"Crush" videos?
Blaze Firestormer
about a Beverly Hills porn star who has been convicted of animal cruelty due to
her participation in such films. According to the report, the 'Cruch' series of
films includes mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, and even kittens being srushed
to death by a stilletoed woman. They showed a few pre-crushing clips of the
heel about to come down on a small white mouse, and I almost vomited.
Blaze Firestormer aka "The Reluctant AOL subscriber"
Master of all Things Small and Annoying
No, I do NOT want to learn about knowing Jesus
TMOliver
>
> There was a story on our local news today (KGTV, Channel 10 San Diego, CA)
> about a Beverly Hills porn star who has been convicted of animal cruelty due to
> her participation in such films.
Different strokes for different folks...
According to the report, the 'Cruch' series of
> films includes mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, and even kittens being srushed
> to death by a stilletoed woman.
I'm not sure that in relative factor of grossness, stilettoed gerbils
outweigh .308-impacted buck on TNN hunting shows (and deer hunting is a
past time which I practice religiously each fall/Winter). Come to think
of it, closeups of a dove meeting full charge of Number 8s would be sort
of gross too, and I work hard for that result.
They showed a few pre-crushing clips of the
> heel about to come down on a small white mouse, and I almost vomited.
>
Blazero, As a young banker, I was forced into day to day ops of a
failing slaughter house, old fashioned sort. I don't dream of the
sodden Thwack! of a sledge betwixt a steer's eyes, still am fond of
menudo made from tripes, the obtaining of which ranks high on the
grossly unappealing meter, and enjoy a selection of sausages whipped up
from a variety of facial features and small organs of live stock
9although my daughter was early on unhappy with my cries of "Pig Snout
Pie". While I'm not into cruelty to animals (in fact considering much
of what some folks, devoted to the cause of animal protection, do
innocently to animals to be so cruel as to defy description), I just
can't get all worked up over gerbil squishin' (although gerbil-inserts
does sound sort of dark and cruel for the poor little critters).
On the other hand, deepwater dumping of croaker-sacked kittens is a
viable alternative for folks without microwaves or gas chambers at home,
'cuz them damn cats would take over thge world if given a chance.
What's a little crushing among gerbil lovers?
> Blaze Firestormer aka "The Reluctant AOL subscriber"
> Master of all Things Small and Annoying
> No, I do NOT want to learn about knowing Jesus
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking the confluence of the Three
Bosques...
"Ask not what your government can do for you,
but how to get out of the way when it does!"
K. D.
Blaze Firestormer wrote in message
<19990827054835...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>There was a story on our local news today (KGTV, Channel 10 San Diego, CA)
>about a Beverly Hills porn star who has been convicted of animal cruelty
due to
series of
>films includes mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, and even kittens being
srushed
>to death by a stilletoed woman.
I don't know about this situation, but there are some actual cases in which
animal rights activists have staged videos showing animal torture, in an
attempt to inflame the public against such activities. (Some of these
people are very sick puppies!) The ones I am aware of have to do with
laboratory animals. There was a legal case in which a researcher won a
lawsuit (slander, destruction of property, etc.) against a bunch of these
animal whackos who had staged a video allegedly showing repugnant conditions
in his lab. They had broken into the lab and set the whole thing up,
destroying much of his work, in the process.
Again, I am neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with the fact that such
videos may be produced for the purpose of certain people getting their
sexual rocks off. That's fairly weird, in my book, but certainly
believable, especially tied to (no allusion intended) anything involving
stiletto heels. Just, knowing that such videos have been staged for other
purposes, I am suspicious of any reports about such videos, or at least
suspicious about where they originate from.
Margaret Lillard
>Blaze Firestormer wrote: [crush video conviction on local news]
>I don't know about this situation, but there are some actual cases in which
>animal rights activists have staged videos showing animal torture, in an
>attempt to inflame the public against such activities. (Some of these
>people are very sick puppies!) The ones I am aware of have to do with
Cite?
>laboratory animals. There was a legal case in which a researcher won a
>lawsuit (slander, destruction of property, etc.) against a bunch of these
>animal whackos who had staged a video allegedly showing repugnant conditions
>in his lab. They had broken into the lab and set the whole thing up,
>destroying much of his work, in the process.
Then you should have no trouble looking it up and providing dates, names,
etc.
>Again, I am neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with the fact that such
>videos may be produced for the purpose of certain people getting their
>sexual rocks off. That's fairly weird, in my book, but certainly
>believable, especially tied to (no allusion intended) anything involving
>stiletto heels. Just, knowing that such videos have been staged for other
>purposes, I am suspicious of any reports about such videos, or at least
>suspicious about where they originate from.
from today's report by the World's Largest:
WEST COVINA, Calif. (AP) _ A woman accused of stomping mice and rats
to death in a fetish "crush video" has been ordered to stand trial on
animal cruelty charges.
[snip]
Prosecutors played a few minutes of the grisly videotape at Ms.
Chaffin's preliminary hearing Thursday. It showed a woman in high-heeled
sandals and other shoes taunting and then crushing mice.
"Come on, ask for it," the woman says.
"Try and get away. Come on, try and get away. I want you to," she adds
before stepping on a rodent.
[end copyright excerpts]
Margaret "Woof" Lillard
Ras Harpentuan
http://www.sexreporter.com/fetish/crushing.shtml
Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote in message
news:19990827054835...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> There was a story on our local news today (KGTV, Channel 10 San Diego, CA)
> about a Beverly Hills porn star who has been convicted of animal cruelty
due to
> her participation in such films. According to the report, the 'Cruch'
series of
> films includes mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, and even kittens being
srushed
> to death by a stilletoed woman. They showed a few pre-crushing clips of
the
> heel about to come down on a small white mouse, and I almost vomited.
>
emu...@imap3.asu.edu
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Rick wrote:
> There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor Mickey
> Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People for
> the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is under
> the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse videos
> are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
> small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel. The
> moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos like
> this are being sold? I suppose it's conceivable that there are some strange
> people in the world who might become sexually gratified by seeing something
> like that, but I find it hard to believe that there are "millions" of them;
> if anything, it must be an infinitesimally small percentage of the
> population, and even then, each person would have to buy thousands of videos
> each to fulfill the "millions" description.
>
> I wonder if this isn't just a new twist on the UL about the couple who
> videotape themselves having sex and accidentally return the tape to the
> video store.
That and the snuff legend, probably. I will admit, I have seen a film of this
nature, produced for ( I believe) the described intent, and whether this film
is the only one of its breed, or simply a reaction to something the director
had seen, I cannot venture a guess. The title was "Squish," presented at
Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted Animation Festival in, I believe, 1995 or 1996.
[1]. It was not animated, and featured a tan, dark-haired woman in stiletto
heels stepping on earthworms. My friend and I felt it was significantly (and
rather disgustingly) phallic. Again, I got the feeling, while viewing this,
that it was an attempt to react or contribute to a prior body of "crush"
works, although I have NO evidence that such exists.
erin "ewwwww" m
[1] Not to be confused with Spike & Mike's regular animation festival, which
is in my opinion more creative and less titilating. I don't know who Spike
is, but Mike is Mike Judge of "beavis & butthead" and "king of the hill" fame.
nancy g.
> Again, I got the feeling, while viewing this,
> that it was an attempt to react or contribute to
> a prior body of "crush" works, although I have
> NO evidence that such exists.
An Alta Vista search on the phrase "crush video" turns up
over 100 hits. After you subtract out the ones related to
the Dave Matthews band, the Jennifer Paige song, and the
theatrical movie "Crush", you wind up with a few dozen sites
that seem as if they'd be similar to this one:
http://www.feeture.com/ds16.html
Note that the items being "crushed" here are all *food* items,
not live animals. This particular page mentions, specifically,
"apple/cherry pies, twinkies, ho-ho's, pudding, grapes, and more".
I do have to admit this was the only site I actually clicked on
as a result of the search. I'll leave it to others in the group
to investigate the matter further, if they so desire.
nancy "hit my own personal 'eeuuww' limit already, thanks" g.
Lon Stowell
Rick <ri...@rick.rick> wrote:
>There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor Mickey
>Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People for
>the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is under
>the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse videos
>are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
>small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel. The
>moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos like
>this are being sold?
Reuters carried a story, but for some reason it also triggers
my BS detector much in the same sense of police reports of
big drug busts announcing billions and billions of dollars
worth of coke, pot, etc. that presume prices no head would
pay.
Can't find any cites for "death by sphincter assphyxiation"
anwyere.
*******************
News Article: Woman Charged With Stomping Mice In Porn Video
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A woman was ordered Thursday to
stand trial on animal cruelty charges after a judge viewed part
of a pornographic videotape that showed her apparently stomping
mice to death.
Municipal Court Judge Bruce Minto, after viewing the tape,
ordered Diane Chaffin, 35, to appear in his court in suburban
West Covina Sept. 9 to answer three felony charges of torturing,
maiming and killing mice. Each charge carries up to three years
in jail.
Chaffin remains jailed in lieu of $45,000 bail.
Prosecutors allege that the video was shot in Chaffin's
parents' home by her co-defendant, Gary Thomason. He surrendered
in Minto's court shortly after Chaffin had been ordered to stand
trial, and faces the same charges.
The judge viewed the videotape in his chambers. It was not
shown in open court.
According to court papers, investigators found numerous live
animals and several so-called "crush" videos -- in which
animals are killed by nude men and women, generally during sex
acts -- in Thomason's home.
As many as 2,000 "crush" videos are for sale on the
Internet, according to police.
Rick
paghat <pag...@my-deja.comYIPPEE> wrote in message
news:7q7ht6$4pj$1...@199.201.191.2...
> In article <7q7em4$o9d$1...@triton.dnai.com>, lsto...@dnai.com wrote:
>
> > In article <7q54io$5bl$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Rick <ri...@rick.rick> wrote:
> > >There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor
Mickey
> > >Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People
for
> > >the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is
under
> > >the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse
videos
> > >are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
> > >small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel.
The
> > >moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos
like
> > >this are being sold?
I'm sorry, but in the absence of hard facts, I'll stick by my strident
skepticism, thank you. For one thing, "cite" (sic) counters are easily
manipulated. If I chose, I could change my counter to one million, and then
everyone who visited my site would think that there must be a million people
interested in reading my novel. You show me some proof that this is a "very
widespread, common perversion among men..." and I'll believe Mr. Rooney, and
you, and the animal rights activists.
>
> I first encountered crush photography on the net. The cite still exists
> but now has some adults-only barriers. But it used to be just out there
> where any kid who did a search on the words "pet turtles" or "hamsters"
> could end up there. Judging by the counter there are millions interested
> in this stuff even allowing for the many animal lovers & children that
> would've visited by accident. The entire membership of every animal rights
> organization visiting one time each to be horrified could never have
> accounted for that high counter. The photos were all of women's high heel
> shoes piercing small harmless animals of various kinds. This is evidently
> a very widespread, common perversion among men who displace their
> masochistic desire onto small animals. It seems so wildly NON sexual to me
> (and perhaps to you) that it is difficult to grasp that such a perversion
> exists at all let alone that it would be extremely common. But there was a
> time when homosexuality was thought rare, & some persist in believing
> incest against small children is rare though the actual statistics show
> that it is so common that it might be regarded as "normal" if high
> percentages were to define normalcy. It's not a perversion ever likely to
> come out of the closet & make itself widely seen, but it IS common, you
> have neighbors & relatives into it without question. But who's apt to
> admit to anyone "My main sexual fantasy is bunnies impaled on a
> leather-woman's boot".
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
paghat
> In article <7q54io$5bl$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Rick <ri...@rick.rick> wrote:
> >There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor Mickey
> >Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People for
> >the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is under
> >the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse videos
> >are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
> >small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel. The
> >moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos like
> >this are being sold?
I first encountered crush photography on the net. The cite still exists
Lara Hopkins
> http://www.feeture.com/ds16.html
>
> Note that the items being "crushed" here are all *food* items,
> not live animals. This particular page mentions, specifically,
> "apple/cherry pies, twinkies, ho-ho's, pudding, grapes, and more".
>
> I do have to admit this was the only site I actually clicked on
> as a result of the search. I'll leave it to others in the group
> to investigate the matter further, if they so desire.
>
> nancy "hit my own personal 'eeuuww' limit already, thanks" g.
http://www.gate.net/~big-d/video/video1.htm
shows Renee driving over various objects in her car - a Disney tape, teddy
bear, toy boat, toy dog and duck, deodorant bottle and pack of cigarettes.
Then she sits on a banana and a tomato, and treads on more fruit. More
stuffed animals get sat on, blah blah blah. About now I lost all interest.
This costs $45 US.
The only site sounding vaguely rodentlike was:
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~thomas/hamster2.htm. The Altavista except said:
"For the lovers of barefoot crush [yours truly!] ... send some stills from
his Hamster 1 video."
but it came up with a Forbidden notice.
Lara "Austrian net censorship legislation at work?" Hopkins
Chris Thayer
>The only site sounding vaguely rodentlike was:
>http://www.cybercomm.nl/~thomas/hamster2.htm. The Altavista except said:
>"For the lovers of barefoot crush [yours truly!] ... send some stills from
>his Hamster 1 video."
>but it came up with a Forbidden notice.
>
>Lara "Austrian net censorship legislation at work?" Hopkins
Not unless the Austrians have exported their legislation to USAns. I
got the same thing.
Chris "and was just as glad" Thayer
Joe Boswell
deja.comYIPPEE> writes
>I first encountered crush photography on the net. The cite still exists
>but now has some adults-only barriers. But it used to be just out there
>where any kid who did a search on the words "pet turtles" or "hamsters"
>could end up there. Judging by the counter there are millions interested
>in this stuff even allowing for the many animal lovers & children that
>would've visited by accident. The entire membership of every animal rights
>organization visiting one time each to be horrified could never have
>accounted for that high counter. The photos were all of women's high heel
>shoes piercing small harmless animals of various kinds. This is evidently
>a very widespread, common perversion among men who displace their
>masochistic desire onto small animals. It seems so wildly NON sexual to me
>(and perhaps to you) that it is difficult to grasp that such a perversion
>exists at all let alone that it would be extremely common. But there was a
>time when homosexuality was thought rare, & some persist in believing
>incest against small children is rare though the actual statistics show
>that it is so common that it might be regarded as "normal" if high
>percentages were to define normalcy. It's not a perversion ever likely to
>come out of the closet & make itself widely seen, but it IS common, you
>have neighbors & relatives into it without question. But who's apt to
>admit to anyone "My main sexual fantasy is bunnies impaled on a
>leather-woman's boot".
I'd like to nominate this for the best example of wild speculation and
prejudice [I particularly enjoyed the "This is evidently..." part]
unsupported by any discernible facts so far this month, if only the
competition was not closed.
--
Joe Boswell * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
[spam block - take the micky from the address or it won't work]
paghat
<J...@micky.bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Wildly speculative prejudice -- you mean you have speculated wildly that
to report on this is prejudiced. Anyone who follows my posts knows I'm not
ashamed to have been a C.O.Y.O.T.E. dues payer in the sex industry. That
was long ago when crush was just an ignored rumor; but I retain many
friends in the industry, & an on-going interest on the underbelly of
American sexuality, most of which I am always happy to high-five unless
children or animals get hurt. So I will never count an admitted crusher in
my circle of friends, but I have seen too many anti-faggot dickwads claim
they have never met a queer, so I'm aware that I may well have a crusher
in my circle of friends & my own tendency toward disbelief renders him
invisible, even if mayhap hap he's wearing a crush t-shirt & a single
earing depicting a kitten with its head flattened. The ability of the
ignorant to remain blind is marvelous, & I was long ignorant of crush, &
still try to avoid too much about it. But it imposes itself. The
phenomenon found its way into the plot of an episode of NYPD Blue; they
did an s/m plot the following week. So it's even becoming par for the
course in television culture.
If you want an "expert" opinion try Jeff Vilencia who publishes two
journals for the crush underground in America. Sufficient subscribers to
make him a few extra bucks at least. Jeff has an on-going on-line survey
as he gleans increasing numbers of customers & supporters to kill wee
beasties for sexual pleasure. Jeff also has a reputation among trekkies &
television addicts generally; he does not produce material that is obscure
& barely salable but has always been part of the pop pablum vanguard. His
video resource is world-famous & many people take him very seriously
whether or not it's his interest in crush or all James Dean's television
appearances or children's programs. I wouldn't personally leave him alone
with any kids.
The Hochzeit Forum reported crush-fetish literature is easily accessible
in Spanish too, so it's not strictly a crazy americano phenom.
It's now sufficiently out of the closet that virtually nearly all the
(hundreds) of s/m leather outlets in the US now sell crush-fetish books &
videos. Some few outlets that are alarmed by it sell only "insect crush"
materials, that was evidently the foot-in-the-door for this very
profitable industry, cuz just about EVERYone crushes insects & that
doesn't seem so bad as baby bunnies.
A search-engine look for "crush fetish" just this minute got me hundreds &
hundreds of hits with titles like "Hot Amateur Videos!" including crush
videos, and "Lokiere's Fantasy Realm" promising crush, midget sex, and
"horny pre-teen sluts" (and other child-sex subjects). A vast number of
Foot Fetish sites -- & foot fetish is massively common as every sex worker
immediately learns -- have added crush sections to their pages. The
curious thing about this quick search-engine search is the lack of
anti-crush information. Apparently even the usual brigade who're
anti-everything to do with sex, as well as the animal rights people,
really HAVEN'T picked up on this as much of an issue so the topic is still
dominated by customers for crush.
Probably this would have remained unnoticed & underground if the world
wide web hadn't come along. Presently it's "underground" only insofar as
you still have to go to your nearest porno shop for your hit of crush
fetish zines & videos, rather than just pick up the latest
major-publisher's crush paperback distributed in your nearest university
bookstore. But even that may happen the way things are going.
-paghat
K. D.
>In <7q6arp$4s5g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com> "K. D."
<flowrchi...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
>>I don't know about this situation, but there are some actual cases in
which
>>animal rights activists have staged videos showing animal torture, in an
>>attempt to inflame the public against such activities. (Some of these
>>people are very sick puppies!) The ones I am aware of have to do with
>
>Cite?
I knew this was coming -- just like during the thread of the girl in the
coma. This is not meant as a personal remark, Margaret, but the usual
detractors habitually make the usual noise about lack of cite (providing no
counter-cites of their own, of course), and when several cites are finally
provided, become predictably quiet.
I don't have a cite for the specific incident, and I don't particularly want
to spend a long time looking for it. I suspect that many folks who ask for
a cite really don't want one, but instead are using an easy and low-cost
ploy to discredit the person doing the claiming and/or the claim being made.
There have been several books which have been written exposing some of the
realities of the "animal rights" groups (PETA, ALF, etc.), including their
acts of terrorism (threats to life, and threats to and destruction of
property).
I don't have copies of any of the books I have read on the topic, usually
getting books I read from the public library. I don't even recall the exact
titles or authors of some of them. However, here is a portion of a review,
available on amazon.com, of the book "Targeted: The Anatomy of an Animal
Rights Attack," by Lorenz Otto Lutherer, which I have read:
"In the last ten years, animal rights activists have broken into more than
eighty research and educational institutions across the United States,
stealing research animals and destroying millions of dollars' worth of
property. These break-ins are part of a fierce misinformation campaign
designed to discredit all scientific use of animals - despite the meticulous
regulation of such research and the monumental benefits it has yielded.
Preying on society's unfamiliarity with scientific procedures, many animal
rights groups advocate an end to all human use of animals: for food and
clothing, in research, and even as pets (as pet status implies human
dominion over animals). Targeted provides an in-depth look at the goals and
tactics of the animal rights movement. After surveying the movement's
history and organization, Lorenz Otto Lutherer and Margaret Sheffield Simon
present detailed examples of various break-ins and the events that
surrounded them. By recognizing this pattern of attack, an institution can
anticipate and guard against an incident and, if a break-in does occur,
respond effectively to the extensive media campaign that is likely to
follow. Crisis management procedures, the role of institutional animal care
and use committees, ways to build community support for an institution and
its research, security measures, and legal aspects such as litigation
strategies and open meeting requirements are thoroughly discussed. A unique
feature of the volume is its focus on the targeted researcher.
Unfortunately, the severe emotional and professional costs to that
individual are often overlooked as the institution scrambles to control
damage to its own image. Animal rights activism has been escalating steadily
in recent years, and every institution involved in animal use is a potential
target. This book argues that the time has come for a proactive response
that safeguards scientific inquiry and informs the public about the value
and legitimacy of animal-based research."
If you're really interested in the topic, this book is as good a place to
start as any. There is also a book by Kathleen Marquardt (with Levine and
Rochelle), "Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Animal Rights," which I have
also read.
Back to the incident at hand: The story of the original laboratory break-in
did not make BIG news, altho it was carried by the national news services.
I heard/read about the resulting slander and destruction of property ruling
(I'm thinking maybe 3-8 years ago) on the radio, in the newspaper, and in
national weekly magazines. It did not get front-page coverage, but was
definitely covered by several news sources.
>>laboratory animals. There was a legal case in which a researcher won a
>>lawsuit (slander, destruction of property, etc.) against a bunch of these
>>animal whackos who had staged a video allegedly showing repugnant
conditions
>>in his lab. They had broken into the lab and set the whole thing up,
>>destroying much of his work, in the process.
>
>Then you should have no trouble looking it up and providing dates, names,
>etc.
Yes, I wouldn't have trouble providing those names and dates if I chose to
spend my time looking into it. I am NOT willing, however. If you really
want to know, pick up a copy of the two books mentioned above. If you don't
really want to know, and just want to discredit me and/or my message, well
so be it.
keith lim
> Note that the items being "crushed" here are all *food* items,
> not live animals. This particular page mentions, specifically,
> "apple/cherry pies, twinkies, ho-ho's, pudding, grapes, and more".
There does appear to be a niche market for crush videos, as far as my
own limited exploration of the subject on the web goes. Apparently, the
crushing part is key; the items being crushed vary widely. Model cars,
cigarette butts, teddy bears, hamburgers, pizza, cups, cereal, chips,
candy, plastic bottles, pills, oranges, flowers, sunglasses, fruit,
eggs, soda cans, ...anything goes, it looks like. Actually finding even
a *mention* of animals being crushed was difficult.
> I do have to admit this was the only site I actually clicked on
> as a result of the search. I'll leave it to others in the group
> to investigate the matter further, if they so desire.
Well, I did come across this site:
http://asia.cool.ne.jp/valis/older.htm
Which has pictures supposedly of animals being crushed. Apart from the
obvious small animals: snail, hamster, shrimp, mice, frog, there are
also pictures supposedly of the crushing of some larger creatures: a
monkey, a vulture, a turtle, etc. Some are more graphic and convincing
than others. I have no idea about their authenticity or lack of thereof.
All I can say is that they were pretty tame compared to the
inbred-bikers-dismembering-dead-husband series.
keith "it must be Gruesome Photo Week in AFU" lim
--
keith lim keit...@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~keithlim/
Ah, to be a haggis! To be borne on a silver tray,
piped in by numerous burly, red haired men! --Nina Neudorfer
TMOliver
library of small-critter-crushing videos had been produced, placed,
disseminated, publicized and "about-speculated/gossiped" by the dark
legions of PETA, out to propagandize the world into a belief that
animals have souls and dolphins are qualified to teach in the public
schools of 'merkinland.
But then, the same cynic might conjecture that the PETA folks themselves
are but lab animals, mind control experiments of some former Soviet
experimental station outside Petropavlosk, seized by aberrant Beluga
whales which(who?) control their emotional subjects with squeaks and
grunts unheard by normal human ears.
Only one week more until dove season, and a chance to swat the little
boogers from the sky as they zip by in 60mph dashes. No crusher I, 'cuz
I shoot open bored 20 gauge, not wanting the security of a tight pattern
from a full choke 12, a true dove-crusher. No, not for cruelty sake,
simply to lower the number of BBs in the casserole, a crunch-reducer.
paghat
keit...@pobox.com (keith lim) wrote:
> nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> > Note that the items being "crushed" here are all *food* items,
> > not live animals. This particular page mentions, specifically,
> > "apple/cherry pies, twinkies, ho-ho's, pudding, grapes, and more".
>
> There does appear to be a niche market for crush videos, as far as my
> own limited exploration of the subject on the web goes. Apparently, the
> crushing part is key; the items being crushed vary widely. Model cars,
> cigarette butts, teddy bears, hamburgers, pizza, cups, cereal, chips,
> candy, plastic bottles, pills, oranges, flowers, sunglasses, fruit,
> eggs, soda cans, ...anything goes, it looks like. Actually finding even
> a *mention* of animals being crushed was difficult.
The one crush website I visited showed spike heel boots crushing through
the carapace of a baby turtle, shoe-impalement of pet hamsters and
gerbiles, a kitten, baby chick, and sundry bunnies. I know some crush porn
is about crushing insects but that's just the entry-level stuff that tries
to be "acceptable." I can imagine others would use fruit for the
entry-level stuff. Once you're on the inside, the main thing is baby
animals, not livestock or fruit or dingdongs. Because the fetishist
identifies with the crushed animal. They have a masochistic fantasy life
in which they cast themselves as small innocent creatures that are abused
& finally crushed underfoot. Always under a woman's foot (or at least
under a woman's boot or shoe, I'm sure mostly it's men wearing the boot as
they'd do it for free & women would have to be paid to do it). There may
be an occasional man for whom imagining himself a small harmless hostess
dingdong does the trick, but I doubt it. Crush fantasies are about the
destruction of innocence & the companies that cater to it not surprisingly
also produce "pre-teen slut" videos.
-paghat
Judy Johnson
>>Margaret Lillard wrote in message <7q6ep8$92j$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>>In <7q6arp$4s5g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com> "K. D."
><flowrchi...@prodigy.net> writes:
>>
>>>I don't know about this situation, but there are some actual cases in
>>>which animal rights activists have staged videos showing animal torture,
>>>in an attempt to inflame the public against such activities. (Some of these
>>>people are very sick puppies!) The ones I am aware of have to do with
>>
>>Cite?
>
>I knew this was coming -- just like during the thread of the girl in the
>coma. This is not meant as a personal remark, Margaret, but the usual
>detractors habitually make the usual noise about lack of cite (providing no
>counter-cites of their own, of course), and when several cites are finally
>provided, become predictably quiet.
Think about this logically, K. D. (may I call you K.?). How does one
provide a 'cite' of something that may not have actually occurred? If
you bring the incident up as having happened, it is up to you to
provide a citation.
Requests for cites are not necessarily personal attacks, but simply a
means by which people can confirm that something has actually
happened. When citations are subsequently provided, and the incident
is confirmed, what more *needs* to be said?
>I don't have a cite for the specific incident, and I don't particularly want
>to spend a long time looking for it. I suspect that many folks who ask for
>a cite really don't want one, but instead are using an easy and low-cost
>ploy to discredit the person doing the claiming and/or the claim being made.
[snippage of book reviews]
>
>Back to the incident at hand: The story of the original laboratory break-in
>did not make BIG news, altho it was carried by the national news services.
>I heard/read about the resulting slander and destruction of property ruling
>(I'm thinking maybe 3-8 years ago) on the radio, in the newspaper, and in
>national weekly magazines. It did not get front-page coverage, but was
>definitely covered by several news sources.
Doing a search of "animal rights activists" and "destruction of
property" gets me nothing with regards to your suit. Most of the
vandalism of animal testing laboratories seem to be the work of
underground organizations, and I am unsure about the logistics of
suing such a group.
However, there are a number of hits with regards to the suit of PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) by Huntingdon Life
Sciences. In none of the sites that I perused could I find mention of
property destruction or slander, rather the suit was regarding
dissemination of company secrets and fraud with respect to the hiring
of an undercover PETA operative. Specifically, instances of abuse
were secretly videotaped by the operative. Huntingdon was, in fact,
charged by the USDA with violations of animal care regs, for which
they settled out of court. Nowhere in their suit do they try to deny
the abuse allegations. Some of the sites:
http://www.naiaonline.org/petasue1.html
http://www.labanimal.com/col/news0598.htm
http://peta.com/temp/index.htm
>>>laboratory animals. There was a legal case in which a researcher won a
>>>lawsuit (slander, destruction of property, etc.) against a bunch of these
>>>animal whackos who had staged a video allegedly showing repugnant
>>>conditions in his lab. They had broken into the lab and set the whole thing up,
>>>destroying much of his work, in the process.
>>
>>Then you should have no trouble looking it up and providing dates, names,
>>etc.
>
>Yes, I wouldn't have trouble providing those names and dates if I chose to
>spend my time looking into it. I am NOT willing, however. If you really
>want to know, pick up a copy of the two books mentioned above. If you don't
>really want to know, and just want to discredit me and/or my message, well
>so be it.
I have been able to find one fairly well publicized case of a lab
suing an animal rights group, but it did not include the details you
allude to. What I am drawn to is your allegation that animal rights
reactionaries actually stage cruelties to videotape.
Tell you what, I'll make an effort to locate the books you cite and
see if they include any mention of your case. Why don't you spend a
little more time and try to come up with some tiny bit of extra
information, like *which* group was being sued, which would then make
it easier for those of us trying to do your homework for you.
Judy "and try not to take these things so damn personally" Johnson
paghat
jaj...@lightspeed.net (Judy Johnson) wrote:
> K. D. wrote:
>
> >>Margaret Lillard wrote in message <7q6ep8$92j$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >>In <7q6arp$4s5g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com> "K. D."
> Think about this logically, K. D. (may I call you K.?). How does one
> provide a 'cite' of something that may not have actually occurred? If
> you bring the incident up as having happened, it is up to you to
> provide a citation.
A: Every hour of every day another kid is beaten or raped in her or his home.
B: Cite! Cite!
A: Fuck you.
-paghat the ratgirl
Madeleine Page
>jaj...@lightspeed.net (Judy Johnson) wrote:
>> K. D. wrote:
>> Think about this logically, K. D. (may I call you K.?). How does one
>> provide a 'cite' of something that may not have actually occurred? If
>> you bring the incident up as having happened, it is up to you to
>> provide a citation.
>A: Every hour of every day another kid is beaten or raped in her or his home.
>B: Cite! Cite!
>A: Fuck you.
Or, of course:
A: Our children are being abducted and killed so their organs can be used
for rich whitefolks.
B: Cite! Cite!
A: Fuck you.
Or:
A: The Jews are killing babies and eating them.
B: Cite! Cite!
A: Fuck you.
All of which is not *quite* the style of discussion around here.
Madeleine "apparently you're looking for soc.hysterics.anonymous -- that's
waaaay down the hall, on the right and up the fight-or-flight of stares"
Page
Andrea Jones
paghat wrote in message <7q7ht6$4pj$1...@199.201.191.2>...
<snip stomping harmless animals stuff>
>exists at all let alone that it would be extremely common. But there was a
>time when homosexuality was thought rare, & some persist in believing
>incest against small children is rare though the actual statistics show
>that it is so common that it might be regarded as "normal" if high
>percentages were to define normalcy. It's not a perversion ever likely to
>come out of the closet & make itself widely seen, but it IS common, you
>have neighbors & relatives into it without question. But who's apt to
>admit to anyone "My main sexual fantasy is bunnies impaled on a
>leather-woman's boot".
>
percentages" of small children are victims of incest?
danny burstein
>> Can you provide a cite for the "actual statistics" that show that "high
>> percentages" of small children are victims of incest?
>Another cite! cite! asshole. The answer is yes I can.
And if you did, you'd probably be wrong. Well, unless you're using the
Clintonesque/Reno re-definition technique where "high percentage" is
whatever figure you think should be "high percentage".
Then again, maybe you'd like to believe that the few kids (and yes, it
happens, but nowhere near the alarmist numbers that the True Believers
wish to maintain) who are victims of this are all MPD'ers as a result, and
thusly should be counted multiple times.
Hey, why not? There's a therapist who billed the insurance company for
multiple concurrent sessions using that same logic. Oh, and was charged
with criminal fraud.
Have a gander at this article:
http://www.wdhprint.com/headlines/hessheadlines.html
>-paghat
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
paghat
<george...@geocities.com> wrote:
> paghat wrote in message <7q7ht6$4pj$1...@199.201.191.2>...
> <snip stomping harmless animals stuff>
> >exists at all let alone that it would be extremely common. But there was a
> >time when homosexuality was thought rare, & some persist in believing
> >incest against small children is rare though the actual statistics show
> >that it is so common that it might be regarded as "normal" if high
> >percentages were to define normalcy. It's not a perversion ever likely to
> >come out of the closet & make itself widely seen, but it IS common, you
> >have neighbors & relatives into it without question. But who's apt to
> >admit to anyone "My main sexual fantasy is bunnies impaled on a
> >leather-woman's boot".
> >
> Can you provide a cite for the "actual statistics" that show that "high
> percentages" of small children are victims of incest?
Another cite! cite! asshole. The answer is yes I can. But it's like asking
me if I can prove salt is salty so fuck you.
-paghat
paghat
wrote:
> paghat <pag...@my-unspam0-deja.com> wrote:
> >jaj...@lightspeed.net (Judy Johnson) wrote:
> >> K. D. wrote:
>
> >> Think about this logically, K. D. (may I call you K.?). How does one
> >> provide a 'cite' of something that may not have actually occurred? If
> >> you bring the incident up as having happened, it is up to you to
> >> provide a citation.
>
> >A: Every hour of every day another kid is beaten or raped in her or his home.
> >B: Cite! Cite!
> >A: Fuck you.
>
> Or, of course:
>
> A: Our children are being abducted and killed so their organs can be used
> for rich whitefolks.
> B: Cite! Cite!
> A: Fuck you.
>
> Or:
>
> A: The Jews are killing babies and eating them.
> B: Cite! Cite!
> A: Fuck you.
>
> All of which is not *quite* the style of discussion around here.
>
> Madeleine
And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
library in their lives, never plan to. It hardly matters if they say it to
someone who merely said liquid runs downhill -- PROVE water runs downhill
with a WEBSITE that says so or i WON'T BELIEVE IT -- or if they said it to
a woowoo who claims stars are giant bugs that talk to each other. Cite!
Cite! neither rebutts nor contributes to the conversation & only
emptyheaded dweeby goobers ever think it's a good response. I happen
frequently to give citations (usually books rather than websites but
sometimes both) & two posts later there's STILL a goober who yells "cite!
cite!" because they're not only shallow human beings but they also have
short attention spans. No one worth a hair off a donkey's diarrhea bum
demands cite! cite! and that's the plain fact of the matter.
I'll refrain from crossposting this thouugh you're one of the goobers who
incite me to do so.
-paghat the ratgirl
Dutch Courage
Well, no Pag, it's like asking you to provide information from 1-3 peer
reviewed papers (title, author, and ideally date) detailing psychological,
sociological or perhaps criminological studies into incidence of childhood
abuse. I would think, what, 1 out of 4, 25% is sufficently high as to be
considered "normal." Surely you can cite that fact somehow.
"There is no land beyond the law, where tyrants rule with unshakable power.
It is but a dream from which the evil wake to face their fate, their
terrifying hour."
-Wesley Dodds.
paghat
exceedingly high incident of incest perpetrated against small children. It
induced me to do one search at one search engine to make sure what I
already knew to be true is true -- no one EVER needs to ask such an
assinine question because even a tard can find the 500 websites in one
minute & many of these will be riddled with references to solid,
peer-reviewed medical studies.
Research statistics on childhood sexual abuse can be had here:
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Where you'll learn such happy things as fully half all rape victims are
children (chiefly girls under the age of 18). The average age for abuse is
age Nine for both boys & girls; or:
In a typical study, 27% of women and 16% of men remember being molested as
children.
Try this site:
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/pandora.htm
to learn such things as:
Reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse increased 365% between 1980 &
1990. Evidence implies the actual number is at least ten times greater
than reported.
But that may WAY underestimate it, as suggested here:
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/abstract.htm
where in one questionaire study that uncovered 90 incidents of childhood
sexual abuse in the population of a single school, 100% of respondents had
never disclosed the molestation to another adult.
Not scared enough? Try:
http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/systems.html
where you'll learn MOST OF THE OFFENDERS ARE THE FATHERS, followed by the
immediate male caretakers. That doesn't let women off scott free. "Most"
means 80%. 20% of offenders are mothers.
That site also notes: "Approximately one out of four American women have
been sexually abused as children, most by someone they knew. "Newer
research..... as many as 38% of women are molested in childhood." (Blume,
1990, xiv). The one in three statistic has been confirmed by a more recent
study, and for boys about one in six. The majority are incest cases;
stranger molestation is not rare, but it is COMPARATIVELY uncommon.
Most studies of childhood sexual abuse have been on girls & women. For the
one in six boys molested, you can get good information here:
http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats
Need more horror still? Here are further statistics on physical & sexual
abuse as occuring almost exclusive intra-family:
http://www.yesican.org/statistics.html
including the nifty one that each year 18,000 children will become
physically handicapped for life. MILLIONS of cases each year does not
make 18,000 permanently handicapped & 1,215 rendered DEAD a big percentage
-- but it's a hell of a lot of kids mostly harmed within the family.
Need resources for yourself or your kid or because of someone in your
family or on your street? Check out a Newsletter for & about incest and
abuse survivors:
http://www.sover.net/~schwcof/newshead.html
The first step in protecting your child is to acknowledge that 20 to 25
percent of all the children in your immediate neighborhood will be
molested by age 18 & probably much earlier than that. If you believe
ANYthing else in light of the evidence, you are putting your children at
increased risk, because you are trusting way too many people. Here are
some pointers to seriously protect your children without terrorizing them
or yourself:
http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats
Although this site:
http://scan.missouri.org/~willowpd/ChildAbuse.htm
put up by a police group gives the averages as one in three girls & one in
seven (rather than six) boys, the information is basically sound there,
with more advice for protecting your family. Here are some key points to
rember (from the Willow Springs website):
1. The majority of molesters are known by their victims.
2. You may never know that your child is a victim.
3. Children are not likely to lie about sexual abuse.
4. Children do not outgrow the traumatic effects of molestation.
Always bare in mind that your child is most endangered within the family
itself. If by you, you know who you are. If not by you, you probably do
NOT know who is dangerous to your child -- especially if you believe
incest is rare. Here are some clues:
1) The molester is most apt to be a close family relation.
2) The adult who most often manages to be alone with a child is the
likeliest offender.
3) Not all molestation feels bad to the child & outward signs of having
been traumatized may not occur until much later, perhaps not until
adulthood; hence the child may seem to love most the very person within
the family who is the most dangerous to that child's longterm wellbeing.
If your child is preferring to be alone with a certain adult, that is a
major warning signal.
4) Molesters believe children seduce them because any signal that the
child wants love & affection is used as an excuse to molest the child who
"wanted" it to happen, in the molester's twisted thinking. So molesters do
not act guilty, do not believe they are guilty. You probably trust this
bastard.
5) Many children will act out sexually with other children what they have
learned from a molestor. Others will have mood swings due to the abuse.
But you cannot count on these overt warning signs. The MAJORITY will only
show extreme signs of distress later when post traumatic stress sets in --
& with the eventual realization that the abuser never, never, never REALLY
loved that child.
6) The child may wish to defend & protect her or his molester. You cannot
count on questioning the child to find out anything. The molester will
have already counselled the child what to say to protect the molestor. The
child may honestly not understand what has happened, though most do
understand & simply remain silent. Personal feelings of guilt or shame,
plus the power ploys of the adult molestor, will keep the child silent.
And think back to the first time you masturbated. Did you run & tell your
folks what you just did? Kids know they're not supposed to talk about sex
stuff. So you have to be aware of their whole environment.
7) Do teach your child about the existence of sexual abuse & be sure they
understand that certain kinds of touching are inappropriate even for
adults and that adult "authority" is 100% negated by breaking certain
rules. Otherwise children will accept the authority of any adult in their
family no matter what that adult does. Make sure they know the "being
safe" rules apply to all adults, not just to strangers.
8) Make sure your child knows you love that child extremely & completely &
will love them forever no matter what. Children who feel or actually are
unloved are more at risk. Children who fear they could lose your love are
less apt to tell you of something awful. Children who are both unloved &
in fear of losing the only thing that is being represented to them as love
will protect their molester so that they will continue to feel loved, even
if the love is horrible.
9) Children receive gifts from their molesters. It's up to you to question
every gift. Repeated gifts from a single person means danger. So be alert
for unexplained toys, money, or candy. But never blame a child for being
easily bribed. The child is never at fault. Never.
20) Half of all sex offending men began their actions before age 18.
Youths, unfortunately, have to be part of your awareness of potential
trouble. These youths will have more than a 50% chance of having been
themselves molested by a parent or caretaker, so don't fill your heart
with hate, just protect your own & secondarily consider what you might be
able to do to assist the youthful offender. The kid will likely be a
member of your family & at least second-generation of an even more
dangerous offender also in your family.
21) Molesters recognize accessibility in a child's personality. If your
child is for any reason depressed; if the child is dirty & poorly dressed
with unkept hair because not well cared for in the home; if the kid is a
loner who cannot easily make friends--then the molestor either inside or
outside your family will recognize vulnerability & take advantage.
Molesters are geniuses at snaring children into giving them their trust; &
once obtained, that trust is apt to remain even through repeated
betrayals. This means, sadly, bad parents put their kids at higher risk.
So be a good parent. If you are a good parent, you're in a distinct
minority. It doesn't make your child completely safe, but the risk drops
dramatically.
22) When molestation is ongoing it eventually takes a dramatic toll. At
forst there may oor may not be signs but in time the warning signs will
include eating disorders (especially in girls), depression, unwillingness
to let anyone in the bathroom with them & even a kind of horror of the
bathroom, increased awkwardness, childish behavior & regressive behavior
like bedwetting or temper tantrums or just acting like a baby, playing
violently with dolls, harming animals, nightmares, sudden drop in grades
at school, not wishing to be tucked into bed (often with exaggerated
pretence of independence), talkative outbursts with the most trusted adult
in the family but the loquacity will seem nonsensical, self-destructive
behavior including for somewhat older kids drug use, smoking, or getting
drunk, & general lying in any situation, even in situations where truth
might have served the kid's interest much better.
To make sure you are not looking in the wrong direction in ignorant
paranoia, bare in mind:
1) Child molesters are only rarely "loners." They frequently have adult
sexual partners or spouses; that partner may even be you. The molester is
very apt to be an integrated, liked member of your family.
2) Molesters will arrange their lifestyle in such a way as to have time
alone with children. They will do this by becoming parents; by
volunteering to oversee activities with children; or by becoming
schoolteachers or daycare workers. So make sure no seemingly-caring adult
is ever ALONE with children. Arranging to be alone through these
activities is the giveaway.
3) Molesters frequently have preferred age, race, hair color, eye color.
They will discard children as they pass out of the preferred range & are
always on the lookout for replacements. Serial molestation in extended
families is thus common, & fathers who have "gotten" all their children
about the same age & later stopped as each child ages is not uncommon.
4) Many molesters network on the web & trade pornography. No one
"innocently" owns pornography with children involved in the pictures or
videos, nor ever "innocently" bookmarks a webpage promising "preteen
sluts" or other codewords for sexual exploitation of children.
5) Molesters frequently cannot resist photographing their victims. Make
sure your kids will tell you of anyone in the family who photographs them
under any circumstance, but especially alone.
6) Almost every molester caught, convicted, & jailed will be released in a
short time, will protest he has been treated & cured, & will molest
children again. No level of punishment will ever stop them.
7) Molesters have no emotional investment in the future mental health of
the children they molest & rarely accept any personal blame for their
behavior toward children. Their outward "fondness" for children is 100% a
lie intended only to gain them the trust of children -- & of the adults in
the family who are clueless.
8) Most molestors are heterosexual males who molest girls, & even those
who prefer to molest boys are apt to be married heterosexuals since
pedarasty & homosexuality do not intersect nearly as often as homophobic
response prefers to believe. But there ARE also gay & lesbian molestors,
just as there are also heterosexual women who are molestors -- indeed
heterosexual female molestors are the second biggest category of molestor
though dwarfed by the main category of hetero men. The majority are
straight men yes, but if you can look at the people in your child's
environment without blinders of prejudice (such as a fear of gays but
complete faith in any married father of three) then you can begin to trust
your gut feelings. If a neighbor's or a family member's extreme interest
in your child awakens even a mild mistrust in your gut, trust that
feeling.
9) It is useless to reason with a known molestor. Involve the police at once.
Finally, if you are a kid & you recognize any of this stuff as happening
to you or to a friend, tell a trusted adult immediately, & make sure that
that adult involves the police at once. I don't recommend this lightly; I
don't like the police. But nothing else has ever been shown to stop a
molestor even for a week. And if your family totally sucks, call the
nearest Crisis Clinic or teen help hotline & ask for the nearest resource
to get help for yourself or your friend.
My throat is dry from preparing this. This is absolute horror. It is the
world your children live in. Reject that fact & you are part of the
horror.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage) wrote:
> pag...@netscapeUNSPAMO.com (paghat) writes:
>
> >In article <eEYSr6a8#GA.209@cpmsnbbsa02>, "Andrea Jones"
> ><george...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> >> paghat wrote in message <7q7ht6$4pj$1...@199.201.191.2>...
> >> <snip stomping harmless animals stuff>
> >> >exists at all let alone that it would be extremely common. But there was a
> >> >time when homosexuality was thought rare, & some persist in believing
> >> >incest against small children is rare though the actual statistics show
> >> >that it is so common that it might be regarded as "normal" if high
> >> >percentages were to define normalcy. It's not a perversion ever likely to
> >> >come out of the closet & make itself widely seen, but it IS common, you
> >> >have neighbors & relatives into it without question. But who's apt to
> >> >admit to anyone "My main sexual fantasy is bunnies impaled on a
> >> >leather-woman's boot".
> >> >
> >> Can you provide a cite for the "actual statistics" that show that "high
> >> percentages" of small children are victims of incest?
> >
> >Another cite! cite! asshole. The answer is yes I can. But it's like asking
> >me if I can prove salt is salty so fuck you.
>
> Well, no Pag, it's like asking you to provide information from 1-3 peer
> reviewed papers (title, author, and ideally date) detailing psychological,
> sociological or perhaps criminological studies into incidence of childhood
> abuse. I would think, what, 1 out of 4, 25% is sufficently high as to be
> considered "normal." Surely you can cite that fact somehow.
>
It is such easily accessed widespread knowledge that even a jackass with
an IQ of 14 could go to it right now without my bothering. But in fact I
did write up a very distressing report with MULTIPLE websites including
help sites, police sites, & medical research sites all aware of
peer-reviewed articles (the main medical research site names the
professional papers if you want them) which have shown between one and
three and one in four girls, and between one in six or one in seven boys
are molested in childhood, PRIMARILY within the family. Refer to my
separate post "One in Four" if you really care. I somehow doubt you really
care. Nor does anyone else repulsive enough to scream "Cite! Cite!" in
order to dismiss basic realities easily checked if & found real if the
"Cite! Cite!" jackasses had sincere doubts rather than kneejerk reactions
or even a conscious desire to keep truth at bay since predators are only
safe for so long as truth is willfully hidden in a morass of dissimilation
such as yours.
-paghat the ratgirl
danny burstein
continued it this far because the previous poster's comments show lots of
UL content in them. I've addressed a representative sampling]
In <7qa9ao$p7r$0...@199.201.191.2> pag...@netscapeUNSPAMO.com (paghat) writes:
>A jackass in this newsgroup demanded "proof" of the everyday occurence &
>exceedingly high incident of incest perpetrated against small children. It
[snip]
>Research statistics on childhood sexual abuse can be had here:
>http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
sure sounds like an unbiased source. kind of like using www.nambla.org to
claim that kids enjoy being attacked by adults.
>Where you'll learn such happy things as fully half all rape victims are
>children (chiefly girls under the age of 18). The average age for abuse is
>age Nine for both boys & girls; or:
Let's see if I've got this claim straight. Half of rape victims are
attacked when under the age of 18 (which, while plausable, I suspect is an
artifact of "statutory rape" laws). But unless you've got some very skewed
profiles, that statement contradicts that "the average age for abuse is
age nine".
>In a typical study, 27% of women and 16% of men remember being molested as
>children.
keep that figure in mind....
>Try this site:
>http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/pandora.htm
>to learn such things as:
>Reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse increased 365% between 1980 &
>1990. Evidence implies the actual number is at least ten times greater
>than reported.
Evidence? What evidence? Certainly sounds like you're exceeding a 100%
incidence here... Kind of hard to do, you know.
>But that may WAY underestimate it, as suggested here:
>http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/abstract.htm
>where in one questionaire study that uncovered 90 incidents of childhood
>sexual abuse in the population of a single school, 100% of respondents had
>never disclosed the molestation to another adult.
Possibly the original 'source" gives the figures of how many people were
questioned and how many years were covered, which would make a very big
difference. 90 incidents in 100 students is a much bigger number than 90
incidents among 10,000...
But, I'd doubt the veracity of any statement from that group, simply based
on their claim that in this representative sample "100% of
respondents had never disclosed the molestation to another adult".
hmm... so "100%" these kids never, ever, told another adult about this,
but now that this third party is coming and asking questions, the kids are
spilling their guts?
and a line like that doesn't have you just screaming at them?
>http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/systems.html
>where you'll learn MOST OF THE OFFENDERS ARE THE FATHERS, followed by the
>immediate male caretakers. That doesn't let women off scott free. "Most"
>means 80%. 20% of offenders are mothers.
Of course most of the offenders are fathers. hint: they're the adult males
who spend the most time with the kid. But the magnitude figures are highly
suspicious. Oh, for good measure, try deducting _out_ all the sexual abuse
claims made during divorce cases...
(It's taken a few years for that pendulum to right itself)
>The first step in protecting your child is to acknowledge that 20 to 25
>percent of all the children in your immediate neighborhood will be
>molested by age 18 & probably much earlier than that. If you believe
>ANYthing else in light of the evidence, you are putting your children at
>increased risk, because you are trusting way too many people.
But you've already stated that the number one abuser is the father! So
you're better off trusting strangers! And keeping the kids away from
strangers will only make things worse by letting the father spend more
time with them. Oh, by the way, who is that paragraph addressed to anyway?
The father? But you've already stated he's the primary danger! The mother?
She's not much better...
Here are
>some pointers to seriously protect your children without terrorizing them
>or yourself:
>http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats
let's see. 1/4 of kids get molested? if we keep the math simple and state
two children/family, that means half of the families have a molested
child. And that's usually by the father...*whew*. If that were the case
wouldn't we see rallies and political protests and campaigns? Oh, I
forgot, "100%" of these kids never told an adult, so this is a super
secret epidemic.
>1. The majority of molesters are known by their victims.
>2. You may never know that your child is a victim.
>3. Children are not likely to lie about sexual abuse.
>4. Children do not outgrow the traumatic effects of molestation.
Would you like to look up Wenatchee? Or McMillan? Or Fells-Acre?
This witchhunt hysteria of the past few decades, along with the associated
MPD abuse, is finally being seen for the charade it was. Yes, these things
_do_ happen. but _not_ in anywhere near the numbers the advocacy groups
mainatin. Hmm... you might want to look up the "Mondale Act".
TMOliver
>
> snipped, logical and rationale (and likely credible)
> refutation of pighag's tortured emoting.
Reading such anguished venting of her emotions leads me to suggest that
pighag's attitude toward the subject may have been early conditioned by
some demonstration of the one-eyed trouser mouse by one of her male
relatives.
But then her outlook on the whole subject of sex seems a bit strained,
an uneasy blend of obsession and revulsion.
Madeleine Page
>Reading such anguished venting of her emotions leads me to suggest that
>pighag's attitude toward the subject may have been early conditioned by
>some demonstration of the one-eyed trouser mouse by one of her male
>relatives.
Look, paghat is a pain in the arse, a boring hysteric who veers from
shrill gibbering to loutish bullying. But this sort of speculation about
the past that gave rise to the unloveliness that is Ratgirl is heartless
and unseemly.
Madeleine "please just killfile her and have done with it" Page
Richard Brandt
> >Cite?
>
> I knew this was coming -- just like during the thread of the girl in the
> coma. This is not meant as a personal remark, Margaret, but the usual
> detractors habitually make the usual noise about lack of cite (providing no
> counter-cites of their own, of course), and when several cites are finally
Gee, maybe she was just asking a question. Of course if you "knew
it was coming" you could have just provided the cite in your first
post instead of the second, unless you were just being intentionally
provocative or something. (Trying to incite something? Heh heh.)
Richard "Speaking To A Brick Wall, I Know" Brandt
--
==== Richard Brandt is at http://www.spaceports.com/~rsbrandt ====
"To say that the web is light-years behind television as a visual
medium would be an understatement--it's light-years behind radio."
-- George Vernadakis, _Interactive Week_
Mark D. Lew
(paghat) wrote:
> [...] hence the child may seem to love most the very person within
> the family who is the most dangerous to that child's longterm wellbeing.
> If your child is preferring to be alone with a certain adult, that is a
> major warning signal.
Many of the warnings paghat offers are too general to be of much practical
use, but this one seems the most problematic.
Even if we accept the largest estimates of how many child molesters are out
there, surely there still exist some adults who are a GOOD influence on a
child's longterm wellbeing. Is it not likely that a child's reaction to
one of these good adults will be that the child seems to love that person
and wants to spend time with him or her?
If a child's seemingly genuine affection for an adult (her father, perhaps)
is to be seen as a warning sign, it's hard to imagine what is NOT a warning
sign.
mdl
Don Whittington
> Finally, if you are a kid & you recognize any of this stuff as happening
> to you or to a friend, tell a trusted adult immediately, & make sure that
> that adult involves the police at once. I don't recommend this lightly; I
> don't like the police. But nothing else has ever been shown to stop a
> molestor even for a week. And if your family totally sucks, call the
> nearest Crisis Clinic or teen help hotline & ask for the nearest resource
> to get help for yourself or your friend.
>
> My throat is dry from preparing this. This is absolute horror. It is the
> world your children live in. Reject that fact & you are part of the
> horror.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
First of all, everyone agrees child molestation is bad. But beyond that
it gets murky. What is the definition of child molestation? Is it
consistent across studies? This is important because it is a hot-button
issue easily manipulated by those trying to prove a given point.
Consider:
When I was about eight I had a baby sitter who was about fifteen. She
lived in the house behind our apartment complex. She liked to talk me
into playing tickle, which was a game involving her trying to teach me to
stimulate her clitoris. She never bothered trying to stimulate anything
of mine. I found the whole thing boring at the time, but I liked her and
didn't want to be a drag.
By many modern definitions, this would constitute molestation. (Either way)
My wife grew up in London. On her way to school one morning a gentleman
insisted on showing her his erect penis. Having done so, he then went
about his business.
By many modern definitions, this too, would constitute molestation. And,
lord knows, were someone to do this to a daughter of mine, I'd be apt to
overreact.
Nevertheless, neither of these incidents are the kinds of things we think
of Most of us, anyway) (cite?) when someone mentions child molestation.
We think of adults fucking children, or at minimum, engaging in oral sex
(more likely, forcing the child to perform oral sex).
So in my immediate family, one hundred percent of the parents (me and the
wife) were sexually molested as children by some definitions.
I agree, that's a high percentage.
But it has no relevance to what I think most folks would call sexual
molestation. Yet, were I fronting an agenda to raise consciousness about
child abuse I would not hesitate to include both examples.
So was I abused or not? Depends. This is a question which no one can
really answer, except maybe me.
This discussion has all the makings of a pissing contest and has no
business on afu beyond the generic, this-is-what-people-believe sense.
While the wife and I shrug off our experiences as no big deal, someone
else with different contributing circumstances may well be forever scarred
by the exact same incidents. I understand you provided these cites in
response to challenge. But as night follows day, there are doubtless those
who can quote various studies which prove the opposite.
We can only hope they choose not to.
There are so many different ways to look at this and to argue about it
that it really belongs on a newsgroup devoted to the subject.
Don "Of which I've heard there are a few" Whittington
Andrea Jones
paghat wrote in message <7qa2df$58m$0...@199.201.191.2>...
<snip some other stuff>
>And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
>janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
>pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
>can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
>library in their lives, never plan to. It hardly matters if they say it to
>someone who merely said liquid runs downhill -- PROVE water runs downhill
>with a WEBSITE that says so or i WON'T BELIEVE IT -- or if they said it to
>a woowoo who claims stars are giant bugs that talk to each other. Cite!
>Cite! neither rebutts nor contributes to the conversation & only
>emptyheaded dweeby goobers ever think it's a good response. I happen
>frequently to give citations (usually books rather than websites but
>sometimes both) & two posts later there's STILL a goober who yells "cite!
>cite!" because they're not only shallow human beings but they also have
>short attention spans. No one worth a hair off a donkey's diarrhea bum
>demands cite! cite! and that's the plain fact of the matter.
like some more information on the topic at hand. Or perhaps the request
came from someone who is interested in the sources used to make the claim.
It could be that the person requesting the cite would simply like to be
pointed in the direction from which the information came. There's nothing
in a plain old request for a cite that implies an empty head, dweebhood, or
a short attention span. Although I won't deny that a request for a
cite -can- be phrased in such a fashion as to imply that it was requested
because the poster is suspected of being a raving lunatic, I see no problem
with a politely phrased request for the basis of a poster's information.
Anyone who has such a deep-seated problem with providing those sources
should perhaps have a few margaritas on the beach until she feels better,
and then come back.
Andrea "Just because you're paranoid..." Jones
Andrea Jones
paghat wrote in message <7qa2f6$58m$1...@199.201.191.2>...
<snip request for cite>
>Another cite! cite! asshole. The answer is yes I can. But it's like asking
>me if I can prove salt is salty so fuck you.
>
sensibilities. I assure you, all I wanted was a little clarification and
elaboration on the information you provided in your post, and was not, in
fact, attempting to imply that you have no brain, or pull facts out of your
ass and expect us to take them as truth.
Why is it that a simple request for information makes you so very hostile?
Andrea "Margaritas on the beach, I tell you." Jones
Ian A. York
paghat <pag...@netscapeUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
>
>And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
I don't suppose paghat is going to pay any attention to this; but in case
there's anyone else who is nodding thoughtfully at the solid arguments
she's presented, the reason we fuckers continually shout "Cite! Cite!" is
that we're avid birdwatchers, and "cite" is the mating call of the greater
tufted twit, a rarity in these areas. We hope by our crooning to attract
more twits ...
Oh no, sorry, wrong newsgroup.
This is alt.folklore.urban, whose ostensible purpose is to discuss and
observe urban legends. While it's certainly true that AFU discussions
occasionally range far from legendary material, ULs are still the
conceptual center of the group, the maypole wround which the discussions
dance. Without that core, we're just a bunch of dorks waving our ribbons
in the air.
There are lots of interesting aspects of ULs; the simplest, and the one
that attracts the most attention of AFU, is whether a particular UL is
true or not. (Other aspects are the ways and mechanisms of mutation and
variation, the implications of the UL for the society that propagates it,
and so on.) Although this is often seen as "debunking", that's really
the wrong approach--some ULs being true, they just need to be bunked.
ULs are defined in the AFU FAQ (http://www.urbanlegends.com); one aspect
that's implicit to them is that they're passed on because people believe
them. I think that we'd generally agree that a joke is not a UL; but when
(as often happens) someone believe the joke and passes it on as a true
event, it has become a UL. We have seen a fair number of ULs that switch
back and forth between ULdom and jokedome.
Now here's the problem: ULs are widely believed. False ULs as well as
true ULs are widely believed. That means that belief in a UL does not
help differentiate between truth and falsehood.
A lot of people, particularly those new to the group, miss this point.
They know themselves that a story is true, and they're offended because
people apparently don't believe them--"cite! cite!". But to complain
about this tendency is to miss the point of AFU. "Cite! Cite!" is the
appropriate response to true stories HERE ON AFU, even though it would be
inappropriate in other groups.
Complaining about the cite demands here is a little like complaining about
the obsession with boots on rec.society.hiking. Just because r.a.h.
regulars spend a lot of time talking about boots doesn't mean they (the
regulars) are boot fanatics who shamble around drooling over a taut pair
of leather uppers. It's just that that is the appropiate subject for the
forum. It would be kind of silly to post to r.a.h. that they were a bunch
or perverts, and let's for God's sake talk about something healthy like
riding crops. It would be even sillier for someone who had been
frightened by a pair of size-eleven-spikeds as a child to take the
incessant boot discussion personally, as an attack on their childhood
traumas.
It's just as silly to complain about cite requests in AFU and to take them
personally.
Incidentally, I don't even know if there is a rec.society.hiking, or if
they talk about boots there.
Ian "boot camp" York
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
paghat
> [warning: it looks like this may become a bit of a flamefest. But I've
> continued it this far because the previous poster's comments show lots of
> UL content in them. I've addressed a representative sampling]
Probably won't be me involved in the inevitable flamefest though in most
cases I love flames. I've too often seen whenever the civil help
organizations, criminal system, and sound medical studies are trucked out
which invariably show the 1 in 4 statistic to be a conservative estimate,
with fathers or nearest male caretaker far outnumbering stranger
incidents, there are ten or twenty men to protest they don't believe it,
won't believe it, & even it's happening right now to the kids they see
daily, they never will beleive it. There's no arguing with them even just
to flame them. They are a HUGE part of the reason the danger persists and
will continue to persist. Who honestly cares about their children will
take the essential precautions.
-paghat the ratgirl
H Gilmer
: This is alt.folklore.urban, whose ostensible purpose is to discuss and
: observe urban legends. While it's certainly true that AFU discussions
: occasionally range far from legendary material, ULs are still the
: conceptual center of the group, the maypole wround which the discussions
: dance. Without that core, we're just a bunch of dorks waving our ribbons
: in the air.
rec.dancing.morris?
Hg
Gerald Belton
wrote:
>And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
>janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
>pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
>can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
>library in their lives, never plan to.
Pag, old troll, I really think you are smarter than that. But I'll
explain anyway, 'cause I like the sound of my own virtual voice.
If I were to call up a reputable journal such as Nature, and say,
"Water flows down hill," they would say "so what? We already know
that." If I call them up and say "Smoking crack cures cancer," then
they are going to want to know what evidence I have to support that
claim.
They are not going to run to a library and look up "crack" and
"cancer." I'm the one making the claim, so it is up to ME to provide
the evidence.
>It hardly matters if they say it to
>someone who merely said liquid runs downhill -- PROVE water runs downhill
>with a WEBSITE that says so or i WON'T BELIEVE IT
If the only cite you can find is a WEBSITE then you have a pretty weak
case. We prefer cites from peer-reviewed journals. Any kook can put
up a website.
Gerald
paghat
<swr...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> danny burstein wrote:
> >
> > snipped, logical and rationale (and likely credible)
> > refutation of pighag's tortured emoting.
>
> pighag's attitude toward the subject may have been early conditioned by
> some demonstration of the one-eyed trouser mouse by one of her male
> relatives.
>
> But then her outlook on the whole subject of sex seems a bit strained,
> an uneasy blend of obsession and revulsion.
When you assume ANY group of four women were molested as child, you have a
25% success rate in your surmise even being as ignorant as you & danny
are, so it's a better bet than those lottery tickets & football gambling
pools you keep trying. But if you assume only the loud & bitchy ones were
victims you'll lower your odds. A lot of survivors remain quiet as mice
rather than loud as rats -- their whole lives lived in silent submission
-- partly from their inability to face your type of attitude if they ever
dared to speak out or seek recovery for themselves or safety for newer
generations.
There are two predictable responses from men whenever their world (in
which children are easily victimized predominantly by men) is outed as
dangerous to children. The first response is "Not either! Never happens
that way! You're crazy!" I don't know why so many men so quickly identify
with abusers that they ahve to protect the environment in which abusers
thrive; but it does seem to be a fact that many men (even I presume many
who have never abused anyone) feel personally threatened by the fact that
molestation is so extremely common, & therefore attack any messenger.
The second response is "And the REASON you are crazy is you were raped
from age seven through age 13 and that's why i hate & dismiss you, why you
are dismissable as AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE along with all the health sciences
& criminal research studies that support your contentions -- all doubtless
orchestrated by raped women -- so FUCK YOU go to hell you're always wrong
because raped women & children are always lying hateful exaggeraters who
deserved what they got."
The thing is "You were raped" whether true or not of the individual being
dismissed on such a basis does not lead rationally to any of those other
conclusions. Nor would anyone with an ounce of humanity assume such
realities are good things & make the best flame fodder. And to assume that
only the victims are capable of being alarmed by the statistics, that only
the victims can believe "incredible" studies, that only the victims are
obnoxious assholes like me (or obnoxious IGNORANT assholes like you) . . .
well, the thing is, you could just as easily be one of the one in six
boys. For if my being one of the one in four girls would explain to your
satisfaction why I annoy you, your similar condition explains why you're
an ignorant asshole. Sadly one fact does NOT rationally lead to the next
fact & anyone who wishes to protect their children will know instantly to
dismiss men who claim (a) the studies are wrong because they're wrong and
(b) if you believe the studies are correct you're a victim never to be
relied upon for anything by anyone.
Your irrational "deduction" that only adult survivors of incest and rape
speek out angrily against the rape of children may or may not apply to my
individual case -- if you've guessed right the 25% odds paid off for you &
you can be happy that your desire it be true panned out. But that you leap
from that hate-inspired desire that it be true to the loonier theory that
THEREFORE all studies are wrong & only raped women & kids would believe
those studies -- well, that reveals your own irrational hatred of women
and children, conceivably your dangerousness to women & children if not as
an overt abuser (which I would NOT imply is probable) then as one of the
many men who angrily struggle to protect a sociopathic status quo which
harms children in such great numbers.
Just look at what you've done, you've written with the HOPE i was raped as
a child specifically as a reason to dismiss that children are endangered
to such a high degree & as a method of flaming my sexuality generally.
Well be happy then; I was pimped to strange men by a related guardian,
along with my sister, from age 7 to age 13. So be happy. But after years
of struggle with post traumatic stress, my personal sex life at least is
lovely & my relationship more enduring & sweeter than any you are ever apt
to experience. So be unhappy your other surmise is evidence only that
you're an ignorant asshole & nothing to do with my reality. You would use
the wisdom & knowledge of survivors as a reason to permit the epidemic to
continue. For that reason you & your ilk are a great part of the reason
the problem is perpetuated.
But I trust there are some few who have children, & care about their
children, who will be on the alert, & will recognize your glee as a deadly
bias that assists in the continuing endangerment of children.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
(Gerald Belton) wrote:
Actually I have worked for physicians & am expert at finding my way around
the Health Science Library -- when I cite a website instead it is to save
time & because i can pretty much be assured YOU wouldn't go a Health
Science Library to check it out but you just MIGHT go to the website. As a
rule there are multiple websites to choose from & I will cite the one with
a bibliography attached on the off chance that some UseNet nerd or another
DOES frequently use a Health Sciences library.
But the nerdiness of ANYone assuming UseNet needs to reference everything
to peer reviewed journals, that is SO nutty. Prove you have a dick citing
peer review journals, you can't do it, therefore you have no dick. And
putting a gif of your dick on the net is not proof, because websites prove
nothing. Coming over to my place with your pants off is also no proof
because "witness" evidence is notoriously unreliable & anyway you probably
glued that thing on there & it's not a real dick. But with peer reviewed
journals, even you can become convinced you have a dick.
-paghat the ratgirl
HWM
> But with peer reviewed
> journals, even you can become convinced you have a dick.
4.1 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8
The East German judge gives a five.
May I quote you sometime?
Cheers, | The conformity of purpose will be achieved |
HWM | through the mutual satisfaction of requirements.|
"Mind the gap"=> hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
browse
(paghat) wrote:
> The one crush website I visited showed spike heel boots crushing through
> the carapace of a baby turtle, shoe-impalement of pet hamsters and
> gerbiles, a kitten, baby chick, and sundry bunnies.
Site! Site!
Madeleine Page
My response is to find myself wondering which is more harmful -- abuse, or
constant hysteria-tinged vigilance against it. While inappropriate sexual
behaviour towards children is damaging, so is the world view of the abuse
detectors who claim that the person who experienced it is a Survivor, a
Victim, a sufferer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Marked For
Life. The people who implicitly suggest that the person who experienced
abuse must necessarily experience it as their defining characteristic.
And the issue of abuse is not as simple as it appears. I know one person
who brightly introduces herself as an "adult survivor of childhood sexual
abuse". She is suing father, mother and extended family for ritual abuse
she believes she experienced at their hands, having recovered memories of
these experiences in therapy. She seems, frankly, excited by the drama of
it all. By contrast, another woman I know quietly avers that the most
loving and meaningful relationship she ever had was a sexual relationship
with her foster father that lasted through much of her puberty and
adolescence. She still mourns him, still struggles with the fact that they
were discovered and separated shortly before he died and that she was
never permitted to say goodbye to him as she wished.
Abuse is not the only phenomenon that people see as in some way life
defining. I have friends whose life course was, they believe, altered by a
parent's alcoholism, a sibling's death, a childhood accident. I also know
people whose lives were, in their view, deeply scarred by their diet. It
was the deadliness of carbohydrates that poisoned them, rendered their
lives unsatisfactory until they found the right way to eat. Others believe
their lives were profoundly changed by giving up sugar, and claim that
they wasted years feeling bad because their eating habits were wrong.
Still others have come to believe that undiagnosed food allergies lay at
the heart of their lifetime of unhappiness.
At a guess, we all know someone whose life was magically transformed, be
it by religious conversion or diet, political revelation, chiropractic,
exercise, recovery of lost memories or psychotherapy. They seem often to
be people who were always looking for a big fat hook to hang *everything*
on -- their ambivalence, their rage, their bad dreams, their discomforts,
their vague malaise, their fears and unhappiness, their sense of unsuccess
at loving and living. I'm familiar with the seductive pull of certainty,
of righteous rage, of being able to define the enemy, the one true path to
Recovery. It *simplifies* things.
I just don't think that that road is a healthy one, that it promotes
aliveness. One True Way explanations impose restrictions on what we are
able to think, on the stories we are able to tell ourselves of our
experiences. They tie things up too pat. Over the years I've become
suspicious of the one trick ponies -- people who offer (and people who
accept) one dimensional explanations of their lives and their wishes and
their difficulties. It's at best a temporary solution. At worst, it
sustains exactly the problems it is supposed to resolve.
That said, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with urban legendry,
and herewith bow out of the conversation.
Madeleine "" Page
Lon Stowell
Because he is indeed pulling facts out of his brain/ass and
posting them, expecting everyone to take them as truth.
Check back posts from the lastest infestation..anything
give the slightest evidence that one is dealing with a
clue-possessor?
TMOliver
>
> snipped..F14 in afterburner/TWA800 in flames/Steinbrenneron defense/sulphuric acid dashing/etc.....
Gee, didn't it help to get that off your chest.
Does it make you feel better. How seemly of me to provide you with the
stimulus for such cathartic rending and gnashing....
Honey, I'ld bet that the actual "molestation' rate, at least by your
standards, runs close to or over 90%, if we use your apparent parameters
in which overparking and capital murder seem equivalent violations of
statute.
With four sisters, a wife (same one for about 35 years) and a couple of
adult dauhters, I've been exposed to their reaction to the actions of
others (both male and female, and the most blatantly offensive case
involving a female) in some of the permutative forms that child
abuse/sex abuse takes in our society. Managing several hundred
apartments opened my eyes even farther to (wo)man's potential inhumanity
to (wo)man and more often children.
Most folks, fortunately, are exposed to levels of abuse with which they
are equipped to cope, ranging from the mutual gropings of children to
the occasional flasher and the sad reality of date rape, a crime
committed by most often by men, for which they ought to be blamed along
with the society around them which "enables" the offense and in many
cases, their mothers who have instilled within them the concept of "It's
allright if you want to do it."
On the other hand, I suspect that the frequency of incestuous contacts
by fathers is considerably lower than you surmise, but not one wit less
horrific in its occurrence and results. Incidentally, in both cases
with which I have any familiarity, one from jury duty, the other a
neighborhood thing, the evil pop (for whom there are no real defenses)
had been himself the victim of sexual abuse, in one instance from a
vampirishly sexually exploitive Mom.
In apartment management, most of the instances i have seen were
exploitation of minor children, female and male, by Moms' boyfriends,
again seemingly to often chosen from a pool whose conduct was more than
indicative of the potential.
I'm no aplogist for human evil, being basically a pretty sensitive sort
of guy, uncomfortable with the streak (make that a blazon) of mean which
permeates your every posting (and likely, your life. If you're
uncomfortable with folks poking at the chinks in your armor, let me
suggest that you increase your Tagamet dosage, take your tattered heart
off yor sleeve, and come to grips with the simple maxim that those
unable to laugh with you (even on rare occasions) are certain to laugh
at you.
It's difficult for me to imagine or comprehend the enormity of anguish
which seems to accompany your life. Try as I might, I can't, except by
comparing it to the thankfully long distant memory of trying to take a
piss while suffering from the clap.
R H Draney
> I don't suppose paghat is going to pay any attention to this; but in case
> there's anyone else who is nodding thoughtfully at the solid arguments
> she's presented, the reason we fuckers continually shout "Cite! Cite!" is
> that we're avid birdwatchers, and "cite" is the mating call of the greater
> tufted twit, a rarity in these areas. We hope by our crooning to attract
> more twits ...
A twit is not a bird, but a pregnant goldfish....
> Complaining about the cite demands here is a little like complaining about
> the obsession with boots on rec.society.hiking. Just because r.a.h.
> regulars spend a lot of time talking about boots doesn't mean they (the
> regulars) are boot fanatics who shamble around drooling over a taut pair
> of leather uppers. It's just that that is the appropiate subject for the
> forum. It would be kind of silly to post to r.a.h. that they were a bunch
> or perverts, and let's for God's sake talk about something healthy like
> riding crops. It would be even sillier for someone who had been
> frightened by a pair of size-eleven-spikeds as a child to take the
> incessant boot discussion personally, as an attack on their childhood
> traumas.
<snip>
> Incidentally, I don't even know if there is a rec.society.hiking, or if
> they talk about boots there.
Or even if they think of "A" as the initial letter of "society"....r
Ian A. York
paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
>(Gerald Belton) wrote:
>
>Actually I have worked for physicians & am expert at finding my way around
>the Health Science Library -- when I cite a website instead it is to save
>time & because i can pretty much be assured YOU wouldn't go a Health
>Science Library to check it out but you just MIGHT go to the website. As a
You don't know who Gerald is, do you?
Lots of people on AFU can and do check peer-reviewed references in health
sciences libraries. Some AFU members publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Some peer-review articles for peer-reviewed journals.
Stop condescending and try posting the cites. If it's as easy as you say,
you could have done it with half the effort you put into the tantrums
you've posted.
Ian
Medieval Knievel
TMOliver wrote in message
>Reading such anguished venting of her emotions leads me to suggest that
>pighag's attitude toward the subject may have been early conditioned by
>some demonstration of the one-eyed trouser mouse by one of her male
>relatives.
This is a prime example of the type of flame that one should have the good
sense and common decency to not write to anyone under any circumstance.
I've worked with many people who were sexually abused and it's the most
unfunny things in the world.
TM Oliver, shame on you.
--
Medieval Knievel--The Other White Meat
remove NOSPAM from my address to reply
ICQ# 26667824 aa# 1552 ULC ordained minister
EAC Coordinator of Youth Corruption Activities
Lee Rudolph
>it by religious conversion or diet, political revelation, chiropractic,
>exercise, recovery of lost memories or psychotherapy.
Personally, I give all the credit to cross-posting.
Lee "Anonymous is my Co-Pilot" Rudolph
Randy Poe
> an IQ of 14 could go to it right now without my bothering. But in fact I
> did write up a very distressing report with MULTIPLE websites
paghat is for some reason suppressing her own report,
refusing to provide a cite for it. So here it is...
Research statistics on childhood sexual abuse can be had here:
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Where you'll learn such happy things as fully half all rape
victims are children (chiefly girls under the age of 18). The
average age for abuse is age Nine for both boys & girls;
or:
In a typical study, 27% of women and 16% of men remember being
molested as children.
Not a percentage for incest per se, but certainly one could
estimate nonzero percentages of incest from these figures.
I would conservatively estimate that at least half of these
cases are incestuous, with the caveat that I am extrapolating
without actual data.
>
Try this site:
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/pandora.htm
Reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse increased
365% between 1980 & 1990. Evidence implies the actual
number is at least ten times greater than reported.
Hard to judge how alarming this is. 365% and ten times
greater than what number?
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/abstract.htm
where in one questionaire study that uncovered
90 incidents of childhood sexual abuse in the
population of a single school, 100% of respondents
had never disclosed the molestation to another adult.
Good hard data, without the critical piece of information
as to how big the school was. If we were talking about my
neighborhood elementary school (300 kids) that is indeed
a large percentage. Even so, it does not say anything about
incest one way or another.
Not scared enough? Try:
http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/systems.html
where you'll learn MOST OF THE OFFENDERS ARE THE
FATHERS, followed by the immediate male caretakers.
That doesn't let women off scott free. "Most" means 80%.
20% of offenders are mothers.
First cite having relevance to the "high percentage of
incest" claim. Paghat's summary seems to be saying that
80% of sexual abuse is by fathers, and 20% by mothers.
Since I don't believe that 100% of abuse is by parents,
ruling out all other relatives and acquaintances, I
have no idea what this is 80% and 20% of. Most of
which offenders?
That site also notes: "Approximately one out of four
American women have been sexually abused as children,
most by someone they knew. "Newer research..... as many
as 38% of women are molested in childhood."
And STILL lacks a percentage claim for incest.
So, paghat, despite my own bias toward believing
"high incident" claims, I am disappointed
to find no single objective number backing up the claim.
I am unwilling to make a claim that "it's just obvious"
because it seems it should be true, without evidence.
That gets to the very heart of ULishness.
> Nor does anyone else repulsive enough to scream "Cite! Cite!" in
> order to dismiss basic realities easily checked if & found real if the
You're being deliberately obtuse, and many of us here have
read enough of your posts to know you aren't obtuse at
all. Any claim for which there exist studies on both sides
of the claim, purporting to prove either side, is by
definition controversial. A controversial claim needs
cites. A claim that salt is salty does not. A claim that
salt is not salty does.
You could say that the numbers I'm asking for (as you
do) are there for anybody to read. But why go to the
effort of writing a well-cited review article if you
wouldn't also pull out the numbers that bolster your
claim? Why do you think people write review articles?
Why do you think magazines like Scientific American
exist? Why does the Washington Post print science
articles? After all, if I'm interested in this, the
information exists in the public library, right?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
> janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
> pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
> can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
> library in their lives, never plan to.
Even in a group whose primary purpose is to sort out
unsubstantiated rumor from substantiated? There is a
difference between "water runs downhill" and "white
people are kidnapping Colombian babies". The best way
to sort out truth from UL is to add citations. "I heard
this" along with "this is the pathway by which I heard
it".
If I claim that physicist Richard Feynmann did experiments
in cold fusion, how does it become your obligation to
search for every conceivable published work, unpublished
letter, and evidence of activity in Feynmann's basement
in order to prove or disprove my claim?
Randy "did you know that at certain temperatures,
water runs uphill?" Poe
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
> janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
> pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
> can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
> library in their lives, never plan to.
I'm sorry, but I have never seen documentation which supports what
you have just said. Do you have a cite for that?
Charles
Chris Clarke
<pag...@netscapeUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
| Nor does anyone else repulsive enough to scream "Cite! Cite!" in
| order to dismiss basic realities easily checked if & found real if the
| "Cite! Cite!" jackasses had sincere doubts rather than kneejerk reactions
| or even a conscious desire to keep truth at bay since predators are only
| safe for so long as truth is willfully hidden in a morass of dissimilation
| such as yours.
M*tt$^%#
@^^(%)*&
NO CARRIER
Chris Thayer
>exceedingly high incident of incest perpetrated against small children. It
>induced me to do one search at one search engine to make sure what I
>already knew to be true is true -- no one EVER needs to ask such an
>assinine question because even a tard can find the 500 websites in one
>minute & many of these will be riddled with references to solid,
>peer-reviewed medical studies.
[snip the lengthy cites that were finally provided]
So you make an assertion, are nicely asked for a cite, get huffy, rude
and offensive over being asked for the cite, post AGAIN that your first
post is correct on your say-so and further assert that you've written
articles about the subject without citing them, claiming it's not worth
your time, then finally write a lengthy post providing the simple cites
requested, all the while presenting yourself in a most unattractive
manner. You're more trouble than you're worth.
Chris " " Thayer
nancy g.
Well, Nando Press, anyway:
http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,85333-134793-939626-0,00.html
Some brief quotes from their report, dated August 24:
Sale of the videos, primarily over the Internet, is a worldwide
business, Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury
said at a news conference Monday. He was flanked by poster-sized
photographs taken from videos that showed women's feet in platform
shoes or stiletto heels, apparently crushing rats and other rodents.
Apparently at least some of the reports about "crush" videos are true:
During a yearlong probe, an investigator went into Internet
chat rooms to try to obtain crush videos. "She talked to people
in Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico, all over the United
States," said Tom Connors, a Ventura County assistant prosecutor.
"We were trying to find out whether people were still producing
the videos." The probe led to animal cruelty charges against two
people who are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on Thursday,
said Carol Rash, a Los Angeles County prosecutor.
The link I followed to the Nando Times article came from the
World New York site at
http://www.worldnewyork.com/archive.shtml
which featured an alleged quote from Mickey Rooney on the "crush" topic.
nancy "not wanting to believe it doesn't make it not true, I guess" g.
brigid nelson
>
> But the nerdiness of ANYone assuming UseNet needs to reference everything
> to peer reviewed journals, that is SO nutty. Prove you have a dick citing
> peer review journals, you can't do it, therefore you have no dick. And
> putting a gif of your dick on the net is not proof, because websites prove
> nothing. Coming over to my place with your pants off is also no proof
> because "witness" evidence is notoriously unreliable & anyway you probably
> journals, even you can become convinced you have a dick.
>
If I recall correctly, UseNet used to be the sole purview of nerds.
This is a well established newsgroup (one in which I have been
lurking/reading for better than six years), the hats have been here
since forever(L). Without a cite, I think it's fair to say that some of
these people come from some rather nerdy professions. For instance
there are doctors, and lawyers, and scientists, - oh my!
If you want to hang out with these people it's only polite, as a
latecomer, to play by the rules which were in place long before you got
here. If you want to play flame games, there are better, more receptive
places to do it. Of course, I am presuming, perhaps erroneously, that
you are not just some masochist who sees AFU as a kind of "loose tooth"
you can wiggle to produce sensation. If this IS the case, then we have
only to wait a little while for you to get bored and go away.
In the meantime, please continue cheering for the rest of the visiting
fuckwits. The few currently here are nothing to what will come in the
next month or so. So please, stock up on mottos, and nurture that
obtuse, lack-of-understanding attitude you do so well. We're counting
on you to entertain us till the new kids get here this fall.
brigid,"try to get a touchdown you meanyheads!",nelson
paghat
wrote:
> In article <7qbk8n$hph$4...@199.201.191.2>,
> paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
> >(Gerald Belton) wrote:
> >
> >Actually I have worked for physicians & am expert at finding my way around
> >the Health Science Library -- when I cite a website instead it is to save
> >time & because i can pretty much be assured YOU wouldn't go a Health
> >Science Library to check it out but you just MIGHT go to the website. As a
>
> You don't know who Gerald is, do you?
>
> Lots of people on AFU can and do check peer-reviewed references in health
> sciences libraries. Some AFU members publish in peer-reviewed journals.
> Some peer-review articles for peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Stop condescending and try posting the cites. If it's as easy as you say,
> you could have done it with half the effort you put into the tantrums
> you've posted.
>
> Ian
The level of *dumb* in this ng makes me doubt you considerably, buttmunch.
It remains I provided websites that included references to peer review
articles for the random soul who might indeed want more. I don't see a lot
of that around here.
-paghat
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
> paghat wrote:
> > And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
> > janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
> > pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
> > can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
> > library in their lives, never plan to.
>
> Even in a group whose primary purpose is to sort out
> unsubstantiated rumor from substantiated?
If a twelve year old with only two reference books in the house &/or
mastery of one search engine could answer the question in two seconds,
then yes, my statement stands in spades.
> Randy "did you know that at certain temperatures,
> water runs uphill?" Poe
Or at least uphill through a sponge.
-paghat the ratgirl
Viv
K. D. wrote in message <7q8qcs$1502$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
:>Margaret Lillard wrote in message <7q6ep8$92j$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
:>In <7q6arp$4s5g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com> "K. D."
:<flowrchi...@prodigy.net> writes:
:>
:>>I don't know about this situation, but there are some actual cases in
which animal rights activists have staged videos showing animal torture, in
anattempt to inflame the public against such activities. (Some of these
people are very sick puppies!) The ones I am aware of have to do with
:>
:>Cite?
:
:I knew this was coming -- just like during the thread of the girl in
:the coma. This is not meant as a personal remark, Margaret, but the
:usual detractors habitually make the usual noise about lack of cite
:(providing no counter-cites of their own, of course), and when several
:cites are finally provided, become predictably quiet.
KD, have you ever really paid attention to the F, Fb, T, U rating in the
FAQ? It's all about cites. That's why we ask for them. It's common
practise in AFU-land and not something personally devised to piss you off.
It is not even meant to be combative, usually - it is merely shorthand for
"when and where did it happen and how can I find out more about it"?
Why should people provide countercites when they're merely asking for more
information for vorification purposes?
And of course people go quiet if you do provide cites - you've answered the
question, havent you? I don't think you should pat yourself on the back for
some sort of great moral victory there.
:I don't have a cite for the specific incident, and I don't
:particularly want to spend a long time looking for it. I
:suspect that many folks who ask for a cite really don't want
:one, but instead are using an easy and low-cost ploy to
:discredit the person doing the claiming and/or the claim being made.
I don't read the word "Cite?" as combative or as an attempt to discredit
anyone for the reasons stated above. Your mileage obviously varies.
As for not really wanting a cite - rubbish. If this story is a full-fledged
UL then any actual cites you can come up with may be useful additions to the
FAQ. More than a few people here are contributors to TAFKAC who may really
and truly be interested in pointers for further vorification research.
:There have been several books which have been written exposing some of the
:realities of the "animal rights" groups (PETA, ALF, etc.), including
:their acts of terrorism (threats to life, and threats to and destruction
:of property). [snip quotes from a review at amazon.com of such a book]
Thanks for the attempted cite. I appreciate your disclaimer that you did
not have the time or inclination for anything more thorough, but at least it
provides a jumping off point for others.
:Back to the incident at hand: The story of the original laboratory
:break-in did not make BIG news, altho it was carried by the national
:news services. I heard/read about the resulting slander and destruction
:of property ruling (I'm thinking maybe 3-8 years ago) on the radio,
:in the newspaper, and in national weekly magazines. It did not get
:front-page coverage, but was definitely covered by several news sources.
:
:>>laboratory animals. There was a legal case in which a researcher
:>>won a lawsuit (slander, destruction of property, etc.) against a :>>these
bunch of animal whackos who had staged a video allegedly
:>>showing repugnant conditions in his lab. They had broken into
:>>the lab and set the whole thing up,destroying much of his work,
:>>in the process.
:>
:>Then you should have no trouble looking it up and providing dates,
:>names,etc.
:
:Yes, I wouldn't have trouble providing those names and dates if I
:chose to spend my time looking into it. I am NOT willing, however.
:If you really want to know, pick up a copy of the two books mentioned
:above. If you don't really want to know, and just want to discredit
:me and/or my message, well so be it.
Unless you tell us at least a few simple details like state, town, perhaps a
name of the researcher or the District Court in which the trial took place,
it's needle in a haystack time for us. You gave us only the basic detail of
you remembering hearing about it on the radio 3-8 years ago.
Is it too much to ask for the state and city in which you remember hearing
that this had occurred? If you really view that as such an imposition,
please do add me to your list.
Vivienne "" Smythe
_.~:*'*:~Sydney, Australia - Olympics 2000 Construction site.~:*'*:~._
Fight gullibility now: see www.urbanlegends.com
_.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._~:*'*:~._
Ignorance may be bliss, but it's poor life insurance. -Sheri S. Tepper
James Green
I'm new to this group, if not to Usenet in general.
Normal service now resumes.....
paghat was a kind-hearted soul and hence decided to share the following
nonsense with us....
[snip]
>The level of *dumb* in this ng makes me doubt you considerably, buttmunch.
[snip]
It strikes me, as a relative outsider to this ng, that it's actually a
fairly intellectual group of people. Your mileage may vary, as they say.
Anyway, considering how this group is unworthy of your *extreme*
intellect, why do you continue to read? If I was so dis-illusioned with
a group that I found myself calling everyone in it dumb, I don't see
that I'd want to stay. Again, your mileage may vary.
*shrug*
James "Newbie" Green
Empress Leia
>
> > Well, no Pag, it's like asking you to provide information from 1-3 peer
> > reviewed papers (title, author, and ideally date) detailing psychological,
> > sociological or perhaps criminological studies into incidence of childhood
> > abuse. I would think, what, 1 out of 4, 25% is sufficently high as to be
> > considered "normal." Surely you can cite that fact somehow.
> >
>
> It is such easily accessed widespread knowledge that even a jackass with
> an IQ of 14 could go to it right now without my bothering. But in fact I
> help sites, police sites, & medical research sites all aware of
> peer-reviewed articles (the main medical research site names the
> professional papers if you want them) which have shown between one and
> three and one in four girls, and between one in six or one in seven boys
> are molested in childhood, PRIMARILY within the family. Refer to my
> separate post "One in Four" if you really care.
Well Pagrat, I did my own web search on "child abuse statistics" using
Alta Vista. The first site I found was
http://www.abuse-excuse.com/child_abuse/child_abuse.htm which seems to
be the flip side of the URL you posted in your screechy diatribe. Here's
a sample of what I found there:
Alleged child abuse--how often does it occur? In 1997 there were 3.195
million allegations of child abuse. 17% of these involved an accusation
of sexual child abuse. Among these 3.195 million allegations, 67.1%
could not be verified. Over two thirds of all accusations may, in fact,
be completely false.
Behind many child abuse accusations
Recent research indicates that most unfounded claims of sexual child
abuse are fostered by "delusional" accusers. Hickman & Reynolds in their
paper entitled "Effects of False Allegations of Sexual Abuse on Children
and Families," believe delusional accusers, usually mothers, may suffer
from a mental health condition such as Borderline Personality Disorder
(BPD), and they will shop for an expert to confirm their child has been
abused, and will not take NO for an answer! As the number of divorces
increase, the number of candidates for making false accusations is on
the increase.
Reactions to child abuse among social workers
Most social workers were trained on the theory that the bulk of such
cases were of an incestuous nature, where the major concern was that the
victim might not admit to the abuse, that the mother wouldn't believe
her husband capable of such an act, and everyone wanted to hold the
family together.
Now, I'll admit that this site is not one whit more objective than the
witch hunt URL you took all your cites from, so I will refer folks to
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/e9 for a less
hysterical, professional, scientific study.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Empress Leia
http://www.jewish-history.com/
My other car is a black helicopter
diablevert
paghat <pag...@netscapeUNSPAMO.com> wrote in article
<7qa2f6$58m$1...@199.201.191.2>...
> In article <eEYSr6a8#GA.209@cpmsnbbsa02>, "Andrea Jones"
> <george...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > paghat wrote in message <7q7ht6$4pj$1...@199.201.191.2>...
> > <snip stomping harmless animals stuff>
> > Can you provide a cite for the "actual statistics" that show that "high
> > percentages" of small children are victims of incest?
>
> Another cite! cite! asshole. The answer is yes I can. But it's like
asking
> me if I can prove salt is salty so fuck you.
I am not at all trying to offensive, but I did have this thought - In
another post you mention you have worked in the sex industry. One thing I
have always heard mentioned about the sex industry is that a
disproportionate number of its members were sexually abused as children -
I've read this again in again in articles about porn, even the porn
positive ones have thought it important enough to mention. Do you think it
is possible that your circle of friends and acquaintances might possibly be
far more aware and open about such issues than the general population? Just
in my own experience, I'd say roughly 50% or more of my male friends are
gay. But I live in New York City, and furthermore, I've never given a shit
who my friends sleep with. Though I don't think 50% of American men are
gay, I suspect the estimate I'd give of that number would be higher than
the actual percentage. I just think that child sexual abuse is such a
emotional issue that it's easily clouded - most people don't want to
believe it happens as frequently as it does, while people like yourself,
who are trying to create awareness, might see deliberate denial in a case
of mere ignorance. In providing stats for the people here, you might win
more people to your cause rather than causing antagonism and creating
higher levels of disbelief.
diablevert
Terence P Higgins
> My throat is dry from preparing this. This is absolute horror. It is the
world your children live in. Reject that fact & you are part of the
horror.
The horror for me is that my children live in a world where
someone feels free to use the "word" "tard" so carelessly.
--
it's such a sad old feeling
the fields are soft and green
it's memories that i'm stealing
but you're innocent when you dream
paghat
<irja...@teleport.com> wrote:
> If I recall correctly, UseNet used to be the sole purview of nerds.
USED to be??? Yeehahahaha.
> This is a well established newsgroup (one in which I have been
> lurking/reading for better than six years), the hats have been here
> since forever(L). Without a cite, I think it's fair to say that some of
> these people come from some rather nerdy professions. For instance
> there are doctors, and lawyers, and scientists, - oh my!
And even so on the RARE occasion there is someone who has an IQ above 90
-- PLUS an ability to convey ideas in short bursts of words for UseNet --
they're as apt to be frycooks or sixteen year old as they are to be the
nerds you would upraise on the basis of their professions.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ja...@green7327.freeserve.co.uk (James Green) wrote:
> Before I carry on, I'd just like to say hi. Hi.
> I'm new to this group, if not to Usenet in general.
> Normal service now resumes.....
>
> paghat was a kind-hearted soul and hence decided to share the following
> nonsense with us....
>
> [snip]
> >The level of *dumb* in this ng makes me doubt you considerably, buttmunch.
> [snip]
>
> It strikes me, as a relative outsider to this ng, that it's actually a
> fairly intellectual group of people.
How droll.
Deborah Stevenson
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Viv wrote:
>
> K. D. wrote in message <7q8qcs$1502$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> :
> :I knew this was coming -- just like during the thread of the girl in
> :the coma. This is not meant as a personal remark, Margaret, but the
> :usual detractors habitually make the usual noise about lack of cite
> :(providing no counter-cites of their own, of course), and when several
> :cites are finally provided, become predictably quiet.
>
> KD, have you ever really paid attention to the F, Fb, T, U rating in the
> FAQ? It's all about cites. That's why we ask for them. It's common
> practise in AFU-land and not something personally devised to piss you off.
> It is not even meant to be combative, usually - it is merely shorthand for
> "when and where did it happen and how can I find out more about it"?
I also think a citation marks a useful boundary between vectoring and
research/analysis. Sure, we've all got information with murky provenance;
I would imagine that I'm not the only person on this group who considers
such "information" suspect even in myself if I can't find where I read it
(or, if I'm lucky, inspire Lee to find where I read it). Memories are
imperfect, and the relation of information is subject to narrative
reorganization that can mean distortion into unrecognizability.
Which, of course, is one of the driving forces behind legendry--yet most
people when posting here wish their account or response to have more
credence than the legend itself.
At which point one has two options: take the vector tack of relying on
the essential believability of the statement and your own steadfast and
upright nature to prove that what you say is so, or step out of the vector
world and approach things a different and more conclusive way--by putting
reproducible research where your mouth is.
I think it's interesting that the requests for citations sometimes provoke
the same responses as debunking of legends themselves. It seems to me to
offer a little insight into the perceived stakes of transmission--in both
cases, people can get ruffled at the notion that their unaided narrative
credibility isn't sufficient to create belief in the listener and that
they might have been less than rigorous in their own assessment of what
they're now passing along.
> Why should people provide countercites when they're merely asking for more
> information for vorification purposes?
It's hard enough to provide a blanket "this never happened" countercite
anyway, what with the difficulty of proving a negative and all--to provide
a countercite denying the existence of something that there's no cite to
give particulars about is damned near impossible.
Deborah "proven nonexistent" Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
paghat
<diabl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I am not at all trying to offensive, but I did have this thought - In
> another post you mention you have worked in the sex industry. One thing I
> have always heard mentioned about the sex industry is that a
> disproportionate number of its members were sexually abused as children -
> I've read this again in again in articles about porn, even the porn
> positive ones have thought it important enough to mention. Do you think it
> is possible that your circle of friends and acquaintances might possibly be
> far more aware and open about such issues than the general population? Just
> in my own experience, I'd say roughly 50% or more of my male friends are
> gay.
I am also an award-winning novelist; in the past when that did not make
enough to live on I would take freelance work with physicians correcting,
revising, & sometimes ghostwriting peer-reviewed professional papers for
medical journals &/or university presses; I edit anthologies for a
half-dozen publishers in & out of New York with about ten projects
currently contracted; I am an underground artist whose crappy artwork has
been included in major museum overviews of underground artists; I have
lectured at numerous universities, community colleges, societies, &
conventions on sundry topics usually but not exclusively related to books;
& I run a very successful antiquarian book business. It is foolish to
think anyone who has worked in the sex industry knows no one but fellow
hookers (it's the level of thinking I expect from u.f---u and am rarely
let down). Like, even if working in an s/m studio as dominatrix were the
whole extent of my life experience I'd at least know some richfuck
masochistic businessmen & physicians & politicians who like to be tied up
& beaten.
> But I live in New York City, and furthermore, I've never given a shit
> who my friends sleep with.
You mean whenever someone wants to talk about their significant other you
interupt to tell them "I don't give a fuck"?
> Though I don't think 50% of American men are
> gay, I suspect the estimate I'd give of that number would be higher than
> the actual percentage. I just think that child sexual abuse is such a
> emotional issue that it's easily clouded - most people don't want to
> believe it happens as frequently as it does, while people like yourself,
> who are trying to create awareness, might see deliberate denial in a case
> of mere ignorance. In providing stats for the people here, you might win
> more people to your cause rather than causing antagonism and creating
> higher levels of disbelief.
Anyone who REALLY believes to be angry about child abuse is INAPPROPRIATE
is unsalvagable. EVERYone should be angry about it. Who isn't, fuck 'em.
-paghat the ratgirl
> diablevert
Lisa Keipp
> My wife grew up in London. On her way to school one morning a gentleman
> insisted on showing her his erect penis. Having done so, he then went
> about his business.
>
> By many modern definitions, this too, would constitute molestation. And,
> lord knows, were someone to do this to a daughter of mine, I'd be apt to
> overreact.
>
> Nevertheless, neither of these incidents are the kinds of things we think
> of Most of us, anyway) (cite?) when someone mentions child molestation.
> We think of adults fucking children, or at minimum, engaging in oral sex
> (more likely, forcing the child to perform oral sex).
>
> So in my immediate family, one hundred percent of the parents (me and the
> wife) were sexually molested as children by some definitions.
>
> I agree, that's a high percentage.
>
> But it has no relevance to what I think most folks would call sexual
> molestation. Yet, were I fronting an agenda to raise consciousness about
> child abuse I would not hesitate to include both examples.
>
> So was I abused or not? Depends. This is a question which no one can
> really answer, except maybe me.
>
I agree with you. By your statements, I was "sexually molested" 3 times
in my life; at 12, 19, and 21 - each time by a flasher - two of the men
seemed to be "taking things in hand", so to speak. But do I consider
myself abused or sexually molested? No. Frightened, yes indeed, since
I had now idea at the time what it might lead to, especially since the
same man who flashed me(at 21) 2 days later raped a girl who lived a
block from me. But in my case, just a few more penises to see, just
ones I hadn't asked to see.
With such broad definitions of sexual abuse, EVERYONE has been abused,
from the child who was tickled too long by a cousin, to a baby girl
whose father bathed and had the audacity to make sure he washed her
everywhere, to actual sexual penetration.
Yes, these children often love their molesters - children love their
parents whn they are little, no matter how abusive those parents are;
they can't help it. This is documented fact. Also, sex feels good, and
often, for these children, it was a "feel good" experience and it
doesn't seem like abuse until someone else comes along and tells them
that it is. Again, fact.
Also remember, we are a hypermedia society - a celebrity picks his nose,
the film is on the internet 5 minutes later. We are hypersensitve about
our children, and probably overprotective as well. I am as guilty as
the rest of you.
But statistics are numbers that can be made to say anything. The numbers
are higher now than ever before? Do a percentage comparison to past
decades - the numbers are higher because the population is higher.
That's my 1 1/2 cents worth.
Lisa "seen one, you've seen 'em all" Keipp
Lara Hopkins
Someone wrote:
> > > Well, no Pag, it's like asking you to provide information from 1-3 peer
> > > reviewed papers (title, author, and ideally date) detailing psychological,
> > > sociological or perhaps criminological studies into incidence of childhood
> > > abuse.
[snip toing and froing with various stats]
Empress Leia [do you have a name? Or were you christened Leia? Empress of
where/what?] wrote:
> Now, I'll admit that this site is not one whit more objective than the
> witch hunt URL you took all your cites from, so I will refer folks to
> http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/e9 for a less
> hysterical, professional, scientific study.
An interesting and valuable study.
I couldn't help but weigh in (with a heavy heart, it's true, as this
thread has shown signs of becoming ugly) with some stats from Medline.
Many studies have been done on the prevalence of child sexual abuse.
Estimates vary wildly.
Here's a few percentages and the place of origin of each study. This is
not to suggest that CSA[1] varies this widely from country to country;
only that study methodologies and definitions vary dramatically.
4.3% and no statistically significant differences were found between
sexes. (Mexico)
34% reported at least one incident prior to age 18 (L.A.)
9.8% (Sweden)
192 (33.8%) girls and 60 (10.9%) boys reported having experienced at least
one sexually abusive event. The prevalence of abuse involving physical
contact was 20.4% (116 cases) among girls and 3.3% (18) among boys.
(Geneva)
A greater percentage of females reported a history of severe sexual abuse
(11.1%) compared with males (3.9%). (Ontario)
6.8% of the studentsadmitted to having been sexually abused in their
childhood, 2.1% of males and 8.3% of females.Of those abused, 69% reported
sexual abuse involving physical contact, 9.5% of whom experienced sexual
intercourse. (Malaysia)
One hundred and forty-four women (20%) had experienced CSA. In 14 of these
144 women (10%), the abuse involved either vaginal or anal intercourse
(i.e., 2% of the sample population experienced such abuse). (Australia)
Prevalence estimates varied widely (by definition used and population
studied), ranging from 4% to 76%. (Lit review (male CSA only) - North
America). - I'll let this study, from JAMA, have the last word: "Future
study requires clearer definitions of abuse, improved sampling, more
rigorous data collection, more sophisticated data analyses, and better
assessment of management and treatment strategies. Regardless, health care
professionals should be more aware of and sensitive to the possibility of
sexual abuse in their male patients. "
Lara " " Hopkins
[1] CSA - childhood sexual abuse
diablevert
paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote in article
<7qe4u6$2bf$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> In article <01bef2e8$ffd77f80$2f8c...@medusa.cs.nyu.edu>, "diablevert"
> <diabl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am not at all trying to offensive, but I did have this thought - In
> > another post you mention you have worked in the sex industry. One thing
I
> > have always heard mentioned about the sex industry is that a
> > disproportionate number of its members were sexually abused as children
-
> > I've read this again in again in articles about porn, even the porn
> > positive ones have thought it important enough to mention. Do you think
it
> > is possible that your circle of friends and acquaintances might
possibly > > be
> > far more aware and open about such issues than the general population?
> > Just
> > in my own experience, I'd say roughly 50% or more of my male friends >
> are gay.
>
<snip your impressive credentials>
> It is foolish to
> think anyone who has worked in the sex industry knows no one but fellow
> hookers (it's the level of thinking I expect from u.f---u and am rarely
> let down). Like, even if working in an s/m studio as dominatrix were the
> whole extent of my life experience I'd at least know some richfuck
> masochistic businessmen & physicians & politicians who like to be tied up
> & beaten.
Did I say "_Obviously_ all your friends are CRACK WHORES, so it's _totally
unsurprising_ that you and EVERYONE YOU KNOW have been _abused as
children_. I don't know how you drag yourself out of bed every day with
that load of psychic garbage" ?
No. I asked if it was possible that your acquaintance might be "more aware
and open about such issues than the general population." And that's exactly
what I meant. I didn't deny that childhood abuse exists. I didn't say it
wasn't horrible. It just seemed to me that the life experiences you've
mentioned might lead you to be more sensitive toward this subject. You
yourself, earlier in this thread, mentioned your wide acquaintance among
people who used to or still do work in the sex industry. I'd be willing to
bet you've encountered a lot more people with a foot fetish or a thing for
golden showers than I do; why is it impossible that you've encountered more
people who've been abused? Working part-time for doctors would tend, I
think if anything, add to this tendency - they're trained to identify and
treat abuse, and childhood abuse is the type of hot button issue that gets
you published. I'd bet there's more paper on the incidence of abuse than on
the incidence of chicken pox.
> > But I live in New York City, and furthermore, I've never given a shit
> > who my friends sleep with.
>
> You mean whenever someone wants to talk about their significant other you
> interupt to tell them "I don't give a fuck"?
I should have been more specific and said I never gave a fuck about the
gender of the people my friends sleep with.
> > Though I don't think 50% of American men are
> > gay, I suspect the estimate I'd give of that number would be higher
than
> > the actual percentage. I just think that child sexual abuse is such a
> > emotional issue that it's easily clouded - most people don't want to
> > believe it happens as frequently as it does, while people like
yourself,
> > who are trying to create awareness, might see deliberate denial in a
case
> > of mere ignorance. In providing stats for the people here, you might
win
> > more people to your cause rather than causing antagonism and creating
> > higher levels of disbelief.
>
> Anyone who REALLY believes to be angry about child abuse is >
INAPPROPRIATE
> is unsalvagable. EVERYone should be angry about it. Who isn't, fuck 'em.
Where did I say that people shouldn't be angry about childhood sexual
abuse? I said that
A. Most people don't want to believe it occurs as often as it does -
because the thought of it ever happing to someone they love is horrible to
them.
B. People who are trying to raise awareness about such issues might think
those with different opinions are being malicious when they are merely
ignorant.
It is further my opinion that making people hysterical about such issues -
the rash of day-care horror stories from a few years ago - ends up hurting
real victims of abuse. It's been demonstrated that little kids are easily
persuaded to tell adults what they want to hear - even to actually remember
events that way - when it's clear that what's at stake is very important
to the adult in question. And in abuse cases it always is. Satanic ritual
abuse has never been proven, but it's been alleged - complete with tearful
testimony of "recovered memories" - countless times. Good parents have had
their children taken away because of malicious accusations of abuse by
caretakers or ex-spouses. And real cases of abuse have go un-reported
because people hear about the witch hunts and refuse to recognize it when
it really happens.
All I was trying to point out was that antagonizing people when you have
the opportunity to educate them about something so important to you sure as
hell won't help solve the problem.
diablevert
Peter Caswell
(paghat) wrote:
> In article <37C99C0C...@dgsys.com>, Randy Poe <q...@dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> > paghat wrote:
> > > And "Fuck you" is indeed the appropriate response to the "cite! cite!"
> > > janes & johns who invariably have nothing substantial to contribute either
> > > pro or con. The only jerk-offs who say "cite! cite!" are dumbasses who
> > > can't think, haven't a clue how to check for themselves, never used a
> > > library in their lives, never plan to.
> >
> > Even in a group whose primary purpose is to sort out
> > unsubstantiated rumor from substantiated?
>
> If a twelve year old with only two reference books in the house &/or
> mastery of one search engine could answer the question in two seconds,
> then yes, my statement stands in spades.
It boggles my mind that people get so upset about being asked for
citations for what they post. It's like getting upset in school about
being asked by the teacher/professor to list your sources at the back of a
research paper. The asker may be asking for proof of your assertions, but
s/he may also be asking:
1) For a source from which s/he can continue to research the information
2) Which of the many sources that could back up the data you used so that
in further discussions with you they know what common ground is covered
or what new ground should be.
3) Some idea that you are basing your posting/paper on facts and not
conjecture, folklore, or wishful thinking.
4) A genuine surprise at what you've posted and the hope that you'll provide
the starting point for their own investigation.
I work with computers all day long, writing comms software. If I post
something about insects (hell will probably have frozen over, but...) Judy
Johnson has every right in the world to ask me where I got my information.
In fact if I say something at all out of the mainstream, I'd be shocked if
she didn't ask for a cite.
In addition, paghat, if you don't like the frequent requests for "cite"
here, and you're willing to take people at their word in what they post,
why are you reading alt.folklore.urban, where the culture is decidedly
different from that?
-Peter "perplexed" Caswell
paghat
<diabl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It is further my opinion that making people hysterical about such issues -
> the rash of day-care horror stories from a few years ago - ends up hurting
> real victims of abuse.
In no way did my initial post have anything to do with hysterics or making
people hysterical. There is sound advice in there about teaching children
that even adults have boundaries that if they cross them their authority
as adults is null & void. The fact is this issue cannot be brought up in
any environment other than, say, incest survival groups, where there
aren't ten men for every one or two men or women who get all up in arms
wanting the world to believe it's not all that bad & anyone who mentions
the EPIDEMIC proportions that are real & valid is being hysterical.
"Hysterical" is a sexist term that at its root refers to women's
reproductive capacity & the association of the female with madness. This
is the first line of defence of the status quo. I know you mean well but
you have COMPLETELY bought into a status quo that harms children & the
hysterics around here have been the naysayers who have every excuse in the
world why this should not be brought up at all & if it is brought up it
must be addressed in a more wishywashy manner that doesn't challenge men's
capacity to feel happy about their own gender's (if not their own selves')
amazing crimes. I have tested these waters in several newsgroups with
several approaches -- with kindness, with sadness, with anger, with
quotations exclusively from medical journals, with personal experience
vignettes, & most recently with many quotes from websites. The response of
men is every single time identical and ranges from "you're damaged goods"
to "NOT!" but rarely with anmything but outrage that truth is now & then
spoken. There is ZERO approach that wins over supporters of the status quo
they will just always be hostile to women & children who speak out whether
in tears or with machettes. That's the fact of it.
-paghat
pulgao
>If you want to hang out with these people it's only polite, as a
>latecomer, to play by the rules which were in place long before you got
>here.
New lurkers/posters should be thankful this group has rules. Try
alt.folklore.ghost-stories sometime -- fully 50% of new threads are
clearly marked as "off-topic" (most are apparently written by
adolescents who natter on endlessly about their pets, school life, and
other equally stimulating topics); questioning the number of off-topic
threads (as opposed to posts, though most flamers aren't able to
distinguish the difference) will get you roundly flamed in the typical
(and not-unexpected) juvenile fashion. Those not flaming merely whine
that you're trying to interfere with their "friendships and sense of
community". Weird -- I always thought that's what e-mail and IRC were
for.
You might get flamed in this ng for breaking the rules (I've somehow
miraculously escaped that fate so far), but I'll take a
strictly-regimented newsgroup over one that's been turned into a high
school teen angst club any day.
Steve Lopez
(observing that all folklore ng's are definitely not created equal)
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/index.html
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
K. D.
Peter Caswell wrote in message ...
>It boggles my mind that people get so upset about being asked for
>citations for what they post. It's like getting upset in school about
>being asked by the teacher/professor to list your sources at the back of a
>research paper.
Ah yes, Peter, at first glance, that does seem to make sense. However, I
quickly learned that many of the folks who blather on and on about a cite
really don't want a cite as much as they seriously have no other way to
argue against you.
I remember a while ago, during the thread about the pregnant young lady in a
coma having a baby, I submitted some statements which I knew to be true (as
much as someone can know something which hasn't been observed first person),
which had been carried on all sorts of news for months and months. The
usual boring chorus of "cite" echoed by the usual numbnuts, which seemed to
have no purpose other than as a means to discredit me. When another poster,
also knowledgeable of the case of which I spoke, provided a URL with the
facts in the case, which supported, to the letter, what I had reported),
they all fell predictably silent.
You give some of these folks too much credit.
A while ago, someone posted some information about the botulism and honey
thread which somewhat contradicted something I had offered. I was very
interested in what he/she had to say, and asked for a cite, prefacing it
with a note that I was not contradicting him/her, but was genuinely
interested in some proof. They kindly provided same, for which I am
grateful.
There IS a difference. I don't give the time of day to most of these
lip-flappers who rant about "post" -- neither should you.
Respectfully yours,
-KD
Marc lePine
Rick <ri...@rick.rick> wrote in message
news:7q54io$5bl$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor Mickey
> Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People for
> the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is under
> the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse videos
> are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
> small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel.
The
> moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos
like
> this are being sold? I suppose it's conceivable that there are some
strange
> people in the world who might become sexually gratified by seeing
something
> like that, but I find it hard to believe that there are "millions" of
them;
> if anything, it must be an infinitesimally small percentage of the
> population, and even then, each person would have to buy thousands of
videos
> each to fulfill the "millions" description.
>
This reminds me of a short film in the "Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted
Animation Festival". It wasn't necessarily animation, but it was a short
black and white film with a barefooted girl who liked to squish worms
between her toes. It was cute the first 30 seconds, but it drug on for
almost 5 minutes and the close up shots were a little disturbing IMO...
Marc lePine
Marc lePine
<emu...@imap3.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.990827...@email2.asu.edu...
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Rick wrote:
>
> > There was an article in the newspaper the other day about the actor
Mickey
> > Rooney speaking out against "crush" videos, on behalf of PETA (People
for
> > the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Apparently, someone somewhere is
under
> > the impression that millions and millions of copies of animal abuse
videos
> > are being sold to pander to people who think that it is erotic to watch
> > small, helpless pets being killed by a woman's foot in a stiletto heel.
The
> > moment I read that, my alarm went up. Millions and millions of videos
like
> > this are being sold? I suppose it's conceivable that there are some
strange
> > people in the world who might become sexually gratified by seeing
something
> > like that, but I find it hard to believe that there are "millions" of
them;
> > if anything, it must be an infinitesimally small percentage of the
> > population, and even then, each person would have to buy thousands of
videos
> > each to fulfill the "millions" description.
> >
> > videotape themselves having sex and accidentally return the tape to the
> > video store.
>
> That and the snuff legend, probably. I will admit, I have seen a film of
this
> nature, produced for ( I believe) the described intent, and whether this
film
> is the only one of its breed, or simply a reaction to something the
director
> had seen, I cannot venture a guess. The title was "Squish," presented at
> Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted Animation Festival in, I believe, 1995 or
1996.
> [1]. It was not animated, and featured a tan, dark-haired woman in
stiletto
> heels stepping on earthworms. My friend and I felt it was significantly
(and
> rather disgustingly) phallic. Again, I got the feeling, while viewing
this,
> that it was an attempt to react or contribute to a prior body of "crush"
> works, although I have NO evidence that such exists.
>
> erin "ewwwww" m
>
> [1] Not to be confused with Spike & Mike's regular animation festival,
which
> is in my opinion more creative and less titilating. I don't know who
Spike
> is, but Mike is Mike Judge of "beavis & butthead" and "king of the hill"
fame.
Another addendum: She did it between her bare feet; not sith stiletto heels
(if I remember correctly). That was the grossest part! ewww is right! :)
Marc lePine
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>I don't have a cite for the specific incident, and I don't particularly want
>to spend a long time looking for it. I suspect that many folks who ask for
>a cite really don't want one,
Why? Most of us usually are quite interested when we hear something new about
something we thought was settled.
>but instead are using an easy and low-cost
>ploy to discredit the person doing the claiming and/or the claim being made.
I suspect that you have a serious emotional problem with being found wrong and
will use any method you can to avoid hearing it.
JoAnne "not that you'll ever read this, since you have me killfiled" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
>The thing is "You were raped" whether true or not of the individual being
>dismissed on such a basis does not lead rationally to any of those other
>conclusions.
Danny's post to you was definitely unnecessary, but you lean too far in the
other direction by claiming that anyone who asks for statistics is an apologist
or rapist.
Asking for good statistical evidence of a claim is not saying the claim is
wrong. But we'd all be suckers if we just went along with every claim everyone
makes. Especially the claims that tug at the heart -- they're the ones most
often exaggerated for effect, in my experience.
C. S. Lewis said, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race
can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is
to believe and to feel an unhealthy interest in them."
A healthy interest in the subject of child abuse is expressed by wanting to stop
it when it is found, wanting to find out how and why it happens in order to
prevent it, wanting to help those who went through it when possible.
Disbelief is dangerous for obvious reasons. But an unhealthy interest in it
sometimes encourages one to see it even where it does not exist, and therefore
destroys the ability to sense when someone is in real danger, because the alarm
bells are ringing 24/7. If you're busy putting out false fires at every house,
the ones that really are burning down sometimes don't get enough attention.
Have you read _The Gift of Fear_? There are plenty of very obvious signs of
violence being ignored daily without our needing to conjure up hidden crimes.
You are right in saying that such violence is hidden by those who wish not to
see. But those people are not the ones here asking for statistics. They're the
neighbors who ignore the bruised and broken and bleeding kids. They're the
co-workers who ignore the woman with the black eye, or the guy with the stories
about setting his wife straight with his good right uppercut.
While "lots of abuse happens every day" is true, "90 percent of all
nine-year-olds have been raped" is not just questionable, it is something that
pretty obviously must have come from somewhere and hence should have its
pedigree posted.
There are plenty of scary statistics out there, many of them very good
statistics indeed, others rather dodgy. If you go into battle with false
statistics, you look a fool, and your cause is damaged. Why would you try to
fight a battle with a bad sword when there are plenty of good ones around?
JoAnne "end of sermon" Schmitz
Marc lePine
Whoops :) I posted a similar message with less detail before I read yours.
I also saw this on the big screen in Spike & Mikes and I thought it was
disturbing, especially since it seemed to go on for over 5 minutes or so
(belaboring the point, I thought). However, the girl was cute, and that
made it worthwhile... I just shutmy eyes when she mushed up the worms.
Marc lePine
Randy Poe
> I would imagine that I'm not the only person on this group who considers
> such "information" suspect even in myself if I can't find where I read it
> (or, if I'm lucky, inspire Lee to find where I read it). Memories are
> imperfect, and the relation of information is subject to narrative
> reorganization that can mean distortion into unrecognizability.
I must admit to using this group as a cite-finder more than
once. My memory is quite good at retaining trivia and
details, while losing the key piece of information that
would make it possible to find fact X via database
search. So I throw out as much information as I can
remember, with as much accuracy as I can, and hope
somebody can provide the missing link. Somebody almost
always does.
Randy "living in that state near Washington DC
that spans the Chesapeake bay, was a slaveholding
state although not a Confederate state in the
Civil War, borders Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and Delaware, ..." Poe
Andrew Crabtree
incidents of childhood
>>sexual abuse in the population of a single school, 100% of
respondents had
>Possibly the original 'source" gives the figures of how
many people were
Actually - the original source doesn't claim there was
sexual abuse. They were asked a presumably open ended
question if they where ever in a situation where child abuse
was likely. They were not asked if they were abused. Other
citations have been pretty much uniformally similarry
twisted.
andy
Copied and pasted from web link with an attempt to preserve
content
Participants were 214 middle school pupils...
responses of "Yes" to all three of the potential sexual
abuse questions...
Of the young adolescents who responded that they had been
subjected to one or more of the three potentially sexually
abusive situations, 90 percent responded that they had not
disclosed such to an adult. Of the young adolescent males
and females who affirmed abuse, 100 percent responded that
they had not disclosed the abuse to an adult.
Brian Yeoh
> brigid nelson <irja...@teleport.com> was alleged to have uttered:
> >If you want to hang out with these people it's only polite, as a
> >latecomer, to play by the rules which were in place long before you got
> >here.
<snip alt.folklore.ghost-stories anecdotes>
> (observing that all folklore ng's are definitely not created equal)
Actually, they are. It's what happens to them after that creation which is
more interesting.
Brian "will not pontificate for food" Yeoh
Clear, unscaleable, ahead |
Rise the Mountains of Instead | -- WH Auden, "Autumn Song"
From whose cold cascading streams |
None may drink except in dreams. |
L. Mark Finch
<flowrchi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
< snip >
> I remember a while ago, during the thread about the pregnant young lady in a
> coma having a baby, I submitted some statements which I knew to be true (as
> much as someone can know something which hasn't been observed first person),
> which had been carried on all sorts of news for months and months. The
> usual boring chorus of "cite" echoed by the usual numbnuts, which seemed to
> have no purpose other than as a means to discredit me. When another poster,
> also knowledgeable of the case of which I spoke, provided a URL with the
> facts in the case, which supported, to the letter, what I had reported),
> they all fell predictably silent.
Gosh. Could that be because someone finally provided a cite?
--mf
Dylan Thurston
...
> Now, I'll admit that this site is not one whit more objective than the
> witch hunt URL you took all your cites from, so I will refer folks to
> http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/e9 for a less
> hysterical, professional, scientific study.
I must be missing something, because the abstract says:
Design. Sexual behavior in 1114 2- to 12-year-old children was rated
by primary female caregivers. These children were screened for the
absence of sexual abuse. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Conclusions. A broad range of sexual behaviors are exhibited by
children who there is no reason to believe have been sexually
abused. ...
Isn't this a study about normal sexual behaviour, rather than abuse?
Best,
Dylan Thurston
d...@math.berkeley.edu
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented jsch...@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz)
broadcast on alt.folklore.urban:
|On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:19:03 -0500, Bossman <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote:
|
|>I've watch a kinda fun sexuality show in MTV called LoveLine. It is an
|>advice type show that is pretty good. Plus it puts me to sleep...
|>
|>The point---they have knee-jerk reaction to any 'odd' let alone
|>abhorrent sexual behavior and assume/question whether the person was a
|>victim of child abuse. They almost always guess correctly---In dozens of
|>cases I've only seen them goof up a couple of times.
|
|I've seen them goof up many times. You don't count the ones where the person
|denies it but they say, "something must have happened" as hits, do you? Because
|if the person denies it more than once or twice they start claiming that the
|denial is covering up the truth.
This is an effect of the Counselor Full-Employment strategy.
Whatever it is, is defined as a "disease of denial." Therefore
if you deny needing help, it just goes to prove that the
counselor is necessary and is worth every penny of his or
her salary.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* "No good deed goes unpunished" - Clare Booth Luce
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented mark...@earthlink.newt (Mark D. Lew)
broadcast on alt.folklore.urban:
|But in a subsequent discussion you brought up the fact that most men are
|quick to identify with accused molesters. Given that surely not all of them
|are themselves molesters, it is, as you said, puzzling that they would be
|so quick to identify.
It's not puzzling at all. I think most men realize that this sort
of accusation could hit anyone at any time and that there is simply
no way to defend against it. Credulous is too mild a word for
many investigators of such accusations -- perhaps, you are too
young to remember the allegations of Satanistic sex abuse rings
that were so common in the '80s, allegations which taken at face
value would require the complicity the majority of the population
in the towns in which such rings were alleged to exist. There
are people still in prison from those witchhunts.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil...
JoAnne Schmitz
[paghat's info:]
> In a typical study, 27% of women and 16% of men remember being
> molested as children.
>
>Not a percentage for incest per se, but certainly one could
>estimate nonzero percentages of incest from these figures.
>I would conservatively estimate that at least half of these
>cases are incestuous, with the caveat that I am extrapolating
>without actual data.
>
>>
> Try this site:
> http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/pandora.htm
>
> Reported incidents of childhood sexual abuse increased
> 365% between 1980 & 1990. Evidence implies the actual
> number is at least ten times greater than reported.
Does this mean that 270% of women and 160% of men have been abused?
JoAnne "I've been increasing my gas mileage by 10 percent each with 11 different
products, now I have to leave the gas cap open to let it leak out" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>The
>usual boring chorus of "cite" echoed by the usual numbnuts, which seemed to
>have no purpose other than as a means to discredit me.
Yes, we're all focusing on you. We all want to discredit you, because you're so
important and could destroy us all with a swipe of your large boobs.
JoAnne "this is still fun" Schmitz
Viv
K. D. wrote
:Peter Caswell wrote
:
:>It boggles my mind that people get so upset about being asked
:>for citations for what they post. It's like getting upset in
:>school about being asked by the teacher/professor to list your
:>sources at the back of a research paper.
:
:Ah yes, Peter, at first glance, that does seem to make sense. However, I
:really don't want a cite as much as they seriously have no other way to
:argue against you.
:
:I remember a while ago, during the thread about the pregnant young
:lady in a coma having a baby, I submitted some statements which I
:knew to be true (as much as someone can know something which hasn't
:been observed first person), which had been carried on all sorts of
:by the usual numbnuts, which seemed to have no purpose other than
:of the case of which I spoke, provided a URL with the facts in the
:case, which supported, to the letter, what I had reported), they all
:fell predictably silent.
You mean, people asked you for more information, which you did not see fit
to provide, and then when someone else provided it, they stopped asking for
it? How unreasonable.
:You give some of these folks too much credit.
:
:A while ago, someone posted some information about the botulism and honey
:thread which somewhat contradicted something I had offered. I was very
:interested in what he/she had to say, and asked for a cite, prefacing it
:with a note that I was not contradicting him/her, but was genuinely
:interested in some proof. They kindly provided same, for which I am
:grateful.
So, unless someone actually states they are not contradicting you, you
assume that they are? Not all of us prefer verbosity where a single word
will do.
:There IS a difference. I don't give the time of day to most of these
:lip-flappers who rant about "post" -- neither should you.
I personally have a lot more time for people who are willing to back their
assertions with checkable references. I see no reason at all to give an
anonymous Usenet poster the benefit of the doubt when they start casting
unverifiable assertions about.
This happens to be a group which is fascinated by the process whereby
factual events become folklore, and how folklore comes to be received as
factoid. Thus "cite?" may really be shorthand for "oh, how fascinating - I
gotta know more about this - wherewherewhere do I find out more?" As this
is a froup which does not particularly appreciate gushing, people mask their
enthusiasm with a laconic "cite?" - after all, the other gets a bit
redundant amongst regulars.
Your assumption of automatic combativeness contained in "cite" does not gel
with my experience on the group. Not that that necessarily makes me right
and you wrong, it's merely pointing out that such judgements are subjective.
Vivienne "" Smythe
_.~:*'*:~Sydney, Australia - Olympics 2000 Construction site.~:*'*:~._
Fight gullibility now: see www.urbanlegends.com
_.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._~:*'*:~._
Ignorance may be bliss, but it's poor life insurance. -Sheri S. Tepper
Goalie2
wrote:
>6) Almost every molester caught, convicted, & jailed will be released in a
>short time, will protest he has been treated & cured, & will molest
>children again. No level of punishment will ever stop them.
>
The death penalty would.
If I hug my niece, am I a child molester? Your stats seem to say so.
paghat
usually off-topic & pretty much ridiculous whereas the little dweebies at
alt.folklore.urban make sure everyone stays on topic under threat of being
gangbanged. I was thinking about that comparison a few hours later & had
some thoughts about it.
Woowoo ngs tend to be as dumb as the woowoo subject believed in -- but
also they tend to be more "community" minded because the reason people
believe stupid crap is to build up a community. Folklore.ghost-stories is
a woowoo ng with way too many people believing religiously in ghosts, that
they've been visited by granny in their dreams, that they heard footsteps
sneaking up on them in the dark but no one was there when they woke the
rest of the way up & turned on the light, and that their dead cat is still
to be caught out of the corner of an eye leaping from kitchen table to top
of fridge. But why would believers only want to talk about what they
believe once they find each other? That's called preaching to the choir;
no need for that, it's a given. It's like expecting religious nutballs to
only talk about Jesus when they're in church on Sunday when it's more
interesting to gossip about who's pregnant out of wedlock then trade
recipes.
By contrast a.f---u is not a believers ng but is a debunkers ng where even
obviously factual things become folklore to be confronted with eyes
rolling skyward. And while busy debunking anything -- from "air is what we
breathe" to whether KFC ever really fried a rat -- well there's just no
time left over for anything like recipes, a company picnic, or revelations
about which nonbeliever is boinking the dog.
Personally being a cynic I prefer debunkers to believers but I'm capable
of noticing that both are equally pretty much dumbshits. For me it's
mainly a matter of which dumbshits are least boring rather than which
category is less dumb.
-paghat the ratgirl
Mark D. Lew
(paghat) wrote:
> [...] I don't know why so many men so quickly identify
> with abusers that they ahve to protect the environment in which abusers
> thrive; but it does seem to be a fact that many men (even I presume many
> who have never abused anyone) feel personally threatened by the fact that
> molestation is so extremely common, & therefore attack any messenger.
Perhaps the reason that so many men "quickly identify" with those accused
of child abuse is because the description you offer of what sort of person
is a likely abuser is so broad that it includes almost everybody.
In your first "One in Four" post, you identified each of the following as a
likely molestation suspect:
- A child's father
- Another close family relation
- Any person who seeks to spend time with a child
- Any person whom a child seeks to spend time with
- Any person who gives a gift to a child
- A person who takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a child
- Schoolteachers
- Daycare workers
- Anyone who volunteers to oversee children's activities
- Any person who seems to be fond of children
- A person who enjoys (adult) pornography
- A "well-integrated" individual with a healthy sex life with an adult partner
- A person whom the child trusts
- A person whom the child distrusts
- A person whom the child asserts is an abuser
- A person whom the child DENIES is an abuser
What man -- or for that matter, what woman -- doesn't fall into several of
these categories? Is it any wonder that even innocent men react with
paranoia?
Of course I worry about protecting children from sexual abuse. But I'm
also a little worried about how it affects children to grow up in a world
where every adult, including her father, is treated like a criminal
suspect, and every adult is afraid to even say hello, much less display any
affection.
mdl
Robert Alston
K. D. <flowrchi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7qf359$1lim$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Peter Caswell wrote in message ...
>
Very predictably silent. The cite was provided. Something you failed
to do. If you had provided the cite then the calls for a cite would
have stopped even sooner. In the first thread where you were
overwhelmed with calls for a cite you sort of named one study and
refered to an older study (without ever actually naming it) without
giving the details needed to find those studies. You totally ignored
Ian's counter-cite (which was listed out so that anyone interested
could find the one he was talking about).
Now not everyone that posts something is asked for a cite. For
instance, if I make a post on a perverse (depending on how you define
perverse) sexual practice I am not asked for a cite as the regulars
are well aware that either I have seen the practice, participated in
it, or talked to someone that has done it. Now if I make a post about
nuclear physics they would indeed ask me for a cite if I didn't have
one in my post. And I would be expected to provide the cite. Similarly
if Mr. Dimmick posts on geology most people won't call for a cite
unless they are interested in the subject and would like to read up on
it.
>
> You give some of these folks too much credit.
>
> A while ago, someone posted some information about the botulism and
honey
> thread which somewhat contradicted something I had offered. I was
very
> interested in what he/she had to say, and asked for a cite,
prefacing it
> with a note that I was not contradicting him/her, but was genuinely
> interested in some proof. They kindly provided same, for which I am
> grateful.
In other words they provided you a cite. They didn't get defensive
about it, they simply provided the cite. You got defensive and didn't
provide a cite that could easily be located. There is a difference.
>
> There IS a difference. I don't give the time of day to most of
these
> lip-flappers who rant about "post" -- neither should you.
Why not assume that people that simply type the word cite aren't
foaming at the mouth when they type it?
Robert "Actually I think they don't ask me for a cite simply because
they are afraid I'll provide one" Alston
K. D.
Robert Alston wrote in message ...
>Very predictably silent. The cite was provided. Something you failed
>to do. If you had provided the cite then the calls for a cite would
>have stopped even sooner. In the first thread where you were
>overwhelmed with calls for a cite you sort of named one study and
>refered to an older study (without ever actually naming it) without
>giving the details needed to find those studies. You totally ignored
>Ian's counter-cite (which was listed out so that anyone interested
>could find the one he was talking about).
You obviously have this whole situation confused -- as I provided no
reference to any study whatsoever. To the best of my recollection, I opened
the topic of honey and botulism in infants by saying that I had heard 15-20
years ago that one should not give honey to infants due to the risk of
botulism. I also said that I did not recall where I heard it, but that it
sounded credible at the time. There was no counter-cite that I recall,
unless it is from someone whom I habitually ignore. Every credible post I
read on the topic agreed that it is dangerous to give honey to infants due
to the risk of botulism. I don't recall a single poster providing any
scientific information suggesting that it is SAFE to give raw honey to
infants.
I stand by my original assertion that the folks who rant on and on about a
cite in such a situation, without shedding any light on a topic, one way or
another, usually don't have any light to shed. I already said I didn't have
a cite beyond my own recollection. So, sue me. What purpose can be gained
by continuing to ask for one? All these folks can do is agitate for a cite,
and somehow they think they are appearing intelligent in doing so.
Regarding the other topic (girl in coma giving birth), which you have
obviously melded with the honey/botulism topic, again, I didn't cite
anything other than my recollection of voluminous local news accounts on the
situation. I ignored the character assassin who then took the opportunity
to take up the "Cite! Cite!" chorus, because I find such posts to be not
worth responding to, especially since they add no information to the topic
under discussion. I had not opened the general topic, but I knew my facts
were valid, and I didn't really want to spend my time pouring thru the
internet finding a reference to the facts, especially for the edification of
a bunch of character assassins whom I don't care whether they believe me or
not.
The kind young men who provided a URL for the group on the specific
situation I had referred to (coma woman, central NY state) said that he was
provoked to respond due to the what he observed -- blathering about a cite
for a news item that had undisputably happened. So, I guess the rantings
for a cite did produce some useful information after all.
That's all I have to say on this topic. I've already wasted enough time, as
is.
Peter Caswell
> I wrote in message ...
> >It boggles my mind that people get so upset about being asked for
> >citations for what they post. It's like getting upset in school about
> >being asked by the teacher/professor to list your sources at the back of a
> >research paper.
>
> Ah yes, Peter, at first glance, that does seem to make sense. However, I
> quickly learned that many of the folks who blather on and on about a cite
> really don't want a cite as much as they seriously have no other way to
> argue against you.
Perhaps what you have learned quickly you haven't learned well?
My observation is different from yours, and probably culled over a longer
period of time. [1] Are there people in the froup who call "cite" when
they have no other way of arguing, yeah, probably. Can I name any of them?
No, they're not the people I pay the most attention to. The people I pay
the most attention to are those who ask for cites for the most reasonable
reasons (hmm, that's redundant, ain't it?). Often they want cites so they
can update the archive.
> I remember a while ago, during the thread about the pregnant young lady in a
> coma having a baby, I submitted some statements which I knew to be true (as
> much as someone can know something which hasn't been observed first person),
> which had been carried on all sorts of news for months and months. The
> usual boring chorus of "cite" echoed by the usual numbnuts, which seemed to
> have no purpose other than as a means to discredit me. When another poster,
> also knowledgeable of the case of which I spoke, provided a URL with the
> facts in the case, which supported, to the letter, what I had reported),
> they all fell predictably silent.
My recollection is different. My recollection is that these people were
looking for cites not to discredit you, because they were doubtful of what
you said and wanted to read up on it themselves. This is a froup dedicated
to the untrustworthiness of memory, and so often people will ask. The only
ways to get people to stop asking for cites around here are:
1) Post the cites with your first message (something that keeps me
silent around here alot).
or
2) Establish a reputation, e.g. Charles Dimmick, Judy Johnson, JoAnne
Schmitz on certain subjects.
> You give some of these folks too much credit.
The credit I give is only that which has been earned. In my eyes.
Obviously your mileage varies.
> There IS a difference. I don't give the time of day to most of these
> lip-flappers who rant about "post" -- neither should you.
Your opinion is welcome. But, it seems I have already formed my own.
-Peter "has lucking down to a science, usually" Caswell
[1] Wars about who's been around here the longest are lame. I've been
reading AFU for years, but since I'm mostly silent around here, can't
provide much in the way of cites. It's my impression KD, that you've only
been hanging around the froup for a few months. If I have the wrong
impression, I apologize.
Madeleine Page
>Empress Leia <ihat...@spamsux.org> writes:
>> I will refer folks to
>> http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/e9 for a less
>> hysterical, professional, scientific study.
>I must be missing something, because the abstract says:
>Design. Sexual behavior in 1114 2- to 12-year-old children was rated
>by primary female caregivers. These children were screened for the
>absence of sexual abuse. ...
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Conclusions. A broad range of sexual behaviors are exhibited by
>children who there is no reason to believe have been sexually
>abused. ...
>Isn't this a study about normal sexual behaviour, rather than abuse?
It is. The point being made is that a classic symptom of an abused child
is supposed to be production of sexual behaviours. Here we have a study of
children assumed not to have been abused who nevertheless produced a broad
range of sexual behaviours. Therefore, the argument goes, we can no longer
rely on the production of sexual behaviours by children as a criterion for
abuse having taken place.
Madeleine "the study in question does seem a great deal less flawed than
the study by Dr Faulkner cited by paghat" Page
--
Want to make a difference? Go to http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html
and click on the "Donate Free Food" button. Do that once a day and you
contribute up to 2 1/4 cups of food a day to the world's hungry.
David Hatunen
Robert Alston <rom...@tcon.net> wrote:
>Why not assume that people that simply type the word cite aren't
>foaming at the mouth when they type it?
Because that would destroy K.D.s entire weltanschauung in which
she's invested so much time, energy and emotion.
Cognitive dissonance can be a very disturbing thing.
Dave "Always assonant" Hatunen
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Roddy Piper
jsch...@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) wrote:
> Danny's post to you was definitely unnecessary, but you lean too far
in the
> other direction by claiming that anyone who asks for statistics is an
apologist
> or rapist.
Actually, Danny's post was extremely appropriate. Posting findings
without sources is par for the internet, but not something that should
happen in this n/g.
When asked for sources, replying with a list of websites and a claim
that the authors of the websites must be aware of the sources is par
for the internet but not something that should happen in this n/g.
Extremely bad form and anathema to what should be happening here.
> There are plenty of scary statistics out there, many of them very good
> statistics indeed, others rather dodgy. If you go into battle with
false
> statistics, you look a fool, and your cause is damaged. Why would
you try to
> fight a battle with a bad sword when there are plenty of good ones
around?
Actually, most of the statistics out there are poor. This was part of
the gist in the JAMA article and this is why there is such a wide
variation in the numbers reported.
Normally, this would just slide by as the typical unsubstantiated
claims that one runs across in usenet, but someone is posting in an
urban legends newsgroup material that has a high UL content. IMO,
there are few subjects in the social sciences that are as distorted
(and are able to be distorted) as claims about the frequency and origin
of molestation and sexual assault.
Numbers without context is part of the foolishness that creates these
ULs. Questions that should be asked...and answered: "you make the
claim that x% was molested, but your percentages are not in any kind of
context.
1) are these actual molestation incidents or claims of molestation?
2) if these are claims of molestation, are the numbers adjusted to
account for false claims of molestation?
3) how is the survey worded?
4) how does the investigator define "molestation"?
5) what is the population of those who responded to the survey?
These are the MOST BASIC of questions.
There are plenty of other newsgroups where these types of
unsubstantiated or unsourced claims are welcome. I suggest the
original poster stick to those newsgroups.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.