Jersey Girl wrote:They ARE.
The teacher, the scout leader, the bishop, the teacher assistant, the next door neighbor, the relative, are ALL potential child abusers and not just males, Loran.
Loran wrote:1. In which case, so are you, and so am I.
Yes, we are.
Loran wrote:2. There is no empirical or rational way that anything approaching all American males could be potential child abusers, given the vanishingly small percentage of males who actually have ever been, or ever will be, child abusers.
Stop this. What you're forwarding is sheer idiocy and has nothing whatsoever to do with what either truth dancer or I have stated. While statistically, males make up the bulk of child sexual abuse offenders, no one on this thread, and certainly not I, has singled out all males except for the situation involving the LDS Bishop as a case in point where children are permitted to be questioned one:one behind closed doors. If the LDS Bishop were female, this thread would still exist. Until society is able to provide a test to determine potential child sexual abusers, no unrelated adult in a position of trust/authority should be permitted to interact one:one with a child alone and behind closed doors. What you're supporting is the setting up of children for potential abuse and adults for potential allegations.
What person in their right mind would oppose protective environments for children and adults?
Jersey Girl wrote:Read the current news reports about the Sandra Cantu case whose body was found stuffed inside of a suitcase, discarded in a body of water, and washed up on shore when the reservoir was drained. Her female neighbor, who was a Sunday School teacher has been arrested for her death and sexual assault, rape with a foreign object. She is suspected of killing the child INSIDE the church, Loran.
Loran wrote:This has no relevance to TDs position, which is that the typical Bishop cannot be trusted behind closed doors, even with other adults in the room, with an minor child.
truth dancer's position throughout this thread has been that no unrelated adult (Bishop or otherwise) in a position of authority should be permitted one:one access to a child behind closed doors. Not the Bishop, the teacher, scout leader, neighbor, volunteer, etc. Melissa Huckaby was a neighbor and Sunday School teacher who had one:one access to 8 year old Sandra Cantu. She raped and killed her in the church, stuffed her dead body into her own suitcase and dumped her in an irrigation pond. Do you think that Sandra Cantu followed Melissa Huckaby to church because she was a trusted adult in her life? Of course she did. Do you think that Sandra Cantu's parents permitted Melissa Huckaby access to their child because she was a trusted adult in her life? Of course they did. Sandra Cantu would have followed Melissa Huckaby anywhere and when she did, Melissa Huckaby did anything to her.
Jersey Girl wrote:This isn't just about males as potential abusers. It's about any adult who is in a position of trust and authority and who has lone access to a child.
Loran wrote:The fact of the matter is, that while child sexual abuse has increased somewhat over the last several decades, it has never been an "epidemic", nor is it in any way so common as to warrant a continual climate of fear and suspicion regarding each and every adult male in a child's life.
Stop acting like an overblown windbag, Loran. No one here has said that each and every adult male in a child's life should be held in suspcion. No one here has stated that there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse. What you're suggesting is that unless child sexual abuse has reached epidemic proportions, preventive measures should not be taken.
That's like saying that unless every house is in on fire, there should be no smoke detectors.
Give it up, buddy.
Loran wrote:I think that the real agenda behind this mentality is probably even uglier than the overt agenda itself.
Do you think the "agenda" is uglier than child sexual abuse?
Jersey Girl wrote:Would you suggest removing seat belts from cars? The child restraint laws that are in force?
Loran wrote:Logically irrelevant. Car accidents are...accidents (I do support removal of seat belt laws for adults, however).
Shut up with your rhetoric and engage your brain, Loran. The measures that truth dancer and to a lesser extent, myself, have suggested are preventive in nature, as are child restraint laws.
Jersey Girl wrote:If not, why wouldn't you agree that proposing and implementing safe guards as a deterrent to child abuse and false allegations against adults who interact with them one:one is a common sense approach to take?
Loran wrote:If you want to deter child abuse, then you punish child abusers severely for their crimes (which our liberal/libertine society is not wont to do), you do not cast a pall of suspicion upon every male role model or authority figure in a child's life as a potential criminal pervert.
You do not send them to 12 step programs or rehabs. You punish them. You create a deterrent.
I see. So what you're saying is that society should wait until AFTER abuse has taken place to deal with it? No preventive measures.
No preventive measures for child sexual abuse until after abuse has taken place.
No smoke detectors installed until after the house has burned down.
No child restraint laws coded until kids are flying through windshields on every street corner.
Right. Got it.
Give me a break, Loran.
