Archives

February 11, 2003

Addendum regarding Michael Jackson:

Those coffin nails have been driven in even deeper. The court document written by the 13 year old boy whose parents settled out of court with Jackson is now available at The Smoking Gun. It's four pages of nausea. Jackson is pedaling as fast as he can but he can't weasel his way out of this one. Here's a portion of his official statement, in light of the fallout from Bashir's documentary and the Smoking Gun upload of the 1993 court documentation (thanks to Adam Curry's weblog):

In relation to the 1993 allegations made by Jordy Chandler which have again been recycled by certain newspapers, Michael has authorised the issue of the following: Michael cannot understand why Jordy Chandler ever made these allegations over 10 years ago.

Michael Jackson then, and has ever since, vehemently denied that these events ever took place. Michael does not know who manipulated Jordy Chandler to make these allegations at the time, nor has he ever understood why, other than the motives of some people to exploit both Jordy and Michael, for financial gain.

The reason Michael chose to pay Jordy Chandler a considerable sum of money, rather than be publicly vindicated following a trial, was to avoid being subjected to a media circus. Despite his profound hurt at the allegations made by Jordy, Michael did not, at the time, think it right or proper to subject a 14 year old boy to prolonged litigation, the effects of which on Jordy appeared to be of little concern to those manipulating Chandler at the time.

Michael Jackson has respected the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all the parties to the prior proceedings, yet someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality and use Jordy's 1993 statements to further sully Michael's character. It should be remembered that, at the time, the confidentiality obligation was a mutual one, designed as much to protect Jordy, who was then 14 years old, as much as Michael, since it has prevented Michael from fighting back and denying these allegations.

Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disregard for Jordy as they are determination to attack Michael. Michael is aware that certain former employees are, or are planning to, sell certain stories to the press.

What a sleazy pile of crap.

Jordy is now about 24 years old. He's no longer a child. Here are some of the allegations that Jackson "cannot understand:"

The first step was [illegible] Michael Jackson hugging me. The next step was for him to give me a brief kiss on the cheek. he then started kissing me on the lips, first briefly and then for a longer period of time. He would kiss me while we were in bed together.

10. The next step was when Michael Jackson put his tongue in my mouth. I told him I did not like that. Michael Jackson started crying. He said there was nothing wrong with it. He said that just because most people believe something is wrong, doesn't make it so.

11. Michael Jackson told me that another of his young friends would kiss him with an open mouth and would let Michael Jackson put his tongue in his mouth. Michael Jackson said that I did not love him as much as this other friend.

12. The next step was when Michael Jackson rubbed up against me in bed. The next step was when we would lie on top of each other with erections.

13. During May of 1993, my mother, Lily and I went with Michael Jackson to Monaco in Europe. Michael Jackson and I both had colds so we stayed in the room all day while my mother and Lily were out. That's when the whole thing really got out of hand. We took a bath together. This was the first time that we had seen each other naked. Michael Jackson named certain of his children friends that masturbated in front of him.

14. Michael Jackson then masturbated in front of me. He told me that when I was ready, he would do it for me. While we were in bed, Michael Jackson put his hand underneath my underpants. He then masturbated me to a climax. After that Michael Jackson masturbated me many times both with his hand and with his mouth.

He has the gall to wring his hands over his "profound hurt." Let's see... he didn't think it "right or proper to subject a 14 year old boy to prolonged litigation." The confidentiality obligation was due to the victim being a minor -- a child -- whose welfare needed protecting. It was not done to protect Michael Jackson's precious reputation.

Please note that Jackson had not said that the documentation as reported on the Internet was a fabrication, so this court document is not a hoax. It's the real thing. These "innocent" sleep-overs are not about "closeness" and "love." They are the precursors to kissing and fondling and worse.

The boy's father won custody of him while this was going on. He deserved it.

More:

In light of my earlier comparison of Jackson's statements about "love," "closeness," and "children like to be touched" (icky, icky, ewwww) to similar comments about pedophila and incest made by certain "professionals" and men's rights idealogues, I must add one more person to that list. I had neglected to mention Dr. John Money, of "gender reassignment" fame. He is most famous for the "John/Joan" case. That one is about a male infant who was mutilated during a botched circumcision. Rather than rebuild his genitals, Money recommended cutting off the penis, and at puberty, surgically building a vagina and pumping the boy full of female hormones. The parents agreed, and raised "Joan" as a girl. The surgery was a failure. "Joan" has reverted to his male identity, renamed, married, and adopted children.

Read this:

Boys on their Contacts with Men - A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships, reviewed by John Money

And this:

INTERVIEW with John Money Originally appeared in the Dutch pedophile magazine, Paidika. [The page is poorly-translated English from Italian. Halfway down it gives up and reverts completely to Italian. The botched translation is almost parallel to the John/Joan case... Babelfish may help if you're interested in reading it.]

So, what places Dr. John Money so high on the Ick-O-Meter scale?

He used to be on the advisory panel for the Children's Rights Council. CRC is a father's rights group, not a child welfare group. Warren Farrell is on the same board. In addition, Dr. Richard Gardner is highly recommended by CRC, even though Parental Alienation Syndrome is not recognized as a valid syndrome by the AMA or the APA. I had brought up statements about incest and pedophilia made by both Farrell and Gardner in my earlier comments.

Still More:

This mirror site gives an uncomfortable glimpse into how pedophiles think. Does this sound familiar?

WHAT DO PEDOPHILES BELIEVE?

Realize that pedophiles LOVE children. They do NOT advocate the use of force or coercion (beyond encouragement) on kids to have sex with them! Sex is not harmful for children or adults, provided it is done honestly, lovingly, and with good intentions and consent. It is not something kids should be "protected" from, like a fast moving car. It is the guilt trip of society that causes harm to perfectly good relationships. This must be changed-not the behavior of pedophiles or the children they love and care for. Pedophiles believe in "empowerment" of young people. By this, they mean that children OWN themselves, NOT adults.

Read the entire page, if you can stomach it.

A Final Thought...

Something else occurred to me. Uri Geller helped set up the interview. He says he's "very upset." Well...

Isn't Uri Geller supposed to be a psychic?

How come he didn't see this coming?

posted at 12:05 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

February 10, 2003

I read Atrios, TalkLeft, Long story; short pier, Body and Soul, and Fatshadow so often that I've added them to my blog roll. Ampersand, Goblin Queen, and Body and Soul were kind enough to add me to theirs. I know I'll add more in the near future. I discover new blogs every day.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Speaking of Alterman and William Kristol, how many people are aware that this is the same William Kristol who chairs The Project for the New American Century? That's the junta that has been pushing an imperialistic American foreign policy since at least 1997. This junta infests our current administration like cockroaches. Check out the "Statement of Principles" signatory list:

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Some of those names bear repeating to make sure they sink in.

Dick Cheney, our vice-president.

I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff

Jeb Bush, Dubya's brother, who, with the help of the Supreme Court, put The Usurper in the President's seat in the first place.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose own German relatives want nothing to do with him. The same story is reported at The Bahrain Tribune, but the link won't work. You won't see that reported in the American "liberal" media. Fat chance.

Elliot Abrams, National Security Council

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary

Richard Armitage. Deputy Secretary of State

Uggabugga laid out the names of these people and their current positions in the Bush adminitration on a nice, clean template. I highly recommend everyone get over there and look at it. It will curl your toenails.

This junta has tried to get their mitts on Saddam's gonads since at least 1997. The September 11 attacks are merely an excuse to carry out their pre-existing plans. Here's what they proposed the U. S. do about Saddam and Iraq back in 1998, when we were at peace.

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

Go to that page, and see who signed that missive. Feel your blood pressure rise.

The Bush junta has been planning this invasion of Iraq for at least five years, probably more if you count the head-banging they've been doing since Reagan and Bush I left office. They've hitched onto the September 11 tragedy in a most inhumane and callous manner in order to carry out their pre-conceived plans. Americans are being used. The so-called "liberal media" has not reported this. Isn't this more than enough to make heads roll? Why hasn't Bush been impeached for this horror?

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Eric Alterman adapted a portion of his book, What Liberal Media?, for The Nation. The way the media treats The Resident Thief with kid gloves (pun intended) makes me wonder if there is anything liberal about the media at all. Alterman got in a few good digs, notably this one:

"And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")"

Hmmm... I had an idea. :)

Maybe we shouldn't stop at sending rice to Bush. Kristol could use a bag.

So could Ann Coulter. (Sorry 'bout that. I should have warned you before naming her. Instructions for performing the Heimlich maneuver on yourself are here.)

Why stop there? Let's bury 'em all in rice the way the Bush administration has covered the statue of justice and Picasso's Guernica with curtains. Send Bernard Goldberg a bag. Shower everyone at The Project for the New American Century. Send Pat Buchanan a fricking case. Alterman's short list - "Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge" - they need a balanced diet, too.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

It looks like Patriot II is underway. As Kip (Long story; short pier) says, ""In Georgia, New Jersey, and Connecticut, "notes this history of tarring and feathering in revolutionary America, "villagers were quick to feather any perceived 'enemy to the rights of America.'"

Kip's dead on right. The Center for Public Integrity pointed out that this new invasion of our privacy will will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information."

Lest anyone forget, the "Patriot" in "Patriot Act" does not stand for patriotism. It's an acronym. It stands for "Pack of Asshats Took our Rights! Impeach the Oil Thief!"

Well, okay, it doesn't stand for that. (Had ya going there, though... :D )

This is what it stands for: "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act."

The ever-gallant Bartcop (just kidding...) put it in his usual... er ... straightforward fashion:

Excerpt:
*Generally increases powers under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
*"Wartime" emergency FISA wiretaps won't require declaration of war (103)
*New "domestic security surveillance" powers (123)
*Easier for government to get credit reports (126)
*New "we ask, you can't tell" subpoena powers (128)
*More secrecy about government detainees (201)
*Return of "use crypto in a felony" sentence enhancement (404)
*New Ashcroft power to declare aliens removable as "danger to national security" (503)

It's as though bin Laden is pulling the strings on the never-elected puppet, getting him to destroy America from within, just as they always predicted it would happen.

Isn't this exactly what America's Founding Fathers were trying to prevent?
Why have a Constitution if Bush/Ashcroft can just ignore it?

That said it all. No further comments are necessary.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Clancy (cyborg woman) bought some CD's I've never heard of: "Lucinda Williams's Car Wheels on a Gravel Road, Kasey Chambers's Barricades and Brickwalls, and a couple for pure nostalgia: The Trinity Session by Cowboy Junkies and Fire in the Hole! by Picasso Trigger."

This reminded me of a wonderful group I recently discovered, called Poe. Their second album, Haunted, rocks. The best song on it has to be Hey Pretty. I prefer the version without the voice-over, but both versions are good. You'll need flash to view Poe's web site. You have to grab the little red ball and place it over the area of the menu you want to see. You can grab the same ball, and bounce it all over the web site, too. That's cute.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Fatshadow, April (of we have brains), and Ampersand had an interesting series of posts about defining feminism and the place of men in feminism. Fatshadow commented:

"When think about violence against women I think about the men who commit the violence. I think about how much it sucks that men aren't given permission to feel emotion. I think about how much pain someone has to be in to resort to violence. I do not take my mind off the women who pay the price with their bodies for the way in which patriarchy shapes us. But my heart aches for both the man and the woman.

Violence against men in the example Amp gives, (ten year old boy beaten up for being too girly) is also an issue for women. It's different. But I'm not sure how useful a discussion on the difference is, especially in terms of merit. For me, the moment in which a man responds to a woman with violence is enough of an example for how men and women are both shaped by patriarchal concepts, in ways that hurt them both."

I believe the primary focus of feminism should be on women, but not at the exclusion of men. Not at the exclusion of children, either. Women don't live in a vacuum. Patriarchy harms everyone - men, women, and children. However, when it comes to the negative impact patriarchy has on men, I believe that it's men's responsibility to tackle it, not women's. Here is what I wrote in her comments section, during the time my server went kerflooie:

I guess I'm one of those female feminists who prefers that feminism be about the empowerment of women. I don't think the movement should get caught up on taking on every cause under the sun affected by patriarchy. There is only so much time in the day, and too much to do. I may be wrong, but I don't think that other causes are asked to take on other issues, at least not in the way feminist women are asked to take on men's issues because all are affected by patriarchy.

While I recognize that patriarchy affects men, I don't think it's the job of feminist women to fix it. I see that as placing women once again in the "gatekeeping" role - when it comes to male/female relations, it's the female's job to keep things going smoothly. In the process, women's needs gets placed on the back burner because "others" need care, too. Don't fight for "women's" rights. Fight for "human" rights. If she balks, she's told she's selfish. Very effective stopper. Feminism has enough to deal with regarding anti-feminist and patriarchal views held by women,. I see it as men's job to teach other men how patriarchy harms men and boys. They take their lead from feminist women. Pro-feminist men have expressed this sentiment.

No doubt - violence against women is a feminist issue. Contrary to popular opinion, domestic violence centers often offer help for abused men. There are fewer men abused by women than vice versa. Where I live, abused men are put up in motels or taken into the homes of volunteers. The thing is that most violence against men is committed by other men, not by women. Even within interpersonal relationships, there is more male-on-male violence than female-on-male. So, violence against men is an issue that men must take responsibility for.

Here's more. ;)

Pro-feminist men's advocates have written about men's place in feminism. Here are three good articles from XY Online (Aust.):

Resisting Masculinity: The Importance of Feminism to Men, by Robert Jensen

Can Men Be Feminists? by Michael Flood

Organizing with Masculinities by Cliff Cheng

Michael Kimmel and Jack Straton are two more pro-feminist men who have written about these issues. Check out the links on my web page about The Myth of Battered Men for more pro-feminist male commentary about domestic violence.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Ampersand brought up the transcript of a Donahue segment that was populated with men's rights dudes whining about "bias." Don't those guys have anything new to complain about? Their breast cancer griping had been sufficiently gutted long ago. So were their complaints about Mary Koss's rape study. FAIR shredded their complaints back in 1993, before we were blessed with a budget surplus. That tells you how long ago it was. The usual anti-feminist argument says that "rape and attempted rape" are so broad and vague that they include "emotional pressure" in the definition. Not so, says FAIR:

"Koss does not include "emotional pressure" in the definition of rape; she has a separate category, clearly labeled, for women who have experienced non-criminal "sexual coercion." The definition of rape she used in her survey came not from "campus feminists" but from the Ohio penal code, which (like many other state's laws) defines rape as sexual intercourse when "the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force [or] for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person."

Under this legal definition of rape, Koss found that 15 percent of women had been raped, with 28 percent experiencing either rape or attempted rape. Eleven percent of women had been raped through force or the threat of harm, with 19 percent indicating either completed or attempted forcible rape."

I saw the Donahue segment when it aired in December. The written transcript leaves out the visuals and sounds. The men's rights dudes were not well received. Interspersed with their speech were shots of audience members smiling, moaning, shaking their heads, or rolling their eyes. The men had sporadic applause.

I heard that Donahue had been cancelled. I could have been 85% of the viewing audience that day, and I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

I am so livid I'm spitting blood out of my eyes!!! I'm taking bets -- how far do y'all think I can punt my service provider? This (*&%$%# ISP has been on the fritz since February 6. I could not upload content to my blog the entire time. All I did was watch that fricking kangaroo jump around with each futile effort to connect to my server. The problem is that I live in the boonies, so this is the only service provider I can get. I may be better off with a gerbil and a wheel. Participating on blog comments sections has helped some, but it's not the same as being able to update my own damned blog.

My s. o. is uploading my content from a different location, so I'm not out of the woods yet. This is one big SNAFU...

End of rant. Now onto important things.

posted at 12:41 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

February 6, 2003

I have been having one hell of a time uploading content to my blog today. It's been one of those weeks. I've been sick. My car threw up and died on the road yesterday. At least I was facing the ocean. It was a nice location to be stranded. Now, my blog is acting up. If my posts seem sporadic today (or... God forbid... tomorrow), that's why.

I think I'll stay indoors today. With my luck, the moment I set foot outside, a tree will fall on me.

posted at 11:40 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

I wonder if they would have accepted PayPal?

posted at 8:58 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Has Stephen Colbert been reading blogs lately and not telling anyone? I heard this yesterday on The Daily Show, and thought of the lightbulb jokes that overtook some blogs recently.

Colbert: How many U. N. weapons inspectors does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Saddam Hussein says there aren't any light bulbs!

posted at 8:58 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Anti-war artwork has been making the news lately. Some blogs have already addressed whether or not David Brown's editorial cartoon was anti-semitic. I personally don't think he meant it to be. The main point of his cartoon rested on the viewers ability to recognize Goya's Saturn Devouring One Of His Children. If the viewer was not aware of that painting, Brown's meaning would have been lost. However, Brown himself may not have been aware of the "blood libel" myth, nor was he aware of how that myth would affect subjective interpretation of his cartoon. Subjective intent is as important to art as the original intent of the artist. The way I see it, his cartoon was not as effective as it could have been. Viewers unaware of Goya would miss the point. Brown's lack of awareness of "blood libel" diluted the intent and effect of his cartoon. I did not find it to be anti-semitic in its original intent. Subjective intent, however, is another story.

I received an e-mail from a colleague who lamented the poor representation of women in the audience during Powell's pro-war speech yesterday. She did not see women on the network screens. Or in the background around Powell. Or in the audience as the camera panned the room. I didn't see any of this because at the time I was stranded on a roadside in a car with a dead battery.

It may be true that live women were not well represented yesterday. However, important women were there. They were made not of flesh and blood, but of a palette of pale blue oils. Their voices became louder because the Bush Administration had ordered that their home, Picasso's Guernica, be covered with a blue curtain so their cries and anguish would not interfere with Powell's warmongering. Draping Guernica with a curtain called attention to its content, and in doing so, called attention to the Bush Administration's imperialistic demand to invade Iraq. Such a violent juxtaposition did more to express anti-war sentiment than the editorials against war that have been printed since Powell had spoken. As was stated in one of many articles I read on the subject, it wouldn't do for Powell to promote war with a screaming woman holding her dead baby behind him. IMO, war has already begun. The Bush Administration seeks more public support for something it has already started. It is not getting it.

posted at 8:57 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

February 5, 2003

Michael Jackson drove the last nail into his career's coffin when he admitted to British journalist Martin Bashir that "he coaxed young boys to sleep in his bed." Ten years ago, Jackson settled out of court when he was accused of molesting another boy. He also admitted to sleeping with several boys at the same time, adding "it's what the whole world should do." He says that no sexual intercourse took place during these sleepovers. Jackson, 44, claims he has formed a "close friendship" with a 12-year old boy named Gavin, who has cancer. He asks "Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone. It's a beautiful thing. It's very right, it's very loving. Because what's wrong with sharing a love?"

Are you squriming yet? Here's more, from The Times U. K.:

Jackson defended his desire to sleep in close proximity with young boys, under persistent questioning from Bashir.

He described the practice as "very charming, very sweet" and recommended that Bashir sleep in the same bed as friends of his own children. He also claimed that children like to be touched and said he would kill himself if he could not be close to them.

Gavin, the 12-year-old boy at the centre of the fresh "sleepover" claims, said he met Jackson two years ago, after cancer was diagnosed. He began sleeping overnight at the 44-year-old singer's Neverland ranch with his brother and sister.

On one occasion, the boy asked to sleep in Jackson's bedroom: "I was like 'Michael, you can sleep in the bed', and he was like 'no, no, you sleep on the bed', and I was like 'no, no, no, you sleep on the bed' and then he said 'look if you love me you'll sleep in the bed'. I was like 'Oh man'. So I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night." Jackson said he slept on the floor and did not touch the boy.

Red lights flashed all over the place when I read that. Jackson's talk about "love" and "closeness" and "children like to be touched" is very similar to statements made by people who have spoken out in support of normalizing pedophilia. The popular depiction of the pedophile as a creepy guy in a trenchcoat who lures young children into gas station restrooms is a stereotype. Rather, pedophilia is being presented as a valid "choice" regarding the expression of "love."

Dr. Ralph Underwager stepped down from the board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation due to statements such as these that he made in support of pedophilia for the Dutch pedophile magazine, Paidika:

"Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."

Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs)."

Hollida Wakefield, (Underwager's wife) sits on the FMSF board to this day, although she made statements supportive of pedophilia in the same Paidika interview:

"Given this schizophrenia and these hysterical attitudes about childhood sexuality, it's going to be difficult for paedophiles to appear more positive, to start saying they're not exploiters of children, that they love children, the sexual part included, even if it's a minor part. If they made such statements, they would be arrested."

Fathers' rights idealogue Warren Farrell, as quoted in the 1977 Penthouse article Incest: The Last Taboo - Previously Suppressed Material From The Original Kinsey Interviews Tells Us That Incest Is Prevalent And Often Positive, by Philip Nobile:

"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

"... [M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. ... [T]housands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence, that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. ..."

Dr. Richard Gardner created the bogus Parental Alienation Syndrome, a weapon favored by fathers' rights advocates who claim that most allegations of child abuse and domestic violence made by mothers are malicious lies. The following is a sampling of some of his comments about pedophilia from his book True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992):

Ibid. p.535

"There is a whole continuum that must be considered here, from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities."

Ibid. p.548

"Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible act. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, 'Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.' In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters."

Ibid. pp.593

"Of relevance here is the belief by many of these therapists that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child -- no matter how short, no matter how tender, loving, and non-painful -- automatically and predictably must be psychologically traumatic to the child... The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters."

Dr. Robert Bauserman's weak "analysis" of joint custody research has been overshadowed by another "analysis" about child sexual abuse (CSA) he had co-written with Drs. Bruce Rind and Philip Tromovitch, popularly known as The Rind Study. They wrote (highlighting mine):

"One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions offered by Constantine (1981) , is to focus on the young person's perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term childshould be restricted to nonadolescent children ( Ames & Houston, 1990 ). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the "normal" range of human sexual behaviors ( Bullough, 1990 ; Greenberg, 1988 ; Okami, 1994 ). A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled scientifically as adult-adolescent sex, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse."

There was a great deal of public moral outrage over The Rind Study. More importantly, the study itself was debunked by Stephanie Dallam of the Leadership Council, who wrote that the analysis" minimized CSA-adjustment relations, including use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.'s study's main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings."

The Rind Study lead to so much embarrassment for the American Psychological Association that it had publicly apologized for publishing it. Bauserman's contribution to this study gives on pause regarding his opinions about the benefits of joint custody for children.

Those who bring these statements to the public's attention have been accused of engaging in smear campaigns, despite the fact that these statements and books exist, are easy to locate, and the quotes are not taken out of context. Rather than address the content of the statements themselves, those who point them out have been called paranoid and hysterical. A few have been threatened with law suits. Some empty threats purportedly from Warren Farrell have appeared on Usenet and in fathers' rights mailing lists over the years (usually coinciding with yet another one of his failed book tours), but nothing has ever been sent directly to me. Farrell should have contacted Penthouse and Nobile regarding any misquotes, misrepresentations, or libel suits, but to my knowledge he has never done that. Mothers who try to protect their children from fathers who molest have been called hysterical, pathological, and sexually dysfunctional. Underwager blames a supposed "child sexual hysteria" in America partially on what he believes is some feminist's alleged jealousy of male closeness. On pages 46-47 of True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse, Richard Gardner referred to many child advocates as "charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents." Farrell has expressed the same disparaging attitude when he mentioned "child savers" in Penthouse.

Michael Jackson has made similar statements. When told that many people would take issue with a 44 year old man sleeping with young boys, he dismissed them as "ignorant and wacky."

I'm sure some reading my blog today will think much the same thing about me. I've heard it before. Trish must think all men are pedophiles. She hates men. She must have had a lousy relationship with her father.

What bunk.

It doesn't bother me. The facts are on my side.

Dr. Bashir's documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, will air on 20/20 this Friday, February 7.

UPDATE: Police are now scrutinizing the Michael Jackson tape.

posted at 10:51 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

I came down with some kind of nasty, run-down, creeping crud so I took a few days off blogging. I'm much better now, although I still feel as if I'm walking through molasses up to my neck. Blah. All I could handle was watching the three Japanese Ring movies I just bought. When I get a moment, I'll review them here. They're definitely worth a look-see.

posted at 10:48 AM by Trish Wilson | Link