Child sex offenders: a dangerously ill-informed debate
|
The New South Wales Parliament last night voted to remove convicted child sex offender Dennis Ferguson from his home in Sydney’s Ryde. The law is a vigilantes’ charter. And worse than that, it represents a missed opportunity for a sensible rational policy discussion about how to resettle the hundreds of child sex offenders who are released from our prisons each year. The general community response towards sexual offending is predictably and rightfully censorious: sexual abuse has the well-demonstrated potential to wreak havoc with bodies, minds and lives. However, the panicked community and media mindset to this most complex form of criminal offending is counter-productive in terms of the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. And most importantly it may also militate against progress towards reducing the future incidence and severity of sexual offending. The dangerously ill-informed debate around Ferguson’s case, and that of many other cases in recent years across the country, demonstrates the need for there to be a nationally co-ordinated approach to dealing with child sex offenders and in educating the community. So what might the core elements of such an approach be? In other words, what steps should be put in place by justice and health authorities in dealing with a child sex offender who is completing his or her term of imprisonment? First, before the offender is released or immediately upon their release, there needs to be co-ordinated medical management by well-qualified specialists (psychiatrist, psychologist, general practitioner, social worker and/or other suitably qualified experts) who will conduct a thorough and expert s-xual risk assessment of the offender, together with a full medical examination and a mental health assessment to identify any excacerbating features such as depression or other forms of physical or mental illness. Together with any on-going rehabilitation needs being met, a safety plan is an expected component of community-based management strategies. The safety plan may include on-going medical monitoring and management, together with crisis facilities that afford timely access to specialist services as needed. Any close friends, partners or relatives may form a component of safety plans if appropriate. This may require those support people to themselves have attended for education about sexual offending and risk factors. Governments and community leaders, including the media, need to work to ensure that the community response to a released offender is characterised by empathy, a desire for understanding and a willingness to provide support and engagement. What is required for this to happen is for there to be a public education program to the complex issue of s-xual offending behaviours. The program must deliver the unambiguous message that stigmatising and vilifying rehabilitating individuals is anti-social behaviour that will mitigate against the rehabilitation process. And just as the media abides by protocols and laws in reporting around issues of race, for example, so they should be forced to do so in the case of child sex offenders. Descriptions of child sex offenders as “monsters” for example, needs to stop. Finally, given the fact that child s-x offenders have even less capacity to reintegrate back into the workforce than the average prisoner, financial planning, vocational support and suitable employment opportunities, where appropriate, need to be offered to offenders because this will enhance social interactions and their sense of value and purposeful contribution. The provision of stable and suitable housing within a generally supportive social community is naturally necessary for the proper and social functioning of the person re-integrating into the community. If we want to seriously reduce the opportunity for child sex offences, then our political leaders need to show much greater leadership than they have to date. A national scheme that addresses the triggers for reoffending while educating the community would be a good start in turning the corner. Greg Barns is a criminal lawyer and a director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. Wendy Northey is a forensic psychologist who practises in the criminal justice system in Victoria. |
|
|
|
82 Comments
Thanks Greg and Wendy. I wish everyone could just take a deep breath over this one.
Even for people who don’t agree with anything else written here, I think these two lines are ones that everyone should acknowledge:
Forget for the moment any argument about what rights Ferguson should or should not have - we are collectively acting against our own self-interest when we respond in the way that has occured in NSW (and before that in Queensland). The evidence is pretty clear that such responses increase the chances of reoffending occuring and further harm being done to children. So if we’re all as concerned about the children as we all profess to be, we should focus on what’s most likely to work, not what makes us feel better.
I know the vast majority of offences against children are by people known to the child, and more resources and genuine concern should be directed in this area. But people are rightly worried about the minority who attack children they don’t know.
But I’d rather know when such people are in my neighbourhood so I can be aware and keep an eye out for them (and I have known of former child sex offenders living in houses in my area) - it seems counter-productive trying to run them underground (or into the next suburb/town/state/country).
A further problem with the media coverage and portrayals is that it may well deter notifications of “en Famille” abuse, where a victim may well decide that they would rather live with the abuse than the destruction of their whole world by a media circus and the monstering of the perpetrator who may well be the major income earner for the family, and provider of whatever other security, house, food etc that the family have.
Well look the trouble with this piece no matter how well intentioned accurate or wise is that you’ve got a gigantic conflict of interest. Everything you say might be right but you make your living in part working for, or representing such offenders and get paid either direct or via legal aid or such like. No criticism for that, we embrace an adversarial system and first cab rank rule for lawyers, and maybe medical experts.
The trouble is in such a fraught debate the motives of the speaker need to be demonstrably unaffected, including perception. So the person speaking out publicly must have appropriate stature, transparent motive.
Defence lawyers lobby aren’t going to cut it when it comes to the safety of one’s own little children or related. Not in a million years. I refer in particular to the first author noting on abc radio news recently that he has such clients as a credential for speaking with expertise. Noted but not sufficient. And I know there’s a reference to The Lawyers Alliance - which I’ve never heard of - so maybe some clarification on that might be called for too.
Again not to say the above is wrong but unhelpful sourcing really.
Andrew Bartlett, you say these two sentences are the core truth in the article:
“However, the panicked community and media mindset to this most complex form of criminal offending is counter-productive in terms of the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. And most importantly it may also militate against progress towards reducing the future incidence and severity of s*xual offending.”
Some things are inherently complex, others are only made so by lawyers. Child mol*sting is not inherently complex.
A person who finds himself (or herself) to be s*xually oriented as a pa*dophile has two choices:
(1) become celibate and find harmless outlets, seeking professional or spiritual help if necessary;
(2) mol*st children.
When a person is found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of going down the second road, he has made his choice. A decent libertarian justice system would, at that point, seek a humane way to prevent him from ever having the opportunity again for the rest of his life. In the same way that some driving offenders or sports cheats are given a lifetime ban.
I disagree with you TOM but agree with the other sentiments. I think the fact that Greg Barnes has represented sex offenders probably gives him an insight into the problem. Who else in the community DOESN’T have a vested interest? Of course we’re all concerned about the safety of children, everybody’s children, and we need people like Greg and Wendy to contribute to the debate, as we need people like Andrew Bartlett, with his also wide experiences. My input, as a caring human being, with young grandchildren who I obviously want to protect, want the present media hysteria and politicians reflex actions to cease - they don’t help anyone, certainly not those who they boast are the most important - kids!
The whole justice system in this state(NSW) if not the whole country is slanted in the wrong direction. We need to broaden the debate to, how can we best remove the sex offender from the community, until all the points raised in this article are explored and acted upon, so as to hopefully remove the possibility of re-offending.
We need to decide as a community what our priorities are. If they’re just the ‘throw him in jail to rot’ mentality, we’ll still be having this discussion in 10 years time, and still be at the same place.
Today I heard of a report that states, that young people who’ve been imprisoned have the same chance of re-offending as those who are not given a custodial sentence - all it does then, is to keep the jails overflowing at great cost to the rest of us, but doesn’t provide any deterrents - either through education, raising of self esteem, attention to drug, alcohol or mental health problems, and there’s no real attempt to provide support, guidance and supervision after they’re released. In short, our taxes are being spent, (several hundred dollars a day per detainee) just helping young people learn more criminal skills? Not what I want to see! It seems to me, that State govts have neglected those with mental health issues, and handed them over to the prison system. 80% of people in jail are either mentally ill, have an addiction problem and a low education standard!
The overwhelming view re sex offenders, is what is canvassed here - if we reject them, harass and bully them, we only cause them to re-offend. Sounds pretty stupid to me. As Andrew Bartlett said, I too would want to know where they lived, so I could protect my grand kids when in my care, but what about the ‘bloke next door’ (I’m not being sexist, overwhelming number of offenders are male)or, as I said yesterday, the two males who molested me were trusted by the family - they weren’t ever bought to justice. (I ‘sqealed’ on one, and my parents intervened - immediately)We also need to stop the Family Law Court forcing mothers to send their kids to their abusive fathers each weekend or whenever - if necessary, we need to get those judges off the bench. I’ve heard of some pretty horrific situations from social workers etc, and read some too. Horrendous!
This may sound a bit off, but here goes; why are adult males attracted to kids? Is it due to some sexual trauma they suffered, a ‘glitch’ in their brain or what? There are men who were physically and/or sexually abused as kids but grew up to be loving, gentle and caring partners and fathers. Does anyone really know? Perhaps this is where the education process should start. My automatic response is to be repulsed, as are most people, but if we want to improve this country/world for kids, then we should discuss every facet of the situation. The attitude of some of the residents living near Denis Ferguson via making ‘coffins’ and other devises that represent violence is childish, stupid and doesn’t solve a thing. I’ve given up on the idea, that politicians in NSW will act like responsible adults. The ‘I’m tougher on crime than you are’ mentality is predictable and equally stupid! All they’ve done is create a situation, where they stupidly think the solution, is to hand jails over to private companies, and build more of them - just like the US.
How about a decent haircut and clothes - the poor man looks quite frantic - give him a break he’s paid for his crime and is not likely to rise to the occasions again.
JC
Michael Crook: a good but flawed argument. A child reporting inc*st has more to fear from a vengeful offender who gets off lightly than from the total permanent removal of the offender from the child’s life.
Greg, Wendy, as a pair that might be expected to be if not experts then well informed on such a difficult issue, that you write s-x and s-xual and seemingly can’t actually bring yourselves to write SEX or SEXUAL is quite frankly worrying. Can only presume you are either both 8 years old and incredibly articulate (and snigger a lot) or are from some puritanical religeous (presumably American) sect that believes ‘to say it is to do it’. Either way, imploring the public for empathy for SEX offenders while not being able to write the wicked word yourselves leaves your credibility as convincing as the testimony of said serial SEX offender.
Tom, that’s not squeamishness, it’s a measure to get past email filtering. To quote the Crikey newsletter: “Crikey is not prudish but we reserve the right to censor w-rds which could draw the attention of over-zealous corporate spam filters and prevent the daily email reaching your inbox.”
Liz, as a society in which whole libraries are written on jurisprudence, we’ve never even defined the reasons why we send anyone to prison.
What would you say to this:
(1) introduce Restorative Justice Conferencing as the first sentencing option to be considered in all but the most dangerous categories of criminal charges;
(2) With a much reduced prison population, change prisons into decent, safe, respectful and even (gasp) pleasant places as much as possible, for the sole purpose of preventing inmates from doing any further harm either inside or outside the prison. That means no more turning a blind eye to pack r*pe for example.
(3) The most demonstrably dangerous classes of offender never to leave the prison until they die.
“Tom, that’s not squeamishness, it’s a measure to get past email filtering. To quote the Crikey newsletter: “Crikey is not prudish but we reserve the right to censor w-rds which could draw the attention of over-zealous corporate spam filters and prevent the daily email reaching your inbox.””
James. it’s also a display of laziness with a touch of Crikey’s latent prudery. If the webmaster responsible took the initiative, he could easily make this idiotic “measure” an opt-in alternative, instead of making the filtering compulsory to protect…
Say, haven’t we seen this before somewhere else?
Vortex: Yes, but Crikey is also an email newsletter which has to get through the mail filters of subscibers’ employers’ mail servers. Both of them.
Well, I’m just going to come right out and disagree with Greg and Wendy (and prepare for the flaming!). I, too have worked in the criminal justice system, though in NSW, and would like to call Greg and Wendy on their use of terms such as ‘rehabilitation’ of child sex offenders, and their ‘reintegration’ into the wider community. There are a number of recent studies (sorry but I’m too lazy to look them up!) which indicate that child sex offenders are the most likely of all category of offenders to reoffend. The figure is anywhere between 70% and 90% depending on what you read, but most studies stick with around 85%.
That being said, Greg and Wendy also talk a bit about preparing child sex offenders for release through testing, counselling, risk-assessments and so on. I know in NSW most of what they mention is done. But the majority of child sex offenders do not believe themselves to be in need of any rehabilitation and refuse to participate in sex offender courses or counselling while imprisoned. Ferguson is one of these individuals. In fact, pedophiles often do not see anything wrong with their behaviour and view it, rightly I suppose, as a sexual orientation on par with any other, and advocate for the legalisation of sex with children. Many child sex offenders serve their full term in prison as they refuse to undergo sex offender ‘rehabilitation programs’ as required by the terms of their parole.
Greg and Wendy are right in that pedophilia and the treatment of individuals who are sexually attracted to children is incredibly complex. Two almost polar opposite sets of human rights are in play and there is really no way to resolve the problem to everyone’s satisfaction. Running child sex offenders out of town over and over is a ridiculous and unsustainable way to deal with the issue, and I’m disappointed the NSW Government has chosen this path, though hardly surprised. But I think we need to be careful how we deal with child sex offenders and, while hysteria is useless, caution is wise.
I have dealt personally with a number of pedophiles through my work, as have Greg and Wendy, but I look at them as sharks rather than victims. They are hardwired to be attracted to children, predatory by nature and will use any opportunity when it presents itself to get their sexual needs met. Whether that be by looking at child porn, or abusing a child, or talking with other pedophiles about their ‘adventures’, it is a need they must satisfy some way. Let’s not pretend we can fix them - that would be buying into the ‘anti-gay’ movement’s way of thinking and a very Clockwork Orange approach in the end. (Please do not for a moment think I’m comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, they are two entirely different concepts. One involves consenting adults, for starters.)
Yes, Ferguson needs somewhere to live, as do all child sex offenders, and Greg and Wendy are right, as is Andrew - there are already thousands living in the community anyway. In NSW, at least, they are monitored fairly carefully and their privacy is respected as a general rule. But your garden variety child sex offender is NOT Dennis Ferguson. And I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to live in a capital city where his movements can simply meld into the general hustle and bustle. This is a farce that should have been avoided by the sort of careful planning Greg and Wendy talk about BEFORE Ferguson was released. Too late for this sort of crap knee-jerk reaction the NSW Government seems unable to help itself having.
Vortex: I get this at work as an email and I’d never see it if they didn’t censor it this way.
from the court transcripts…
“…When Ferguson opened the door on Unit 16 at the Albion Motel that night, he was nude, had an erection, had Vaseline on his hand, buttocks and anus, while a naked six-year-old girl lay on a bed behind him, asleep – Vaseline smeared over her vagina. Two brothers, seven and eight, were asleep on a double bed…”
…and from this ‘article’:
“…Descriptions of child sex offenders as “monsters” for example, needs to stop…”
Really. Why?
Justify your ridiculous statement.
James McDonald and Nadia David — how are the remedial reading classes coming along?
I said that the filter should be opt-in for those who want it (i.e. not compulsory), not that it should be eliminated entirely.
James. er thanks I think. Apologies for having introduced a seemingly significant tangent to a serious debate. That said, that s-x gets past nanny and sex does not should be proof enough for anyone that attempting internet censorship is a big a waste of time and money as say trying to rehabilitatate SERIAL s-x offenders.
Nadia, just as a matter of interest, the header story with its s-x got through to you as did seemingly the following discussion with its sex? Not picking a fight or asking for clever but dull people to explain. Just point me at the right page in ‘internet filtering for dummies’ please.
Thank you MPM. That’s actually a quote from:
news(dot)com(dot)au(slash)couriermail(slash)story(slash)0,23739,23968372-5017590,00(dot)html
rather than the court transcript but it’s based on the facts and appears to be accurate.
Being a pa*dophile alone doesn’t make Ferguson a monster. Being both a pa*dophile and a sociopath or something similar, makes him a monster.
Vortex, the reading classes are coming along fine thanks. Come along next week if you like, we’ll be learning to parse combined possessives such as “subscibers’ employers’ mail servers”, as in, services where the recipient does not control the settings and so cannot opt out. Glad we had this little chat about such an important matter.
Tom: You can only post comments on the web version of Crikey and that’s the ‘sex’ version. The ‘s-x’ part is the email. So, I’m on the online Crikey now and can write sex sex sex sex bum tit fart all I like. Yippee!
Nadia and I have been learning these fun words in the remedial reading classes.
Wendy Northey: What is it about the child mol-ster that makes him unable to remember what happens when he gets caught? Everyone else in the community tries to exercise last minute restraint about indulging in their fantasies, yet the child mol-ster can’t seem to be able to do this. They know what happens when they are caught and go to jail. They will either be bugg-red witless and beaten up by all of the inmates or sent into solitary confinement for their own safety.
There must be thousands of men who fantasize about the beautiful bodies of childr-n. These same men don’t follow their fantasies into action. Why does this gap appear and what causes the mol-ster to step over it?
It sounds a terrible cliché but surely the sensationalism of the media has to be stopped. They too have a responsibility not to use the presence of a man like Ferguson to indulge in their own s-xual orgies.
James McDonald makes a comment about educating the community about s-xual offenders and their mol-sting of children. To which I would suggest that educating the shock- jocks and all parts of the media to cease m-sturbating in a s-xual extravaganza and whipping up the little old ladies into a frenzy has a prior need. Is this how these creeps get their jollies? Education should start with the media educating themselves to report that ‘citizen XYZ moved to neighbourhood CBA yesterday’, in a simple piece of news that allows concerned mums to complain, or not, with logic. Like most things in life this this sort of behaviour begins with attempting to be adult. The press deliberately set out to thrill the ten to twelve year old brain, they should try to attract the eighteen year old and upwards brain.
” …services where the recipient does not control the settings and so cannot opt out. “
The place where one should be able to opt in to a filter is on one’s profile page at Crikey. It has nothing to do with one’s work mail servers. And it is an important matter that a paper that purports to tell the real news cripples the language delivered to all of its readers when only a few percent work behind filters.
An opt-in to filtering button on one’s profile would not be difficult for Crikey to implement and would greatly improve the reading experience for the majority its audience.
“of its audience.”
What makes sensible debate about some moral panic issues impossible is fear which overloads the lizard derived parts of the human brain. If sexual attraction to children were really extremely rare one would not see so many people criticizing the Government’s actions and then saying words to the effect of “I hate child molesters as much as any decent person BUT…….”. Why the need to insert such statements unless they have a fear which may be conscious or unconscious that saying anything in support of rights for sex offenders might lead someone to think “I bet you are one of them”.
Of course the logic of any witch hunt in the early stages until quite late in its progress is that anything less than fervent support for the hunting of witches attracts suspicion. However in the case of this issue I think there is more involved and table as proof the ideal female body shape as epitomized by anorexic fashion super-models trying to maintain their sub-adult figures. At what age do models begin their careers? Until recently careers were launched at ages as young as twelve. Fashion is about marketing clothes for women that make them attractive to men, so the body shape of models is an indication that far more men than would like to admit it are attracted to females below the age of consent.
Up until at least the nineteen sixties society’s reaction to allegations of child sexual abuse was fervent denial to protect respectable men from wicked lying children, “Mr X could not possibly have done such a thing” etc …. For an example of this a recent episode of the TV detective series “George Gently” on ABC1 about 3 weeks ago serves as an illustration. Then sometime between the nineteen seventies and the eighties the switch was thrown to witch hunt mode, and the rules became always believe the children if they say they have been abused and if they deny it keep questioning them until they give the right answers that agree with what the questioners already know is true. This resulted in some crazy convictions of child care workers in America some of which were finally overturned relatively recently when evidence of the brainwashing techniques used in questioning children in these cases came to light (Other just as wrongful convictions remain in effect). There were also cases of mad or evil psychiatrists locking people up in mental asylums until they recovered memories under hypnosis that they were subjected to satanic sexual abuse by their families who were Satanic Royalty or until their health funds stopped paying, whichever came first.
What happened is not that society when from irrational behaviour to rational, but rather from one kind of irrationality, denying the evidence to another type of irrationality, the witch hunt believe the evidence no matter how absurd.
Their are currently running 3 main moral panic issues, illegal drugs, terrorism and child sexual abuse. I call these witchcraft issues and they are all useful to those who want to promote authoritarian government and the winding back of civil and human rights.
I propose an index the witchiness index to characterize the extent to which a witchcraft issue arouses fear that distorts debate. Currently child sexual abuse and terrorism are vying for the top spot. The use of mind altering substances other than alcohol, nicotine and caffeine used to be much higher in witchiness than it is now. A disturbing amount of rationality is entering the debate on illegal drugs and rendering the drug war less useful in maintaining and advancing ethnic and social hygiene. Ever since Richard Nixon started the drug war as a counter attack on the civil rights movement it has been successful in preventing blacks and poor people achieving the American Dream of upward social mobility, but an unfortunate intrusion of rationality is threatening to end it. One does not hear opponents of drug prohibition saying things like I hate drug users and traffickers as much as any other decent person BUT.
TheEvilOne, I don’t normally question people’s motives in these threads, but I’m going to make an exception with you and all your talk of witchhunts, war on drugs, ephemeral panics of the moment, using a 2007 TV drama as evidence of 1960s community standards, and generally trying to represent child abuse as a media beat-up with little substance.
Are you just amusing yourself for your own entertainment at the expense of people worried about children’s safety and human rights, or do you have other motives? Have you ever heard of NAMBLA?
I’m fairly sure paedophilia is not a “sexual orientation”, any more than murder is a genetic flaw; it’s just a crime. This is the kind of mischaractisation that is really distorting this debate.
Beyond that; OK, perhaps this guy should have been put in jail for life. I don’t know. But he wasn’t, and now he has to live somewhere. So what’s your solution? I haven’t seen any from you. The only thing I’ve seen is “I don’t care where he lives” (as long as it’s near someone else, right? Very sociable.)
James.
If I cared about people questioning my motives I would not write what I write.
The fact is that motives don’t matter what matters is whether what is written is sense or nonsense. Witches and witch hunts are not mutually exclusive they can both exist and do both exist.
Drama and literature are useful for illustrating issues in human affairs. The George Gently drama was made in 2007 but I believe that it serves as a good illustration of nineteen sixties attitudes and social dynamics re child abuse. Did you see that episode? If you did not see it it may still be available on abc.net.au/iview. If you did see it I refer you to the justifications the murdered man’s wife gave for not doing anything, the attempt by the chief constable to close the Gently’s inquiry down to prevent embarrassment to the community and Gently’s final decision that putting the victims through the ordeal of a court case would not be justified.
As to whether I am amusing myself, I adapted the handle that I use after much meditation I enjoy prodding society at the points of maximum anxiety, may be this is because I am really a troll or maybe it is because I am trying to point out blind spots where fear is preventing rational consideration.
The wars on drugs and terrorism are also truly also witch hunts. If you do not follow the illegal drug issue I suggest that it is worth monitoring at sites such as Pete Guither’s Drug War Rant http://druglaw.typepad.com/drug_law_blog/.
If the link does not work at the moment try again, I just tried it and got an empty page. Also ABC2 on Tuesday now hat the HBO series “The Wire” which is an excellent analysis of how the dynamics of drug prohibition and its partial, selective discriminatory enforcement wreck the lives of poor coloured Americans.
James.
You have permission to question my motives, but please ask yourself what your questioning of my motives says about your own.
Correction to my previous post, the link I posted as to Pete Guither’s blog was to another blog, The Drug Law Blog which apparently no longer exists.
The correct address for Drug War Rant is http://www.drugwarrant.com/.
TheEvilOne: Sorry lady/sir, you’ve made a total furphy re your comments about female models retaining their sub-adult bodies to titillate men is a total crock. And fashion is nothing about aiding men’s er-ctions, at all at all. All fashion designers, although they wouldn’t admit it, would prefer to have their haute fashion displayed on coat hangers. The problem being that coat-hangers don’t walk. The next best thing being anorexic young ladies.
That you assume that womens’ fashion is to entice and corrupt the male of the species is an even greater crock. The aim of female fashion is quite simply to encourage other women to go to a designer. Men don’t even enter the equation.
If this part of your comment was so very wrong I have to believe the whole comment was misinformed.
James McDonald: Please, what is NAMBLA; or aren’t I old enough to be let into the secret?
Cheers
V
Joal, I thought I did propose a solution earlier this afternoon (11th post in this thread). It may not be a very good solution, but it’s a bit rough to say I didn’t try. And I didn’t say I don’t care where he lives, I said they “must never be given the chance to harm children again. I wouldn’t care how this is achieved; give them mandatory life exile to a tropical island resort with ten golf courses, for all I care.”
Your point about p*edophilia being the practice not the orientation is another matter. I was using the dictionary definition. I’m not versed in the finer points of what gets different people through the night.
I recommend this website http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/testimony.html for some solid information by a very credible source who’s made a lifetime study of the subject.
Interesting reading in this context is the recent article from the Independent ‘How Jessica’s Law turned Antioch into a paedophile ghetto’ - ‘Antioch is one of the few places in California where convicted sex offenders can legally reside. Was the strain of monitoring them all too much for the local police?’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-jessicas-law-turned-antioch-into-a-paedophile-ghetto-1780287.html
The point of Jessica’s Law being that sex offenders have to live a certain distance from schools etc … Antioch is where Jaycee Lee Dugard was kept in a backyard for nearly 20 years. Laws made for the best of intentions sometimes have unexpected and unwished-for consequences.
Yeah let’s classify all people accused of and convicted of child molestation as ‘monsters’ in order to satisfy our own lust for being terrified by the ephemeral, horrifying ‘other’. It’s much safer for everyone to be convinced that child molesters only exist as stereotypical creatures from nightmares rather than face the uncomfortable truth about child abuse.
I mean this was the point of the original statement in the article, but various commentators here have twisted it into a statement of apology for the antics of child abusers. Yes MPM/JamesK, what Ferguson did was disgusting and horrible, how insightful of you! I’m literally waiting with bated breath for your next amazing contribution to the debate!
And if people are actually worried about NAMBLA, who are literally a living punchline, they need their heads examined.
For all our sakes, let’s think of the impact such heinous acts have on innocent, unprotected children. Surely their rights and safety are paramount. The undeniable fact is that children’s lives are seriously if not permanently injured by pederasts.
Daniel, in a society that really wants to embrace enlightenment, it’s very easy for people like Barns and Northey to take a high ground and play to the myth that every behaviour can be dealt with by compassion and therapy.
In many cases they would be right. For example the way we deal with illicit drug offences is mediaval. If we provided safe, high quality drugs and therapy to bona fide addicts we could undercut and close down much of the illicit drug business. Another example is routine imprisonment of Aboriginals on minor “trifecta” charges. And in fact there is a whole range of offenders who come out of prison angry and damaged and far more dangerous than when they went in. A huge number of these could be much better dealt with by Restorative Justice Conferencing (look up John Braithwaite, a giant in the field) than by detention and dehumanization.
Child molesters are a not one of those categories. In our eagerness to distance ourselves from the rabble, it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of underestimate the evil intent that goes into r*ping a child and the train of destructive consequences that ensues.
James.
You say:-
“Daniel, in a society that really wants to embrace enlightenment, it’s very easy for people like Barns and Northey to take a high ground and play to the myth that every behaviour can be dealt with by compassion and therapy.
In many cases they would be right…….. Child molesters are not in one of those categories “.
You criticize people for being too eager to distance themselves from the rabble, have you not considered that your own implication that child molesters can not be rehabilitated is an attempt to maximize your perception of the difference between them and “normal people”, of your own need to distance yourself from them.
The possibility of rehabilitation makes you uneasy because it implies the converse, that apparently normal people could go the other way.
Psychobabble.
I’ve got a psychobabble theory of my own: people with something to hide, either from themselves or others, do not voluntarily use their own name in a forum where pseudonyms are common practice and perfectly acceptable.
And yet, it is easy to find at the bottom of a letter I recently had published in Crikey, that I live in Annandale NSW. And I am in the phone book.
Those readers who are sick of my ranting and would like to read some really informed opinion by a giant in this field, please see www(dot)vachss(dot)com(slash)av_dispatches(dot)html
First of all congratulations AshenBalthazar, you’ve strung several sentences together and even paragraphs. Phew! Amazing progress despite that still improbable quality horizon.
The question Dannyboy is and please…. no namby-pamby…. do you agree that NAMBLA are vermin?
I haven’t give up hope for you but for God’s sake help me here….
James McD.
There are reasons for using one’s own name in blog posting and there are reasons for using a pseudonym. Some blogs don’t like pseudonyms at all.
Reasons for using one’s own name:-
1/ Desire to be be contactable by phone;
2/ Belief that using one’s own name adds credibility.
3/ Posting on a blog that does not encourage pseudonyms.
Reasons for using a handle:-
1/ Desire to avoid too much personal information on the web;
2/ Desire to indicate a particular persona indicated by the chosen pseudonym.
I have switched from favouring the first to preferring the second.
Since on the web no one knows that one is a dog, it does not really matter. The credibility or lack thereof of each post come from the argument in the post and only that. I chose the pseudonym I use on those blogs to indicate a certain persona as I like saying things that make people uncomfortable.
NAMBLA are irrelevant. They’re a complete joke. Why should a lobby-group for child molestation be taken even the slightest bit seriously? They’re only a danger if you think their views have currency in the wider community, and the events from the past few weeks has reinforced the fact that they do not.
So my first guess was right, and you’re just amusing yourself at our expense. By the way, note that I did not criticise the use of a pseudonym, and yet you defended it.
James McD.
Your first guess was partly right, I am amusing myself at your expense but not just amusing myself at your expense.
Sometime I argue the exact opposite of what I actually believe using weapon of mass destruction level sarcasm so as to avoid any chance of being accused of political correctness but I am not doing so on these Crikey threads. There is method in my madness, I believe that things that arouse extreme anxiety are keys to blind spots in the thinking of individuals and society of which they participate. Some may be insulted but others may examine why the things I say make them uneasy. The arguments I am making here is one that I believe very strongly to be valid.
If one participates in the blogosphere one must develop a thick skin. I must admit that I would not be comfortable in being so blunt if a conversation in the real world, I would probably try to express the same arguments in a way less calculated to irritate.
James McD.
OK I am only an amateur psychologist, but I spend a lot of time trying to work out how people think and flatter myself that I have some valid insights.
Regards and Apology for any offense The EvilOne.
Fascinating. Anyway, about child molesters, I don’t know if I was unobservant earlier or if the Moderator (blessed be her name) released it much later, but Nadia David posted a really interesting piece here at 5pm, which then got buried by our bickering. Much better than the original article. Worth a read.
James McD.
I think what happens is that an automatic word filter detects certain words and places posts that contain them on a queue to be examined later by a moderator. The moderator may not review posts in this queue for a long time. A moderator may either delete the post completely or release it for publication.
The Nadia David post is good. I have heard contradictory thing about the ability or otherwise of pedophiles to be rehabilitated. Some people say they are the least likely to reoffend and others the opposite. This may be a case of people saying what they want to be true or it could be that some are talking about different subsets of convicted pedophiles.
I am convinced that there is a strong stream of anxiety in this society that causes many to want to pedophiles to be as different as possible from non pedophiles, the idea that sex offenders can be rehabilitated implies that there is too little difference and implies that the converse may occur.
So, from either point of view, what is the alternative to deal with paedos? Lock them up for ever? Chase them from town to town on Australia as part of the nightly news?
And which option will show that the guards have more compassion than the inmates?
“…So, from either point of view, what is the alternative to deal with paedos?
Make them seek treatment.
To seek sexual gratification through the molestation of children - even the procurement of child pron - is a neuro-psychological disorder.
Is Ferguson getting any intensive post-prison treatment for this illness?
This should be a mandantory minimum priority.
And Daniel, you’re babbling again.
Well the Moderator (praise be to the Moderator) has not yet released my answer to Joal yesterday, maybe the hyperlink’s the problem.
Joal, I did at least attempt to suggest a solution, in the 11th post in this thread.
And no one here has said “I don’t care where he lives”, including me.
As to your question of p*edophilia being an orientation or a crime, the dictionary definition refers to s*xual orientation, but the TheEvilOne believes the rest of us are kidding ourselves.
For some facts to spice up all this opinion, see Nadia’s post above, and also www(dot)vachss(dot)com/av_dispatches/testimony(dot)html
James McDonald.
One thing that members of species homo sapien sapiens are very good at is kidding themselves.
If you want to be notified when new posts become available tick the check box below the comment box which subscribe to email notification of new posts. Your email program should beep as new messages arrive. The box disappears once you post a comment with it ticked and is replaced with a manage your subscriptions link.
If you want to post working links in your posts, use the anchor tag. The anchor tag is of the form [a href=”http://url_of_target_web_page”]Text to be displayed as link[/a] with the exception that you use angle brackets instead of square brackets. angle brackets are otherwise known as the mathematical less than and greater than signs.
James McDonald.
To contact the moderators email to boss@crikey.com.au. It worked for me.
Thanks EvilOne. Mainly I just want people to check out the other side of this controversy in places like
www(dot)vachss(dot)com/av_dispatches/testimony(dot)html
and to expose the dangerous hocus-pocus in the Barns/Northey article that started this thread. Not that I blame Greg Barns, he is a legal advocate and has a legitimate role to play representing one side of a bigger debate. But Wendy Northey as a psychologist has a professional obligation to uphold scientific truth.
Now the article refers to “this most complex form of criminal offending”, which is something high-paid professionals would always like you to believe, and goes into great length about rehab and other measures to reduce the risk of recidivism. But Nadia makes it clear these measures do not work and the recidivism rates are overwhelming. Both of them can’t be telling the truth.
So I question Wendy Northy’s scientific integrity, and I call for her to explain in more detail exactly what sort of services she provides for the criminal justice system in Victoria.
JAMES MCDONALD & THEEVILONE: Would the pair of you continue your love affair off the screen, other people wish to comment.
BTW TheEvilOne: You make such sweeping statements. The reason I use my name, and I’m by no means unique, straight after getting my computer, before knowing how it worked, I jumped straight into commenting. Being a truthful sort of person I wrote down my name.
By the time I learned something about the machine it was too late to do anything about it.
JAMES MCDONALD: I asked you what NAMBLA meant. If it is something superficial please tell me. If it’s deadly serious, please spare me.
Vortex: Many of the Crikey stories on the website are authored in a separate system for the daily subscriber email and republished to the website once it is sent.
Thus, for the time being, we’re stuck with filtered words (necessary for the email) on the website version of these stories. This process will change in the near future, and I am hoping it will allow the email to be filtered entirely independently of the website.
Thanks.
Venise Alstergren.
In what way James McDonald and and my comments prevent you or other people from commenting? If you do not think that a person has anything worthwhile to say you are free to look at the posters identity and avoid reading the post.
Yes I make sweeping statements, is there anything wrong with that, I don’t always believe the statements that I make but I always believe that reasonable arguments can be made in support of them.
About using one’s own name on the web, I am beginning to get uneasy about it after seeing reports of face book users having their identities stolen because they released too much information. Have you noticed the questions businesses use to verify identity when one contacts them by phone. They are not things that would present very much difficulty to another person wanting to find them out for the purpose of identity theft. After getting into a couple of flame wars on another blog. Someone took offense at my suggestion that extra-terrestial aliens would be completely justified in carrying out complete specieside of the human race in order to prevent us getting into space and doing the same to them. Some people are oversensitive. My advice would be use a handle on any new sites that you join unless it is a site that discourages pseudonyms. One is more or less stuck with the names one’s parents gave one, but on the web one is free to choose a pseudonym that better reflects the impression one wants to make. I chose my handle because I have an extreme dislike for people who are so certain that they are right, that they can read the mind of God and act as his regents on Earth. The only reason that I am not a devil worshipper is that I am an atheest,
I have heard of NAMBLA or something similar a couple of times before. I think it stands for Australian Man Boy Love Association. Google is valuable when you want to find out the meaning of such strings of alphabet soup, there are plenty of acronym decoder sites on the web.
James McDonald.
I got a 404 error when I attempted to use the link that you postedhttp://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/testimony.html/.
Venise: NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. It is a lobby group that calls for pa*dophile relationships to be legitimized in community attitudes and in the law. NAMBLA always claimed to be part of the gay liberation movement but the gay community disowned them. In its heyday, it was a flagship for a large number of similar organizations that all have one thing in common: strident sophisticated advocacy for the view that there is nothing wrong with adults having s*x with small children, and that future more enlightened laws will recognize this.
Evil one, remove the final slash and dot from the address, it just ends with “html”
Re: James McDonald 25 September 2009 at 12:59 am.
I agree and kudos to Nadia David. His/her post was indeed better and more informative than the article.
Rats are God’s creatures but in wild and in numbers they spread disease. All paedophiles were themselves child victims. In the end we work on personal responsibility or we don’t work. Vermin is a good word and paedophiles must be kept away from harming. Other means specifically encouraging reporting of abuse within families and ensuing intervention are also needed in order that the cycle be finally broken.
Ugly work but necessary to control this scourge.
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/testimony.html
Was Denis Ferguson charged with rape or molestation of those little cherubs? If it was rape, why the short sentence of only 9 years? Why was he allowed into NSW and why was he housed in a residential housing unit with kids close by? As someone else said, it’s been mismanaged from day 1. I know it’s supposed to be a democracy and you should be able to live where you like, but with all the evidence pointing to an offender being more likely to re-offend if they’re hunted down etc, it’s just too stupid for words? Typical NSW govt? There’s not a hint of common sense or care for anybody.
Today, Prue Goward is asserting, that people in another public housing complex should be turfed out due to unruly and at times violent behaviour. I think the rules are pretty clear already - if you breach the terms of your rental agreement you can be turfed out now, no reason to use this recent legislation; in fact, you can not only be turfed out, but also forced to pay the cost of cleaning up any mess etc.
A pity it took State govts so long to make perpetrators of domestic violence leave the home/unit etc, instead of the women and kids having to leave and start all over again - the costs next year are assessed as costing the country $13 billion, Australia wide. I don’t know if this includes re-settlement for the women and kids, health care and/or legal expenses etc. It’s getting worse, not better! All other crimes in NSW have decreased in recent years, but physical/sexual abuse of women and kids has increased.
I’ve just finished doing a survey on child abuse. They want as many people as possible to contribute. It’s at. http://www.survey.childabuseprotection.com.au On the NAPCAN website. I recommend everyone do it. If this info helps initiate better programs etc, then it will hopefully save many children from all forms of abuse!
Hi Liz, at 4:18pm yesterday you described challenge and at 4:40pm I attempted to answer it. Hardly Thomas Jefferson stuff, but still I would like to hear your opinion on it.
Liz45:
The legislation you refer to regarding turfing out public housing tenants who breach the terms of their tenancy agreement is rarely used in relation to child sex offenders, mainly because they don’t breach the terms of their agreement. This is why the NSW Govt had such a problem evicting Ferguson. He was, for all legal purposes, a law-abiding tenant. In fact, it’s hard to get turfed out of public housing in general and costs aren’t always sought re cleaning up (what’s the point when the tenants don’t have the means to pay?).
Interesting you should talk about the impact DV is having. And perpetrators are not always required to leave the home. In fact, it’s a decision for the magistrate as much as it ever was and is not always enforced. Many judicial officers do not understand DV, are not particularly well trained in the area, and see a complex issue relating to the right of the offender to a home that he pays rent/mortgage on rather than the short term issue of the safety of his partner and/or children. The $13 billion includes all the expenses you mention as well as lost earnings due to court dates and hospital admissions, mental health issues, repairs for housing, furnishings, cars etc, coronial and police investigations, child protection investigations….the list is endless.
And there is no evidence the physical and/or sexual abuse of women and children has increased. The reporting rate is slightly up for sexual and indecent assault, but this does not mean more assaults of this kind are occurring. Physical assault has not gone up markedly, but applications for AVOs or restraining orders certainly have gone up - from 12,000 to over 40,000 in NSW in the past 4 years from memory. Not sure if that means anything, since most of those are personal applications (between neighbours etc).
Lastly, Ferguson was convicted for raping 3 children as well as kidnapping of all 3. Your guess as to why he only got 9 years non-parole is as good as mine.
Nadia: “Your guess as to why he only got 9 years non-parole is as good as mine.” Maybe because the criminal justice system and particularly the corrective system is based on deterrence and “punishment fits the crime” — i.e. retribution — rather than harm minimization and the quest for maximum liberty for all. Judges then are rightly hesitant about sending a person, in effect, to hell for any longer than absolutely necessary. Deprivation of liberty is enough of a deterrent; prisons don’t have to be some sort of Ninth Circle.
THEVILONE: I see by your charm, wit, elegance and elan why you wish to use the nom de guerre of TheEvilOne.
I hate having to explain the bleeding obvious but I can see that your innate refinement requires it. My comment about you and James was meant to be a tad of levity.
Spare me the usual refrain of the pious “It’s no joking matter!”. When anyone who screams rape as often as, and as noisely as you do, a touch of humour tides me over until the next intelligent comment comes along
PPS: I wasn’t having a crack at James. He and I seem to get along alright. I was aiming at you. Why? Because you sound like one of those appalling women and ‘home birthing’ commenters.
James.
I have read the Andrew Vachss article. There is much in it with which I agree but his conclusions make me uneasy. He is a man who has stared into the worst parts of the pit of hell and is scarred by the experience.
It seems to me that the ability to see the truth in some arguments brings with it the inability to acknowledge any truth in counter arguments. The metaphor of “point of view” is very powerful in explaining human behaviour just as from a physical point some things are visible but behind them are things that can not be seen.
Humans tend to adopt a fixed point of view they do not metaphorically wander about to experience multiple perspectives.
Venise Alstergren
I have finally got around to responding to your comment of 24 September 2009 at 7:57 pm.
I think your tongue is in your cheek about the coat hangers. We will have to disagree on this. I believe that fashion designers are responding to womens’ beliefs about what they have to look like to be attractive to men and this is strongly affected by womens’ belief about mens beliefs about female beauty.
It is not my only argument, the other part which I omitted is this. A large part of the essence of beauty as perceived by humans appears to consist of eyes that appear large in relation to the face and smooth skin. These aspects are maximized in childhood.
Regards, Mr TheEvilOne.
No one’s asking you to agree with his every recommendation. But we are mostly ignorant on this critical, secretive subject, and Vachss has an extraordinary amount of solid and hard-won knowledge to share. See some of his other articles at http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches.html
JAMES MCDONALD - Sorry James, I’ve been busy! I read your answer to my comments and I agree with the points you made. It’s quite amazing, that on that morning I’d listened to a very intersting ex-policeman who’s been canvassing the wrongs of the judicial system that we have, in favour of your oint 1. It makes a lot of sense to me, as does the system re aboriginal offenders - it’s very effective I believe, and is hopefully keeping aboriginal offenders out of jail for minor crimes.
Restorative Justice Conferencing would seem to be the ideal. Let’s face it, the system we have now is not working. Too many people are re-offending. There’s a view in the justice/prison system that believes being incarcerated and losing liberty is not ‘good enough’? Prisoners need to be regularly bashed and treated as less than human. We’ve been led to believe that a prison term, losing liberty is the punishment, but it’s not so, otherwise, why are so many aboriginal men killed while in jail or on remand. Racism and the so-called justice system is like getting a death sentence for ‘smaller’ crimes. If anyone disagrees with this, they should read the Royal Commission’s Black Deaths in Custody report - horrific! Not one of the over 90 recommendations have been implemented?
NADIA DAVID - “And there is no evidence the physical and/or sexual abuse of women and children has increased.” I don’t think that’s accurate. While all other crimes in NSW have decreased, crimes of violence, including sexual violence(of women & kids) have increased - Australian Bureau of Stats, the National Crime Authority, and NSW stats - the reasons are debateable - it COULD be due to increased reporting, or it COULD be due to actual increases; either way, only about 10% of sexual assaults are reported, a small number make it to court, and a smaller number achieve a guilty verdict. The numbers of children who die each year in NSW has increased, so one could imagine that the numbers of assaults have also increased. A woman is murdered every 10 days in this country, and who knows how many kids?
The numbers of women over 45 who are abused have also risen, as has the violence towards aged people. We’re a bloody awful lot, that must be acknowledged.
“In fact, it’s a decision for the magistrate as much as it ever was and is not always enforced.” It’s not good enough for the decision to be made by a magistrate; that takes too long. The perpetrator needs to be removed at the time of the offence, and the protection of the woman and kids to be paramount. I believe that at last, legislation has changed in hopefully each state that protects the victims and not the perpetrator. It is acknowledged, that a child does not HAVE to be assaulted to be considered as being abused - even if a child witnesses physical or other forms of abuse(shouting etc) it’s rightly assumed that damage has been done. About time I say!
It’s been my experience, that when there’s about 4 women together, who trust each other, at least one of them will confide, that she has been physically and or sexually abused as a child and/or adult. I’m of a mature age, and I’m still stunned and shocked by this reality. It’s to our shame, that laws protecting women and kids have taken so long to grasp the horrors and the high incidence of violence they’ve had to and still are suffering; eg 20 years after leaving my husband(and divorcing) he still felt confident enough to threaten me with ‘making my life difficult’ by ‘I talk to many people’ if I spoke out against him and told my children the full story. His partner remained silent while this took place! Why is this? I’ve heard of women who take the husband’s/partner’s side when kids tell of their sexual abuse. I find this reprehensible! Children do not lie about being sexually abused - that’s a fact! I’ve read that one reason is, that if they acknowledge these crimes, they’ll have to leave the relationship. I wouldn’t have to decide who I’d support - it would be my kids every time!
We need a national education program about assault of all people, but particularly those of women and kids, as these types of crimes are committed by people they should be able to trust. We also need it to be part of every students’ education - the ‘ethics’ of being responsible; the way to solve conflicts; the belief that using violence for conflict resolution shows weakness etc. I used to tell my boys, that anyone can use their fists, it takes brains to solve problems, and I actively discouraged any type of physical violence between them - fighting was out - it wasn’t ‘manly’ at all! It’s heartening to learn, that there’s a program by White Ribbon Day, for an educational program in schools - I don’t know what ages it’s aimed at, but the earlier the better I believe. It’s an indictment on too many men, that they betray the trust and love given to them by the very people they continue to hurt.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the NSW govt used the Denis Ferguson situation, to commence an intelligent discusssion about this issue, instead of the infantile manner it’s adopted to date - only for political gain, certainly not out of concern, or to protect kids. Very sad indeed!
VENISE ALSTERGREN - I thought the fashion industry was going to bring in ‘laws’ re the ‘size’ of models. That very young women of 16 were not to be used as models with adult women, and the size of models would be on the ideal weight rather than the miserable and skinny women we see at the moment - I find it very disturbing and extremely sad. I wonder what damage these young women do to themselves by their obvious lack of nourishing food. Of course I’m not a bloke, but I’d have thought that men wouldn’t find these ‘stick’ women attractive - I’d have thought that they prefer ‘well rounded’ women to these anorexic figures. I’ll make a point of checking out the weekend paper (SMH)and complain if they’re still using women who look ill - to me anyway! Perhaps I’m being naive in thinking, that clothes designed for well proportioned women look better anyway!
TheEvilOne: Your comment re my coat hanger statement is as relevant as saying that because the bulk of clothes designers are male fagolas they have this desire to use anorexic females as a subliminal fantasy of turning women into little boys.
Now to really get down to business. Your remark about women enhancing, or enlarging their eyes in order to look like children (the implication being that serial rapists will be drawn to this, thus priming themselves to engage with the real thing) is one of the madder hypotheses I’ve ever encountered. Totally and completely spaced out; or is it wishful thinking? A way to enlarge on what was a suspect hypothesis to begin with.
Go back through history and you will see that women have been enlarging, with make-up, their eyes for the past six thousand years. When one looks at Egyptian history and art it is impossible not to notice the emphasis both sexes placed on their eyes.
A perfect example being Queen Nefertiti of Egypt 1350BC the bust of whom is in the Stratliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin (I realize there is debate about its authenticity). However much the Pharaonic habit of marrying their own sisters may lack appeal to twenty-first century mores, I doubt that serial rapists were tolerated in that society.
Finally; I don’t know what you’re smoking but gee I’d love to have some.
JAMES McDONALD: Thanks for answering my question. Only in a country which places so much emphasis on religion could such a movement begin. And, how sad that an attempt to break free of cloying religious fundamentalism could such a group of people endeavour to be different to the rest of the community than by nailing their flag to this sad and deviant association.
Hi Venise: I believe their main strength came from the First Amendment, the s*xual revolution, and a very large resourceful support base. Daniel’s insistence that NAMBLA has become an anachronism is close to the truth but it didn’t just happen; they were defeated in a long war of attrition by some very dedicated people.
TheEvilOne: Throughout history women, and sometimes men have emphasized their eyes. A stunning example being The wife of the Pharaoh Akhenaton in the fourteenth century BC, the ravishing Queen Nerfertiti. Egyptian art shows men and women with extravagant eye make up. I’m sure they weren’t aware they were posing as potential victims of serial rapists. Certainly not the unfortunate Nefertiti who bore her husband ten daughters.
BTW The fashion industry is dominated by male gays. One could also make out a case that these men wish to make women look as much like young boys as possible. I’m not stating this as a personal opinion, but it is one of the madder stories which goes around the traps from time to time.
LIZ45: I’m sorry to disillusion you but all industries have a PR arm which makes up a lot of their stories. Even if 16 year old girls were banned from modeling in Oz they would still do it in places like Russia and places closer to home. If a girl from Oz looked great at 14 she would merely have to go overseas to get work.
I agree that some of them look like concentration camp victims but sometimes very tall models can be naturally thin no matter what they eat, so it’s very hard to be dogmatic and short of putting a monitor on them, who is going to know how much they eat? Also most of them smoke which eats up the calories enormously.
The make-up is designed to look hollow-cheeked, all in all the Belsen Bergen look is and, has been in for ages.
Don’t forget being a model is a highly sought after job, so it’s not as if they are being made to do it. BTW men tend to want to be with someone glamourous and if the glamour entails bedding an escapee from Auschwitz, so be it. That’s men!
James: I can’t comment anymore as I’m being edited out at every turn.
Venise.
When you say “edited out” do you mean that the moderators are snipping text from your comments and replacing it with the word “[edited]” or do you mean that they are going onto the awaiting moderation queue. This latter is triggered by the presence of certain problematical words that happen to be necessary for comment on this thread. If this is the case you will either have to follow James and use the dreaded asterisk to fool the nasty word detector or you will have to await the moderators. i suspect that Crikey is a week day operation.
Myself, I refuse to bow to a nasty minded program, I leave he words in and await the return of the moderators. It does slow the debate, but this really does not matter. Just put more thoughts into each message. Make each message a mini essay.
Hi Venise, do the edited comments have anything to do with religion? We’ll have a bit of a discussion some day soon about the merits or harms of religion. It’s probably best if we save that one for a different thread.
Hi James, that’s what got me confused. No they weren’t, I’ll be delighted to discuss the subject with you on a different thread. No, I was just pointing out to TheEvilOne that women have been enhancing their eyes for the past six thousand years. She/he was making the point that heavy eye make-up was to make women look like children.
Oh well, back to the salt mines.
Hi Venise Alstergren.
I read a lot and watch a lot of documentaries so my mind keeps collecting miscellaneous irrelevant facts the contents of which I remember although I cannot remember the sources. They may come from newspapers, magazines, the TV, websites or blogs but exactly where I forget.
The ideas that I have accumulated about beauty are like this. I can’t remenber exactly where I came upon them but these days there is Google so you can probably find them or equivalents with half an hour of Googling.
The attributes that assembled together can create what is perceived as beauty are:-
1/ Eyes that are large in respect to the face;
2/ Smooth skin;
3/ Unblemished skin, that is it is smoothly coloured without spots or wrinkles;
4/ Symmetrical features;
5/ Features which are close to the average of all faces.
On attribute number 5, it appears that the human brain keeps collecting images of faces and from them generates a template representing an average of all the faces that it has seen and then it identifies individual faces by remembering their deviations from this template. This is the basis of the cartoonists art. A cartoonist can produce a drawing which looks nothing like a particular person but which all who know the person will when looking at it immediately identify as that person. It seems that faces that are close to his average template are usually thought beautiful. It may mean that since they are so close in resembling the template they are easy to remember and identify and put less of a load on the brain functions necessary for identifying faces and this facility is appreciated as beauty.
You mention the bust of Nerfertiti with the heavy black outlines around the eyes. This outlining has the effect of making the eyes appear bigger than they actually are as also does blackening and thickening the eyelashes and use of cosmetics to colour the eyelids.
The point I was making that because children have eyes which are much larger in respect to their faces than do adults and have very smooth and evenly coloured skins they satisfy the criteria for physical beauty much more so than all but the most beautiful (1% to 5%) of adults. This may be one of the causes of pedophilia.
As for what drug I am using. I get off on posting angry diatribes in letters to the newspapers or posts on blogs. By the time I have finished a day of angry blog posting I am hyper aroused as if having drunk 40 cups of coffee, of course i can’t sleep that night and spend it dreaming up new and more powerful forms of sarcasm for my future rants.