the topic : of utmost gravity the man : awe inspiring the title : apologies for unwarranted sarcasm and irony. i plead artistic license. incest laws in america. a particular factoid caught my eye. a loophole. in ny. regarding incest laws. it as been repealed yet allegedly in effect in a bunch of other states. will factoid later. lemme reproduce... New York's law — much like that of most other states — allows the possibility of privileged treatment for a special class of offender: the perpetrator who is related to his prey. In other words, the penal code gives a discount to child rapists who grow their own victims. In New York, sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. The law is indexed appropriately, in the chapter on sex offenses. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law provides for radically more lenient treatment. In such cases, the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. This is not listed as a sex offense, but instead as an "offense affecting the marital relationship," listed next to adultery in the law books. It is a Class E felony, for which even a convicted offender may be granted probation. (Andrew Vachss, Op-Ed, The New York Times, 20 November 2005) fraggle please interpret for this simpleton. the current form is not conducive for retention. thank you so ah. vachss! a man on a mission. intense!! here. a few snippets, link and a "thanks for your time" If you look at Burke closely, you'll see the prototypical abused child: hypervigilant, distrustful. He's so committed to his family of choice — not his DNA-biological family, which tortured him, or the state which raised him, but the family that he chose — that homicide is a natural consequence of injuring any of that family. He's not a hit man. But he shares the same religion I do, which is revenge." (Andrew Vachss," Horror Online, April 1999.) Vachss coined the phrase "Children of the Secret," which refers to abused children, of whatever age, who were victimized without ever experiencing justice, much less love and protection.[8] In the Burke novels, some of these Children of the Secret have banded together as adults into what Vachss calls a "family of choice." Their connection is not biological, and their bond goes well beyond mere loyalty. Most are career criminals; none allows the law to come before their duty to their family "There's a very specific formula for creating a monster," Vachss says. "It starts with chronic, unrelenting abuse. There's got to be societal notification and then passing on. The child eventually believes that what's being done is societally sanctioned. And after a while, empathy -- which we have to learn, we're not born with it -- cracks and dies. He feels only his own pain. There's your predatory sociopath." now, i have a background in clinical psychology and this shit is old hat. perhaps what catches the eye is his prose an the raw emotion that bleeds thru. alright. to the point already The difference between calling Destiny a "child prostitute" and a "prostituted child" is not purely semantic. It is more than the difference between a hard truth and a pernicious lie. It not only injures the victims; it actively gives aid and comfort to the enemy. By allowing the term "child prostitution" to gain a foothold in our language, we lose ground that can never be recovered. Look at the following examples: *A judge spares a predatory pedophile a long prison sentence on the grounds that "it takes two to tango." Another grants work-release to a sex offender, declaring that the 5-year-old victim was "unusually promiscuous." *A teacher is arrested for sexual intercourse with a minor student in her class. The newspapers describe the conduct as "a forbidden love affair." *A young actor, in an interview given before his drug-overdose death, describes how he "lost his virginity" when he was 3 or 4 years old. How have such grotesque distortions taken control of our language? To answer that question, we must first ask another: Who profits? Who benefits from pervasive cultural language that trivializes violence against children? (a god amongst men) next up some talmudic strictures roughly pertaining to the tp that will blow you away. i've been sitting on it for years, since only scenario was to utilize in trolling as an anti semite. ps: my spell checker is the pits. it urges me to capitalize.
I believe the preferred term now is child-lover. Not paedophile. Child-lover. Sub-divided into boy-lover and girl-lover. Google it. They have a most informative Wiki: Want more? No doubt there are links in there to take you deeper and deeper into the underworld, further than most people could possibly want to go. Great article anyway. And a great writer. I'd never thought of the term "child prostitute" in those terms before but he's absolutely right. We should guard against their casual use. Don't really know what else to say right now.
non nude preteen sexually suggestive but clothed....another loophole input nn into search field sci remarks: "gustav, how do you know this? you you, "child lover!" /spits
Sorry, I'm a linguist, not an attorney. I'm not qualified to interpret legal language for anyone. Your spell checker is correct. Your failure to capitalize properly makes your writing difficult to read. It's your writing that's the pits, not your spell checker. Please capitalize the first word of every sentence and all proper names when you write in English. It's not difficult and it shows that you respect your readers. The way you write insults us.
pardon no disrespect intended neither do i indulge irrationality your offended sensibilities are yours to deal with. appearance rather than content interesting set of priorities ps: what font color is best? on that, i am open for suggestion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ahh you appear to imagine i am requesting your services in a professional capacity. thats a first. thanks 07-11-02. thats my join date. wet1 welcomed me and i been here ever since. comments have been made but never an accusation of disrespect. that is, until you waltzed in. a n00b that dare lecture me. and presume to speak for the community. the frikkin cheek! you disrespect me! /chortle
Dear Gustav; Please do not take what I am about to say too personal, however I encourage you to concider this letter when posting in the future. Correct punctuations, spacing and capitalizations of words and sentences help greatly when attempting to interpret your posts. Sincerely, MZ3Boy84
i refuse to indulge irrationality i advice not to read i also know that this post would be assimilated and comprehended with the same ease if it were capped and punctuated if you claim otherwise, i will flat out, call you a liar
Correct spelling and sentence structure helps as well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks Gustav I find this very interesting, never heard of Andrew Vachss. The language in insiduous and desensitizes. Is he a former victim? Why so committed to child sexual abuse? Not that he shouldn't just curious.
it is my pleasure lucy i am glad the msg got across despite the efforts of MZ3Boy84 and fraggle to troll this thread the commitment is better characterized as an obsession. i should look further. lucy, stick around. you will get a kick out of the talmudic stuff. i need to motivate on that moderator! request move to sci and soc. i find this place arrogant and distasteful. i shall slum no more with the likes of y'all
I think two of the causes for this trivialization of violence against children is that society is so helpless against this violence that (1) it seems like the only way to deal with this violence is to deny it, to a greater or lesser degree (ie. trivialize it), (2) society will do anything to protect its image as "competent" and "in charge". - And besides, "Who cares about the abused kids. They're done with it anyway", goes the party line.
nice. unfortunately, wachss goes on to imagine a conspiracy of sorts. a deliberate attempt by some cabal to shape society just so. i mean, i am sure the nuts over at nambla fantasize about world domination like ordinary folks do. it is still not something easily verifiable i do know the culprits. us. we are all complicit in this exploitation of the vulnerable. neither are children the only targets of this exploitation. as an aside.....an african slave would scoff at this abuse that so outrages us you know what lemme see if i can indict the whole bunch of you. yes i can all in good time tho
Greenberg I don't agree that society is helpless against violence towards children. I have often wondered why a convicted child abuser under Megan's Law can easily leave the country to abuse children in developing countries. We've all heard of the freaks going from Thailand, Vietnam to Cambodia abusing children. Why are they allowed passports to leave? I think if someone in the West sexually abuses children they should never be able to hold a passport. Simple measures like this could curtail this kind of abuse. I think there is still a taboo on the subject, we would like to think of abusers as being evil monsters when they are the average non-descript joe, the teacher, doctor, father, uncle, brother etc. I like the way Vachss highlights how newspapers characterize the female teacher convicted of having sex with her 14yr old male student was having a 'forbidden affair' just because she's a woman. Its assumed that its not possible to take advantage of a male child simply because he is male. If it were a girl child or if the teacher were male they would never dismiss the incident in the same way.
lucy you know who i was? /cackle while that is obviously true, the perps and institutions can be mined for stats. profiles and patterns then discerned and extracted. for instance the priesthood, juvie hall, prior abuse, etc some more than others is what i am trying to say
Currently, it apparently is, at least to some extent - but which is enough. ... and I think this is what adds to the feeling of helplessness: That the perpetrators are so difficult to recognize; that it is so difficult to know in advance with any certainty who could be an abuser and who isn't.
This is the Linguistics board so it's not unreasonable to expect a higher standard of linguistic detail. Black is standard for the very good reason that it provides the greatest contrast on every screen and is therefore easier to read. The only reason to deviate from that standard is to make your post stand out from everyone else's. You should have a good reason for doing that or you will be perceived as conceited. You quoted what appears to be a statute or a legal decision and asked for help in interpreting it. That can be construed as a request for legal assistance. As a Moderator I am a representative of SciForums; if I am accused of giving incorrect legal advice it will reflect poorly on the entire website. Besides, that language is extremely difficult to understand without legal training. I have been a member of SciForums longer than you, and I am also the Moderator of this subforum. It is my responsibility to facilitate these discussions. It is a courtesy to make our posts as easy to read as possible. A post that follows standard orthograpical and stylistic conventions will, in aggregate, save the community of readers far more time than it will take you to look at your computer, find the SHIFT key and get in the habit of using it. As other members have stated below, your typing is indeed discourteous and disrespectful. On an international forum, we are all careful to be kind and tolerant toward non-anglophones who are struggling to master our difficult language, but you clearly do not fall into that category. We are not trolling. Our comments are relevant and do not have the purpose of generating an irrational reaction. In particular, I am the Moderator and it is my duty to facilitate these discussions, which includes making them easy to read. I am moving this to Ethics, Morality & Justice. I think that is somewhat more appropriate than Science & Society. Perhaps you will find the moderator more indulgent of your slothful and arrogant attitude toward orthographic conventions on a board whose topic is not language itself.
Vachss is a lawyer who advocates for the child victims of abuse and an excellent mystery/crime fiction author. When he was younger he was a case worker in NY dealing with child abuse and some of his experiences there were truly horrific.
