babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Ritter Arrested

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ritter Arrested
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 January 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ritter Arrest made publicIt's very interesting that this case which was dismissed and sealed by court order, would somehow be made public now that Ritter is making statements that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. Not to condone at all what Ritter's been accused of but doesn't this leak sound a lot like a Nixonian dirty trick by the US government to discredit an outspoken and credible critic of their war drive?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 January 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure does to me. A classic smear job. But not unexpected.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 January 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft, you cynic.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 21 January 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I got it off The Drudge Report.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3558

posted 21 January 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for Apples     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, you're right. This poor little pedophile is a victim of a cruel, government smear campaign. Why must we treat so harshly people who only want to rape our children?

Hmmmm. Never mind.


From: no | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 January 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you read the article apples you'd see that, assuming the story is true, no rape or anything remotely related to it was involved. Also going after 16 and 14 year olds does not a pedophile make.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 21 January 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phew. That was close. That Ritter feller almost tricked us all into not liberating that Iraqi oil.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 21 January 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll hold off judgement because unlike some, I don't just give lip-service to human rights but truly do believe someone is innocent until proven guilty.

However, It's spooky that this just appears so Orwellian.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 21 January 2003 07:18 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really? Tell me Jimmy, what do you think of Gordon Campbell's legal troubles? Has he been proven guilty yet?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 January 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gordo admitted it. Isn't he pleading guilty?

I would have been the first one to say "alleged" even for Gordo if he were contesting the charges.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 21 January 2003 07:39 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post
And he said he was SORRY HE GOT CAUGHT too
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 January 2003 02:00 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"If you read the article apples you'd see that, assuming the story is true, no rape or anything remotely related to it was involved."

Of course not. The "child" turned out to be an undercover police officer and not a real child. Had it been a real child, and had he followed through with his plan, it would have been more than just "remotely related" to rape.

"Also going after 16 and 14 year olds does not a
pedophile make."

Is there a cut-off?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 January 2003 02:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Had he been in Alabama I'm pretty sure the 16-year-old woulda been legal.

Anyway, *yawn* this is sophistry. Pedophilia is the abormal desire for children, very young children.

I once had the misfortune to see a jpeg of the front cover of a NAMBLA magazine, and on the cover was a child who couldn't have been more than 8 years old.

That is pedophilia.

This unsealing of the charges sounds like a drive-by smear job even though technically it's an attempted statutory rape charge and not an indecent assault on a minor under the legal age of consent (as opposed to the age of majority).

That having been said, Ritter has to be a dumbass for letting a weakness like this get him in hot water.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 22 January 2003 02:28 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there a cut-off?

Well there is the age of consent, which does vary from place to place, and many 16, or 14 year olds for that matter, are far more mature then they would seem to be from age alone; as well we see from the article that "Many cases handled like Ritter's" so that would seem to show that either what he did was in fact very minor, else the police / DA in Albany don't really care what your average pedophile does to children - you buyin that?

I don't condone or agree with what Ritter is charged with, but these are just charges, not a conviction, or admission.

Of course, it is equally possible that Ritter used "political" connections to have his charges treated as they were. If he did though, he got screwed by whoever released the info - you think this won't be brought up every time he turns around?

At any rate, I personally reserve judgement pending further evidence one way or the other - suspicion has, though, been noted for the record.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 January 2003 07:29 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hell, in places like Kentucky it's par for the course to marry your 12-year old cousin.

Great Balls of Fire!


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 10:22 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Goddamn, this just blows my mind. Grown men soliciting teenaged girls to watch them jerk off is merely a "weakness". Certainly not pedophilia, and since it's Scott Ritter, our left wing buddy, it's A-OK! Heck they do it to 12 year olds in Kentucky!

Fuck...I want to go shower after reading this crap.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 January 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whatever turns you on buddy.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 22 January 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Tell me Jimmy, what do you think of Gordon Campbell's legal troubles?

Campbell has admitted his guilt. No?

As I say the problem with wing-nuts is they give lip service to human rights but are always the first to violate them whenever convenient. Innocent until proven guilty is a joke in the US, what with election motivated prosecutors feeding ratings motivated reporters. Good luck finding justice in those shark infested waters.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 22 January 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Grown men soliciting teenaged girls to watch them jerk off is merely a "weakness".

Do you own any Elvis Presley records sheep?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope Ron. No Gary Glitter records either.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 January 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hm. With the glib comments about Alabama and Kentucky I have to wonder if "hillbilly" jokes are somehow exempted from bigotry now, but they DID make me curious, so I checked on some statutory rape laws in the states.

Alabama:
First-degree rape if victim is less than 13, perpetrator is 16 or older. Second- degree rape if victim is 12-15, perpetrator is 16 or older and
at least two years older than victim.

Kentucky:
First-degree rape if victim is less than 12. Second-degree rape if victim is less than 14 and perpetrator is 18 or older. Third-degree rape if
victim is less than 16 and perpetrator is 21 or older.

Lowest age of consent: 14 - Pennsylvania and Hawaii.

Looks like you can get away with lots of stuff in Hawaii


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. I can't believe you people. I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if it was George Bush in this situaion. Love what you guys say about Kentucy and Alabama. Hypocrites.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 22 January 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if it was George Bush in this situaion.

Seems to me every time one of the Bushes gets in trouble with the law - drunk driving, cocaine possession, insider trading, bank fraud, (these are just the ones we know about) they are indeed innocent until proven guilty. In fact they are just declared innocent, period.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 11:38 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You didn't answer the question Jimmy Brogan. That tells me all I need to know. Hypocrites.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody was defending statutory rape or pedophilia. Nobody was saying that this guy is wonderful. They're saying that he's innocent until proven guilty and also that pedophilia is different than having sex with teenagers. Now, can we please get back on the topic at hand, which isn't whether people from Kentucky or Alabama are rednecks (of course they're not) and nor is it whether or not having sex with childreen or underaged teenagers is wrong? I think we can probably all agree that it is. Let's move on.

The question, it seems to me, is whether the unsealing of this guy's case has anything to do with his being outspoken against war with Iraq.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 11:41 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now now, no need for name calling. We're all guilty of hypocrisy to some extent or another.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 January 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They're saying that he's innocent until proven guilty and also that pedophilia is different than having sex with teenagers

Yes he is innocent until proven guilty but any adult having sex with a teenager can certainly be viewed as possible pedophelia. Indeed if my 13 year old son or 15 year old daughter were (God forbid) to be manipulated (and at that age that is what it could very well be a manipulation) into sex by an adult I would see that adult as a pedophile. Never mind a rapist, statutory or otherwise. I would hope that the full force of the law would result.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone know why it was sealed in the first place ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Mishei, do you consider all the men from countries where it is legal to marry at 13 or 14 years old to be pedophiles then? You see no difference between having sex with a 14 year old and having sex with a 5 year old?

I see a big difference.

Edited to say: ACK! Now I've done it! Contributed to the thread drift!

I was wondering the same thing, Cracker Jack. Maybe it's just a standard thing to seal cases of accused sex crimes if the person is not found guilty. Does anyone know whether this is normal?

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 January 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The news report states:
quote:
Ritter was charged with attempted endangerment of a child. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and was subsequently sealed.


That does not suggest to me that Ritter was guilty - quite the contrary! The fact that the charge has been leaked to the media, despite the court order sealing the indictment, almost two years after the fact makes me very suspicious.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Politics may have played a part, not in his being initally arrested, but in the unsealing of the records at this time. But politics definitely plays a part in how we're responding to these allegations.

I don't believe for a second that anyone here would be claiming Ritter is innocent until proven guilty if he was a pro-war hawk. On the contrary, this thread would be full of posts calling for his head.

It does seem we're willing to cut a lot more slack to those we're in ideological agreement with.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 January 2003 11:58 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The indictment hasn't been unsealed by the court, it's been leaked.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sheep a very honest response. I also heard this wasn't the first time for Riter. Is that true ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 22 January 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't believe for a second that anyone here would be claiming Ritter is innocent until proven guilty if he was a pro-war hawk.

No one is claiming Ritter is innocent until proven guilty. That is supposed to be a fact of US jurisprudence. The fact that virtually all "high-profile" defendants in the US are not afforded this basic right speaks to the bankruptcy of US justice not to the hypocricy of babblers.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 22 January 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't know that Gary Glitter liked to watch teenaged girls masturbate. I thought he liked to have sex with prepubescent boys. Same thing, I guess... Have you seen the Pianist yet?

To reiterate from the Pete Townsend thread... since the only folks who make political hay out of this issue are the Stockwell Days of the world, these "pedophile" stories should be taken with at least a full pound of road salt - particularly when they appear to be planted no other apparent motivation other than to silence a powerful and particularly effective critic of US foreign policy. If a tiny fraction of this bleating about the poor abused children acknowledged the wholesale exploitation of child-labour that our economy is based on, not to mention the unremitting sexualization of children for profit that our culture actively supports, it might carry some moral weight.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 22 January 2003 12:19 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It does seem we're willing to cut a lot more slack to those we're in ideological agreement with.

I guess that make us..... dare I say it..... human


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 January 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The question is what does this have to do with his views on Iraq? Are his conclusions less viable because of these charges? I think not.

BTW, how was The Pianist Ronb?

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 22 January 2003 12:33 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ranks with the very best of Polanski. Right up there with the Tenant. A truly great addition to a very difficult genre.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 January 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks! I'll put it near the top of my "must see" list.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 22 January 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's appalling that anyone would try to defend Ritter by claiming that the sexual manipulation of a 14-year-old is somehow less serious than that of a (say) 10-year-old. Ronb even manages to put "pedophilia" in scare quotes.

This is precisely the same defence used by many defenders of pedophile priests, and I find it disgusting that it is being used here. Garry Wills obliterated the argument in his excellent article in the New York Review of Books.


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 January 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Roman Polanski was convicted of statutory rape about 20 years ago after he slept with a 13 year old girl. He fled to Europe to avoid jail time.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't watch one movie from polanski the rapist.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 January 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, that's you right.

But to call someone convicted of statutory rape a "rapist" is somewhat unfair.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 January 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Roman Polanski was convicted of statutory rape about 20 years ago after he slept with a 13 year old girl. He fled to Europe to avoid jail time."

I'm not sure if I should be disgusted by this or not... what's his position on invading Iraq?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 22 January 2003 01:22 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh, what would you call him ? A statutory rapist ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2003 01:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't necessarily call a statutory rapist a pedophile (depending on the age of the victim), but I would call him or her a rapist, personally. If someone does not consent, or isn't capable of consenting, then it's rape. And I think that under a certain age, there is such a huge power difference that even "yes" cannot be considered informed or uncoerced consent.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 January 2003 02:27 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some clarification, please.

I've watched Polanski movies. I own recordings by Gary Glitter, and Elvis Presley, and Jerry Lee Lewis, and Pete Townsend.

So what exactly does this say about me, according to those who brought it up here???

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 22 January 2003 02:36 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scare quotes?

Wills is a very nice, deeply moral man. "Why I am a Catholic" is a deeply thought out book. His arguments on this topic carry far less weight than Jenkins'.

From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 January 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scare quotes - a favourite device of Reuters, apparently, denoting quote that isn't really a quote. It's the author saying it's their term, not mine.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 22 January 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh fair enough, then.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I've watched Polanski movies. I own recordings by Gary Glitter, and Elvis Presley, and Jerry Lee Lewis, and Pete Townsend.

So what exactly does this say about me, according to those who brought it up here???


Perv!!!!!!

Seriously though, to each their own, but I have a very hard time appreciating Chuck Berry the musician after I learned about Chuck Berry the filmmaker.

[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 22 January 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This raises the concept of whether one can judge art independently of the artist. Roald Dahl was a fervent anti-Semite, does that mean one shouldn't read his short stories? Salvador Dali was a misogynist. Does that mean his art is any less great? There have been great pieces of literature, art, film, music created by murderers, rapists, racists, sexists and homophobes.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 January 2003 03:39 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As Michelle pointed out, in many cultures teenagers are considered adults for many purposes, including marriageable age.

I think adults going after teenagers is a gross abuse of power, but not the same as a desire for sex with pre-pubescent children.

And Mishei, my 89-year-old mum would still like to prevent me from having sex, if she could. We are never really adults for our parents.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 22 January 2003 04:26 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As Michelle pointed out, in many cultures teenagers are considered adults for many purposes, including marriageable age.

Yes, but while that may be accepted in many cultures, it isn't acceptable in North American culture.

Many cultures have no problems eating dogs. And it's fine for them. But it isn't okay here.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 January 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it's acceptable either. For one thing, in countries with a very low marriage age, it discourages education, especially for girls.

Just don't think it is the same as sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 January 2003 09:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Roald Dahl was a fervent anti-Semite,

Reference please?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 22 January 2003 09:57 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do recall a quote of Roald Dahl's that was roughly like "even a stinker like Hitler wouldn't pick on them for no reason." This was in Michele Landsberg's Guide to Children's Books, and I do think Landsberg is a fairly reliable source.

If you read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Veruca Salt is very much the stuff of anti-Semitic stereotype...or so I recall.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 22 January 2003 10:08 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ritter was a Special Forces Guy. He’s always been a bit goofy to me. But to see him fall this far this fast, and to engage in such risky and destructive behaviors; with no expertise at all, I’d put this man on a suicide watch. He reminds me of Dan White. ( I lived in SF at the time).
From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 23 January 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Roald Dahl's anti-Semitism, see Roald Dahl: A Biography by Jeremy Treglown. A review in the NY Times of April 26, 1994 (reprinted here)states:
quote:
As depicted in these pages, Dahl emerges as a difficult, sometimes impossible man. He bullied Ms. Neal and his children, and dealt cavalierly with the editors on whose suggestions he depended. He was also a blatant anti–Semite, arguing that "even a stinker like Hitler" hadn't picked on Jews "for no reason."


As I recall, there was a controversy in the 80s over a comment Dahl made that Jews dodged military service in Britain in WWI and WWII.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 23 January 2003 01:55 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its an obvious smear tactic against Ritter. Anyways his sex-life bears no relevence on his political activism. Moreover he has not been convicted of anything.
From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 02:00 AM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
a sixteen year old girl can make up her own mind if she wants to have sex with a 39 nine year old man. what's the big deal, since she more likely to be pressured into having sex with kids her own age?
From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 10:32 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I never knew that statutory rape was considered someones sex life. I'm sure if it was your daughter, it would be considered a big deal.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 23 January 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ritter was a weapons inspector supposedly trained to get the facts about whether or not Iraq had disarmed. If he was gullible enough to believe that the cop he was talking to was actually a 16 year old girl, what does that say for his credibility when he says he believes that Hussein has disarmed completely?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 10:48 AM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I never knew that statutory rape was considered someones sex life.
The term "statutory rape" would not exist in a civilized society. I don't see any crime in having sex with someone much older or much younger than you. If I'm a sixteen year old girl and I want to have sex I don't see why the state should have any authority over what age-group I choose to do it with. The greeks recognized the advantage to both parties in an older/younger relationship. And its been a European practice for centuries.
And if it were my own daughter: It wouldn't matter if she had a 16 year old lover or a 40 year old lover, as long as she were happy.

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 23 January 2003 11:05 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read somewhere (probably on Babble) that a good "formula" for determining minimum age you should be having sex with someone is to divide your age by 2 and add 7.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Beechtree, I don't think you understand. It is against the law. Also, your post is unbelievable. What are your thoughts on pedophilia ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I started a long-term relationship with a 28 year-old when I was 17. He wasn't a pedophile even though I wasn't technically "legal" yet.

Although I'd be pretty peeved if my 16 year old son were having sex with a 40 year-old. I don't know if I'd consider the 40 year-old a rapist exactly, but I'd consider him or her a bit of a perv.

[ 23 January 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 January 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"He wasn't a pedophile even though I wasn't technically "legal" yet."

In Canada you were "legal".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 11:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was I? I thought there was some kind of age cut off for the oldest person if you're under 18.

Actually, I think Kentucky has the right idea that way, although I think after 16 it should not be considered "rape".


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 11:32 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what if it was your 14 year old with a 40 year old ? Would it still be okay ? Also, I read he wanted to sit in a bathroom and whack it while the girl watched. You still approve Beechtree ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 11:37 AM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
And you are quite the prude, CJ. All drones think alike I suppose. 'The law' is often fallible as this case clearly shows. Try reasoning for youself, instead of reciting the mantra of 'the law' as if it were some transcendental, moral absolute.
So apart from your love of 'the law' what is inherently wrong about a sixteen year old coupling with a 39 year old?
I'm not talking about pedophillia - harming children is one of the worst crimes imaginable. I'm talking about girls and boys who have reached the age of sexual activity, and I'm asking you what is the difference between having sex with someone your own age or someone much older?

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 23 January 2003 11:38 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I read he wanted to sit in a bathroom and whack it while the girl watched

How romantic. Ah, young love!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm asking you, where do you draw the line ? There are pedophiles that will tell you that the 6 year old they just raped is happy. By your reasoning, it's okay if the two are happy. So if you're 10 year old has sex with a 25 year old and says shes happy, are you gonna support it ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 11:46 AM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I read he wanted to sit in a bathroom and whack it while the girl watched
There's nothing to substantiate that and besides its neither here nor there. Whats so shocking or offensive about it...
Yes, and some people like being tied up, while others like being peed on... What's your point, dweeb?

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 11:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I personally draw the line at 16. It's still a very young age emotionally to be handling sex, but like you say, you have to draw the line somewhere.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 23 January 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So apart from your love of 'the law' what is inherently wrong about a sixteen year old coupling with a 39 year old?

Why not ask one of the hundreds of men who were abused by (sorry -- that should be "had sex with") priests. Or talk to Martin Kruze, who "coupled" consensually with Gordon Stuckless and John Paul Roby. Whoops -- you can't? Because Kruze committed suicide?


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 January 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
57/2 = 28 + 7 = 35. *wow*

You're kidding! (Look: I'm kidding.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
30 / 2 + 7 = 22.

Ha! Talk about a "boy toy"! No thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Beechtree, whats wrong with you ? What the fuck is with the name calling ? Dweeb ? What are you, 12 ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are pedophiles that will tell you that the 6 year old they just raped is happy. By your reasoning, it's okay if the two are happy. So if you're 10 year old has sex with a 25 year old and says shes happy, are you gonna support it ?
NO, of course not. I'm talking about the age of sexual activity which varies from person to person but usually begins around the ages of 14 to 16. In Canada 14 is the age of consent.

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 23 January 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sixteen year olds may look grown up but many of them are still vulnerable children who can easily be taken advantage of by someone much older than they are (even if they don't think so themselves). And why is it that in most of these cases it's the girl who's 16 (or younger) and the guy who is 40 (or older).

Call me a prude if you'd like but if the power relations are not acknowledged and everything's reduced to "two people just getting it on", then you're not looking at the whole picture (whatever the law may or may not have to say about it).


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would be extremely unhappy if my 14 year old were having sex with a much older person. At that age it's natural to start experimenting with other teenagers, but when you get into people in their late 20's, 30's, 40's - that's exploitation and coercion as far as I'm concerned because the power differential is so great that the kid cannot consent in a meaningful way.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 23 January 2003 11:58 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with partisan on this one. There is a lot more to be considered here.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 January 2003 12:00 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is obviously a case for Judge Starr.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's why I think that graduated law that Kentucky has makes a lot of sense. That way you're not arresting a kid in grade 12 for having sex with a kid in grade 10, but at the same time, you're protecting 14 year-olds from being preyed upon by guys in their 30's and 40's.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 23 January 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
57/2 = 28 + 7 = 35. *wow*

Is there an analogy here with fine wine? Nouveau beaujolais is really good but after that it gets better the older it gets? 35 may be WOW but 45 will knock your socks off. (Of course, after too long, any wine will turn to vinegar).

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sixteen year olds may look grown up but many of them are still vulnerable children who can easily be taken advantage of by someone much older than they are (even if they don't think so themselves).
Yes, I agree personally with what you are saying. I merely wish to point out that 'the law' can penalize those involved in a relationship of mutual trust and support because laws do not evaluate relationships, they go by fixed codes, numbers, rules.

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 23 January 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course everyone is assuming here that sex is the sole point of a relationship between an older man and a younger woman.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, if your 14 year old was having sex with a 50 year old, it's okay in your book ?
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 12:10 PM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
How do you feel about Woody Allen and his wife Soon-Ye? Isn't the power differential too much?
From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 23 January 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, not 14. But 16 can often be a different story. Woody Allen's thing was wrong because of the quasi-familial relationship.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 23 January 2003 12:13 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside from the age issue, the fact that she was his step-daughter made the issue even more complicated (or despicable as many believe).
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, if your 14 year old was having sex with a 50 year old, it's okay in your book ?
Certainly not. I would have to assess the situation. I personally think sex should be postponed until a more mature age, say 17 or 18. But these days teenagers have sex and some quite early on, and the risks of pregnancy among others are much greater when both parties are young and immature.
To answer your question, no, and it wouldn't be okay if my 14 year old were having sex with a 14 year old either.

From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course everyone is assuming here that sex is the sole point of a relationship between an older man and a younger woman.

In the case of a 14 year-old, I can't see really what else it would be about, at least to the older man. I mean, honestly, what on earth would a 30 or 40 year old man have in common with a 14 year-old? Or hell, with a 16 year-old for that matter? I'm 30 and I can't imagine myself going for a teenager - what would I talk to him about?

Sure, that age difference might be fine once both people are independent adults. Hell, a 20 year old woman can sleep with a 90 year-old, for all I care. But while one of the people involved is still a young teenager, yeah, I really do think it's about the sex more than anything.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Beechtree, you're contradicting yourself all over the place.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not really. He says he personally thinks it's best to wait, but he would prefer it not to be a law because laws do not take individual circumstances into account. Clear enough to me. Even though I disagree with him.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cracker Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3601

posted 23 January 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Cracker Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you check his earlier posts, he said it was okay as long as they were both happy.
From: South Central | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well isn't that taking personal circumstances into account?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beechtree
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3511

posted 23 January 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for Beechtree        Edit/Delete Post
There's a difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old. The earlier post referred to a 16 year old. And again, it would be a matter of assessing the situation wherein personal happiness obviously comes into play. I'm not promoting the exploitation of youth by aging voluptuaries. There is more to a relationship than sex, and that is why I say the intractable logic of law cannot not always fairly apply.
From: Hog Town | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And on that note, this thread has now reached 101 posts. If we want to continue the discussion about statutory rape, someone can open a new thread in Body and Soul.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca