I'm going to plead guilty.

I was in a park with my friend and her kid, and a man came in and sat on a bench. He didn't have kids with him. And it made me think "Hmmm..."

Probably he just liked watching kids play.

I fully appreciate your point: men in our modern world are in danger of being labeled pedophiles if they interact with children. Agreed.

But imagine that this situation with the lost toddler involved physical danger instead of legal danger. Would we excuse him for not saving a drowning toddler because he was afraid he would drown? In a dangerous situation, you do what is right, and consider the dangers only in hindsight.

Disengagement with the world is a larger problem than perceived pedophilia. England and California appear to be the two epicenters of this phenomenon.

He couldn't have stopped and called (the English equivalent) of 911? Or stopped and called the closest person to help him?(I read the article and it didn't sound like he was out in the middle of the countryside.)

It's a horrible label to have when you are totally innocent. I know of someone whose daughter is calling him a pedophile just because he told her she was grounded off of her computer. If she says this to the right/wrong people (depending on how you look at it), it could ruin his life.

I am a 53 year-old husband and father of two adult, single men. The two of us enjoy children and we miss having them in our lives. A lot. We're the people who smile at your toddlers at stores. I wink at your kids. I look forward to being a grandfather some day.

Last spring we pulled into a gas station on a sunny afternoon to fill up before a long car trip. My wife stayed in the car. Next door was a daycare with beautiful little children running back and forth on the other side of the chain link fence. While the car was filling up, I walked closer to wave at them. A protective daycare worker was eyeing me, so I waved at her, too. Then I returned to my car.

About an hour later, well

(sorry, I hit the send button)

About an hour later, on the road, a city cop calls me on my cell phone, wanting to know what I was doing outside the daycare. I was surprised he could trace my car license to my cell phone number. He was pretty decent, actually.

I'm wasn't all outraged or put out, but I was pretty sad. I hope those kids didn't see me as a monster. The daycare worker did.

Awful, passepart0ut.

I forgot about this recently posted story:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview

They see pedophiles everywhere, except where they are. You know who is going to molest your kid? Someone you trust well. The youth group leader at your church, your little league coach, or even a relative. Pillars of the community, who have placed themselves in a position of trust and contact with children, are the ones most likely to molest your kids, not some random stranger.

Oh, and a single mom's live in boyfriend is a good place to look as well.

Josh did you even read the story at the link?The second half tells the story of a guy, one day as he was driving along a bust street he slammed on his breaks. He jumped out of his car, grabbed the girl he damn near ran over and pulled her from the road onto the sidewalk.

A few days later he was arrested. He is now a registered sex ofender because he 'unlawfully' restrained a child.

As for this story, I see you ailed to notice the details.
The child was at a daycare center that morning, the daycare NEVER CALLED THE COPS TO REPORT A MISSING CHILD.

Instead the sent out two 'vollenteers' to look for the child. The vollenteers stumobeld across the childs mother, they LIED and said they were looking for a dog. The mother clled the cops once she badgered the truth out of them.

The driver did call the cops after getting home.

But given the daycare workers lied to the mothers face about her missing kid, do you seriously doubt that had the driver picked up the girl that theywouldnt have lied about the circumstances in which she went missing to the cops?

It's good to see in that Salon article that she still stands by choosing to put the innocent man in prison:

"
Maran: Would I allow an innocent man to sit in prison if it meant keeping children safe?

S: So would you make that choice?

Maran: I think so.
"

People don't really want to change. She's the same lying pile of human debris she always was.

...

Back to the original story, for what is right, we don't know anything beyond the bare facts of the case. Doing a small good to cause a big evil is a wrong thing to do. We would call it a reckless disregard for the man's existing responsibilities if he had put himself in physical danger for this child if we were told he was the only provider and care taker for his remaining two relatives: a disabled, quadruple-amputee father and a down-syndrome toddler child. (For fun, and to twist the knife for Americans with a predisposition to value only certain people, take the child to be a daughter...adopted...from some Third World hole...and make sure she's a religious and ethnic minority.)

It's a reckless and inappropriate way to live a life of adult responsibilities if you "do what is right, and consider the dangers only in hindsight".

The state has made itself, or perhaps the child's mother, the only acceptable guardian of the child. Women were fully complicit in this change of social norms since they've had the almighty right to vote, and these changes came AFTER women were given said secular sacrament. Let the mother bear the consequences far heavier now for the death of her child for having been complicit in building a society that puts huge dis-incentives on what used to be basic manners and civility.

Men are pedophiles.
Muslims are terrorists.
Blacks are felons.
Bald guys are skinheads.
American Indians are drunks.
Fat people are lazy.
Asians are brilliant.
Jews are greedy.
Priests are molesters.
Gays caused AIDS.
And on and on.
We see what we want to see.
Ignorance is boundless.

I was at a party last night. A very cute (is it safe to use that word)2 year old was sitting in him mothers lap. Sitting, I leaned down even lower to get on his eye level and smiled at him. He smiled slightly. The mother twisted herself 90 degrees in the chair to I could no longer see him. Over the past few years I have begun to feel dirty. I thought reaching my grandfatherly years would allow me to feel like a grandfather to all children. Mothers would appreciate the child's sense of worth by this extra attention. Children would know that adults are to be trusted and can be turned to in a crises when parents are not available.
My father (in the 70's) was a friendly adult who spent time with the neighborhood children explaining how cars worked and how he worked on computers (IBM) for a living. As we grew up he gently guided a group of us into flying hobby airplanes for about 3 seasons.
When small moments like the party last night occur, I am hurt by the attitude and because I can have no contact with with "grandkids" anywhere.
My "I don't really care" response is: I don't really like kids, keeping me from paying attention to them most of the time. Dan Derrick

The problem is that fear is so contagious. I come from a mid-sized town in Canada that had a notorious couple--Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo--committing sex/torture killings. They, together, lured young girls into cars. I doubt the girls would have gone if Karla Homolka hadn't been there.

The point is that after this murderous couple were caught, NO ONE could approach kids in that region without being suspected of something. My friend's mom, a grandmother several times over, was shouted at by a nervous mother after she stopped to say hello to a young girl (around 5) who appeared to be lost and wandering in the neighbourhood. At that time teachers were also complaining because of all the cell phones that were going off in classrooms. Parents were so panicky that all sorts of unexpected consequences were created.

There are so many ways of luring victims that I don't think it's just about men anymore.

> Ignorance is boundless.

Mine's under control, but I had to break the habit of doing faux-poignance in blog comments.

I am so tired of The Woman keeping us down!

In August I was visiting friends in suburban Portland, Oregon and walked into a preschool with my friend, Ginette, to get her 4 year-old son. I was right behind her and we were chatting & laughing. Only an idiot would have assumed that we weren't there together and that she wasn't entirely comfortable with my presence.

Yet, in a fairly hostile voice one of the adult women there said, "Ginette, is this man with you or do I need to put him down?!"

Telling.

I'm male and in my forties, and am really scared of any interaction with kids. A few years ago I was walking my dog around 7AM in our local park. Passing by the fenced-in park playground, I heard then saw a little girl about three years old or so, all by herself, no adults around, holding on to the fence and crying her eyes out.

I'm ashamed to say I just kept walking and ignored the kid; not my kid, not my problem. I knew that if I stopped to see what the matter was, some shrieking harpy would suddenly pop out of a passing Volvo and accuse me of child molestation, the ramifications of which have sadly been proven to follow one around forever.

The problem, however, is that I have a conscience that would give me no end of misery for failing to address a crying child, so I turned back to talk to the kid. I was careful to stay far enough away from the fence, and crouched down to be less of a threat before asking her what the matter was. It turned out that single professional mommy wanted an early morning run in the park and the sitter hadn't shown up, so mommy thought it was okay to drop her daughter in the playground by herself. The kid got scared being alone and started crying. Fortunately, single professional mommy came running up soon after and berated me
for talking to her child even though I explained the child was crying and I didn't think much of her being left alone.

Depending upon the mindset of an onlooker, this could have looked like, a) concerned man consoling frightened child, or b) pervert with doggy trying to lure kid out of playground. Somehow, I don't think the "a" option would get many votes. Had someone called the cops, all it would have taken is one word from single professional mommy and I would have been the one in deep trouble, not her for dumping her kid.

Why do men even bother to trust women anymore?

Misandrist harridans.

Yet, in a fairly hostile voice one of the adult women there said, "Ginette, is this man with you or do I need to put him down?!"'

You should have called animal control and had her put down. The planet would have thanked you.

It's not just women doing it, either. A friend of mine, a former crime reporter, doesn't trust his daughter alone around men but is OK with her around women. He once had a near physical altercation with a guy for taking photos of his daughter while she was playing at the park. (It's not clear he was taking pictures of her; he was taking pics of the park, and she happened to be in some of them.) He didn't let the guy leave until he deleted all the photos off his camera.

Too many people watch L&O: SVU.

Ladies - and it is ladies leading this charge - you're reaping what you sow.

Your little precious will have no idea what to do in a myriad of situations, because you decided to make all males the enemy.

Yes, your offspring will suffer - and more than those of others who understand how to recognize and associate with role models.

@Steve Daniels A good point about a single mom's live in bf being a good place to look. As the old french expression goes: "A woman with babes who chooses to wed, has taken the enemy into her bed." Of course this isn't always true, but eyeing strangers with suspicion is just so silly when those who hurt children are usually closse to them.

@Amy An interesting link (Meredith Maran), but I am quite fond of The Courage to Heal and don't think that book should be the scapegoat of weak-minded people who make up false memories. I used that book and the workbook and I found that it was a great tool for working through some heavy issues. Genuine survivors of sexual abuse tend to have those.

Oooooh, Andy, you missed such an opportunity. You should have been the one to call the cops. Let mommy dumbass explain why she left her kid unattended. If she had gotten there before the cops, follow her to her car and get her plate number.

Working on the pediatrics floor for the last couple of months has made me.....ummm....~ahem~ impatient? with many parents.

Disengagement with the world is a larger problem than perceived pedophilia. England and California appear to be the two epicenters of this phenomenon.

Posted by: Josh at October 3, 2010 7:59 AM

You do understand that "disengagement" is happening for a reason? Namely that men are guilty until proven innocent. I somewhat regret moving into a house that is near a school as a single guy who keeps to himself.

I believe lujlp was citing the Fitzroy Barnaby case in Illinois. That case is enough to turn any sane person into a paranoid one.

My daughter is 13. Her best friend is not allowed to sleep over because I have sons and the father is afraid that my sons may not be able to resist the temptation to rape his precious daughter. This same girl is given message after message by her parents that all men are looking to take advantage of her. I feel sorry for this girl because she is going to grow up with a very warped sense of herself and the world. Maybe because I grew up with brothers, I always welcome the presence of men whether its a friendly hello, a conversation, or even friendship. I'll worry more about the family friend who takes too much interest in my kids and finds reasons to be alone with them.

Oh and that Maran witch is nothing but an attention whore who should rot in hell. She won't care until its a majority of women rotting in jail on witch hunts.

Hell, its hard to disengage when I've had a 12-13 year old getting out of a car in front of me at a gas station put on a strip tease. I'm guessing (hoping as her parents and a sister were getting out of the car at the same time) she was just clueless that her clothing and antics gave me and the driver a full moon and unwanted confirmation that she had indeed gone commando that day.

Perhaps she was just trying out future poses for Heffner.

I'm hearing a lot of anger at women in these postings. How do you guys feel about the pervs who are creating the problem?

The thing is, molestation DOES happen, and although I don't think scaring the s--t out of little kids is wise, I also don't think the old-fashioned alternative--burying the facts--amounts to a stellar solution either.

I was friendly with an older woman, a mature student, while I was in university. She was divorced and dating. She dated a cop who she found in her very young daughter's bed one morning. I've got a lot of friends who are past 40 and who are dealing with unrecognized and unresolved molestation issues. They weren't encouraged to speak up when they were younger. So now, as adults, they confront their molester (usually a family member or friend) and they're not believed, or they're ostracized by the rest of their family.

I'm not in favour of unfairly prosecuting men (or women) for this sort of thing...but the pendulum's swinging the opposite way right now and at least we're in a culture where it's okay to talk about it.

This isn't just about men being persecuted. I saw a kid on my suburban street and he looked lost (I live right behind an arena and so this sort of thing happens occasionally). He was on foot and when I offered to drive him home he said no. When I said he could come in a call his mum, he said no. So, I brought to cordless phone out for him to use and sat outside with him until his mum came by in her minivan. She wasn't grateful and looked at me with suspicion, but at least I knew that I'd done the right thing.

Get mad at the pervs, guys--they're the real problem.

No they are not ie. They are a huge fucking problem, but not the real problem, at least not anymore.

When a guy get to spend decades in prison on no evidence at all just the word of a obviousl coached child. A word which can be disproved just by looking for knife wounds that dont exist,

or a guy spends the rst of his life labeld as a sex offender because he took the time to NOT run over a jaywalker and pull her to saftey.

Or when a child is forced to register as a 'violent' sex offender for the rest of his life becuase his girlfriend lied about her age,

or the best one of all when a 8 yr old male child is molested by a 14 yr old female babysitter the local DA charges the victim(the boy in case you were wondering) as a sex offender, well then

The real problem is overblown fear.

You want to know who is the most likely to molest a child? Usually is mommy boyfriend, second most likey person is mommy herself - usually a friend of her kids.

Women are just as likely to molest children as men.

So why are only men looked at as monsters?

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/The_Press_Study_girls_molest_boys_01JUL04.aspx

Heres a short article

About a bunch of girls molesting boys - somewhere around 30 viticms REPORTED, who knows how many unreported given none of the molestation charges were ever prosecuted.

Pervs arent the problem - the problem is assuming only men are pervs. The problem is asuming every single person on this planet with a penis is just in need of the right set of circumstances to become a perv.

The problem is, as always, stupidity and fear.

Pervs aren't the problem. There have always been pervs. There will always be pervs. We didn't always have this warped sense of fear, of being afraid that we are seconds away from tragedy whenever we step outside our homes.

The fear of men is part of it, but really, we're afraid of everything from the teenage boy next door to the Happy Meal Toy in our children's lunch. We live in the safest time ever, yet we're still afraid.

There have always been molesters and usually it has been someone that is close with the family or victims. The closeness is what allows the molestation to occur and remain secret. Yes, there are molestors who are predators, but the majority of molestations happen in incidents where the victims have some close relationship with the perp. I blame the hysteria and fear on the media. When we were kids, we didn't have 24 hour news and the internet to make us feel like every incident happened in our back yard.

Face facts. If single mothers were good judges of character, most of them would NOT BE "single mothers".

End result? We (men) are the problem. If we (men) were not, then single mothers would have to accept responsibility for their own circumstances. Add to that, that if anyone is going to be totally clueless as to male sexuality, and prone to demonizing it, it is going to be the fairer sex.

And here we are.

"The problem is, as always, stupidity and fear."

"Pervs aren't the problem."

So, following this logic, if we didn't have pervs we would still have the kind of stupidity and fear that lead to false accusations and people over-protecting their kids.

Hmmmm...interesting.

@Robert: " Add to that, that if anyone is going to be totally clueless as to male sexuality, and prone to demonizing it, it is going to be the fairer sex."

And that young Ravi fella at Rutgers who posted the streaming video of his roomy kissing another guy? So does he understand "male sexuality" better than a woman? I think there are a lot of gay men out there who would say that his actions qualify as "demonizing".

But of course you might think differently.

lujlp & MonicaP & Kristen - I think you've hit it on the head. It is the fear that we are being force-fed day in & day out that is poisoning a generation. It is a huge mistake that we are collectively making, men as well as women.

The only way this crap ever changes is if BOTH men & women stop viewing the other as the enemy and treating everyone else's choices as a personal attack on theirs.

I wouldn't say he was demonizing. No more than that young woman who just recently had her rambling statements about all her former male lovers was demonizing them. Just a piss poor sense of humor in his case, and just crassness on hers. Quite frankly I have to suspect that Ravi himself might be gay. C'mon, as a straight male I can tell you the LAST thing in the world I want to watch is two men screwing themselves silly. I'm sure as hell not going to set up a webcam so I can watch. I can't name one straight man that would disagree with me.

Robert,as a single mother I take responsibility for not seeing signs that my ex was an abusive prick. I take responsibility for many things, but I'm sorry that I cannot take responsibility for the fact that there are molesters in the world or that there is a wide spread fear of them. I for one do not perpetuate the myth that all men are pedophiles. As I said earlier, I grew up with brothers and love men. The men that I know now, none of which are romantic involvements, are wonderful people who I'm very happy to spend time with and have my children spend time with.

I was molested as a child as was my brother by separate molesters who lived across the street from us two houses apart. I'm sure that you can find a way to blame the poor judgment of single mothers for that but both molesters came from two parent homes and molested my brother and I who lived in a two parent home. My molester went on to molest other girls in the neighborhhood because my parents couldn't face what happened and chose to keep it quiet and tell me to forget it ever happened. My brother's molester had the same luck. The shame was on us, not the molesters. Only now do I realize how messed up that thinking is, but it was quite common back then. And yet, I still have a tremendous trust and faith that mankind is good and that while there are some bad in the bunch, they are not the majority. Except of course for idiots like you.

I nannied a couple summers ago for a young divorced father of 3 young girls. When he was telling me why he hired me for the job, he mentioned offhandedly that one of the applicants had been a guy, so of course he discarded him immediately. I seriously doubt that the dad was a man-hating feminist-I just think when it comes down to it most parents are going to put the perceived safety of their kids above all else, even when they KNOW they're being irrational or un-PC.

It's similar to how many people feel about Islam. We KNOW that most Muslims aren't violent terrorists, yet do you really want to sit next to the guy with a turban on a plane? As long as some Muslims are still perpetuating acts of terrorism against Americans, we're always going to have some degree of racial profiling and instinctive wariness. Same with male pedophiles. It's not fair, it's just the way it is.

I am a guy, and even I get suspicious when I see a man by himself near children.

Just the way it is.

I think y'all see what you want to see. Every coach I've ever had, every coach my little brother has had - all men. I spend a lot of my time running through city parks - all the coaches of the various kiddy sports teams are male. I worked as a summer camp counselor - equal parts men and women. My mom is a teacher and it's true that the majority of her colleagues are female, but they all love the male teachers to death and think they're rock stars. My boyfriend volunteers in elementary school classrooms. I can keep going, but I do not think this discrimination is as widespread as you all make it out to be.

It is sytemic the hatred of men. And the supposid innocence and celebration of women.
It was a feminist who coined the term a "good rape" which according to her was a minor female being molested by a grown woman.

How bad is it? When a multiply convicted child molester, while still in prison, surrounded by other molesters, murderers and scum, is deemed a better environment for a child than with the Father, whose only crime was he was male.
That is how bad the male hate is.

Bingo! Even if a slight fraction of males are molesters, it takes only one bad case a month on 24 hour cable news to grab the attention of an easily frightened public. And with the vast majority of these cases being men, the picture of what a molester looks like is now set in the public mind. It's unfair but it simply is the way it is. And as so often happens, once fear and suspicion is entrenched, the over reaction by "authroities" begins (that good ol' lady justice prosecutorial overreach). Maybe the only thing that can be done is for we men to do everything we can to help make actual molesters pay a heavy price for what they do (kind of the exact opposite of what many Muslims do when it comes to terrorism or even the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church did with their scandal).

And on the subject of the 24 hour cable/MSM, these slugs have the power to put a face on a story or story line. Sothey pick and choose the stories to run that fit their own mindsets. Now that is unfair and scary all wrapped up together.

I'm a single father of two girls. I absolutely love having some of their friends over. My girls are 4 and 5 and in the summer time I often have a very small pool in the garden for them to play in. Once I had a friend of theirs over and she wanted to play in the pool, which I was fine with. But this is a treacherous (sp?). I mean, she didn't have a swimming suit and I didn't have a spare.

My own kids, tbey prefer wearing nothing and so did she, but having someone elses kid running round in my garden wearing nothing? And having to apply sunscreen to a 4 year old kid not my own? What happens when she goes to kindergarden and say "when you play at Jesper's, he puts lotion on your bum"? No way was I going to let her go out there without consulting her parents first. They were absolutely fine with it but it's absolutely necessary to be paranoid in these matters.

My own kids are really curious when they se me taking a shower and they want to touch the parts of me they don't have themselves and even though I don't want to impose shame on them, I won't let them. Same thing - I'd much rather hear them say "my dad won't let me touch his penis" than "dad's penis feels soft". I understand and appreciate their curiosity but things like this can explode in your face and you just have to be really careful. Even though most of us would never, ever hurt a child.

@Robert: so I guess this Ravi guy, who's a latent homosexual in your opinion, put this video up to promote homosexuality?

Understanding "male sexuality" becomes a much more attractive prospect when a woman's NOT dealing with an angry, woman-hating man. (Just as I'm sure it works the other way around.)

Just a thought.

"if we didn't have pervs we would still have the kind of stupidity and fear that lead to false accusations"

Matter of fact, yes, stupid mass hysteria has been a part of human civilization in all of recorded history and across all cultures. The focus of the hysteria shifts randomly according to the 'topic of the day' (be it witches or Jews or whatever), but it's the same stupid human defect. People are still stoned and torched for 'being witches' in Africa. The Jews were blamed for the plague and killed. Our brains have a defect that says 'be terrified' even when it's not rational.

What I'm wondering though is what can be done, e.g. how can one reverse the pedo-hysteria and return to normalcy? The problem seems self-perpetuating: Every time you 'protect' a child from random adult men, turning them away, whatever, you send them the distinct message that men are all scary monsters -- kids won't know or understand why, they'll just sense that there is something terrifying about men -- and they will grow up with the exact same hysteria and project it onto their kids.

It seems the only way this reverses is if the repercussions contribute to a steady collapse of the society's culture, causing competing cultures to steam ahead ... e.g. if men are continually ostracized and demonized for being men (and grow increasingly alienated from society), they will no longer have as much incentive to continue to protect, build and defend society (just as the overtaxed have less incentive to work, and in fact both together = double harm) ... ultimately such economies will suffer, competing economies and societies without the same brain-damagedness will rise up (e.g. China), and your society's position in history ends up a footnote in someone else's history. Darwin applies on a civilizational level.

TW, the reason a 'vast majority' of these cases are men is becuase people refuse to see women as molesters.

Molestaion by women is grossly under reported, and when reported male victims are scoffed at and told they were lucky, female victims are tols they were lcuky it wanst a man and everyone runs around like a chicken without a head in an atempt to find some way to blame a man for the womans actions.

I'll have to find it again, but I saw a linked study on another site that claimed almost 40% of male sex offfenders(rapists, child molesters, etc) claimed to have been abused by older women when they were children and pre-teens

"If single mothers were good judges of character, most of them would NOT BE "single mothers"."

There is definitely something to that, even if not in every case. I briefly dated a single mom a while back. We were getting on like a house on fire, then all of a sudden, after one small argument over nothing, she decided I wasn't good enough (I'm a mature honest non-smoking non-drinking hard-working business owner who earns good money) --- but her drug-addict husband who is now required to have supervision to see his own kids, apparently he was good enough for her to marry and make babies with. Some people manufacture their own problems.

"Some people manufacture their own problems."

I agree Lobster. And, when people made up their minds to hate the opposite sex, which is what I think I'm seeing in these posts (at least there's hatred at some level), trying to get that opposite sex to understand you becomes impossible.

There's a first cause--child molestation; then there's the secondary cause--the fear caused by the threat of child molestation. Focussing on the second cause doesn't nullify the first. It's just logical.

A few year back, I "found" a lost three- year-old
girl from a nearby day care center. Everything was resolved, thanks to me and a man who was in the park with his own daughter. In hindsight, I realize I could have jeopardized his name and credibility by getting him involved.
I was walking with my two large dogs, in a large public area, when I spotted a very young, bewildered, child standing in the middle of the green. I checked around to for any adults near her. There were none, and I decided that she belonged to a day care group who had gone running off with ONE provider about 5 minutes before.
I called to her and asked her name and where her parents were. Her reply "At work". My suspicions were confirmed.
I was afraid if I walked up to her with the dogs, I might frighten her. If I walked back to the car with the dogs, she might wander off, and get struck by a car, or "taken". To be con't

People are way too paranoid about all the wrong things these days.

I continued to chat from a distance, and enlist help from someone who wasn't going to work, or already involved with something. No one else seemed to notice her.
By being persistent, and a general nuisance, a man who was there with his MIL and young daughter agreed to help. He thought there was a daycare close by and across the green. He picked up HIS daughter and the lost one, and jogged away.
Ten minutes later he was back with his daughter.
Did she belong to the daycare? YES! Had they missed her? NO!

The story didn't end here. I called the director of the state childcare licensing dept. and Hell gradually broke loose.
Not for my good samaritan or I, but the day care
and the worker (who was fired). The point is, the samaritan could have gotten into hot water, merely by helping the child and me. and that stinks!

Yet, in a fairly hostile voice one of the adult women there said, "Ginette, is this man with you or do I need to put him down?!"'

You should have called animal control and had her put down. The planet would have thanked you.

You beat me to it! God what stupidity and hostility!

; > )))

I meant to say, "I was persistant and such a nuisance, that a very nice man who was there with his MIL and young daughter agreed to help."

I didn't mean HE was an annoyance! He saved the day, but it could have been his undoing, and my fault.

Shame is a strange sort of thing. When something embarassing happens to us, even when we're not to blame, we somehow feel at fault. Human nature is weird.

Its fine that you "accept responsibility" for not seeing signs that he was an abusive prick. But what exactly does that mean? That you don't blame anyone else? What do you want, a cookie? Who else is there to blame but yourself? Sure some people are skilled liars and decievers and can hide their vicious side, but not forever.

Its also good that you don't perpetuate the myth of widespread male pedophilia...again, this is one of those moments where I say "Good for you"...but again, you're not supposed to do that. I'm not giving you credit for not being what you're not supposed to be.

Maybe I sound harsh, and I'm totally fine with that. Life is not always a fun basket of flowers. You sink, or you swim. If I feel like helping somebody, that is my business, not their entitlement. As to whether the mothers in question bear any blame, that depends upon the circumstances. The blame for a crime must fall first upon the criminal, but rare I think, is the victim who is in no way complicit, if by nothing more than their own (or parental) bad judgement.
--------

"And yet, I still have a tremendous trust and faith that mankind is good" ~Said Ann Frank before heading off to the death camp.

Most people are not bad, but counting on them blindly to be good makes it easy for those who are bad, to be bad.
--------------------------

How did you get "promote homosexuality" from that??? Frankly he was probably just an asshole who thought it would be funny. But if I'm going to be sitting next to a cute girl, the last thing I'm going to say to her is, "Hey, lets watch my roommate have gay sex." That makes me wonder about him, and what HE was getting out of this.

"Maybe I sound harsh..."

No, you just sound troubled and more than a little inconsistent.

I agree with Thag. People are just too paranoid generally. When I helped that young boy--by giving him the phone and waiting with him outside my house (in bad weather, I should add)--I was NOT rewarded with any kind of gratitude by him or his mother. In fact, the boy got into the van without a backward glance and his mother looked at me like I might be a potential criminal. And I'm a woman. I think this kind of hostility is more generalized than some of the posters here realize, but I there's only so much male anger I can take before lunch!

Some people manufacture their own problems.
Great story and great point, Lobster.

I think this kind of hostility is more generalized

It's our nature to be suspicious of strangers, or "other," and thanks to a clusterfuck of societal forces, we are surrounded by people we don't know, getting pounded with the message day after day that the world is a dangerously fucked up place. Our monkey brains can't handle the size our communities have become -- especially when you consider that, with worldwide 24/7 news, our community consists of 7 billion people.

Yeah, I was appalled by this guy:

> I am a guy, and even I get suspicious when
> I see a man by himself near children.

> Just the way it is.

I mean, like, WTF us that? Are we not allowed to ask others to grow? Could you not ask that of yourself?

Fear, that is definitely the problem. I hope I can raise my daughter without her becoming fearful.

It is not just men who are fearful of being accused, but I have come to expect the woman haters on this site to automatically blame all women for all the world's ills and to ignore the fact that women too are fearful of being accused.

I avoid touching the children at my daughter's daycare, school and playground because of fear. I nearly had an anxiety attack when my neighbour's daughter was playing dressup with my daugher and when it came time to take the girl home I realized that she had removed her clothes under the princess dress and I had to help her get her own clothes back on.

I never trust a childless man hanging around a playground - especially the ones with cameras. Why would I? It takes an especially stupid man to bring a camera to a playground when he does not have a child with him. That in itself says there is something wrong with the guy. I also don't trust women at the playground if they are not accompanied by a child.

WorldNetDaily keeps tabs on the "The big list: Female teachers with students

Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39783

I never trust a childless man hanging around a playground - especially the ones with cameras ... I also don't trust women at the playground if they are not accompanied by a child.

This is sad. I used to go to the local park/playground a lot just to read, assuming I was welcome at public places in my own community. A male friend of mine who was into photography used to go to the park to take pictures of plants and wildlife and, yes, the occasional great shot of a child at play.

The answer isn't to distrust both genders equally. It's to challenge whatever it is inside of us that thinks every man and woman at the park who doesn't have a kid is a pervert. And to realize that the ones with kids are just as likely to be pedophiles as the ones without them -- which is to say, not very likely at all.

Monica, it is not about whether or not a parent at the park is a pedophile, they are not going to kidnap a child when they have their own kid with them. It is about being aware of the people around you so that nothing can happen. Bad or sick people exist and ignoring your surroundings is not ever the way to prevent something from happening.

I am not going to stand on the edge of the subway platform when I am waiting for a train because there have been incidents of people who push others onto the tracks. The odds of it happening to me are low but they are the same odds faced by the people who are pushed in front of a train.

Not trusting strangers who knowingly place themselves in a questionable situation is neither sad nor bad. It would be bad or sad if it ruined my good time, or if I harrassed them or accused them of something. People who ignore their surroundings become victims. Allowing fear to rule your life and prevent you from enjoying life is sad. Locking your door at night, crossing the street when a strange man is keeping pace behind you and always being aware of your child and their surroundings are simple precautions that can save a life-time of heartache.

If only law makers and the citizenry understood these few very important facts, we would have a system that works. The laws as they are written now "DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD!"

Ten Myths About Sex Offenders
http://t.co/PigT3AC

"We all hope for the day when we can see fewer sex offenses and particularly fewer juvenile victims of such crimes. But so long as what we think we know about these types of crimes is based on myths and fear rather than facts, that day will never come. There are several myths that are widely believed that need to be debunked.

In recent years social scientists and criminologists have combed through an immense accumulation of data from hundreds of studies, which have tracked tens of thousands of individual sex offenders for long periods of time, some even for decades.

By 1994, 670 studies of sex offenders had been done and by the end of 2005 well over 700. Many of these studies have been systematized through a methodology called meta-analysis. The resulting data reveal that many common myths about sex offenders are simply false. We outline here some of them."

"Monica, it is not about whether or not a parent at the park is a pedophile, they are not going to kidnap a child when they have their own kid with them. It is about being aware of the people around you so that nothing can happen. Bad or sick people exist and ignoring your surroundings is not ever the way to prevent something from happening.

I am not going to stand on the edge of the subway platform when I am waiting for a train because there have been incidents of people who push others onto the tracks. The odds of it happening to me are low but they are the same odds faced by the people who are pushed in front of a train.

Not trusting strangers who knowingly place themselves in a questionable situation is neither sad nor bad. It would be bad or sad if it ruined my good time, or if I harrassed them or accused them of something. People who ignore their surroundings become victims. Allowing fear to rule your life and prevent you from enjoying life is sad. Locking your door at night, crossing the street when a strange man is keeping pace behind you and always being aware of your child and their surroundings are simple precautions that can save a life-time of heartache."

Actually Ingrid, pedos use children to harvest other children, so a parent with child is not a safe stranger either. Parks are not just for parents and children, but for everyone.

It's statistically more likely that your children will be more endangered riding in a car with you than at the park with you and a bunch of untrustworthy strangers.

Your irrational fear of being pushed in front of a moving subway train leads to an irrational belief that standing back from the tracks will somehow make you safe. Kind of your own Hammett "Flitcraft Episode" . . .

http://chrisroutledge.co.uk/writing/the-flitcraft-parable/

"The story of Flitcraft, which Spade tells to Brigid O’Shaughnessy, is a parable of modern life. In literary terms it takes the idea of the Modernist epiphany and exposes it as a fleeting moment with no lasting effect."

"On his way to get lunch Flitcraft narrowly avoided being killed by a beam falling from a nearby unfinished building. Having lived a life of order and responsibility he now realised that none of it mattered and that life could end at any moment. He adjusted to his new knowledge by leaving that afternoon."

What is interesting about the Flitcraft parable is not the moment of change but the outcome. Flitcraft adjusts to his moment of revelation and forgets about it. When Spade catches up with him five years later Flitcraft is living under the name of Charles Pierce, arguably a reference to Charles Sanders Peirce, the pragmatic philosopher and American pioneer of semiotics. He is comfortable and prosperous, living in a suburb of Spokane, Washington, with a new job and a new wife and a new baby son. In just a few years Flitcraft had gone back to the life he had before, but in a different town, with a different job and a different family. The parable ends: ‘He adjusted himself to beams falling, and then no more of them fell, and he adjusted himself to them not falling.’

It's not the stranger who places themselves is a questionable situation that's the problem here.

Monica, it is not about whether or not a parent at the park is a pedophile, they are not going to kidnap a child when they have their own kid with them.

They're also unlikely to kidnap your child right in front of you, or when your child is there with another child. Or at all, as the last time I checked, there were an average of 115 stranger abductions per year, which means a kid is more likely to choke to death than she is to be kidnapped by a stranger.

What makes it both sad and bad is that this fear actively destroys communities without doing a single thing to make children safer. As Jay pointed out, a false sense of security is no security at all. We need to be teaching kids the physical and psychological skills they need to protect themselves, not teaching them to punish any stranger who doesn't share their mothers' level of paranoia.

MonicaP: what about missing children? It's not that I don't believe your statistic--I've heard it before too--but what about the kids that just go unaccounted for? I think the number must be higher when you factor missing kids in. And the difficulty, of course, is that while Amber alerts are good, they also engender fear. I think the information age is fraught with contradictions. It's a case of the advantages being cancelled out by the disadvantages.

I don't think the helicopter parenting that I see these days is good. I remember when I was a 10 year old, I could disappear for an entire day out playing in the woods and creeks around my house and no one would think much of it. It's a shame that kids can't do that sort of thing now. I think it limits their emotional growth. It'll be interesting to see what this generation of kids will look like as adults. It's a bit sad, really.

And it's got to be tough on parents who don't want to be helicopter parents. I can imagine the guilt trips they get sent on my their more paranoid counterparts.

There's a first cause--child molestation; then there's the secondary cause--the fear caused by the threat of child molestation. Focussing on the second cause doesn't nullify the first. It's just logical.
Posted by: ie

Good point, but then again

There's a first cause--child molestation; then there's the secondary cause--the fear caused by the threat of child molestation. Passing laws that target (primarily) men based on the second cause doesn't prevent a single instance the first. It's just logical.

Right?

Women are just as trustworthy as men . . .

http://www.serialkillers.ca/paul-bernardo-and-karla-homolka/

ie wrote: "I was NOT rewarded with any kind of gratitude by him or his mother. In fact, the boy got into the van without a backward glance and his mother looked at me like I might be a potential criminal. And I'm a woman. "

Rock-throwers, once they get going, are seldom satisfied with just one scapegoat. Once a group that is motivated by a combination of irrational fear and a sense of moral superiority gets going, spillover is bound to occur. First, it's just middle-age men. Then it extends to young boys. Then, women who have no children of their own. And so on and so on, etcetc, until they run out of "others" and then part of the group decides to scapegoat another part. That's where it ends, but the movement can cause enormous damage before it gets to that point.

>>luljp writes..... TW, the reason a 'vast majority' of these cases are men is becuase people refuse to see women as molesters.

I agree with your thought that people "refuse to see women as molesters" though I would put it 'people strongly don't expect the perpetrator to be female'. I think there have been enough cases involving females that 'refusal' has turned to simply not expecting it. In speaking with females on this, their belief is that even female strangers are looked upon as a threat to their kids (just maybe not molesters).

But, again, the MSM is a powerful tool to put a face to a specific fear. The most egregious, most awful molestation cases typically make the MSM video loop. The face of these cases is almost always male (even if molestation is perpetrated by females much more often than is reported). Of course it is not fair for 12 or 24 (or even 100) awful cases a year to be a proper sample size for a 100+ million male population. But as Kristen, I believe it was Kristen, said in the post I originally responded to, the human condition is to stereotype (using the Muslim sitting next to you on an airplane making you be on guard as an example). If the public turns on the TV and once a month they see a most appalling case of molestation and it is always a male, the face of molestation has been formed (adding in brazen acts of crime on the MSM video loop are almost always male -- adding to the general mindset of males).

Generally speaking, the MSM has its "victimology" mindset. What your sex, race, location, class etc etc will factor into what face they will put to a story/fear (frequently ignoring stories that don't fit the victimology). Women are higher on the victim matrix they keep next to their laptops. This means it will take more than the occasional (and just as unfortunate) egregious case done by a female to take up enough of the MSM video loop to change the mindset.Personally, I don't want women to become the face or even co-face of molestation. If there has to be a face, well, maybe it is best for it to be male (I know this will be an unpopular thought...and I know it in general sucks....but I think it might be the best of all the bad scenarios). Ideally, though, a sense of proportion will take hold and their won't be face to it at all I (maybe that would be the most accurate?). Don't hold your breath waiting for proportion or a non victomology mindset from the MSM.

@lujlp

"There's a first cause--child molestation; then there's the secondary cause--the fear caused by the threat of child molestation. Passing laws that target (primarily) men based on the second cause doesn't prevent a single instance the first. It's just logical."

Uh...not really, lujlp. How do you know the laws don't discourage real pedophiles from acting? This isn't measurable in any way since we don't have access to these people (as in to poll them) before they act. And, a lot of what these mostly men say afterwards--about how they "can't help themselves"--seems awfully self-serving.

The problem with a lot of the posters on this thread has been the purely emotional and not rational way they've responded. Gosh, isn't that something women have been accused of for millenia?

If I do an informal poll of all the people I've known who have been molested, they've all been molested by men. There may have been women who looked the other way (which is just as bad, in a sense), but the actual diddling was done by a male.

Saying that, the instance of women co-conspirators (a la Karla Homolka) seems to be rising or maybe we're just catching more of them.

The point is, there are always going to be parnoid people, there are always going to be false accusations and there are always people who are going to take advantage of these kind of situations.

Getting hysterical about false accustions in and of itself has consequences. You're less likely to be listened to and, like the truck driver who ignored the lost little girl, there are going to be victims. It's like I posted initially: I think the guy over-reacted. He could have stopped, gotten another person involved if he was afraid, OR, he could have called the English equivalent of 911 on the spot and waited. His "explosive" revelation just seems like explosive diarhhea to me. And if you think that that's wrong, imagine that little girl being a relative of yours.

what about missing children?

Most children who disappear are abducted by family or friends (often, a parent in a custody dispute) or are runaways. Stranger abduction is extremely rare, and the amount of energy people pour into it is disproportionate to the actual danger.

Also:

How do you know the laws don't discourage real pedophiles from acting? This isn't measurable in any way since we don't have access to these people (as in to poll them) before they act.

There's no good reason to have a law that punishes innocent people if we can't even be sure it will deter the guilty. That seems like a dangerous law to me.

@MonicaP: But how can you possibly measure the deterrent effect when it comes to any law? The answer is we accept most laws because we go on good faith, good faith that laws will deter people from bad behaviour.

I've lived and travelled in third world countries where martial law was kinda it--if you broke a law the punishment was swift and usually brutal. We're way better off here in North America, even with the occasional false arrest and prosecution.(

If we made laws according to your thinking, there would be very few laws at all. And let's face it, most criminals have the same attitude you do, that all laws are "dangerous," dangerous to their belief that they should be allowed to do exactly what they want, regardless of the consequences to others.

To make a law, we should be able to make a rational case that this law protects people. We have laws that require us to stop at intersections because giving everyone the right of way all the time would make us all dead. I don't see any social value in, say, not allowing childless people to sit in the park. It restricts the rights of people whose taxes pay for that park without benefiting society.

Is there a park that you know of that does this? Really? (And think of Seth and Amy's segment on SNL where they ask "Really?" 'cause that's what I think of this assertion.

I don't know of any parks who do this so I still don't get your point. I wasn't intending to start an argument with you, so I don't understand why you're arguing back. Quite frankly, your example just sounds a bit nutty.

Most laws that I know of are written and examined quite thoroughly before they are passed into being. They have to be vetted by quite a number of people with all the possible permutations mapped out in advance. I can't imagine the "law" you've stated above ever coming into being.

You know, I'm sick of arguing this point with you. I have several friends, MALE and female who have been molested and they've been molested by men. I also know of three teachers in the last few years--one a really close friend--who have been "vicimized" by girls making false accusations. All of them were exonerated, which tells me the system works--false accusations are examined as throughly as real ones, if you ask me.

Spare some sympathy for the people who really deserve it.

My recent ex & I are dedicated to raising our son. Fortunately he was already 16 when she filed for divorce.

When we all go out together I give him the revised version of what a gentleman should be - one who looks after the women in his own group. Other women will have to do with their men for protection or help. If they go out without men, they are on their own. Also, he is never to go near a child. I'm glad he has that one down pat already.

I'm responsible for my son in these times that we live in and that is how he should understand society.

Most laws that I know of are written and examined quite thoroughly before they are passed into being. They have to be vetted by quite a number of people with all the possible permutations mapped out in advance. I can't imagine the "law" you've stated above ever coming into being. -ie

Really? Have you ever even watched C-Span?

Ever hear of all the items added onto bills at the last minute?

Ever hear of Arizonas SB1070? Its curently being blocked by a federal lawsuit becue of unmapped advaced permutations.

Laws that make guys who pull children out of busy streets pedophiles do not protect children.

Laws that require parents to submit their fingerprint to police in order to get an offical "I'm not a pedophile" card before they can take their own kids to a public park do not make children safer.

Laws which punish men in consentual relationships consumated only under the false pretenses of a woman do not make anyone safer.

Funniest thing of all about my last example - men can be charged with rape in some jurisdictions for lying to a woman about their name, job, income, ect if she decided after the fact that had she know the truth she wouldnt have agreed to sex.

Do you serioulsy not see the problem? Or is it that you just dont care?

You said "Spare some sympathy for the people who really deserve it."

How does anyone who has had their life needlessly destroyed for no good reason not deserve sympathy?

How does a kid at 16 considered such a "danger" that he cant go near schools, parks, shopping malls, cant get an education, cant get a job with out disclosing the government considers him a pedophile, has the very real possibility of having his kids taken away should he ever even find someone willing to marry him. All becuase a girl lied to him about how old she was?

How in the hell does a person like that NOT deserve sympathy?

lujlp: I live in Canada. We're not so paranoid up here; that is, we don't run our lives by a who's-the-biggest-victim mentality. You and MonicaP should set up shop somewhere.

"Do you serioulsy not see the problem? Or is it that you just dont care.'

I don't care.

Amy wrote:

"I forgot about this recently posted story:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview"

What a horrible, horrible woman! That Meredith Maran is the absolute textbook case of a menhater. I wouldn't doubt it that she even 'became' lesbian (as if that's ever possible) on her way of the absolute man hatred.

The most pathetic part: she really thinks she's genuinely sorry for all the pain and hurt she caused, when, in fact, she's only excusing herself from the mess she created alone: "Oh, I was being brainwashed, poor me, I wasn't at fault at all".

Again: What a horrible, screwed up woman...

> What a horrible, horrible woman!

I too was amazed by that, and the treatment in got in Salon.

There's really something that's ethically oblivious –in a deeply personal way– about the lefty mindset. There's this presumption that the whole world is just a narrative composed for their personal fulfillment, and other people aren't real. They think it's like the Truman Show movie, only the point is to make them happy. And we're all in on it –mere actors compared to their real selves– so they're free to change the script and its history and we're all supposed to go along without resentment, as if we too were impulsively reconfiguring our personalities and integrity without regret. No policy, no physical law, no moral precept is off limits to these people.

I see this in lefty thinking all the time, even from the commenters here on this blog.

(Hi, Botu!)

This is interesting, because there was a case where a woman was put on trial for NOT helping a toddler that had TWICE wandered away from its father and ended up drowning. She once guided the child back to the father and then when it wandered away again saw it tumble into a storm culvert. SHE ended up on trial for not intervening as part of a plea deal the FATHER made to testify against her!
I've tried finding the link on Google but I don't remember her name, but if I stumble across it I'll post it. I think it's a double standard - women are supposed to leap into action at the first sign of a child wandering away, apparently.

Choika,

There is a very large difference. She had already involved herself in the situation. She helped the first time, and then did nothing the second. Legally (which is stupid), she can be held accountable. In the case of the man who saw the child wandering, he did nothing.

It's the same type of situation as if you begin CPR on someone. You can't stop once you start, unless emergency personnel show up and take over. Otherwise you can be held liable for any damages that occur.

Which means, sadly, that unless you are completely willing to be on the hook, doing nothing, even to the detriment of others, may be your best option.

The woman's name is Susan Newkirk. It was near Pittsburgh, in Oct. 2005.

Failing to stop a child from falling in is one thing. However, what's REALLY bizarre is that the prosecution argued that even though Newkirk couldn't swim, she should have jumped in - and the jury bought it! What is the world coming to?

Here's a good long thread on the case:

http://tinyurl.com/33nj43q

With comments from lifeguards.

lujlp said:

Laws that require parents to submit their fingerprint to police in order to get an offical "I'm not a pedophile" card before they can take their own kids to a public park do not make children safer.
_____________________

Um, where does THAT happen?
______________________

All becuase a girl lied to him about how old she was?
______________________

I think we need to remember that some things are far more important than a boy's right to have sex with a stranger or a near-stranger, who, after all, might be a liar.

As I posted a while back, if the younger party, male or female, is under 17 and there's a 4-year gap or more, that, at least, should automatically be statutory rape. To those who say that's unfair, I say you have to draw the line somewhere. Better that we have a law like that than one that calls it statutory rape when the two parties are just days apart. Not that it's a good idea, as a rule, for two teens to be having sex anyway, of course. (But if the younger party is 12 or under, the gap clearly has to be 3 years or so.)

On the subject of kids making false accusations (which is far easier to do now that kids KNOW so much):

Rosemond pointed out (indirectly) the importance of siding with the teacher when a kid and a teacher tell different stories about the kid's misbehavior. (Granted, I can't remember his ever talking about what to do when teachers are, in fact, bullies - but that's probably pretty rare these days.)

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=134014

Excerpts:

“We have substituted a reality of child rearing for a mythology, and it’s time that we understood that and got back to basics,” he said.

He calls the basics teaching kids the three R's, respect, responsibility and resourcefulness. Rosemond also advises parents to always believe the teacher, even if they're not always right.

“It’s OK for children to know they may get falsely accused,” Rosemond said. “Support your teacher in the final analysis that will pay off."

And limit homework help.

“Because most of the help amounts to enabling, it’s not help," said Rosemond.

What I meant was, Rosemond pointed out that kids need to be taught that they won't be automatically be believed ahead of adults UNTIL the kid in question builds up a sterling reputation for honesty, since a teacher is presumably already a trusted adult.

Depends on how you define a pedophile. If it is attraction to fertile and healthy female who already started to develop her womanly charms (usually starting from 12-14 years old) then yes - all men should be pedophiles (except for gays maybe). Simply because it is in their biology to be attracted to healthy and fertile females. And biology has nothing to do with morals - nobody will care about age difference in the wild as long both partners are physically capable and both want to do it.

If you define pedophile as someone who is attracted to undeveloped girl who cannot yet properly give birth to children (without major damage to her body) then no - most men are not attracted to such girls. We are talking about 9-10 years old or less.

Dr Brian Neil Talarico North Bay Has been convicted of child molestation, an possession of child pornography on his computer. Sexually molesting a young boy. He had prior convictions for child molestation in 1990 and 2001. After his parole in 2006. Dr. Talarico Brian. Works for north east mental health centre, despite his background, and numerous complaints against him of abuse, fraud, negligence, and imprisonment. Address: North East Mental Health Centre, North Bay Campus Highway 11 North North Bay Ontario P1B 8L1, and now works for Act 2, North Bay.