Show Us Where The Angel Touched You, Jimmy
More children die every year drowning in swimming pools than in firearms accidents. Yet parents seem to get their panties in a wad when they find that the neighbors have a gun in the house, yet seem less concerned about "swimming pool control."
The point being that we've all gone way too far with the protecting children thing. Do you know what the odds are of your child being molested by an adult? They're infintesmal! But we're becoming ridiculous paranoids. As evidenced by this list of "traits" exhibited by child molesters. Hat Tip Dr. Helen
Hell, Kid Various embodies a number of these traits, and not only does he not want to shtup your kid - he doesn't want your kid to be anywhere around him! (Especially on an airplane)
So parental units - BEWARE....
Adults who seem preoccupied with children
Kid Various is preoccupied with children. Specifically, why are they always around him?
Single adults who work or volunteer with children's clubs/activities and frequently spend their free time doing "special" things with kidsAdults who spend time volunteering with youth groups who do not have children in those groups.
Kid Various isn't spending any of his spare time do-gooding for any little snot factories. However, God forbid we encourage anyone joining the Big Brothers program or something.
Adults who seem to engage in frequent contact with children, i.e., casual touching, caressing, wrestling, tickling, combing hair or having children sit on their lap
There's that fat, bearded guy with the red suit at the mall. He's got, like, 100 kids sitting in his lap. SEIZE HIM!!!
Adults who act like children when with children or who allow children to do questionable or inappropriate things
Kid Various acts like a child when children are around. Kid Various acts like a child when children are not around (to which his litany of girlfriends will attest.) And as far as inappropriate things go, if your children asked him "Could we have some chocolate cake for breakfast?" The Kid would probably respond, "Whatever does it for ya kid..."
Adults who want to take your children on special outings too frequently or plan activities that would include being alone with your child
Yes! Make sure your child is never out of your sight!
Adults who do not have children and seem to know too much about the current fads or music popular with children
Oh, is it too much to ask that anyone over 30 could possibly be hip? Kid Various is wearing his giant fucking pants around his ass right now!
Adults that your children seem to like for reasons you don't understand
Maybe because they're not total paranoid bitches and/or dickwads.
Adults who seem able to infiltrate family and social functions or are "always available" to watch your kids
YOU: Grandma? What are you doing here???
GRANDMA: Well, it's Thanksgiving and you invited me over...
YOU: SEIZE HER!!!
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! It really does pump up the site meter doesn't it?
Of course, due to being preoccupied with other current events, Kid Various didn't even notice for a day that we had been linked, and Mr. Surly and Mr. Scriblerus failed to "leverage" our new exposure. For anyone who still might be appearing here - we specialize in two different types of posts.
#1 - Thoughtful pieces about The War.
#2 - Humourous pieces on animal sex.
Please look around.
posted by Kid Various @ 10:54 AM
34 Comments:
You guys are absolutely hilarious! Thanks for the great post on the Oprah offender list--it is right on target.
"plan activities that would include being alone with your child"
While many of the rest are kind of silly, this trait is a good red flag. Almost nothing requires a lot of private time alone with a child - even something like tutoring can be done in a quiet but public place, such as a library.
Maybe that would explain why all those old men want to shower with my 18 year old daughter. Darn!
Enjoy the Instalanche!!
like paino teachers?
I remember being around 5 or 6 years old and my family had this really fun neighbor guy in his mid twenties that loved hanging out with my little brother and I. He would rough house with us and teach us silly songs. We had a blast and it was all completely innocent. He was just a big kid himself. So what? Looking back if that were to happen today, my parents probably would have been paranoid what with all the crap Oprah and her ilk have been shoveling down our throats the last decade, ie:MEN ARE EVIL! I think my brother and I truly benefited from having a grownup, besides our parents (who were too busy most of the time) give us that "special attention" that the scaremongers out there find so offensive.
You guys are true public serpents.
In the other direction, this could get some people to think child sexual abuse is really just little things. From one side, true, it's putting a single guy who just has a heart for kids in the same category as a guy who gets his jollies on by feeling up six-year-old girls, but from the other side, it's saying that a guy who gets his jollies on by feeling up six-year-old girls is no worse than a single guy with a heart for kids. That's the scary part, for me.
Adrianne:
I think you missed the point. Child abuse is definately to be taken very seriously and child molestors, in my opinion, should be shot. I think all the idiom boys were trying to say is that it's wrong to see every childless grownup as a child molestor just because they like being around kids. Next thing you know, they'll start locking the doors on churches at night. Say what? Oh, they already do. It's a sad paranoid world we live in thanks by and large to the media for sensationalizing every evil deed and letting all the good ones go forever unnoticed.
There's also something to be said for the creep factor. Sometimes, if some guy creeps you out hanging around all those kids all the time (like, oh, I don't know, maybe Michael Jackson), maybe you should just keep your kids clear of him. Better to be a little cautious than a lot sorry.
When I was a boy, there was a guy who was running for Selectman in our town, a small suburb of Boston. This guy would take a bunch of us kids in his convertable throughout the town, leafleting the neighborhoods for his campaign. Our parents were able to get a break and we were all seen as being with a respectable, single male.
Later this guy, who also babysat us, took me to the Cape one summer to stay at a cottage and go to the beach. My folks were dealing with some other family issues at the time.
I'll never forget Bill showing up in just a towel in the kitchen, asking me if I wanted to take a shower. I was really confused. What did he mean? Take a shower? Why is he in just a towel? Only my father does that (and not very often at that).
Later, Bill was hugging me on the couch and I could feel that he had an erection. I stayed awake in my room in the cottage all night, just watching the door.
Years later I told my folks this story. They thought I should refrain from pressing charges this late in the game and that I wouldn't be able to handle the emotional distress brought on by such a task.
Today, Bill is still single and principle of an elementary school one town over from where I live.
I wonder how many children he's tried to touch?
Not to be a simple devil's advocate, but Bill, from my story, met nearly all of the requisites on that linked Oprah list.
Dhun,
You're right, many offenders could be described by the characteristics on that list. However, it also describes many adult men who are not molesters. That makes the list at least worthless as a tool for parents, and at worst dangerous for easily mislabelling someone, or frightening men away from ever working with kids.
Oprah's list is no better than an astrology description: so vague as to apply to many people, and therefore meaningless.
"Oh, is it too much to ask that anyone over 30 could possibly be hip? Kid Various is wearing his giant fucking pants around his ass right now!"
Since when is it hip to wear pants to fuck giants?
We used to have a barber that all the kids called "Charlie the Hand". I'm not sure my parents, or any of the parents, ever understood why we called him that. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure we ever called him "Charlie the Hand" in front of our parents.
I'm pretty well adjusted, but at 49 years old, I still wait for a female barber to have an empty seat before I get my hair cut.
Thanks for this post, and thanks to Glenn for pointing a bazillion readers to it. I wrote almost the exact same blog entry when I first saw Oprah's list, but without the wit. I never got around to polishing it and posting it to my blog. Now I don't have to.
I meet almost every criteria on that list, yet am nowhere near being a molester. I am a certified soccer coach, licensed at a level higher than most college soccer coaches. But because I am not married, Oprah would have me put in jail for volunteering with the local youth soccer club.
I was in Big Brothers for years. As the blog entry pointed out, a couple of Oprah's bullet points combine to be the EXACT JOB DESCRIPTION for Big Brothers/Big Sisters. While I was a Big, the local chapter caught one of the Bigs doing naughty things to his Little. The Big was married with children. So much for Oprah's obsession with targeting singles.
Oprah was molested by family memebers when she was a child. 90% of all child molesting comes from family members. Yet, there are a couple places in her list where she specifically targets non-family folks.
Oprah is an idiot.
Tangentially related...
I live in Chicago, and on the local news yesterday EVERY SINGLE STATION had some segment telling how wonderful and god-like and generous and brave and saintly Oprah Winfrey is for doing this. What bothers me is there are people who chase, arrest and prosecute child molesters every day - it's their chosen job. I've never seen the media give such glowing reports, as given on Oprah Winfrey, of people who have been fighting child-abuse for years. Oprah is merely an attention hound and this is the hook for her new season. It is nice that she's getting a couple predators off the streets, but when you boil it all down - its all about Oprah.
I think Oprah should update her Child Predator Watch list to catch the 90% of offenders cited above:
Offender traits
1. Adults who are your Dad.
2. Adults who are your grandpa, brother, or uncle.
There are often no warning signs that someone has a sexual attraction to children. My ex-husband was a deacon in the church, respected businessman, apparently good father to our 2 kids...who was also downloading file after file of child porn. To this day many of his friends refuse to believe he really downloaded those pictures -- they think he must have accidentally done it!
Incidentally, the ex got all charges dropped because his lawyer argued that he wasn't the only one with access to the computer - both our kids (elem. school age) and myself also had access to the computer, so according to his lawyer the D.A. could never prove the ex did it.
It's a wonderful world we live in, where people get off scot free and then move through society looking like the wonderful person next door.
Quote:
"Dhun,
You're right, many offenders could be described by the characteristics on that list. However, it also describes many adult men who are not molesters."
This is true, yet this criticism could be equally applied to the profile/list that many of us accept for indentifying Muslim terrorists. This doesn't necessarily render the profile/list worthless as you suggest, rather it posits a starting point, albeit an imperfect one which may take some modification to improve it.
Quote:
"That makes the list at least worthless as a tool for parents, and at worst dangerous for easily mislabelling someone, or frightening men away from ever working with kids."
"Oprah's list is no better than an astrology description: so vague as to apply to many people, and therefore meaningless."
What you say here just isn't very pursuasive. Additionally, you may be undervaluing the caveat that appears before the list of traits which says....
"Be wary, but not paranoid, of adults who have one or several of these behaviors. These common traits of sex offenders should help you raise the red flag on inappropriate relationships between adults and your children."
Let's revisit the list....
>Adults who seem preoccupied with children
Sure, that's pretty vague and mostly useless.
>Single adults who work or volunteer with children's clubs/activities and frequently spend their free time doing "special" things with kids
I know a man who is a homosexual who has made innapropriate jokes about pre-pubescent boys genitalia. (oooh, hairless). This same man was a Big Brother for a young boy, who he never seemed to tire of projecting his homosexuality onto. His "joke" about pre-pubescent boys, combined with this relationship, to me, sounded risky.
>Adults who spend time volunteering with youth groups who do not have children in those groups
Vague, yes, but worth paying attention to. In my limited personal experience with pedofiles and my friends experiences all point to this as being a common trait.
>Adults who seem to engage in frequent contact with children, i.e., casual touching, caressing, wrestling, tickling, combing hair or having children sit on their lap
If my children were being touched by someone other than myself or my wife, then there would be a serious inquiry into why this adult felt they had permission to act in such a way.
Adults who act like children when with children or who allow children to do questionable or inappropriate things
> A man in my neighborhood whom we called "MonkeyMan" was very child-like and seemingly retarded. He once jumped out of a tree onto a girl in our neighborhood when we were playing hide and seek. He was easily identifiable as a person who had mental instability, but here he had this particular trait.
Adults who want to take your children on special outings too frequently or plan activities that would include being alone with your child
> In my personal experience, this is exactly what happened.
Adults who do not have children and seem to know too much about the current fads or music popular with children
> Same goes for my experience with this one.
Adults that your children seem to like for reasons you don't understand
> Sounds like a reasonable concern. Like the caveat before the list says, "Be wary, but not paranoid".
>Adults who seem able to infiltrate family and social functions or are "always available" to watch your kids
If I wanted to touch kids, I'd certainly be the always available babysitter.
I'm no Oprah fan and honestly haven't seen her since the 1980's. I'm not a sociologist nor am I a criminologist, just a man with an opinion on this topic. Overall this comments section has been mostly a disappointment in terms of the quality and depth of the analysis. This sort of pig pile on the target is more like what you might find at DailyKos.
I expected more from an Instapundit link.
"pedophile". mispelled it. Doh!
Doesn't the childless Oprah spend a lot of time hanging around with orphans in Africa? Is she taking advantage of kids whose parents arn't there to protect them? Hmmmmm.
The only way crap like this will stop is if men, as a whole, go on strike.
When all those Oprah-watching soccer moms can't get a coach for little Bobby's team because no man is willing to take the risk of being viewed as a pedophile, then maybe they'll change their views and moderate their paranoia.
In fact, men should start refusing to accept positions such as coach, boy scout leader, or Big Brother and then explicity tell the organizations why they are refusing to volunteer. It's the only way this idiotic profiling will stop.
The only way crap like this will stop is if jihadists, as a whole, go on strike.
When all those security-minded Americans can't get an Imam for little Bobby's prayer group because no muslim is willing to take the risk of being viewed as a terrorist, then maybe they'll change their views and moderate their paranoia.
In fact, muslims should start refusing to accept positions such as Imam, flight attendant, or nuclear plant engineer and then explicity tell the organizations why they are refusing to work. It's the only way this idiotic profiling will stop.
See toothless this position on pedophiles is when it's this weakly argued?
80% of child molestation is done by a relative. That includes parents.
So we need to keep kids awawy from their families at all times if we truly want to protect them.
Okay, here's the unedited blog entry I almost posted before I read this one:
- Adults who seem preoccupied with children
Meaningless. When I'm not around children, I don't think about children. But I coach youth soccer and I teach ballroom dancing to children and adults. When planning a soccer practice or dance lesson, I think about the personalities in the class in order to make the lesson age- and skill-appropriate. Does that qualify me as someone who seems "preoccupied with children"?
- Single adults who work or volunteer with children's clubs/activities and frequently spend their free time doing "special" things with kids
- Adults who spend time volunteering with youth groups who do not have children in those groups
These are EXACTLY the qualities that Big Brothers/Big Sisters seek in their volunteers. I am divorced and was in Big Brothers. I guess Oprah would put a checkmark next to my name on both of those criteria.
- Adults who seem to engage in frequent contact with children, i.e., casual touching, caressing, wrestling, tickling, combing hair or having children sit on their lap
Okay, this one creeps me out, too. Sometimes a kid needs a hug, but not usually, and not every time you see them. I even get creeped out by parents who say "Oh, go kiss your grandma goodbye" to a kid who would rather not. This is the first item on Oprah's list that I heartily support.
- Adults who act like children when with children or who allow children to do questionable or inappropriate things
Does "act like children" mean "Childish" or "Child-like"? Is it childish to ride a Ferris wheel? If so, then I guess I get another checkmark. I can't guess what is being implied by the second part of that line. If I am at a restaurant and the kid at the next table is throwing food, and I say nothing, am I allowing children to do questionable or inappropriate things? What circumstances could Oprah possibly be referencing here? Is it some specific event from her childhood that she is not revealing?
- Adults who want to take your children on special outings too frequently or plan activities that would include being alone with your child
This is another one that I agree with. There is no reason for an adult to be alone with someone else's child. It might happen and be totally innocent, but an adult who *SEEKS* to put him/herself in that position gets a raised eyebrow from me, too.
- Adults who do not have children and seem to know too much about the current fads or music popular with children
I teach kids to dance. I need to know what music is popular. Five years ago, my music library had to include The Backstreet Boys. Now the kids wouldn't be caught dead dancing to BSB. Instead I have to play Gwen Stefani. To my ear, both BSB and GS are horrible. But if I want the student to return for the next lesson, I need to play music they like. I also watch TV, all of which is saturated with pop culture. Another checkmark from Oprah I guess.
- Adults that your children seem to like for reasons you don't understand
I have to go with the original witty blog comment on this one. No healthy parent expects every child to like and dislike the same people as the parent.
- Adults who seem able to infiltrate family and social functions or are "always available" to watch your kids
I see this as two totally unrelated items.
- Adults who seem able to infiltrate family and social functions
- Adults who say they are "always available" to watch your kids
One of the main jobs of parenting is to set boundaries, which includes keeping out "infiltration" (assuming "infiltrate" is used in the sense "creep into" and not "is invited to"). If you find there are unrelated adults creeping into your family events, get some professional help with your boundary setting skills. And, yes, keep your eyes wide open for child molesters, because you are clearly susceptible, possibly inviting, to that sort of person.
In the few cases where I have mentioned to a parent that I was available to watch their kids, it was my attempt to tell them tactfully that they were out of control and badly in need of a break from their kids. If a soccer parent takes their kids to the sideline and bats their ears for missing a shot on goal, I may mention to the parent that I am available to babysit if they want to go out on the town sometime. To Oprah, that's a red flag. To me, that's a chance to keep a kid from getting a skull fracture.
By the way, there is a ton of literature out there on this subject, much of which includes non-vague, research-based lists of warning signs. Perhaps Oprah should leave the advice-giving to the experts.
Dhun
That was a pretty stupid non sequitur, but since you didn't get the point of my comment, I guess that's okay.
And are you seriously comparing men in general to terrorists? Or did you just forget to think?
Captain Holly....
I'll Quote you here:
"Dhun
That was a pretty stupid non sequitur, but since you didn't get the point of my comment, I guess that's okay. And are you seriously comparing men in general to terrorists? Or did you just forget to think?"
> I was fully prepared to stick to discussing the issue and refrain from ad-hominem attacks. Remember, I criticized your argument for being weak, not your person. The last refuge of those who have no argument is to resort to demeaning a person's ability to think, yet without illustrating how this is so. It's further evidence of a bad argument when the person giving it assumes that those who diagree with it, "don't get it", as if what you've offered is an unassailable argument tightly fortified with logic and reason. Furthermore, what you'd offered is similar to when college students get up and say "Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" and then sit down, as if they've offered an argument. It's not an argument, yet it's just about what you've offered, It's also just the sort of knee jerk response that many people offered to the prospect of scrutinizing muslims shortly after Sept. 11th. In this case, we're talking about scrutinizing men, who may or may not display certain behaviors which serve as indicators. Same principle involved, though a very different phenomenon. And no, my response had nothing to do with comparing men with terrorists and had everything to do with criticizing the cliche you were offering, which is absent much substance, save for the emotional content of your post, which is the very thing you deride Oprah for.
> What I supplied to this debate was not a non-sequitor, but simply a reiteration of your very same method of argumentation, utilizing a different social group who participates in unwanted, destructive behavior.
>What I'd said was "This doesn't necessarily render the profile/list worthless as you suggest, rather it posits a starting point, albeit an imperfect one which may take some modification to improve it." In a democracy, we engage in debate to justify laws and the perimeters of our culture. What we don't do is offer up cliches.
> I'm here to learn and have learned more reading Peter B's subsequent post ( he offered some statistics and examples that were instructive ) than I have in vetting yours.
Oooh, boy. Whatever.
I was not offering an argument, I was expressing an opinion. An opinion based on the depressingly common idea among modern women that men are either molesters or paychecks with pants. In my opinion, the only way to rememdy this is for men to refuse to cooperate, much as Rosa Parks refused to cooperate with the bus driver. Strikes are a time-honored method of forcing social change.
Your silly substitution was indeed a non sequitur. In it, you chose to replace the generic term "men" with the specific term "jihadists", one that most people agree would mean "terrorists".
Had you used the term "Muslims" instead, your comparison might be valid. Unless, of course, you think all Muslims are Jihadists. Freudian slip, perhaps?
You also wrote:
What I'd said was "This doesn't necessarily render the profile/list worthless as you suggest, rather it posits a starting point, albeit an imperfect one which may take some modification to improve it." In a democracy, we engage in debate to justify laws and the perimeters of our culture. What we don't do is offer up cliches.
Really? When I read your response to my post, I don't see anyplace where you state that, or even imply it. You simply bowdlerized my statement and then claimed my argument was weak.
If there were any positive reinforcement or high-falutin' messages about democracy in the message, it must have been between the lines. As I don't have my secret decoder ring with me, I definitely missed it.
If that's what you meant to say, then you need to write it. This is the internet; we can't hear voice inflections or see facial expressions.
Captain Holly wrote:
Oooh, boy. Whatever.
> That statement reflects the overall tenor of your posts. Why continue like this, what does it serve?
I was not offering an argument, I was expressing an opinion. An opinion based on the depressingly common idea among modern women that men are either molesters or paychecks with pants. In my opinion, the only way to rememdy this is for men to refuse to cooperate, much as Rosa Parks refused to cooperate with the bus driver. Strikes are a time-honored method of forcing social change.
>This is a rather spurious statement. You say you are simply offering an "opinion", which is fine. But to offer an opinion, which constitutes an argument when placed in the context of this engagement, you don't somehow achieve untouchable status, or get the right to posit ideas unchallenged. The logic of your original post is not sound. My mirroring your post with a substitute pointed this out. Your position seems to be that all profiling is bad.
Your silly substitution was indeed a non sequitur. In it, you chose to replace the generic term "men" with the specific term "jihadists", one that most people agree would mean "terrorists".
> Wrong. Your statement itself was a cliche, which I simply substituted another social group into. True, I'd made a mistake in the first sentence, which can confuse. The greater conversation which might have been had, regarding the difference between men and pedophiles (or muslims and terrorists) has yet to happen because of getting bogged down in the absurd post you'd written. Apply your same criticism of my mirroring of your post to your own and you get the same outcome. (Although it's not a non-sequitor, which would be if I'd gone and spoke about bacteria on the moon.)
Had you used the term "Muslims" instead, your comparison might be valid. Unless, of course, you think all Muslims are Jihadists. Freudian slip, perhaps?
> No, you're wrong again. Please refrain from suggesting I've intentions which I do not hold. This attempt at ascribing racism to my statement is similar to your "you don't get it" claim, which is another ploy used by people who have no argument or worthwhile opinion.
You also wrote:
What I'd said was "This doesn't necessarily render the profile/list worthless as you suggest, rather it posits a starting point, albeit an imperfect one which may take some modification to improve it." In a democracy, we engage in debate to justify laws and the perimeters of our culture. What we don't do is offer up cliches.
Really? When I read your response to my post, I don't see anyplace where you state that, or even imply it. You simply bowdlerized my statement and then claimed my argument was weak.
> Your opinion is now an argument? But you said, "I was not offering an argument, I was expressing an opinion." Does this not illustrate your incoherence?
If there were any positive reinforcement or high-falutin' messages about democracy in the message, it must have been between the lines. As I don't have my secret decoder ring with me, I definitely missed it.
> Your condescension does nothing to add substance, it just wastes bandwidth. If you'd followed where I've attempted to take the conversation (to a place above your cliche) then maybe we'd be having a discussion about the difference between ordinary men and pedophiles, rather than you offering up hackneyed Freudian jokes about my intentions and using YOUR interpretations of my statements as a rhetorical cudgel.
If that's what you meant to say, then you need to write it. This is the internet; we can't hear voice inflections or see facial expressions.
> There is no declaration that says all muslims are terrorists and yes, I made the mistake of putting Jihadist where Muslim should have gone. So, in light of this minor flaw, you can see my point about your absurd statement, yes? Not to get too into it, but most terrorists who are Muslims proudly declare it, so the gap between your original example and mine is broad ( don't most pedophiles deny it? ) although this much explanation of what I'm saying won't matter, as you've already shown a reactionary posture toward any criticism.
The thing about your posts at this point is that I'm done reading what you've written way before you're done saying it. But of course I just "don't get it."
Lovely, ironic way to end such a diatribe. Dhun with you now.
"Pippin, you fool of a Took"
Touché! Went and made me laugh, there, which is much appreciated.
Nor is the solution to have Americans emulate West Africans.
Post a Comment
<< Home