News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:31 pm

tzor wrote:
Murtak wrote:2. I assume prisons have psychiatrists who are qualified to deem sex offenders safe to release, or conversely, to keep them in prison, correct? Anyone released from prison should be assumed to be safe, even around children.
Unfortunately, this is not the case; especially when you get to pedophilia which can be almost addictive. Most people who don’t get caught right away are able to easily con others and themselves. Just as it takes a person who is addicted a lot of willpower when near the substance of his earlier abuse, putting them near an environment where there are children present, even for those who do admit their problems, is not in anyone’s best interest. When they are in denial mode, it is a recipe for disaster.

So even assuming you are correct in that pedophilia is vastly harder to quantify than, say, determine whether a murderer will kill again, the obvious solution is to keep those offenders in prison, no? Essentially you are saying "well, they did their time so we let them rejoin society, but we are not going to ever trust them again". That is lunacy. If you don't trust them, keep them locked up. If you do, don't stigmatize them. I assume the US has some sort of system to make sure pedophiles don't get to work in kindergardens (just as convicted fraudsters aren't allowed to work at a bank)? If so, that should suffice (and I am not sure even that much is needed).

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:43 pm

tzor wrote:make sure we can separate those who have a problem from those who made a mistake.

Or made no mistake at all.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:35 pm

Murtak, that's the idea, but it fails in execution because we do not have national identity and background standards. It's very easy to steal identities or have your identity lost or mixed with someone else.

1) So far, 'for the children' has trumped law.

2) No.

3) Yes.

4) We already know that. Also, rapists aren't put on the list, usually.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:13 am

...they're not? So the sex offender thing isn't actually to prevent rape, it's just to stop 1-year age gap relationships or something?

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:57 am

Crissa wrote:Murtak, that's the idea, but it fails in execution because we do not have national identity and background standards. It's very easy to steal identities or have your identity lost or mixed with someone else.

So? If it is easy to steal identities, banning sex offenders from living near kindergardens doesn't exactly help, does it? In fact, that is one more argument to keep pedophiles until cured (if ever) and then to release them into society. If they want to molest children they can, you can't stop them and you can't even look for them after the crime, much less monitor them.

Absentminded_Wizard · Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:08 am

One problem is that, even in places where the law takes a more graduated approach, judicial discretion often doesn't. For example, in Ohio, we have three levels of sex offender, each with different restrictions. The idea is supposed to be that the lowest level is for 17-year-olds who have sex with fifteen year old girlfriends and the highest is for grown men who hang around playgrounds and libraries trying to score with 10 year olds. However, for fear of being branded "soft on sex offenders" come election day, judges tend to put the most restrictive tag on everybody.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:16 pm

The idea is supposed to be that the lowest level is for 17-year-olds who have sex with fifteen year old girlfriends

Retards.

You know, I've often stated my hatred of the 'stuffy, overweening father' archetype that's played for laughs in the current media. Laws like this is exactly why I hate that trope. Let's play armchair psychologist for a second here.
will
How to stop someone from fucking your sexy, virginal daughter? Well, the libruls made it a bad thing for you to shoot them, but we got the next best thing. Put them on the SEX OFFENDER LIST! Whoo! Ruin their lives for even thinking about touching your ripe, blossoming, forbidden fruit of a child.

A mean old cuss would say that America's fetishism for this kind of crap stems from sexually frustrated dads unable to have sex with their tender, unspoiled daughters with wet pussies never touched by a man that would make them feel so good so in a sad and pathetic attempt to sublimate this desire they take it out on the competition. So the overprotective dad and teenage sex offender laws are just outgrowths of the childish 'if I can't fuck her nobody will' mentalities that can't be brought out into the open.

But like I said, only a mean old cuss would say something like that.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:34 pm

So Lago, you think "Freud was right?"

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:35 pm

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:The idea is supposed to be that the lowest level is for 17-year-olds who have sex with fifteen year old girlfriends

I'm flabbergasted there is a penalty at all for that. Much less the 11 year sentence that a guy in Georgia got for this exact crime. The age of consent in the US is fucking ridiculous. Really. I'm phenomenally terrified that people not considered old enough to have sex can drive. Of the two, only one of them is likely to hurt me.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:38 pm

Neeeek wrote:
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:The idea is supposed to be that the lowest level is for 17-year-olds who have sex with fifteen year old girlfriends
I'm flabbergasted there is a penalty at all for that. Much less the 11 year sentence that a guy in Georgia got for this exact crime. The age of consent in the US is fucking ridiculous. Really. I'm phenomenally terrified that people not considered old enough to have sex can drive. Of the two, only one of them is likely to hurt me.

your proposed idea wouldn't quite solve the "15 year olds" problem.

Though, notably, it occurs to me that the age of consent in Poland is 15 (alledgedly, heard it elsewhere).

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:40 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:So Lago, you think "Freud was right?"

No, I think the actual cause of fathers getting all creepy and protective of their teenage girls stems from sexism and (not necessarily sexual) fetishism of female virginity.

I just think it's funnier to accuse them of repressed incestuous feelings. The result is the same.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:59 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:So Lago, you think "Freud was right?"
No, I think the actual cause of fathers getting all creepy and protective of their teenage girls stems from sexism and (not necessarily sexual) fetishism of female virginity.

I just think it's funnier to accuse them of repressed incestuous feelings. The result is the same.

ah yes, this echos my sentiment that "the only time Freud is useful is when it helps make fun of or piss someone off"

That's one thing Freudian psychology is always good for.

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:02 pm

Age of consent in Poland is 16. BTW I'll have to check it, but I'm pretty sure the whole forcible castration thing isn't going to be passed thanks to public opinion. Nearly everybody was outraged when it was announced.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:40 pm

Murtak wrote:So even assuming you are correct in that pedophilia is vastly harder to quantify than, say, determine whether a murderer will kill again, the obvious solution is to keep those offenders in prison, no? Essentially you are saying "well, they did their time so we let them rejoin society, but we are not going to ever trust them again". That is lunacy. If you don't trust them, keep them locked up. If you do, don't stigmatize them. I assume the US has some sort of system to make sure pedophiles don't get to work in kindergardens (just as convicted fraudsters aren't allowed to work at a bank)? If so, that should suffice (and I am not sure even that much is needed).

Clearly they do not belong “in jail.” On the other hand the “time” in jail really doesn’t address the underlying root cause of their condition. Some may still not be “safe” around children; some others may be strongly tempted by them. (Part of the problem of pedophilia is that those who are successful are often good con men; they are literally the person you least suspect. They are also good at conning themselves as well.)

I’ve seen this problem in a different situation; with alcoholism. I have a friend who I’ve worked with in the past. He was a contractor. He got into trouble. He wound up in jail; spending several months in prison. After he was released he at first seemed that he understood his problem, but soon he relapsed and now he’s back in jail and this time I think they have thrown away the key.

This is the problem we face. Many people are serious but others are not. How do we tell the two? How do we keep those who are serious from not relapsing? I think we need to design within the community areas where people with problems can be minimally involved with the root triggers of their problems. I think we have to be more pro-active in this area, respecting their rights within the society but at the same time acknowledging that those rights also come with responsibilities to the larger community as a whole.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:54 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
The idea is supposed to be that the lowest level is for 17-year-olds who have sex with fifteen year old girlfriends
Retards.

First of all, they are not retards. There are good reasons in general for looking at 17 year olds having sex with fifteen year old girlfriends in a negative light. In the first case those few years can be a major difference in a person’s life. For the girl, this could be the freshman year High School and for the guy the senior year. What then are the motives for the guy (and why isn’t he dating girls of his age or class) and what are the motives for the girl (is she looking at this senior guy more as a father figure). These things are important because the frontal cortex has not fully developed at that age to dampen sudden impulses.

Fathers are generally overprotective of their daughters because on the one hand, they were boys once and on the other hand they know that boys don’t get pregnant.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:36 pm

Senate Finance Committee adds $50 million dollar earmark for abstinence programs that have proven not to work.

Why would you vote conservative, if this is their idea of spending thriftily?

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:40 pm

I should make my wife register as a sex offender. After all, we didn't stop having sex when she turned 18 and I was still 17. I had no idea what a terrible person she was being. Even now my psyche must be terribly damaged--so damaged that I think it's normal!

Excuse me while I go cry in the shower while eating the rest of my Chips Ahoy!.

On a totally unrelated note, why was East Germany such a shithole compared to West Germany?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:51 pm

tzor wrote:What then are the motives for the guy (and why isn’t he dating girls of his age or class)

She's hot. She's cool. She doesn't know his personal history.

tzor wrote:and what are the motives for the girl (is she looking at this senior guy more as a father figure).

He has a car.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:19 pm

Maj wrote:
tzor wrote:What then are the motives for the guy (and why isn’t he dating girls of his age or class)
She's hot. She's cool. She doesn't know his personal history.

He was so socially repressed and anti-social he doesn't associate with people his own age but rather people in the social group he went through high school with, which includes her.

tzor wrote:and what are the motives for the girl (is she looking at this senior guy more as a father figure).
He has a car.

He acted as a mentor on something, he reminds her of the person who founded her religion.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:29 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:he reminds her of the person who founded her religion.

As someone who was widely considered in high school to "look like Jesus" I assure you this is not a winning girl bait strategy.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:32 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:As someone who was widely considered in high school to "look like Jesus"

I didn't know you were black, PL.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:44 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:he reminds her of the person who founded her religion.
As someone who was widely considered in high school to "look like Jesus" I assure you this is not a winning girl bait strategy.

Seconded.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:47 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I didn't know you were black, PL.

Not the "real" Jesus silly. Or the nearly blond six foot tall ultra white Jesus either. The one where he is just a bit swarthy because they were only halfway through anglicizing him. And from when the artists were mostly swarthy Italian types anyway. That one, you know "Wog Jesus".

And anyway. As almost entirely white as I am I was about the blackest damn guy most of my high school had ever seen closer than 50 meters. I mean, fuck, I'm not even blond.

There were actual aboriginals in the area but they knew how to keep their heads down and stay out of school to avoid trouble. I may be only about 2% black but that 2% was 100% "uppity".

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:08 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
On a totally unrelated note, why was East Germany such a shithole compared to West Germany?

They divvied up Germany after WWII. The USSR got the eastern half, and the USSR had Stalin in charge. Stalin may or may not have had a reason to care much about their welfare.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:20 am

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =113223398

Spider-silk tapestry.

How cool is that?