Rape allegations against Jimmy Tarbuck

[littlebabyjesus]

TThere's also a motivational issue. Some offenders are motivated through overt exercise of power (whether that's a case of "children are easy victims" or "it was done to me, so now I'm doing it to someone else") and others are motivated by what boils down to a series of failures of socialisation - for some reason they can't psychologically or physically relate to adults. This is a small group of offenders (IIRC about 15% of the whole), but they're probably the hardest to treat because treatment isn't about teaching them that with power comes responsibility, it's about pretty much reconstructing their psyches.

Makes sense to me. And it's a very good point, I think. I'd add to it by asking where sexual attraction itself fits in here. If an adult is sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children, this also points to something fundamental about them that may be hard or impossible to change. A while ago, I was very perturbed to hear a person working with paedophiles talking about 'illegal fantasies'. iirc, that was the exact term she used, but it may not have been. Either way, the position was that these men were doing something wrong simply by fantasising about sex with children. I think that's a very dangerous way to look at it, and possibly a very unfruitful way to talk to people. It could be counterproductive - an opposite approach teaching men not to act out their fantasies could be better. But to condemn them for their urges as well as their actions seems, well, unfair, and likely to simply produce a reaction where the man in question either just lies about their fantasies or withdraws from the process of counselling altogether.

 

[ymu]

I think it is quite likely that a group of people who have been brought up to value having power and measure their self-worth by how much of it they have will contain a fair few who get turned on by having the ability to abuse it. No?

 

[ViolentPanda]

She can be as offensive as she wishes, however she has pointed out there could be a group of children at risk, is this not an issue?

An issue of what?
Are we supposed to break out the pitchforks and burning brands because ymu didn't report it at the time and/or hasn't since? In that case, better burn me too, and existentialist because he took 40 years. What you don't seem to be grasping is that this isn't like reporting to the Old Bill that your car has been stolen. It's more akin to self-harm, because it often involves cutting away the web of defences you've built for yourself in order to "compartmentalise" or contain the psychological effects of the abuse. I was 25 before I could even mention having been "sexually assaulted" (as it was categorised in law back then) - 16 years after the event - because I'd pretty much locked everything away in order to stay sane. Going to the police was just about the last thing that would've occurred to me, and sure, that quite possibly means that my attacker victimised others, but I was busy (doing a bad job of) holding myself together and didn't have time for "what if?".
So please don't dare put the onus on victims to report their attackers. Most of us have enough to deal with (including in some cases making excuses to family and friends as to why we've undergone a sudden personality change), without people saying (effectively) "you shit, you've allowed other people to be abused!".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it is quite likely that a group of people who have been brought up to value having power and measure their self-worth by how much of it they have will contain a fair few who get turned on by having the ability to abuse it. No?

Absolutely. There are examples of that as old as Greece and Rome.

 

[ymu]

That is not what I said (post above the one above ). Coley doesn't read posts by women. You should check for yourself before repeating his cuntery.

Thanks.

 

[existentialist]

LBJ -

Yeah, that's unhelpful - criminalising thought rarely helps anything, and may help people with paedophile tendencies to distance themselves from "mainstream" attitudes and thus find it potentially easier to disassociate themselves from the consequences of what actions those thoughts might result in.

Furthermore - and this applies to sexual attraction in general - if we put thoughts, which may well not be under the conscious control of their owners, on the "wrong" side of the legal/moral line, we make the journey from thought to immoral/illegal deed that much smoother - not a good thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

LBJ -

Yeah, that's unhelpful - criminalising thought rarely helps anything, and may help people with paedophile tendencies to distance themselves from "mainstream" attitudes and thus find it potentially easier to disassociate themselves from the consequences of what actions those thoughts might result in.

Furthermore - and this applies to sexual attraction in general - if we put thoughts, which may well not be under the conscious control of their owners, on the "wrong" side of the legal/moral line, we make the journey from thought to immoral/illegal deed that much smoother - not a good thing.

Yes, that's what I thought. The person concerned was a government psychologist working in prisons. It struck me as a politically motivated position more than a clinically motivated one, but either way, I wasn't encouraged that this was how convicted paedophiles were being treated.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am most certainly not, just suggesting that if she knows or suspects this bloke is a risk to children then she should report it, nothing more.

That's your intention, sure, but what you're actually doing is tacitly judging - "why haven't you reported him? The fact of other children could be on your hands!".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who is winning the thread today?

Beans before cheese.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then perhaps you can point us to those rapidly diminishing rape statistics that a bunch of coppers have just gone to prison for fiddling?

Or maybe note that violent crime in South Africa has halved since apartheid but rape appears to have barely changed.

Seeing as you're telling us all how very safe the streets are, I think you should report all the relevant statistics, not just the ones that are relevant to your everyday life. Because the last time I checked serious sexual assault was a virtual certainty for a women on this planet, and one in five of those women fortunate enough to live in the west will be raped at least once.

So please, tell us how very fucking safe it is out there.

Piss off.
I haven't told you how safe the streets are, so don't put words in my mouth, or push your issues on me, thanks all the same.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That is not what I said (post above the one above ). Coley doesn't read posts by women. You should check for yourself before repeating his cuntery.

Thanks.

I haven't "repeated his cuntery", I iterated the point he was making as an example.

 

[ymu]

That's your intention, sure, but what you're actually doing is tacitly judging - "why haven't you reported him? The fact of other children could be on your hands!".

Whilst that is indeed the mark of a cunt, he's not even doing that.

I responded to his earlier post. He didn't read it because he is not interested in anything except arming himself for more cuntery. Which is good, because it is so much easier to laugh at people who cunt themselves off when trying to cunt others off. Despising them is easy, but a good belly laugh always helps.

 

[coley]

An issue of what?
Are we supposed to break out the pitchforks and burning brands because ymu didn't report it at the time and/or hasn't since? In that case, better burn me too, and existentialist because he took 40 years. What you don't seem to be grasping is that this isn't like reporting to the Old Bill that your car has been stolen. It's more akin to self-harm, because it often involves cutting away the web of defences you've built for yourself in order to "compartmentalise" or contain the psychological effects of the abuse. I was 25 before I could even mention having been "sexually assaulted" (as it was categorised in law back then) - 16 years after the event - because I'd pretty much locked everything away in order to stay sane. Going to the police was just about the last thing that would've occurred to me, and sure, that quite possibly means that my attacker victimised others, but I was busy (doing a bad job of) holding myself together and didn't have time for "what if?".
So please don't dare put the onus on victims to report their attackers. Most of us have enough to deal with (including in some cases making excuses to family and friends as to why we've undergone a sudden personality change), without people saying (effectively) "you shit, you've allowed other people to be abused!".

Fair enough, I could have put it a bit more sensitively, but she was apparently referring to a bloke who harassed her (and others) and that she had concerns because he was now involved with a group of scouts.
Now, and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but harassment is, while bad enough, not on the same scale as sexual abuse but if she felt as a result of this harassment the bloke was a danger to children,making an anonymous phone call or sending a letter could have alerted people without causing her psychological damage surely?
And While I'm lucky enough not to have been the victim of abuse myself and as a result have been seen as insensitive and thoughtless to the pain of others than I apologise, but I would have thought once you have managed to get to the stage of facing what has happened,a desire to make sure it doesn't happen to others would be a strong motivating factor in the recovery process.

 

[coley]

That's your intention, sure, but what you're actually doing is tacitly judging - "why haven't you reported him? The fact of other children could be on your hands!".

Wasn't my intention to judge, but she said it "haunts her" how much more will it haunt her if this bloke goes on to abuse children.

 

[ymu]

You're still banging a broken drum you transparent little creep.

 

[Pickman's model]

Beans before cheese.

but what beans and what cheese?

 

[existentialist]

Fair enough, I could have put it a bit more sensitively, but she was apparently referring to a bloke who harassed her (and others) and that she had concerns because he was now involved with a group of scouts.
Now, and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but harassment is, while bad enough, not on the same scale as sexual abuse but if she felt as a result of this harassment the bloke was a danger to children,making an anonymous phone call or sending a letter could have alerted people without causing her psychological damage surely?
And While I'm lucky enough not to have been the victim of abuse myself and as a result have been seen as insensitive and thoughtless to the pain of others than I apologise, but I would have thought once you have managed to get to the stage of facing what has happened,a desire to make sure it doesn't happen to others would be a strong motivating factor in the recovery process.

Well, if all this thread has achieved is to cause you to reexamine your views on this a little, that's good progress.

 

[coley]

You're still banging a broken drum you transparent little creep.

Before this gets out of hand,have you ever detailed the abuse you have suffered anywhere else on here, is there something other know but I am missing?

 

[coley]

Well, if all this thread has achieved is to cause you to reexamine your views on this a little, that's good progress.

Well, if all this thread has achieved is to cause you to reexamine your views on this a little, that's good progress.

I don't post a lot on subjects such as this because of limited knowledge and my initial post was a somewhat thoughtless reflex, to the fact that there could be a group of children out there at serious risk of abuse, and I certainly don't mind being called out on my lack of sensitivity? But it's worth a thought that the offended one could have given some consideration to my concern rather than waste time sitting on here being offensive.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fair enough, I could have put it a bit more sensitively, but she was apparently referring to a bloke who harassed her (and others) and that she had concerns because he was now involved with a group of scouts.
Now, and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but harassment is, while bad enough, not on the same scale as sexual abuse but if she felt as a result of this harassment the bloke was a danger to children,making an anonymous phone call or sending a letter could have alerted people without causing her psychological damage surely?

You're making an assumption about terminology. "Harrassment" could mean many things, including serious physical, emotional and sexual serial abuse. If I talk about what happened to me, I say "indecently assaulted", because it's "easier" than cataloguing what happened (And I was fortunate enough that it only happened to me once, not repeatedly).

And While I'm lucky enough not to have been the victim of abuse myself and as a result have been seen as insensitive and thoughtless to the pain of others than I apologise, but I would have thought once you have managed to get to the stage of facing what has happened,a desire to make sure it doesn't happen to others would be a strong motivating factor in the recovery process.

I think you've bought into a myth, there. You don't "recover", you survive by learning to cope, and for most survivors, it takes decades (during which they may suffer some quite severe mental anguishes that manifest as depression, self harm etc) to reach a point of self-acceptance. Sure, it'd be nice, in an ideal world where the majority of abuse victims weren't left to suffer alone, to be able to put the finger on the abuser so that they can't offend again, but you're expecting rationality where most feelings w/r/t surviving abuse are rawly emotional until very late in the day.

 

[ymu]

Plus, not being believed is worse than the original offence, for most. The post-Savile flood is people realising that they can get justice now. And for many realising that a crime had actually taken place and that no, it wasn't something they were just expected to put up with, it's a law. Like seatbelts and drink-driving: there but never enforced until someone made a big enough fuss about it.

I don't post a lot on subjects such as this because of limited knowledge and my initial post was a somewhat thoughtless reflex, to the fact that there could be a group of children out there at serious risk of abuse, and I certainly don't mind being called out on my lack of sensitivity? But it's worth a thought that the offended one could have given some consideration to my concern rather than waste time sitting on here being offensive.

You could have read my answer to your original question instead of trying to find new ways to dig that blunt old broken needle in deeper.

You would have done so already if this was anything to do with wanting to understand anything. It's not. It is you being creepy again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wasn't my intention to judge, but she said it "haunts her" how much more will it haunt her if this bloke goes on to abuse children.

I know it wasn't your intention, I made clear I didn't think it was. However, that doesn't stop your post as coming across precisely as a judgement of behaviour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Makes sense to me. And it's a very good point, I think. I'd add to it by asking where sexual attraction itself fits in here. If an adult is sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children, this also points to something fundamental about them that may be hard or impossible to change. A while ago, I was very perturbed to hear a person working with paedophiles talking about 'illegal fantasies'. iirc, that was the exact term she used, but it may not have been. Either way, the position was that these men were doing something wrong simply by fantasising about sex with children. I think that's a very dangerous way to look at it, and possibly a very unfruitful way to talk to people. It could be counterproductive - an opposite approach teaching men not to act out their fantasies could be better. But to condemn them for their urges as well as their actions seems, well, unfair, and likely to simply produce a reaction where the man in question either just lies about their fantasies or withdraws from the process of counselling altogether.

Just getting back to this after skimming some old essays of mine. Could the person have been talking about illicit fantasies, rather than "illegal"? Treatment often uses the difference between licit and illicit fantasising and conduct as a method of reinforcing the delineation between socially-acceptable and unacceptable conduct - alter the internal perspective to alter the external manifestaion, as it were.

 

[ymu]

Thanks for dismissing my experience of this creep. This is the cunt who decided to announce that he read an OP about an increase in teenage girls being abused by their boyfriends as "prurient trolling".

But you know, give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not been doing this on anti-sexism threads for months, he's brand new to it all and just a silly old man who made a mistake.

Mug.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for dismissing my experience of this creep. This is the cunt who decided to announce that he read an OP about an increase in teenage girls being abused by their boyfriends as "prurient trolling".

But you know, give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not been doing this on anti-sexism threads for months, he's brand new to it all and just a silly old man who made a mistake.

Mug.

if it's any comfort i think there's some creeping going on here too.

 

[ymu]

Thanks PM. You pay more attention than most, so that is a great comfort to me.

 

[cesare]

He heralds it with that winky smiley.

 

[Pickman's model]

He heralds it with that winky smiley.

is there something the matter with your 'a' key?

 

[cesare]

Not you

 

[Pickman's model]

Not you