All Men Are Pervs…Until Proven Otherwise

I absolutely love your article! (I finally found a copy of your book in the bookstore, by the way, and got a copy).

As an individual on the “public registry,” I have to be extra careful for fear of false allegations. For example, when riding the Greyhound, I absolutely refuse to allow children to sit next to me on the bus for fear of false accusations. I go to stores and malls on weekdays during school hours to minimize the chances of running into youngsters (and subsequent false allegations). I don’t date women with kids, and if I do, we severely limit any interaction with her children as much as possible, which typically means we rarely spend time together at all.

It’s crazy, absolutely crazy. Are rescuers supposed to find the nearest female? And would they trust her?

OT but can anyone help a grandmother? I was raised free range, as were my kids. But my DIL fears traffic, water, other parents, other kids, pets, bicycles, you-name-it, near her children. I live in a different town from them, and I can’t take the kids to story time at the library. (There might be local pedophiles there.)

Oy!

This conversation keeps coming up in my daily life. We must be the most narcissitic people on earth to think everyone wants our children. I feel like I am the only one in my group of friends who isn’t scared that every man around isn’t a perv.

I shamelessly promoted your article and blog on my own blog, which has dealt with a number of cases of false accusation. Your article today was spot on, and the unfortunate result has been that hundreds and maybe even thousands of people — mostly men — are falsely accused of child molestation and are in prison.

http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/01/lenore-skenazy-common-sense-and-modern.html

This is so sad.

My son learned so much from neighborhood fathers about tools and working on cars, since his father was totally clueless about such things (my husband taught the local boys how to catch and pitch a baseball, however).

He’d go up and down the block to open garages where a Dad was working and strike up a conversation (Ford or Chevy? Craftsman or Snap on?). He repaired my clothes dryer at age 10, and now makes a good living repairing exotic cars – and thanks those Dads of his youth for nurturing his interest and encouraging his abilities.

Imagine a world where men redirected female behavior and interests (“There’s no crying in Barbies! Let’s set up a budget and see how much Barbie can save for college”. “How many pairs of shoes does Barbie need, anyway?), while actively shielding their daughters from interacting with adult women or allowing them to sit by an adult woman unattended.

I can’t imagine what it’s like to be a young boy growing up these days. The role models and people they look up to or emulate are all potential sex fiends.

My admiration and respect goes out to those young fathers today who refuse to be relegated into the shadows of their children’s lives.

Unfortunatly we are living in a world that has blinkers about children being sexually molested. Men are abusers not women we are told. Yet the figures of female abusers are raising quickly because at last the victims are being believed. In 1997 there was a documentry on female child abusers you can find it on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5orUaEtJW2Q&feature=&p=BE316A40A2617513&index=0&playnext=1
they found that 86% of victims of female child abusers where not believed. Even now for example a woman who flew across America to have sex with a 13 year old the attitude of a lot of the people posting about this was why was she prosecuted how could it be a crime?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345676/Mother-2-flew-America-sex-boy-13-met-playing-X-Box-arrested.html

I agree that it’s not a good thing to remove men from the lives the children. However, in your haste to address this problem, you are unfairly dismissing the legitimate concerns of parents.

The main issue driving the concern about pedophiles is that we, as a society, continue to indulge the dangerous presumption that pedophiles can be rehabilitated, and that the risk of recidivism is acceptable. Many believe that there is no such thing as rehabilitation for molesters, and that recidivism is likely. Honestly, one need only read through resources such as oncefallen.com, in which the writer labors mightily to advance his collection of cherry-picked studies to the contrary, to throw the issue into stark relief. The bottom line is that many of us believe that a man who molests a child must be removed from society permanently – that the behavior is indicative of a sickness so profound, and the consequences to the child so damaging, that anything short of proof of 100% rehabilitation is unacceptable.

The vast majority know in their gut that this is true – that the molester in society remains a sick person. That’s why sex offender lists exist – we know the molester REALLY should be permanently removed from society, but that the law has not yet caught up with the reality of the molester … so the list exists as an inadequate half measure, a nod to common sense in the face of a largely impotent law.

And so here we are. Many molesters have not yet been caught. Those that are caught are released back into society. Groups like NAMBLA exist to teach them how to pursue their interests WITHOUT getting caught. And parents are expected to absorb this knowledge and rest assured that the risks are low. That’s a bit much.

If someone is interested in advancing the argument that parents should relax and be a bit more like their forebears, that person might begin with first things first, addressing elephant in the room – that molesters must be removed. Then, parents might be a little less likely to be looking for them around every corner, knowing that at the very least, their ranks were being actively diminished by a rational society that gave priority to the right of a young child to grow up unmolested.

I suspect that if our parents, and their parents, and their parents before them, had any way of knowing the extent and depth of the twisted psyche that gives rise to molestation, their response would have been quite a bit more like that today’s parent. They simply didn’t know.

I regularly go swimming at a local indoor pool and I often wonder if parents look at me with skepticism. I’m 29, not a parent and probably look out of place between the swim practice kids and my parent’s generation swimming laps. I grew up swimming and I just enjoy the workout. The pool is used by many swim teams and sometimes a swarm of boys will enter the locker room to change. If I’m changing at the same time I’m definitely on alert. I quicken my pace and get the heck out of there!

Maybe nobody even notices me but I still feel the need to keep my head down and stick to myself.

I really want to know how our nation got so messed up like this, it’s sad. I was in Target with my 2 year old, and the guy behind us started making funny faces at him, and I laughed as hard as my son did, and loved it! All these fearmongering people just make me ill.

Miranda O’Sullivan – You statements are patently false on every level. You cannot provide a “cherry picked” study of your own? Just Miranda O’Sullivan’s “Gut”?

The sex offender lists exist because of the hysterics of people like you, and politicians who gain votes by pandering to it.

The lists have not shown to have saved one child, crime rates began falling BEFORE lists, and continue just as it does for all other crimes.

Civilization has existed for ions without resorting to the extremes our “enlightened” society now engages in.

It wasn’t that long ago hysterical mothers demanded AIDS registries. Remember Ryan White’s family being attacked, their home shot up, mothers protesting outside the school house to prevent him from entering after he contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion? Cooler heads prevailed and that proposed idiotcy was replaced with education. Imagine the bloodbath and insanity that would have ensued if an AIDS registry had been allowed.

Of course, during that time in history, AIDs and gay bashing prevailed over predator fears.

Before that our energies and massive wealth was frittered away on drug pushers! The War ON DRUGS, and Prison nation we have now become was the BIGGEST fear of all motherdom. Execute drug pushers! Lock them away FOREVER! We MUST save the children from drugs!

Quite a dismal failure.

Are you old enough to remember the Red Scare days, Miranda? Commies were the greatest threat to our beloved little ones. Commies under every rock! Lives ruined, blacklisting, lists, registries, accusations, “we will take over your country without firing a single shot”.

Preceded by Japanese internment camps. Japs, Japs everywhere, sabotaging, signaling, setting us up for attack! Save the children, save the children lock them all away.

An enduring favorite was segregation…to “save” our race from theirs.

The city of Tulsa OK was burned to the ground after a female elevator operator claimed a black man spoke uppity to her. Riots, fires, murder and mayhem – all to protect the womenfolk.

Then there was the dreaded Okies from the last Great Derpession – familes with starving children “invading” western states, fleeing poverty and drought – beaten, jailed, rejected, hated…much like sex offenders.

My son was able to obtain a college scholorship because he is a decendant of a “listed” Choctaw indian – we once “listed” native Americans, and rounded them up for death marches. Adolph Hitler got his ideas to round up Jews and other “undesirables” for death camps from OUR American history of treating “undesirables”.

That’s just the stuff of MY short time on this earth. Who has kept track of all the human stupidity leading back to the GrandDame of them all – a group of 9 year old girls claiming they were posessed by demons leading to the most horrific miscarriage if justice in recorded history? The Salem Witch hunts.

Miranda O’Sullivan – you are a witch hunter. You are a false accuser. You are an enemy of the Constitution of the United States and all it stands for.

You promote the hatred, ignorance and superstition that has caused untold misery and harm to innocent children. You have sold your children’s futures to the devil by squandering billions of dollars to “save” them from your foolish fears. You have forsaken everything honorable and righteous this country stands for in exchange for having someone “listed” to vent your fear and hatred.

Children should be shielded and protected from people like Y O U.

Your article is spot-on, Lenore!

My husband taught the 8 & 9-old kids in church a few years ago (another guy at our church — also a dad — was his co-teacher) and the kids loved him. My husband works as an artist for Disney and usually has a sketchbook with him because (*gasp!*) he likes to draw. As a result, the kids in his class would crowd around him and save him a seat by them in class so they could watch him draw in his sketchbook. Often, it was the girls (one of them is now our go-to babysitter for date nights) who saved him a seat next to them. The sad thing is that he couldn’t help but feel a little nervous, hoping that no one would think it was weird.

It’s the same with my dad — kids and teens have always gravitated toward him because he’s so much fun and young at heart. He makes funny faces at kids sitting in front of him at church (which usually entertains the otherwise fussy and grumpy children) and he has been a positive influence on lots of the kids I grew up with. It’s so sad that someone like my dad — one of the most positively influential people in my life and one of my very best friends (even as a teenager!) — would be suspected by some as having ulterior motives.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of our society. Granted, common sense has its place, but when we villify every man, how much are we going to lose? Our boys need positive male role models more than ever, I think. I’m so proud that my husband and dad, among many other good men, are willing to step up to the task.

Miranda O’Sullivan, you want to help protect kids from child molesters? Teach them to tell a trusted adult. As others have already said, abuse is more likely to come from a trusted adult than a stranger. You can’t prevent all abuse (sadly), but you can see to it that the child knows you will listen and help them should something so awful occur.

As for me, my daughter has a friend whose dad sometimes calls to ask if he can pick her up after school so the girls can play together. She’ll even go swimming at their house. No problem, I trust him and it’s nice to have the break.

I’ll admit to one heart-stopping moment when a child molester by the same name was on the news, but it wasn’t my friend (different city, very different in appearance, already in custody). I had to laugh at the coincidence, although I also hope it doesn’t cause my friend trouble with others who see only the name.

In the midst of all the righteous indignation coming down on my head for having the temerity to state what a significant percentage of the population thinks, one thing stands out nice and clear:

Not a single one of you seems at all concerned about removing true molesters from our midst. Not the 17 year old caught with his 15 year old girlfriend, not the guy taking a leak behind the bush who gets nailed for public indecency … but the monster who molests children, admits to it, and is released to do it again.

Not a single voice raised about that guy. And that’s the problem. When purportedly rational adults can’t get it together to respond appropriately, to that monster, it creates an environment in which ANYONE could be that monster.

How such people – and their implicit defenders (that’s YOU, Edward) – are allowed to interact with children is beyond my comprehension.

SgtMom – put simply, you’re nuts.

Here’s a clue for you to start with in your pursuit of reality: molesters exist. They’re not imagined phantoms, despite what your fevered brain evidently prefers to believe.

Your parade of horribles is completely irrelevant.

As to your characterizations of me, well, I’ll just say that I’ve been called names by people in the midst of a schizophrenic break – and I paid as much attention to their assertions as I do yours.

@ Sue re. men and children in Germany — you left out the one about how if a little girl is brought to swimming class by her father, he’ll take her to shower in the men’s shower room, (since the father as a grown man can’t go into the women’s showers) where all the men are naked (and private shower stalls in German locker rooms? Ppfff – Don’t be such a fusspot), including her swimming instructor, just at the next shower over, who’ll even have the audacity, when he recognizes her, to talk to her — Well, little one, did you enjoy the class?
Naked! Forgodsakes! Naked!

And we’d be remiss not to add that any perv that want to cop a free peak only has to stroll over to any natural body of water here in the summertime. That’s when all the children go swimming and they all do it naked!

And, last but not least, Sue — where are you? I don’t mean that literally of course, I just mean all the Ami moms I know here have keep their imported, paranoid parenting wrapped tightly round them like a shield of armor, refusing to be “led astray” by the society at large. I can’t meet any cool American moms!

I get that people on this blog are all super-motivated to cut the molester some slack. That molesters are just regular dudes who got in a “strange” situation and made a bad decision – could have happened to anyone, one presumes.

But then, having a look at, say, the Illinois Sex Offender list at http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/offenderlist.cfm, we see that it lists over 20,000 guys who got in a strange situation with children. About 1/3 of them found themselves in a situation sufficiently “strange” that their “bad decision” resulted in being labeled not just a “sex offender”, but a “sexual predator”.

At that point, having a look at the list of things that could result in “sexual predator,” one has to wonder. Admittedly, kidnapping seems irrelevant to sexual predation of children. But as to the rest of the list, well, let’s just say that if one’s perception is that these things result from “regular guys” getting in “strange situations” and making “bad decisions,” it weakens everyone’s case on this forum. Regular guys who are capable of these things because they just made a bad decision shouldn’t be around kids at all. Ever. Nor should those of you who think their crimes are no big deal.

It sounds like “Miranda” doesn’t really feel the “free range” vibe of this blog. I can’t fathom why you are even reading this, unless so stir up trouble.

FRKers: It’s irrational to kill all dogs in order to prevent rabies.

Miranda: You just love it when people get rabies! Why do you want to protect rabid dogs?

Miranda, the majority of “Good Germans” felt that rounding up Jews for mass extermination was a perfectly acceptable way to deal with their problems.

That does not mean the “Majority” were correct, does it?

The Constitution was written to protect the minoity from the evils of the majority, Miranda. We wouldn’t need a Constitution if the Majority was always moral and correct.

No one is defending molesters, no one is suggesting we bequeath our children to them.

We ARE saying that publicly endangering any fellow human being by stigmatizing them and their INNOCENT children by publicly listing THEM as well is W-R-O-N-G.

We are saying branding every male citizen as a potential threat to children is W-R-O-N-G.

California is facing a $25 billion deficit, and guess where the funding cuts are coming from?

Certainly not the cash cow sex offender fear mongering list. Too many people stand to lose too much $$$$$ investment by admitting it’s a useless farce that does more harm than good.

25% of young people -mostly male – applying to join the Army are failing the entrance exam. Why? Because the money that should have been used to educate the children of the wealthiest nation on earth was used instead to “protect” them.

They can’t qualify to protect their own country because their education money was spent protecting them from the hordes of sex fiends that none apparently have been protected from.

Does that not seem totally stupid to you?

Miranda, I’m asking you a direct question here.

We supposedly educate our children about Nazi Germany or Salem Witch hunting “so that it never happens again”.

We teach our children about the brutality and heroism our forefathers endured for our most precious birthright – The Constitution.

It seems those who contribute the least price are the ones who want to destroy it the most.

I’d suggest you consider signing up to serve and protect your National Birthright instead of supporting the destruction of your own rights – but I don’t think you’ve had enough education to pass the entrance exam.

Miranda, free rangers are indeed cognizant of the dangers posed by child molesters. We simply chose to view them as they are rather than exaggerating them to justify our own fear-mongering. We understand that more than 90% of child molestations are perpetrated by family members so children are statistically safer with strange men than at home. We understand that most child molesters have no sexual criminal history when arrested, making the sex registry completely invalid for determining who is a threat. We understand that most people on the registry pose no threat to children having committed crimes against adults or non- predatory crimes. We understand that there is no substantiation to the belief that sex offenders are unable to be rehabilitated.

SgtMom, you say you are asking me a direct question, and then of course you fail to ask any question. But I’ll the question you seem to be implying anyway:

1) Nazis were rounding up, and killing, Jews. Their “crime” was being Jewish.

2) The Salem witch hunts were about rounding up witches and killing them. Of course, there were no witches.

Now, what is being discussed here is child molesters. I maintain that unlike Jews, molesters commit real crimes. I maintain further that unlike witches, molesters exist.

You, on the other hand, seem to be wholly committed to the idea that (1) molesters don’t exist, and (2) even if they did, their actions aren’t a crime.

And you have the temerity to question MY education? You need to take a break, dear. At this point, I have difficulty believing you can successfully tie your shoe.

I live in a major city which prides itself in having an extensive network of downtown cycling paths. So one sunny Saturday afternoon last summer, I rode my bicycle through the parks downtown, and as you do, after a while I felt like it was time to stop and sit on a bench for a few minutes to drink some water.

At first I was completely oblivious to the fact that I was sitting on a bench on the edge of a children’s playground. That quickly changed when I realized I was getting very suspicous looks from two young mothers who were entertaining their kids on the swingset on the other side of the playground, maybe 20 yards away from me. They were not just fleeting glances – as I sat there enjoying my bottle of water, they became more and more disapproving and distrustful.

Now I am a pretty average-looking middle-aged guy, there is nothing menacing about me, as all of my friends, both male and female, would agree. And yet, somehow just sitting there on the bench, on my own, with my all-black cycling shades on, I must have looked like I posed an imminent threat to the kids playing all around me. I mean, think about this for a second – I am minding my own business, trying to stay in shape and riding along the cycling paths in a public park which my taxes pay for, so as far as I am concerned that entitles me to sit anywhere in that park that I please without my motives for doing so being questioned. But no, somehow as an unaccompanied male, it causes suspicion when I do just that and happen to step off my bicycle to rest on a bench that it just so happens is on the edge of a (again, public!!) playground.

And just imagine for a moment the thoughts that went through my head when I realized what (non-)situation I had gotten myself into: “Oh no… they must think I am a perv… just don’t do anything stupid now… don’t make eye contact, and get the hell out of here”.

And that to me is just testament to a sick society, in which a male is by default seen as a potential child rapist simply because by some coincidence he sits down somewhere in a public place where children are around.

I’m not addressing this to any particular person, because the thread is descending into attack mode.

There are obviously sick people in the world – no one says they don’t exist, and no one says they should not be addressed in some way. I’ve never noticed anyone on this site expressing anything other than genuine, deep sadness and support for families who experience a real tragedy.

Many of us believe, though, that as rare as those people are (I will not call them ‘monsters’ because human beings should not call other human beings such things in a civilized society), there is no reason for the media to instill blind fear in people as if there is stranger danger in every neighborhood and school.

We’re sick of that mentality. It’s false. It starts with a grain of truth, but blows it up a million times to keep people afraid. I’ve been to other parts of the world where this sort of nonsense is not practiced. I really recommend visiting such places. Being immersed in American culture constantly, this sort of fear seeps into your bones and no amount of discussion will change your viewpoint. You just need to go experience what ‘normal’ is somewhere else.

As for me and my family, we choose not to enslave ourselves to that fear. We know that danger exists, but we aren’t advocating killing all dogs because some (very very few) have rabies, even if someone starts making a list of all dogs who have ever drooled and might be dangerous.
(Good comparison, whomever that was.)

Someone just popping onto this site and viciously attacking people must be a person who is not familiar with most of the discussion that takes place here month after month.

great story.

sad and true.

my husband loves sports and coached recreational baseball all thru high school and college. a few years ago he tried to volunteer with a good friend to coach their son’s little league team, and the league wouldn’t allow because my husband didn’t have a child participating.

and i too passed judgement toward a young man that taught my son’s 2-yr old daycare class. turned out to be one of the BEST teachers they had!

“I’m starving, and I’m really low on cash … so I’m going to steal that loaf of bread.”

This scenario is exceedingly rare, while theft is exceedingly common. Most thefts are “I’m a junkie and need stuff to pawn to buy my drugs.” Not exactly a ringing justification for crime.

“I had a few to drink, but I think I can drive the car safely, and after all, home is only 2 miles away … so I’m going to drive my car.”

Wow, I’m sure that the family of the child killed in this scenario agrees with you that this was certainly a legitimate excuse.

As for sex crimes (true cases) –

Dad finds sex diary of his 14 year old daughter – she admits to wanting sex and making advances at them. (Several of the many guys are on the registry now).

Kid has sex with girl in his own grade. Sadly, he’s a year behind, she’s a year advanced and mom insists on pressing charges because she doesn’t want her daughter doing black boys. (Luckily not convicted and allowed to just take a sex ed class)

Boy meets girl in a bar and has consensual sex. Girl was there on a fake ID and is under the age of consent. (On registry)

Girl and boy are dating with parents permission. Girl gets pregnant and goes to get welfare. Welfare reports the dad, against the wishes of the girl and parents, to police. (Many on registry).

Boy and girl are dating. Police catch them having sex in the car. Girl and parents don’t want boy arrested but police bring charges anyway. (On registry).

Guy showering in his own fenced in backyard. Kids look through fence and see him. Convicted of child molestation. (On registry).

Guy robs his drug dealer, who is a minor. Absolutely no allegations of sex or that this was a sexually motivated crime. However kidnapping charge involving a minor lands him on the sex registry (not a sympathetic guy but shows the idiocy of the sex registry).

Guy goes to a party and girl willingly gives him a blow job. He’s 17. She’s 15. He goes to prison for 10 years. Case is successfully appealed and leads to an overhaul of the Georgia sex laws, but only after he spends several years in prison.

Let’s not forget the McMartins and numerous other people who have been convicted, spent years in prison only to be released because, not only did they not commit the child molestation but the child molestation never occurred and the conviction was a result of suggestive interviews of the children.

Yes, there are some evil people who do awful things to children. Luckily those individuals represent a small percentage of the sex registry. There are also people convicted of really stupid crimes against children as well as people convicted of crimes against children that never occurred. As someone who experiences the sausage factory that is our criminal justice system every day, particularly in this witch-hunt area, forgive me for not being willing to toss everyone convicted of a sex offense into the “unfit to ever exist in society again” category.

Donna: I notice you conveniently ignore the scenario I posed, instead offering a bunch of alternative scenarios that support your point.

Such dodging is a variant of the straw man argument. You set up stuff that you then proceed to knock down, and offer the totality as a refutation of an argument you’ve not even touched.

I understand, though. If you were to apply yourself to the actual question asked, you’d have to concede the point that there are some molesters who are so evil they must be removed.

And that, for some reason, you can’t admit. I get it. I know there are people like you out there. I don’t know what motivates you, but I do know that you will work endlessly, and tirelessly, to avoid reality.

Please stop feeding this troll. She has taken her position, dug her heels in deep, and is reveling in your indulgence. She stated her fundamental assumption in her opening comment:

“The bottom line is that many of us believe that a man who molests a child must be removed from society permanently — that the behavior is indicative of a sickness so profound, and the consequences to the child so damaging, that anything short of proof of 100% rehabilitation is unacceptable.”

All of her arguments since that statement have been based on that fundamental assumption. The problem is that her assumption is based, as she admits, on a “belief”, not on fact. That said, I actually agree that there are almost certainly men (and women) out there who are sexual predators and who will be impossible to rehabilitate. I do not believe that all men who have molested a child fall into this category, or that most of the people on sex offender registries fall into this category. However, this person has shown that she does not brook compromise or partial agreement. Anyone who does not agree with her wholeheartedly, anyone who questions any aspect of her argument, is somehow protecting molesters or refusing to believe that they exist.

You cannot battle non-logic with logic. The necessary valid points have been made against her statements, for the benefit of anyone else reading. However, you are not going to convince her. She’s not here to be convinced. Time to let it go.

And to all of you, here’s a tip:

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. You diminish yourselves by relying on such a weak, facile dodge.

That is a massive fallacy.

Your central argument seems to be that because a problem cannot be solved conclusively or eradicated in the entirety, we need not bother trying. I guess we can be thankful you have little (hopefully nothing) to do with criminal jurisprudence.

How about the guy who says, upon being charged with sodomizing the 4-year-old: “Yes, I did it. I’ve done it before. If you don’t lock me up, I’ll do it again.” I guess you’d rather let that guy walk, because maybe he’s lying, huh? Or confused? Or paid off? Or suicidal? I’m sure you can come up with something.

Look, if you were merely advancing the notion that in practice, difficulties exist, and in practice, the law is imperfect, I’d concede that point. And that further, allowances at the margins have to be made in deference to that imperfect reality. I’d concede that as well.

But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying, since we can’t know exactly what the truth is in all cases, we shouldn’t bother with any effort at protecting society against people who treat the innocent as their prey. We may know they exist in theory, but we can’t do anything about it because we live in world of imperfect information. I suppose we shouldn’t have sentences like “life without parole”, either, for murderers. Right?

You’re way out on the edge, honey. As relating to the philosophy of criminal jurisprudence, you’re denying, as a practical matter, the very existence of crime and the rule of law. You need to check yourself.

In any society, look for the people who are being called ‘monsters’. Gypsies, Jews, witches, homosexuals, Jack the Ripper, black people, child molesters . . . The people chosen for this treatment are different in different times an places. Some of them are real criminals and pose some real danger, some are just guilty of being different, or in the wrong place af the wrong time.

When you see people being dehumanized in this way, look for the reason. Someone is always doing the dehumanizing of that group for a reason: to grasp or retain power, to manipulate large numbers of people, etc. They serve themselves by denying the humanity of others. This has been shown to be the case time and time again throughout human history.

People, even criminals, are people.
This is my strong belief, and I hope that it is ‘telling’. What it should ‘tell’ you is that I’m a decent human being.

I must say I was dismayed at the quality of the comments on the WSJ site: I quit reading after about one page. It seems like everyone wanted to use Lenore’s article to advance their own pet causes, regardless of how loosely those causes were connected to what Lenore was writing about (what the hell does the existence of the Federal income tax have to do with our attitudes toward men?).

Of course, the comments on just about any mainstream media article on the Web tend to be pretty crazy.

I think the daycare cases from the 80s were really what caused this sort of universal suspicion. Prior to them, most of the general public (correctly) understood that child sexual abuse is an extremely secretive act; it is extraordinarily rare for it to happen in a public place in the presence of onlookers. The daycare cases involved allegations of multiple offenders simultaneously molesting multiple children in places that parents could walk into at any time, in other words molestation in broad daylight in front of others.

Needless to say, none of this actually happened, but the impression that it could stuck, and now parents worry about molestation in public, even in scenarios where the alleged perp would have no physical opportunity to do anything. It’s as if we assume that child molesters have supernatural powers (and most of what was alleged in the daycare cases could only have happened if they did).

Not wanting to feed the troll, but I’d just like to point out that repeat offenders who have already served their sentences account for at most 1 out of 50 cases of child sexual abuse. Effectively all the problem would still be there if they all disappeared. The biggest bottleneck in preventing and punishing child sexual abuse isn’t the way the criminal justice system handles it; it’s getting it reported to the authorities in the first place (and note that while mandatory life without parole for CSA would solve the 2% repeat offender problem, it would make the reporting problem substantially worse since a reporter would have to want to completely ruin someone’s life rather than get them help. It would also make prosecution much more difficult by eliminating guilty pleas and forcing every case to come to a full trial, the outcome of which would ultimately depend on “he said/she said”; in most cases it would involve 12 people having to decide which party to a bitter divorce/breakup/custody battle was telling the truth).

O.M.G. So I was at the park for the first time in about 3 years, and I was ‘unconsciously’ sizing up all the men in the area! There was a ‘scary’ old guy walking his dog and I thought to myself, ‘whats that guy doing at the playground- he doesnt have a kid’. And then I gasped because I realized that even though I am a total free ranger and read this blog EVERY DAY, I fell into the trap! Thank goodness I realized it and stopped my ‘all men are evil’ thinking!

A child is playing with a cat. The cat doesn’t like to play with children, and puts back it’s ears, and hisses. The child persists. The child get scratched.

As a parent, based on the above, should I never let my child play with a cat, or should I teach my child how to tell when the cat is going to act innappropriately so that they can avoid the situation happening? Or, should I tell them that all cats will hurt them, never trust them, and never go near them?

Me, I am going to teach my kids how to avoid grooming situations, to say no, and come tell me when things are not right. I teach them about what areas can be touched by others, and which should only be touched by them (and occasionally the doctor.)

There is a slim chance though, that despite all my teachings about cats, that a mountain lion might attack and hurt one of my kids while we are hiking. Just like there is a slim chance, that while walking down our private road with their sibling that a car will pull up and try to pull one of them into the car at gunpoint.

Miranda, I think you misconstrue the intent. Not all molesters are men; not all men are molesters. We can’t label half the human race as being suspect just because they have a penis. For one thing, about half of our children are male. When do they become rapists-in-waiting? at 10? 12? 16?

But seriously … I’ve mentioned this in comments before, but several of my friends were molested by their fathers. THEIR OWN FATHERS. Does this mean that all women should treat their husbands as sperm donors & kick them out as soon as the baby is born? Of course not, then we’d all be Evil Single Mothers.

Innocent until proven guilty. Most people are nice, a few are evil. Trust your instinct . Don’t go into a room with a closed door with anyone you don’t want to be intimate with–good advice for anyone, any gender, any age.

LisaS: all valid points. I agree with everything you wrote.

“Everything else you wrote could be true, and it still wouldn’t be relevant to my core assertion — we do not deal appropriately with the molester.”

I do not find that assertion objectionable in the least and I doubt anyone else here does. What I find objectionable is your misunderstanding-based slander against the posters here, accusing us of wanting to shelter molesters and/or deny that they exist because we really don’t think they’re so bad. If that is what you are taking from what is being said here, you are either jumping to conclusions or choosing not to pay attention.

Lafe explained himself pretty clearly, but you chose to take it your own way without paying attention to his evident meaning. His point was clearly that heinous as molestation is, molesters are still human beings. It’s not incompatible with a desire to restrain and/or punish molesters, to believe that their humanity remains intact. In fact, some of us would argue that only a human being should be punished for evil acts — “monsters” can’t help it.

Miranda – I’ve been reading the comments of Lafe and SgtMom on this blog for awhile now. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever being associated with them and agree with much of what they said. I agree with Lafe that we should not call human beings “monsters” regardless of how repulsive we find their actions. I agree with SgtMom’s point that this country is currently persecuting “sex offenders” the way that we’ve persecuted the Japanese and the Nazi’s persecuted the jews. We fail to judge them based on their individual acts, preferring to lump them all in as evil and not capable of rehabilitation. Some, indeed, do meet that description and I’ve never once read Lafe or SgtMom to say otherwise in all the months we’ve been posting here. But all don’t deserve that categorization. We’re willing to accept the difference and not jump to the conclusion that someone poses a threat to all children simply because they appear on the registry. And none of us want to make the leap that all men pose a threat to children simply because they have a penis.

You, I have no interest in being associated with. You have done nothing since coming here today but insult people who don’t agree with you and intentionally misconstrued what was said so that you could continue to insult them. You haven’t wanted to engage in conversation. If someone said something that you disagreed with, you simply attacked them personally rather than debating the topic. You failed to provide a single piece of validation for your points and instead personally attacked those who asked you to do so. And, frankly, I’m still not sure what your point was. Is it that child predators are not sufficiently punished? Fine. Many here would agree, but that is also completely irrelevant to the point of the article that started this thread – that men are being treated as child predators without having committed a single crime.

This isn’t some circling the wagons against some troll. I do think you’re a troll but I wouldn’t defend anyone here if I truly disagreed with them. And I do sometimes disagree with people who frequently comment here. We’re just able to do so in a civil manner without devolving to personal insults and I’d prefer to keep it that way.

to miranda..i call them as i see and read them. you accuse others of suporting criminals because that’s not your point of view. even when others have attempted to explain their comments, you insist that they are wrong without truly considering what they are saying because that would mean you would have to consider yourself open to debate. the fact that you turn all comments sidesway and ridicule them is a definition of a bully and in my experiance politness is wasted on bullies. you did not truly consider my comment and only repeat yours. why don’y you try a new approach if you think you are so correct instead of using the “they must be stupid but if i say something over and over again loudly they will realize i’m right
‘ approach” . most if not all here are open to reason, not bullying.

Miranda, a mountain lion is not a human. While I agree with putting it down, like dogs that attack humans, don’t agree with following that argument to the end.

A human being, if allowed to live, has a chance to change and to do what he (or SHE) can to redeem themselves to society. (Yes, a female acquaintance of mine from years ago went to jail for molesting a neighbor boy. She has two boys, it may still be important for them to have a mother on this planet, even if they only get to see her in jail.)

Oh, and as for that mountain lion, we rarely hike without protection, By KNOWING and being prepared, (and acting in sensible ways) we reduce our chances of that mountain lion even coming near us. Same goes for the perverts.

Q:”How about the guy who says, upon being charged with sodomizing the 4-year-old: “Yes, I did it. I’ve done it before. If you don’t lock me up, I’ll do it again.” I guess you’d rather let that guy walk, because maybe he’s lying, huh? Or confused? Or paid off? Or suicidal? I’m sure you can come up with something.”

Actually in at least TWO high profile cases sick individuals HAVE asked for help – and recieved NONE!

And yes, they did go on to harm a child.

Rather than providing help for those who have recognized their illness and BEGGED for help, in all the billions of dollars wasted chasing teen lovers and tree pee-ers, NO help or money has been allocated to actually provide help for those who actually ASK for it.

When Richard Allen Davis asked not to be released from prison knowing he was not fit to be out, he was released anyway – to harm again. Just as he told them he knew he would.

Somehow, providing help for those who ask is eschewed in favor of running about, Chicken Little style, and repunishing the THOUSANDS of people on the registry that did NOT commit another crime.

Mailing postcards and posting “creepy” guy pictures on the internet serves only to titillate the Miranda o’sullivans of this world. No molesters are “removed”, no children are “saved”.

In all the BILLIONS of dollars we have sold our children’s futures to foreign countries in borrowed debt, there NO programs for those who voluntarily come forward and ask for help.

NONE whatsoever. Not one single one…it just doesn’t feed the machine.

As far as “jews didn’t commit a crime” goes, my historically challenged friend, you apparently don’t recall the “then they came for me” poem. In Nazi Germany, they FIRST the came for the sex offenders – they castrated, they mutilated, they tortured. They moved on to gays, gypsies, Trade Unionists, so on and on…it started with sex offender hysteria.

Sex offender panic had reared it’s insanity yet again – it’s gaping maw devouring streakers, tree pee-ers, teen lovers, sexting, grabbing children’s arms, custody embattled fathers, graduating to terrorizing countless innocent day care workers, “recovered memories” by bad therapists (remember the “forgotten” memories phase?), “strange men” in public places – and now just any male in general .

As for you, SgtMom, I suspect something else may be going on. You seem to have a whole persecution-laced weltanschauung thing going on. The entire history of the world, all its greatest horrors, its genocides and holocausts, can be explained in terms of the pursuit of the guy peeing behind a tree.

OK. But you really need to flesh that out so as to include Stalin and Pol Pot as well (to do the theory justice).

Sheesh.

As a side comment. There was another article/column in the wall street german written by a “chinese mother”. It’s about how you can force your children to achieve. I read with a growing sense of disbelief but apparently she meant every word.

I’m just saying that there are two problems to be dealt with:

(1) Molesters get a slap on the wrist and sent back out to molest.

(2) Innocent men are presumed to be molesters until proven otherwise.

I’d rather fix the first problem first. Adult men can absorb unfair presumptions. Little kids can’t do a damn thing but get damaged.

And it just might be that by putting first things first, the second problem will take of itself.

They are related.

Miranda,
I have debated replying to your comments all evening long, and they have finally struck enough of a chord with me that I can no longer remain silent. I am not going to specifically address the comments of those who have come before, except to say that a recurring theme of your replies seems to be that your point is not being heard. So, let me begin by stating: I hear you. Or, at least, I think I do.

To recap: there are people who do terrible things. They molest and hurt children. They have “monstrous” thoughts. These thoughts are so pervasive, so embedded within these individuals’ psyches, they cannot be rehabilitated. Because these folks are such a threat to children and to society, they should “be removed” permanently. (Whether this is accomplished through incarceration, being shipped to a penal colony, locked forever in a psychiatric institution, or put to death, is unclear.) Our society, however, does not do this – does not permanently remove all child predators, either convicted or as-yet-undetected – from our midst. Thus, we know there are convicted child molesters, as well as unreported/undiscovered child molesters, walking among us. They are dangerous. They could hurt our kids. It’s scary. And lots of these predatory folks are men.

That seems to be the beginning of your argument.

And so far? I agree. There are people put there who do really bad things. I, personally, find acts perpetrated against children to be so heinous, I go a bit nutty and want the perpetrators to be shown absolutely no mercy. I think many of us, free rangers included, feel that way, even if it may be illogical and irrational on some level.

The next part of your argument doesn’t hold water for me, though. If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to say that because these predatory individuals are not all locked away, and because they may be roaming the streets right beside you, the logical reaction, therefore, is to resort to fear and condemnation – especially of men, all and any men, because predators are more often male than female. That’s where your logic falls apart for me – and it is, in fact, exactly the kind of rhetoric that Lenore wrote her piece to dispel.

There are bad people out there. Some cannot be rehabilitated. They live among us. They could hurt our children.

So?

Now, of course, I don’t mean “so?” as in, it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t mean that there aren’t times to be concerned, or that all people can be trusted all the time, etc., etc. But the idea that, because there *might* be a predator lurking around the corner means that we should believe there *is* one, and should react accordingly (i.e. with fear, accusations, and mistrust of all “strangers”), is simply not okay. Not for me, any way. Because here’s the thing: there just aren’t that many predators. There simply aren’t. Yes, even one is too many. But living your life based on the assumption that the extremely unlikely event is not only possible, but probable, leads to the crazy levels of panic, distrust, hovering, and general nuttiness that Lenore chronicles here.

I disagree that people today are wary of men because they know that un-rehabilitated perverts are living among us. I don’t think that the prevailing mindset is, Well, we know that our government hasn’t locked away all of the predators – they’re still out there! – so we should be extra cautious around unknown males. And I especially disagree that, had our forbears the same “knowledge” that we do today, they would not have been so trusting.

Well, maybe I kind of agree: it’s true that our ancestors didn’t have the “knowledge” we have today. But that so-called knowledge comes in the form of CNN breaking news headlines of 13 year-old girls being snatched from sleepovers, and of every local news channel leading off with the ways your child could be watched by a pedophile. Our ancestors were blissfully free of the media hysteria that fuels the predators-are-everywhere fire. *That’s* why they were more trusting of others, even (gasp) strange men: because they didn’t have network ratings influencing how they got their information, and distorting the facts so that fear replaces logic, and blind following replaces informed thinking.

Do I wish that all molesters were locked away? Absolutely. But I don’t think for one minute that, with that threat removed, American society would suddenly be more trusting of “strangers.” Instead of fearing predators, we’d fear those with black hair or those over age 65. And, of course, there will be black-haired guys and over 65 year-old gals who perpetrate horrendous crimes… But that doesn’t mean that we, as a society, should be afraid of every dark-topped senior citizen. It makes no sense.

Other commenters have made great points about the (absurdly flawed) sex offender registry, the actual number of crimes committed by molesters, etc. And your point about actual predators still roaming the streets is valid. But one of the main points of this site, and Lenore’s book, is that it’s absurd to believe, simply because a threat exists, that it’s LIKELY to happen… and living your life as though it will – with little thought going into your “reasoning,” and few to no actual facts to back up your actions – is crazy-making.

Yes, molesters and predators are out there. But assuming that every man is likely to be one, simply because those predators exist, is just plain wrong. That, in a nutshell, was Lenore’s point – no more, no less, no “hidden elephant” molesters included.

(Used an iPad, for the first time ever, to type this… Errors may abound – ack!)

Good Heavens! The things that happen while you’re out chipping ice from the driveway and then taking a nap.
Lenore’s WSJ article shed a bit more light on what seems to me to be a clandestine attempt to blame all men for crimes against children.
For the record: I have never read or heard a word from Lenore Skenazy “defending” crimes against children.
For the record: I have never defended such “monsters” either.
Now I must respond to Miranda’s statement, “Not a single one of you seems at all concerned about removing true molesters from our midst.” I’m no good at fetching and fighting with statistics so I must use another method.
Imagine you’re a 12 year old boy, I mean sit down and really think. Your class has just been given a presentation by your teacher, your parents, a law enforcement officer, a lawyer, and a judge. It has ended with the collective conclusion that when the boys in the room turn 18 they WILL BE considered child molesters – no matter that they marry or stay single, have kids of their own or not. Nor will it matter whether or not they actually committed a crime or are simply accused by someone.
Are you still that 12 year old boy? Is there a question you want to ask – possibly through some tears – “WHY?”
I’m 53 years old. I still cry when I ask it.
When you inflict the dangerous presumption on a childs mind that all men are monsters you scar that kid for life!
Not concerned about “true” molesters, Miranda? I’m VERY concerned.

Emily, I liked your post and agreed with the vast majority of it.

I maintain my position, but it’s not because I remain unconvinced. It’s not about convincing, really. It’s about the balance.

I worked in advertising for some time and I know the power of the media to persuade, and yes, to deceive – even if only by implication. I also know a bit about the flaws in the law. The flaws that lead to innocent men being stigmatized, and the flaws that lead to monsters (yes, I said it) going free.

I know you’ve heard the stories of the falsely accused guy. And the stories of the horrific molester that was released. Or was wrongly presumed to be rehabilitated.

Perhaps you’re right that there aren’t that many of the latter. But perhaps you’re not. The truth is, none of us really know. This isn’t about living a life of fear. This is about prioritizing problems. The latter problem is, in my estimation, a bigger problem. It isn’t about the numbers. It’s about a society that isn’t taking something seriously, for reasons that are of dubious merit (many of which are in evidence on this very page).

In effect, not only am I asked to absorb those “reasons” for not taking what I consider the biggest problem seriously, but I am further asked to ignore it altogether because, after all, it’s not that likely to occur. To check myself, as it were, because I’m the person with the problem. That’s the implicit message of Lenore’s piece.

—

Larry, I get where you’re coming from. But here’s the bottom line: because society will not deal with the molester appropriately, parents are left with literally no alternative but to try to handle it all themselves – to prep their kids for what they might encounter. The truth is, when the specific cases of molesters are grossly mishandled by the state, nothing is left but the broad brush.

For anyone to turn around and say that such protection amounts to child-abuse is truly perverse. Here’s what you are saying to the parent, in effect:

1) The state doesn’t deal with molesters appropriately.

2) However, we don’t believe there are really all that many of them.

3) If you do the only thing available to you to protect your child against the molester – to instruct with a broad brush – you are scarring your child, if not abusing them.

4) Therefore, unless you accept (1) and (2) and avoid (3), YOU’RE the problem.

I think not.

Would you like to know which group of people I distrust above all others? Which one I eye suspiciously, react to defensively, brace myself against when nearby?

Drivers.

God damn do I distrust people behind the wheel. Tail-gaters. Speeders. Cell-phone-chatterers. Crosswalk-plow-throughers. Red-light-runners. Farking drunk fracking drivers!

They are everywhere. You think I’m joking but I’m totally serious. Every figgin’ day I marvel that there isn’t more death and dismemberment in light of all the idiocy I witness on the road. A day – an hour! – can’t go by without some horrible story about yet another person – child, even – who unnecessarily lost their life because of something idiotic like following too close to properly react or speeding down the highway during a blizzard.

And yet…

I live with a driver. I, gasp!, am one myself. I let my child go off alone with grandma & grandpa, two other – you guessed it – drivers. Believe me, my thoughts flash to horrible places, thinking of all the madness and risk out there (and my mother’s legendary lack of driving skill.)

Yet for some crazy reason, I still get in to my car every day. Even worse, most of the time it’s with my kid strapped in the back seat. Shite, I’ve even driven on L.A. and Toronto highways and *really* enjoyed it!

It’s a wonder that I am able to relax at all and willingly surround myself by all those damn vehicle operators. Someone could be drunk! Someone could be not. paying. attention! Would I feel better if every nitwit who refuses to grasp the danger of tailgating was permanently removed from the road? You bet. But until then, I guess I’ll have to rely on my well-honed defensive driving skills.

miranda..you just keep proving my point. you say you’ve worked in advertising so you must know that clobbering people over the head with your message just turns them off. yet even in the face of reasonably replys and counters to your arguement you just dig your heels in and repeat the same things. yes there are horrible people in the world and for God’s sake no one wants a child hurt but labling half the race prospective rapist is ridiculous. if you have a daughter and your teaching her this world view how do you expect her to EVER be able to have a close relationship with a man? or as one poster said do you consider men only as sperm donors and child support makers? if you have a son when he reaches puberty will he be a prospective rapist in your eyes and be removed from the household? extremeism in anything is an ugly thing almost always leading to violence. is this what you want? reading some of your posts this is how you come over. being aware of something and taking precautions is not the same as living in fear. we here are all aware, what we are not doing is living in fear.

Good article. This battle will only be won by speaking clearly into the world of fear over and over again. I can not thank you enough for pick this battle to fight. Our future is tied to overcoming this senseless fear.

“I’m not okay with my daughter growing up to fear all men since I’d actually like grandchildren one day.”

And has been pointed out probably ad nauseum, not only is it reprehensible on many levels to teach children to fear men in general, it also *robs them of the ability to protect themselves* because they are no longer able to recognize real danger when they see it. If your training tells you the smiling dad in the grocery store is as dangerous as the guy following you down the street, and your reason and experience tell you the guy in the grocery store really doesn’t seem to be a threat, how will you be able to judge that the guy on the street is?

I know you’ve heard the stories of the falsely accused guy. And the stories of the horrific molester that was released. Or was wrongly presumed to be rehabilitated.

Perhaps you’re right that there aren’t that many of the latter. But perhaps you’re not. The truth is, none of us really know. This isn’t about living a life of fear. This is about prioritizing problems. The latter problem is, in my estimation, a bigger problem. It isn’t about the numbers. It’s about a society that isn’t taking something seriously, for reasons that are of dubious merit (many of which are in evidence on this very page).

One quarter of one percent of men, according to the one link you’ve provided with anything close to stats, have been convicted of a sex crime.

Google “male privilege”. You know what one of the biggest things that “feminazis” (wing nut feminists who seem to think all men are evil) say? “Men don’t have to walk down the street, fearing for their own safety against others.” I kid you not. The idea that all men are guilty until proven innocent is so pervasive that the lack of fear for their safety and very lives is considered a “privilege of being male” by many women.

That thinking hurts everyone, more than the actual predators out there, because it disempowers both men and women.

As for the references to things like the Japanese internment camps, and current treating of Muslims, it is largely the same thing.

A small subset of a group of people did something terrible.

Therefore, all members of that group of people get discriminated against in various large-scale ways.

Like I said before, the people who think like this are more perverts than the men THEY fear to be “perverts”. Who thinks like this?! Oh yeah, CRAZY, DELUSIONAL people. If it smells like crap and looks like crap, then you can be sure it came from an a-hole.

Women are just as bad as men, some even worse. I’ve read stories of atrocities done by women towards children. Makes some stories I’ve read about male pedophiles look tamed. There should be a law against people who defame others because of their own paranoia and ignorance. As well as those that go along with them. There is no room on this earth for the ignorant. People like this are the dirt, debris, and cogs in the wheels of life.

Honestly, I really suspect that one of the big things about American society nowadays is that they blew off run-of-the-mill sex crimes for a very long time, and when they began to take an interest, the people who pushed the policy were mostly women, usually mothers, with sexual-abuse induced PTSD. As a result, very real, very important concerns get addressed in a PTSD way. So, while society is now addressing sex crimes in a way they never did before, there is also a major helping of non-logical stress-biased thinking involved. To turn the tables on Miranda, while there’s no denying that sexual abuse happens, we need to put a lot more resources than we currently do into appropriately helping survivors, and figuring out how to make our kids better able to cope if something bad might happen. Because, logic asserts, kids are much more likely to get hurt by someone they know– even someone they are related to– and suspicion of strangers doesn’t help those kids.

Here’s the central flaw in most your reasoning. You think that the logic runs like this:

1) If a person takes cognizance of the fact that molesters are not handled appropriately and removed from society when necessary, then

2) That person will consider every man a molester.

But that’s not how it works. It works like this:

1) If a person takes cognizance of the fact that molesters are not handled appropriately and removed from society when necessary, then

2) There are more molesters among us than there need be, and

3) A person should be vigilant and on guard against behaviors that suggest prurient interest, and

4) Work to fix problem (1).

There’s nothing wrong with this. We apply this logic all the time. Prior to 9/11, we were blissfully unaware of the terrorists among us. Post-9/11, we now go about our daily business knowing that however small the number may be, there are some terrorists here. We are instructed to, at minimum, be aware of what’s going on around us, and take note of peculiar behavior. We are expected to manage this without:

1) Cowering like intellectual and emotional cripples at the very thought of their presence, and

2) Treating every single person we meet like a terrorist in hiding.

We also do the above realizing that there will always be terrorists among us, but that it is worth effort to diminish their ranks, as opposed to throwing up our hands because we can’t rid ourselves of them entirely.

No matter how many shots are thrown at me on this board, some central truths remain, from which no rational person would back down:

1) There are men who molest kids.

2) We don’t do a very good job of identifying them, or securing ourselves against them once they are identified.

3) Knowing (1) and (2), it is only prudent that we teach our children that this is a danger that exists, and what the appropriate response is.

In practice, that means teaching them that the vast majority of men are good people and are not looking to hurt them. But that there are a few who are NOT good men and ARE looking to hurt them – and how to be prepared as best as possible in light of this reality.

This is uncontroversial among rational adults. The fact that it is so offensive in this particular venue is astonishing.

*snort* Miranda, you’re barking up the wrong tree:
“In practice, that means teaching them that the vast majority of men are good people and are not looking to hurt them. But that there are a few who are NOT good men and ARE looking to hurt them — and how to be prepared as best as possible in light of this reality.”

IF we are teaching them that– and I hope we are– good on us.

HOWEVER, what we as a society are teaching MOTHERS is that ALL MEN, nay all people, are to be regarded as potential kidnappers and child molesters. And as part of that, we are teaching the public that men ought to expect that MOTHERS will treat them as potential child molesters. Trust me, I’m a mother; we all do it, EVEN those of us who have gotten stinkeye for smiling at or talking to someone’s kids when we were single.

Dogs are stolen every year, right? But do we combat that by telling dog owners that they should report anyone who talks to their dog or displays an interest in dogs to the police as a potential dog thief? We do not.

But media and other mothers try to teach us mothers that anyone, especially any male, who displays an interest in our child or children in general without having a kid with them should be treated as a suspected kidnapper/molester.

well put emily

This post reminded me of the HBO movie: Indictment, about the McMartin trial about ritual child abuse. I don’t think you’ve mentioned this in your book or blog. Have you seen the movie? I think it really helps explain how our culture of obsession with child safety had its genesis.

Let’s also not forget the way the law and society is stacked against men, making them defined as sex offenders far more than women.

Many states, including my own, continue to define rape as solely committed by a male. Georgia definition of rape:

“A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of:
(1) A female forcibly and against her will; or
(2) A female who is less than ten years of age.
Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.”

This is similar to many states in that not only can a woman not commit the crime of rape, a male cannot be a victim of rape, even a male child. The state does define other sexual crimes that can be committed by a male or female. However, under Georgia law it is not a crime for a woman to force a man to have intercourse. It is also considered a lesser crime for a woman to force a young boy to penetrate her vaginally. If a man forces a girl under 10 it is rape, punishable for a minimum of 25 years without parole. If a woman forces a boy under 10 it is only child molestation, punishable for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 20 years in prison and available for parole at any time.

Also, most of the people on the sex registry are there for stat rape. The different maturity levels and social constructions mean that men will be prosecuted for this offense FAR more than women.

First, male high school seniors dating female high school freshman is much more socially acceptable than the reverse. This is partially because males mature, physically and emotionally, at a slower rate than girls and partially because of custom. Therefore, far fewer females are going to be in a position of being convicted for having sex with their under the age of consent boyfriends.

Even in the rare cases where girls are dating younger boys, the boys parents are not worried about their son’s virtue. The father of the son doesn’t sit at home with a gun threatening the girl to treat his boy right. If an underage boy has sex with his slightly older girlfriend, the parents of the boy are much less likely to seek prosecution. A 15 year old boy who has sex is treated at worst as “boys will be boys” and at best is patted on the back as a stud. The older girl is never blamed. The parents of the 15 year old girl who has sex with the 18 year old boyfriend are much more likely to press charges.

I’m opposed to both points in different ways. First that rape is defined as a male-perpetrator only is just wrong. Second, I’m opposed to the idea that teenage girls are considered so much less in control of their choices and sexuality than boys that they are viewed as just pawns of their slightly older boyfriend. I’m certainly not arguing that more girls should be convicted of stat rape. I believe that society should accept that some teenagers, male and female, want sex and voluntarily engage in sex and that stat rape should be wiped off the books as a crime at all.

One of the WSJ comments had an interesting link: 10 Myths About Sex Offenders. It has great points about the Registry, recidivism rates, the “stranger danger” idea towards offenders, and a bunch more good stuff. Really worth the read.

Donna – As far as I know, my state, Ohio, isn’t that bad, at least not technically, but we do have our own stupidity.

For example, in the case of stat rape, it doesn’t matter if the older person actually even knows how old the younger person is, or is led to believe that the younger person is actually older. The older person is still guilty.

This means that, according to the law, if you go into a club that’s adults only and checks ID at the door, and a teenager comes in with a fake ID, and you two hook up, you’re guilty of raping that person.

Then, there’s also the general idea that “women are never guilty” that some law enforcement people seem to believe. My cousin has been in and out of juvie and therapy for committing sexually inappropriate acts with younger kids, brought on by the fact that his older stepsister raped him and is off scott-free in Texas somewhere, because the local law enforcement decided “oh, she’s just a girl, it’s not a big deal” (thankfully, the chief ripped them a new one, but he was on vacation when that happened, and when he got back, it was too late and she was already in a different state, for some reason, they can’t get her shipped back up, though).

“However, under Georgia law it is not a crime for a woman to force a man to have intercourse.”

Actually, I take this back. It can be a misdemeanor punishable by less than a year in jail and would not require registration on the sex offender reigstry.

“For example, in the case of stat rape, it doesn’t matter if the older person actually even knows how old the younger person is, or is led to believe that the younger person is actually older. The older person is still guilty.”

I believe that that is the law in all 50 states. Stat rape is one of the very few strict liability crimes. You only have to intend to do the act (intercourse), you don’t have to intend to do it with someone under the age of consent or even have knowledge the person was under the age of consent.

just in case you missed it she was trying to say sinceyou insist on viewing all men as prospective rapists you might what to be aware that most are also rapists. so according to your theory, all people are potential molesters, i guess that means no contact with anybody. good luck with that.

Donna – That wouldn’t surprise me, but I only know Ohio law, so I wasn’t going to assume other states were the same way. 🙂

I want to start off by saying that all sexual predators should be removed from society, and repeat offenders or others found not to be fixable should be permanently detained. In CA, we have this. If someone is jailed for serious sex offenses (not stat rape, peeing, etc) esp against children, they are reviewed when their time is up. If found to be a danger, they are committed, indefinitley. And people ARE detained, it is not theoretical. While this seems unconstitutional, this is the current solution. Thinking or acting like no one is doing anything to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets means you are not paying attention. We do many things, most of which is not helpful, but thats another post.

As for my opinion on the issue:
When it comes to prioritizing problems, I just don’t see child molestation as a top worry. Its not super common, the percentage of perps is tiny, its not totally unavoidable, and society as a whole IS aware of it and doing things to at least punish the offenders.

This is unlike other horrible things that can and do happen to kids, like: auto related fatalities/ permanent disabilities, cancers and other painful and fatal diseases, murder, poverty (of the 3rd world type) leading to starvation, dysentery, infanticide, child soldiers, war, etc.

I don’t think that saying “there are worse things” is the same as ignoring the problem or minimizing it. I do think it helps to put it into perspective, as looking at the stats does for me.

The above stated .25 of 1% really was an eye opener, as I wouldn’t have thought the number was so small, even though it is only the convicted, and many are not child predators. Assuming most are never caught and tripling the # still doesn’t even make it 1%- and THIS is what we are damaging society over? We are effectively barring men from interacting with children because less than 1% of them are sex offenders? We are banning normal affection and relationships between kids and care takers and other adults because of LESS THAN 1% of the male population? If we add in women, it becomes even SMALLER % of the total population.

If you haven’t yet realized it, this means we are letting a fraction of a percent, the lowest, most disgusting part of the population, basically change the way we relate to others. We live in fear because of this itty bitty minority? As horrible, danferous, and sick as child predators are, we are more than willing to let them influence normal society. Isn’t this backwards? Why is it OK to PERVERT normal people- and this is exactly what is happening when a normal mom thinks about sex abuse every time they see a man near a kid.

THIS is SICK. We are willingly allowing KIDS and SICK SEXUAL ACTS to be linked in the minds of, and in the forefront of the thoughts of, normal, healthy adults. When the first thought that comes to your mind when a man smiles at your kid is “I bet he’s a sicko”, YOU have been infected with this dirty way of looing at everything. And it is not healthy. Kids will pick up on this attitude, and this leads to an atmosphere of distrust- exactly the opposite of what is needed to get kids to report abuse!

Knowing your kids, making sure your kids know they can come to you with anything, keeping them away from people/ situations that are actual threats, and teaching them about healthy relationships and sex is the best defense. Making it easier and less harmful to report offenders would be a good offense, in addition to continuing to jail and monitor dangerous offenders. Getting rid of the current registries (or at least changing what warrants posting) and the rules that make it impossible for past offenders to live as normal people would be a step in the direction of correcting wrongs committed in the name of “protecting the children”.

Sgtmom – Where did that come from? Did you read Staceyjw’s whole post? If you did, then we’re reading two completely different things, considering your response suggests you only read the first paragraph. You might want to go back and read her response again…