger on anyone”.
If I believed that anyone was a clear and immenient threat to a child, not just mine, and that the only way to stop that child from being seriously injured was to kill the threat, then it would take exceptional circumstances to keep me from doing all in my power to protect the child.
For the most part, I actually agree with Hugo on this thread. Making absolute statements, as you have just done, is problematic, and I think there is a lot of self-righteous fantasy in many of the comments of people boasting what they would do in difficult situations they have not faced.
With all respect, you referred to “anyone” and “a child, not just mine” (in other words, “any child”). That’s a very broad statement. While you qualify your statement by saying it might not be true under “exceptional circumstances,” those circumstances might not be quite as exceptional as your modifier implies. For example, what if the abuser were your own daughter? What if your own life were threatened in a situation where you wanted to help a child who is not your own, but you seriously risked leaving your own kids without a parent?
We can all make blustering claims of bravado here on a blog, but real life is rarely as simple as te abstractions we create here.
Not because I feel that I have to prove my machismo or any other such stupidity. No, I would do it out of a sense of responsiblity to protect the innocent.
Maybe. Maybe not. The truth is you won’t know until you are in that experience and I certainly hope you never have to face something so difficult, unpleasant, and traumatic.
Lastly, I am amazed at how so many of you sneer and imply that you are so much better than those pedophiles. But is that really so? Is sitting at a computer and cultivating murderous thoughts really any better? Our actions begin with our thoughts.
Mike,
I more than qualified my statement than with the “exceptional circumstances”. I additionally qualified it as a “clear and immenient threat to a child” and “the only way to stop that child from being seriously injured was to kill the threat”. And I have had several opportunities to remove children from immenient danger and have yet to kill anything, much less anybody, doing so. I could have written an encyclopedic entry filled with qualifications and some anal retentive person could have poked holes in it as you have. However any reasonable and even semi-fair minded individual would have seen my statement for what it was, a fairly nonabsolute statement in terms of qualifications, but rather an absolute on principle. There are untold permutations which could take place to create a situation where a child was in eminent danger of serious injury or death. A relatively very small subset of those permutations would require killing someone to prevent injury to a child. Most of those scenarios would be a result of concious actions by an adult meant on harm to an innocent child. Any other circumstances would be considered exceptional.
And while you may make blustering claims of bravado, not everyone follows suit. For me, I confidently relate what I have rationally chosen to do by premade ethical and moral decisions and which have been born out by my past actions when placed in dangerous situations. Your acertion that we don’t know what we will do until the situation is ludicrous. Sure there may be certain situatations where we don’t know how we will respond. But most situations that we are likely to face or which we have faced similar situations in the past we can be fairly certain of how we will act. For example, maybe you don’t know whehter you will rape the next child after reading this, but I can I assure you I won’t be raping any children today as can most people.
You allege that others have expressed that they are better than peophiles and yet you appear to sound if you think that you are better than people who sit around and as you say “cultivating murderous thoughts”. For myself, I could care less whether I’m better or worse than a pedophile or anyone else. I care about what actions I thank and don’t take. And for me allowing an innocent child to be hurt by an adult pedophile or any adult intentionally seeking harm to the child when I could prevent it is just flat out wrong. Maybe you’d rather sit around and watch a child be hurt. That’s up to your concience to deal with and quite possibly our legal system. I’d gladly trade trouble with the legal system to save a child, but only if I thought that was the only reasonable alternative to save the child.
Of course going off half cocked and implementing totally disporportionately violent solutions to a problem is wrong. But so is sitting on your santimonous ass and doing nothing IMO.
We can all make blustering claims of bravado here on a blog, but real life is rarely as simple as te abstractions we create here.
Okay, to do away with the sneering dismissals of people, I do not make any claims I “would do violence” - because I have. I have worked as a bouncer, and a bodyguard, and have raised two children to adulthood. In each of those functions I was called upon to do physical violence. And I have never been sued, or detained, or arrested, or prosecuted for it.
You’d be amazed sometimes at just how much leeway in the use of force the average person has when it comes to defending themselves, their family, and innocent, or property. Let alone when when you have a measure of sanction for it due to your position. In several instances (Save the peeper into my son’s bedroom window) I exercised much less force than I was legally entitled to use.
It really doesn’t bring pleasure. But in that time I have pulled drunks off of women in Parking lots, stopped a couple shootings in the making, left a guy needing only stitches instead of worse after the girl he broke up with attacked him with a broken wine-cooler bottle, broken up brawls, and stopped a murder - among other things. I have had to restrain people, hold someone at gunpoint, and send a few to the Hospital.
And while that doesn’t make you feel good; having someone say, “Thank you so much, I don’t know what I would have done without you there; I could have been hurt really bad - or worse.” does make it worthwhile work.
Mike, why don’t you speak for yourself and avoid imagining what fears others do or don’t have? You may doubt your own ability to aid people you love who are in trouble, but others have in fact done it before and have zero doubt that they would do it again. The pacifist feminist man perhaps cannot hear this in any other way than “macho posturing” but I would suggest that this is at least as much about the distortions of the pacifist man’s relationship to action in the world as it is about the actual motivations of the non-pacifist men who have a less squeamish perspective on things.
As to the “criminalization of desire” (Deleuze/Guattari-speak, anyone?)that Adrienne is so worried about, I haven’t seen anyone talking about criminalizing thoughts. It’s when the thoughts entail standing in the playground watching children with drool coming out of his mouth and his hand in his pants, or when they entail making a web page that incites others to go to the playgrounds and drool, that some are advocating action. But not necessarily police action, note. If the law cannot be changed and the police are not there to assist with Mr. Drooling Pedophile in the Park, be assured that he can be dealt with extra-judicially. Those hyper sensitive to “criminalization” of this or that should also recognize that only the already fascist (we are speaking Deleuze, yes?) cringe and cower before law as though it were something handed down from the heavens rather than the opinion of the powerful.
For those so squeamish and domesticated by law that they cannot read that kind of sentence without whiningly offering advice on how the police will later use that post as evidence of criminal intent, note again that some of us are not talking about killing anybody. A good forearm shiver to the face usually effectively removes the drool from the average pedophile’s lips and gets his hand out of his pants, in addition to giving him something to think about as his jaw heals and he’s sipping soup. I’d happily place myself at the mercy of a jury in such an event, so long as they are informed of what the forearmed individual was drooling about and so long as the entire jury is not made up of people like Mike, Adrienne and Hugo (a fairly safe bet anywhere outside of Berkeley).
If that libelous statement was not meant to be the topic of the post, then you should have left it out of the post entirely. There’s no evidence any of the three asked for a “working-class African American stripper” to “exploit,” in fact, there’s some evidence they specifically requested that at least one of the strippers be white. More importantly, to the extent that hiring someone is tantamount to “exploiting” them, there’s absolutely no evidence Reade Seligman is guilty even of that. Not only did he play no role in the decision to hire the strippers; he promptly left the party as soon as he became aware that others had. What the hell else was he supposed to have done?!
Once you cut through the ideological blather, all you’re left with is the unremarkable fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) that Rantel and North were vociferous defenders of three innocent, falsely accused non-rapists, on the one hand, while exhibiting no sympathy for one actual, admitted pedophile, on the other. Which proves nothing, except that liberals can manufacture phony hypocrisy out of just about anything. That, plus the delicious irony of accusing an openly gay man of “macho posturing.” As even Freud acknowledged, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes angry venting about how “I’d like to kill that bastard” is just angry venting about how much the speaker would like to kill that bastard, not posturing.
Oh Good Heavens Mike…the fact is that I have indeed allowed anger to overrule right conduct…I wrote about it over at TT some years ago. The fact my adolescent children witnessed my willingness and ability to get physical when I simply should have dialed 911 remains an embarassment. My actions WERE sinful, and my intent was to insure another individual feared me.
But basically, I think “posturing” is a pretty normal response when folks are confronted with the unthinkable. I get Hu’s point that we are talking about “thoughts” and not actual deeds…but if McClellan were sitting across from me expressing those same thoughts…my reaction would NOT be reasoned dialogue.
Gonzman,
You mean, when you kept someone from being seriously hurt by getting physical with the person who wanted to hurt them, that person didn’t berate you for your ‘macho posturing’ and let you know how horribly you’d failed to live up to pacifist feminist standards?
That’s WEIRD.
Sorry for the doublepost, but the comment doesn’t appear
Well. I just hope that my comment won’t be deleted.
Sex with children, and here I will define child as a person below puberty, is a serious crime because a child is a relatively asexual being, and therefore constitutes a very serious abuse. However, a sexual attraction to girls who are already of babymaking age (14 and above) is biologically normal. A woman’s prime babymaking years are between 14 to 27 years of age, and it would be absurd to pretend that men don’t feel attraction for those age ranges. A 35 year old man who is sexually attracted to a 15 year old is more normal that a 35 year old male who feels attracted to women his own age, because sex with a woman his age would be fruitless. Amercian high age of consent is a worldwide anomaly. Before people attack me I would like to clarify that I’m 24 and have a 16 year old girlfriend and reside OUTSIDE of the US.
If a person biologically is ready for sex, it should be legal. Trying to establish a dichotomy between body and mind is absurd, because body and mind develop in harmony.
In short, pedophilia is a serious crime, attraction to postpubescent girls is normal and society should decide where to set age of consent(close in age exemptions included), but earlier menarchy and ever higher age of consent are a problem. I advocate differentiated ages of consent, for example 12 if both partners are under 21, 14 if both partners are under thirty, 16 if both partners are under forty and 18 as universal.
However, a sexual attraction to girls who are already of babymaking age (14 and above) is biologically normal.
The average age when an American girl becomes fertile, i.e. “of babymaking age”, is 12, Gannon. Are you telling us you think it’s perfectly normal for a 35-year-old man to want to have sex with a 12-year-old, and we should therefore make that legal? Do you mean to say that Mary Kay Letourneau did nothing wrong, because her victim was capable of getting her pregnant, and therefore is was “biologically normal” for her to have sex with him?
Which proves nothing, except that liberals can manufacture phony hypocrisy out of just about anything.
Hugo said something stupid about the Duke lacrosse players. Therefore, a conservative publication giving column inches to John Derbyshire is A-OK.
It appears that McClellan was pubilicly trying to aid pedophiles in committing ciminal activity. This would be like someone running a web site for training terrorists to create and place bombs.
Do you believe it is illegal to post information to the Internet showing how to construct a pipe bomb?
Gannon, advocating making it legal (as you clearly do) for say, a 29 year-old to have sex with a 14 year-old makes you identical to Jack McClellan. The presence of secondary sex characteristics in no way make a child more resilient in the face of adult abuse. And knowing plenty of women in their late 30s and early 40s having their first babies without IVF, your assertion about 35 year-olds is absurd.
Still, it seems you’re safe from death threats — as pubescent girls, as was my point, are largely considered fair game.
Where I come from, a 24 year old who dates 16 year olds is incapable of normal peer interaction, but that’s just me.
All that aside, being sexually attracted to someone and actually wanting to be in a relationship are two different things. Just because I think the jacked meatheads at my gym are hot, but I’d never date one of them (I suppose unless he turned out to be somewhat bookish in addition … never say never). I’m not going to, say, condemn a 35 year old for thinking that a 15 year old is hot or something, but if he was trying to sleep with her, well, that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
Secondary sex characteristics are exactly what distinguishes adults from children, although there is obvious a phase (somewhere between 12-14) where people aren’t either children or adults. Also, simultaneously the brain matures. 15 year olds have essentially the same IQ as 25 year olds, they only lack experience. Also, when medication says “adults only” that refers to 15 and above.
On average, women lose the ability to children at around 35, that’s a slow gradual process with a typical Gaus distribution. I of course also know women who had children at 42, but I also know a lot of women who have lost their fertility in their early thirties and now are childless.
And a lot of teen girls (midd/late) are attracted to young men in their twenties, but that may not be so appearant in a society with strict age segregation like the US.
Saying that emotional maturity establishes the line between childhood and adulthood, is criminally speaking completely unpracticable. In Canada, btw age of consent is 14, even for middleaged men (I would put the limit at around 30).
By the way I condem MC Clellan, because sex with true children is a crime. 15 year old girls enjoy sex. And if that girl instead of enjoying it with a 16 year old boy wants to have sex with a handsome 22 year old, what right do we have as a society to deny her that pleasure. Why do we force on her the 16 year old if she would prefer to choose the 22 year old or the 26 year old?.
Gannon, you prove my case more eloquently than I ever could.
Just out of curiosity, why have any upper-limit at all if you’re gonna set it at 30? Why bar a 30 year-old creep from statutory rape when you won’t bar a 29 year-old? The psychic gulf between an average 29 year-old and a 15 year-old is no less than between a 35 year-old and a 15 year-old. I get not prosecuting a 17 year-old for having consensual sex with his 15 year-old girlfriend, but see no distinction between prosecuting that 15 year-old’s partner if he’s a complete adult –whether he be 25, 35, 45, or 65.
The point is that emotional adulthood and physical adulthood are two different things, and our laws about statutory rape (which, incidentally, were first placed on the books by 19th century feminists) are designed to acknowledge that distinction.
Secondary sex characteristics are exactly what distinguishes adults from children, although there is obvious a phase (somewhere between 12-14) where people aren’t either children or adults.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself there? Congratulations, Mary Kay LeTourneau no doubt appreciates your support.
Why do we force on her the 16 year old if she would prefer to choose the 22 year old or the 26 year old?
Wow. Actually, contrary to your belief, people who oppose statutory rape also oppose regular old rape. Thanks for trying, though.
“Why do we force on her the 16 year old if she would prefer to choose the 22 year old or the 26 year old?
Wow. Actually, contrary to your belief, people who oppose statutory rape also oppose regular old rape. Thanks for trying, though.”
Look, I’ll explain. Let’s say a fifteen year old girl wants to have sex, and she could have it with
a)the fat sixteen year old neighbor son
b)the handsome young 27 year old shopkeeper.
The girl in fact would prefer to sleep, with the handsome 27 year old, but the 27 year old will refuse in order to avoid jail.
The girl’s sexual freedom is very restricted and if she still wants to have sex, society forces on her her less desirable option. And I have news for you: I’m still being hit on by 15 year olds, and that’s normal, because teen girls are attracted to young adult males. Go to any teens room and you will mainly see posters of young twentysomething men, not teen boys.
The girl might find a cute boy her own age…with or without fat (might have guessed someone would start fat-bashing somewhere along the line)…or a cute girl, for that matter. Even if she really wants to try older partners, this might not be a good idea. I can think of some things I wanted to do as a kid that I didn’t get to, which seemed unfair at the time but in retrospect turned out to be for the best.
It’s a tangly issue, and one that as an asexual I can’t speak too confidantly about, but the idea of a pairing where there is a big age (or size or even intelligence) discrepancy majorly creeps me out. Just too much potential for exploitation. Even if it did work out, one would die a lot sooner than the other.
Gannon (real name? how about some more info on how to locate you? or are you perhaps worried that the authorities in whatever country you reside in are not in agreement with your theories regarding consensual relations with 16 year olds?), you are revealing how little you know about teen girls (however sexually interesting you might find them). I have several teen nieces and the posters on their walls are of teen boys (actors, boy banders) their own age. What sample are you working from? The one in your head? What is the source of your data regarding how many 15 year old girls are itching to have sex? Your own desire to have sex with them, perhaps? The one young girl you have (purportedly) convinced that she should enjoy having sex with you?
Everything you have written here screams ‘I can’t get women my own age to be interested in me, probably because I have some real interpersonal problems, like most pedophiles and sexual deviants.’ You and McClellan and the rest of your clan can rationalize it as your choice to be interested in young girls, but the rest of us know it is actually about the fact that you are incapable of relationships with emotional and intellectual adults. Fifteen year old girls are attractive to you not for biological reasons, but because they are much more susceptible to domination by even men with tiny intellects and low self-esteem like yourself.
Good thing for you that you are living outside the US. If that were my 16 year old daughter you were messing about with, you would be looking for a good dentist, pal. I am just WAITING for anybody like you to crawl out from under the rocks when my child is that age. Just WAITING. Train on the heavy bag, spar, and hit the weights four or five times a week in anticipation of that opportunity. You want to go to the biological and the Darwinian? How about the murderous instinct of parents to protect their offspring from predators like you?
You’re a child rapist. Period.
To The Culturologist
I would like to inform you that even in most US states age of consent is 16, so I don’t know what you are talking about. We love each other, might even marry at a later point and it is a shame that you can’t understand that, so my relationship would even be legal in most american states
(as a resident, age of consent for foreigners is 18).
Her parents like me and prefer an older, more responsible man than a boyfriend his age who might get her pregnant and then maybe just disappear, and eight years age difference isn’t that much. I obviously won’t tell you my real name, since I like to travel to the US from time to time.
I’ll even offer you legal advice: if you assault your dauhter’s somewhat older boyfriend, you can not only end up in jail but you might also lose your daughter. I have younger cousins and their rooms are full of posters of singers in their twenties, although they also have one of that Harry Potter dude. Its not that I can’t get a woman my own age, in fact it would have been easier but I just fell in love with someone younger, and she with me.
And once again, sex with prebubescent girls (Mc Clellan)is a serious crime, but postpubescent girls (age 14 and above) are ready for relationships. Where I live age of consent is fourteen by the way, although at my age I wouldn’t go lower than 16.
Cue “posturing.” I can guarantee that had we been blessed with daughters, Gannon, they would not have been having sexual relationships at 14…with anyone. To claim that reproductive capacity constitutes the line where sexual activity is “healthy,” physically and psychologically, betrays deliberate, self-serving ignorance of adolescent well-being. That you would choose your own sexual desires over the health of a child tells me all I need to know. You are loathesome.
Moreover, despite our spectacular failures at promoting teenage chastity with our own sons, we were at least confident that the ages and partnerships were appropriate, and that the context was in fact love and commitment.
I’ll even offer you legal advice: if you assault your dauhter’s somewhat older boyfriend, you can not only end up in jail but you might also lose your daughter.
Well, we’ll take our chances with the jury…because quite simply, any 22-24 year old who pursues someone eight years younger is pure creep…a loser seeking dominance and control of an adolescent child. And we will take whatever steps necessary to protect our children from evil people like you, Gannon.
I don’t frankly care very much what the age of consent is anywhere–I’m just telling you what would have happened to you if you had made apparent to me even the slightest sexual interest in *my* 16 year old daughter. And I’m sure the resident Gender Studies Professor can inform you about why age of consent is so low in so many countries, and frequently why it is lower for girls than for boys. Has a little something to do with creepy men who don’t care much about little girls making the laws.
And let me finish my interaction with you by offering you some NON-legal advice–a 16 year old child who lives in her parents’ home is subject to THEIR decisions about who she can and cannot see, and any 24 year old punk who wanted to challenge that in our home would get a very clear message (read: threat) about what was in store for him. My guess is that most half-sentient such creeps would understand only too well and elect not to take the gamble with such high stakes. Because this is not a game, and parents like me are not playing. Perhaps the parents of the girl you are raping don’t know or care very much about what’s in the interests of her emotional well-being, but that’s not the case with most parents.
And if this is “macho posturing,” well, don’t tell my wife because I’d likely have to keep HER from going after Mr. 24 year old creep herself. Not her job. I’d bring her some trophies from the hunt, though.
Watch out when you’re in the US. I’m not the only one. Not by a long shot. Watch out.
Okay, folks, I think we’re done with Gannon now. Gannon, you’re finished in this thread.
Not her job.
Damn men.
Anyhow, I remember back when another cretin, Bill Maher, was vociferous in his defense of Letourneau. I was stunned, disgusted…sent off an outraged response, and have not watched him since.
Off topic, and I should have asked…is it okay to use the diminutive of Hugo? My reasons are so juvenile and obnoxious, and the ordinarily taciturn Better Half is laughing his butt off right now…but if you could just my word for it…?
Not that I liked Maher before, but defending Letourneau? Vile.
Isn’t it interesting that guys like Gannon (suuure he lives outside the US) brag about how young girls hit on them, but never asks themselves “why don’t women my own age hit on me”?
This is my last comment because Hugo instructed me so.
Women of all ages sometimes hit on me, even thirty and forty
something. My prior girlfriend (lasted almost two years) was 20 years old when we started.And 16 is legal in most states, and even some states where it is 18 have exemption clauses for men under 30/25/27. We just fell in love, and in a few years the age difference won’t be noticeable.
Thank you very much. Good bye.
“Not her job”??
Who gets to say what her job is?
Hey, the more people that are on the job protecting the young, the better!
The holder of the job in this instance is determined by who has the requisite skills to perform the task at hand. My wife is athletic but petite. I am 6′3″ and about 205, with a 20 year background in martial arts and a very mean streak. Hence, my job.
I am just WAITING for anybody like you to crawl out from under the rocks when my child is that age. Just WAITING. Train on the heavy bag, spar, and hit the weights four or five times a week in anticipation of that opportunity.
I don’t blame you for being protective, but honestly it sounds like concern for your daughter is just an excuse to beat somebody up, the way you’ve phrased it.
As a teenager, the idea that my dad would kill anyone who dared to show sexual interest in me didn’t impress me much. I (and probably most teenage girls) mentally filed that into the My Parents Suck And Think I’m Such A Child category. Being taught to recognize predators, and to understand why an older man showing interest in me was a reflection of his immaturity and not my maturity, would have helped a lot more than threats to run for the shotgun.
Chuckling here…
The differences in our generations are clear here, Myth. I actually liked the intimidation factor my very scary Dad put into potential boyfriends, because it garnered me so much more physical freedom than other girls my age. Once a young man had cleared the fences, so to speak, I was allowed to go places (concerts, family vacations with current BF) and do things (stay out later, buzz around the countryside on the back of dilapidated, rigged dirt bikes) that other girls were denied.
Admittedly, the headbutting between me and my Dad got stupid to the point of firm maternal intervention, but ultimately, I had more freedom because Dad was intimidating.
The world has changed, for the better I think, and the double standards for sons and daughters are diminishing fast…but back then, I was grateful for larger opportunities.
Mythago,
Thanks for your concern, but I don’t see your sense that your parents “sucked” for being willing to protect you as all that representative, as I know a LOT of other women, thankfully spared from most of the more absurd nonsense to be found in Gender Studies and other such places, who love their dads to pieces for their protective vigilance with respect to the single most problematic social group any society has to deal with, namely, single young males. ANd you’ll forgive me if I’m not very interested in what you think my ‘real’ motivations are in my parenting–if you knew me and said that, we could have a conversation, but you don’t know me.
As I’ve fruitlessly wasted a lot of breath on it in many other situations, I’m not going to make any real effort to convince you or anyone else who hangs out here of what is self-evident to me and a whole lot of other people in the world–i.e., that the world is full of creepy monsters who will without provocation do very bad things to innocent people, even if the latter know how to “recognize” the former (and we certainly will give our child that information) and even if they bombard them with nifty pacifist feminist arguments about why violence is always morally wrong (no, we’ll not be passing this bit of silliness along to our children), and morally good people had better get about learning how to neutralize that threat.
Violence is here to stay, I fear, and some of us will choose to use it to protect the people we love from those who will choose to use it to hurt those people. I’m not into the idea of imaginary supernatural beings who will do the moral sorting. I think we have to do it, or it doesn’t get done. And yes, I do indeed take some pleasure in anticipating the doing of moral good by working to prepare myself for that task.
That doesn’t seem all that complicated or bizarre to me. But in any event we can’t all be sensitive professors of Gender Studies, no? If we were, who would you lot denounce on your blogs? ;)
I’m not going to make any real effort to convince you or anyone else who hangs out here of what is self-evident to me and a whole lot of other people in the world
Yet you just did.
And yes, I do indeed take some pleasure in anticipating the doing of moral good by working to prepare myself for that task.
So if nobody ever threatens your daughter, and you don’t get the chance to beat the crap out of some pedophile, you’ll be disappointed? Myself, I think that protecting my kid from assault is a distant second best to never having them need my help at all because bad things didn’t happen, but to each their own.
A., I think you’re kinda missing my point. I understand my parents’ concerns as an adult, but as a teenager I didn’t hear “if anyone rapes you, or tries to, I’ll kill them”. I heard (as many of my friends did) “you couldn’t possibly WANT sex, and if any boy dares look at you that way, I will beat my chest and charge into the fray to protect my innocent little flower.” (Actually, as I recall, that WAS the attitude of many of my friends’ fathers.)
I know this is back tracking a bit but I’m just wondering how come Gannon is such a great expert on the contents of teen girl chat rooms…
Except that they’re not. Acknowledging that many 15 year olds are “interesting to look at” is hardly equivalent to saying it’s OK to pursue them sexually. And let’s face it, the only reason Mary Kay Letorneau’s case is the least bit controversial is because she’s an adult woman who went after a pubescent boy. If the sexes were reversed, no one - I repeat, NO ONE - would give her a pass on the theory that pubescent girls are fair game.
Derbyshire thinks females are appealing only between the ages of 15 and 20? I don’t know whether to be disgusted or feel sorry for him. Same for Gannon. I think he is a classic case of the infinite human capacity for self-deception.
I will beat my chest and charge into the fray to protect my innocent little flower
Got it, Myth And yeah, “The Colonel” definitely didn’t take the reality well, once it finally penetrated.
Hugo-
You allow “The Culturologist” to nearly threaten battery, yet you say nothing directly about his violent comments?
Y’all-
Why don’t we let folks like Gannon express WHY he/she feels what they feel so that we can LEARN something? Does jumping on him help solve anything?
The Culturologist - Careful with that temper. As my cousin will tell you, getting shot sucks.
Live your life as you like, Dave, and I will live mine as I see fit, how’s that sound? If you don’t like what I say or it looks too mean-spirited and violent , then don’t read it, dude. Not that hard. You have arrow keys, a page down button, all kinds of ways to make what I write go away without it troubling your peaceful soul. If Hugo wants to remove me from his blog space, I’m sure he knows the buttons to push and doesn’t need your censorship cheerleading to figure it out–the sensitive feminists usually do turn out to know a thing or two about how to prevent people from talking about things they don’t like.
In any event, *I* certainly didn’t advocate for shutting the Child Rapist down, as his talk is just that at this point. And frankly I’d like to let him and others like him talk a lot, the better to gather as much information about him as one can, just in case it appears that he is lying and he is living in a state where what he is doing is illegal, so he can be reported to the authorities.
Mythago, sorry that your father miscommunicated with you as a teenager (or that your hearing was not good then, whichever it was). What on earth that has to do with how I communicate with my daughter (something about which you know precisely nothing) or how her hearing works, I don’t know. But whatever. Go with it.
The Culturologist,
Fact is, you really shouldn’t be whining about Hugo being too afraid of offense and thus banning you. He has let you continue to ramble on in spite of the fact that you have insulted him and his profession for no reason (perhaps he’s less offended than I have been,I don’t know, I can’t speak for him).
You, in contrast, have not established your credentials at all. What do you do for a living? I’ll bet there are plenty of stereotypes we could use to dismiss all of your arguements!
Gannon,
I get the impression that you think sexual relations are useful only for procreation? That’s a bit strange. I myself would have no problem being in a relationship with a 35-year old woman. There’s plenty of other aspects about relationships other than fertility.
Sundown,
I haven’t insulted his “profession,” if by that you mean that of college professor, as I share it. I do however think the field (or whatever one should properly call it) of ‘Gender Studies’ is mostly a playground for intellectual lightweights who do political activism poorly disguised as scholarship for an audience that is mostly too uninformed to know the difference. Smart students, in my experience, avoid it like the plague. My own discipline (sociology) has studied gender and sexuality much longer and much better than those people do.
Incidentally, you might have ascertained more information about me all by your lonesome if you had spent the energy you misused in your blathering by just clicking on my name. My credentials are there for anyone who cares to see them. And yours?
Looking forward to seeing all your formidable “arguements” (sic) against me.
The Child Rapist writes: “Laws are a general social consensus, so if the law says sixteen that’s too bad, there is nothing you can do (unless you get a restraining order, different subject). ”
I’m assuming English is not your first language, as my response to the above should have been abundantly clear in advance based on what I’ve already said.
Folks, I asked Gannon not to post here again, he continued to do so, so I’m deleting his comments — which make your responses to him irrelevant. Don’t feed the trolls.
Culturologist-
I can look past your outbursts or I can point out the bravado and bluster. It is a free country after all. :) I think that it is sweet that have such an intense love for your child: the “mama bear” thing is very cute. BUT, just between us two balding Hungarians . . . you sound way too angry. I hope you don’t talk like that in “real life.” Could I defend myself? Yes, but I’m certainly not aiming for a fight. I pray that I never have to shoot anything other than targets and clay disks. (Here’s a thought . . . the hypothetical 24 year old you dream of battering might be the guy next to me at the gun range . . . you never know.) At any rate, I certainly don’t fantasize about collecting trophies. BTW, nice looking blog.
As for McClellan, you can look at the guy and see that he just ain’t right. The restraining order is probably unconstitutional, but he could use some major help. Counseling and some Depo might be the ticket.
Dave,
First, I’m not a Hungarian–some of my relatives were, but I’ve never been there and don’t know much about the culture. I’m just another mongrel American.
Second, I’m not baldING. I’m BALD. It’s a done deal.
Third, yessir, I sound angry when confronted with pedophiles. Yep. Not only sound angry, but tend to ACT angry too. Eyes bulge out, veins stick out, teeth grind, hands ball into fists, images of my hands around the pedophile’s neck dance in my head. Can’t help it. Don’t much want to. I think moral outrage at evil is a good sign that you’re human.
Why you think how I deal with pedophile threats to my child might logically have something to do with how I am in “real life” (i.e., when a pedophile is not the person with whom I’m talking) is something I can’t speak to, that’s your thing, man. Believe it or not, I manage to get along just fine in “real life,” have a great family and friends and a job and a car and money in the bank, already been on the planet 40 years and planning on a few more.
It’s a postmodern self kind of thang, you dig? Just because I’m angry mean guy over here doesn’t mean I’m angry mean guy over there. Context changes almost everything. I’m a pussycat much of the time. But unlike some, I think being a pussycat *all* the time means running the risk of being eaten by vicious animals that do not care about pussycats.
But thanks for your concern, Dad. And thanks for the kind words about my blog.
Bw, a lot of us are working politically to try to take your gun away from you, or at least to make it very, very hard for you to justify your need to have it: http://ilovemydaughtermorethanyouloveyourgun.blogspot.com/. You’d imagine (if people were the cardboard cutouts that we too often tend to assume they are) that someone concerned about guys who express willingness to punch pedophiles would be still more concerned about the much, much greater violence that is done in this country every day by people who own firearms–at least sufficiently concerned to avoid owning one himself. But then people are complicated, yes?
Have a good one, Dave.
Well screw you too, Culturologist. Did it even occur to you that some of us might own firearms responsibly, and not care to “justify” it in the minds of know-nothings like you? Or that by every remotely scientific study, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are far more likely to be used to thwart a crime than to perpetrate one? Or are you too bent on making everyone defenseless to even care about thinking about such inconven