| Baba Yaga Boney Legs 2005-01-31, 10:47 am |
| "Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote, in
alt.abuse.offender.recovery:
>
>"Baba Yaga Boney Legs" <spamdump@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message
>news:4npiv099pp0h6do3f620trt66jmsnrp13n@4ax.com...
>
>Yeah, you understand, that's exactly what it is.
And maybe it's one of the things this group was for. I always thought
so, 'though you and Liz, as ever, took it that bit further.
I suppose, if I'm to have anything like a consistent position, that
*taking it so much further may also have been one of the things this
group was for - if not by intention.
>
>Well. I never did believe in the power of this group's ability to recover the
>sick as you seem to.
<<snort>> There was more "recovery work" going on here than in
a.a.r., at times - the reason I read here.
A.A.O.R. was a tool, as a.a.r.'s a tool. Changing a life requires
more than a hammer - but a hammer can be the tool one needs to begin.
From my angle, if a couple used this tool among tools to get them so
much further along the way, that was a bonus over what existed
elsewhere. While there are offenders out in the world, anything which
could be of use is better than nowt, to my mind.
I know you have less belief, or perhaps just hope, in "recovery" of
offenders (or potential offenders) than I do, and that's fair enough.
The day there are accurate and unbiased statistics, from a variety of
sources, we'll have an idea of the truth. Meantime, if there's any
possibility at all that one child is protected from harm, I'm for it.
> They knew it was being monitored and they were very
>careful about what they said (Chris X and Peter B. are prime examples of this).
True. There were some wonderfully revealing discussions on occasion,
though.
>
>I hate them too much, Baba, to want to aid them in anything but driving them
>away.
<<nod>> Understood.
>I'm glad they're on a "yahoo" group, anything that takes them out of the
>mainstream is good, imo.
Ironically, I think Yahoo's more mainstream than Usenet. Just less
open - less observable by Joe Ordinary.
>
>But baba - my pokes at these marshmallows were incredibly mild, really, compared
>to the pokes I've taken at the rage filled residents of other groups - the
>survivors who have actually learned how to defend themselves.
Oh, I dunno - the retreat to e-mail lists has happened a few times in
a.a.r.'s history, and it wasn't only the usual suspects who got sucked
into that fantasy that it'll be Better there. I've seen it mooted in
other places, too: the idea seems to have great attraction.
I think that, over time, it's "their" loss to have run away: those who
had got a good dose of "recovery" under their belts went because one
learns a kind of pragmatism about which battles to fight, when; and
those who hadn't, could likely have done with the very particular
lessons which Usenet can teach about control (and self-control) and
what is (and isn't) abuse, and all the rest.
On the other hand, one does need a certain amount of safety to do the
hard stuff of recovery (and isn't it sad to see the people who've
spent a lifetime being so damn' nasty that they've destroyed the
safety which might have let them do it, when they're old enough and
have created enough wreckage, to want something better?), and maybe
those who were likely to do it at all will find it easier in a closed
group. I hope so.
>The fact is that
>these people can't defend themselves, they don't know how. These pedophiles are
>the characterizers of children as angels and pure innocents (they don't really
>understand children)
Hneh. I know someone else who has that view of children - and at the
same time admires /Lord of the Flies/ greatly, as a work of deep
truth. Riddle that one for me!
(I detested /Lord of the Flies/. Probably for the same reasons he
admires it, only from underneath.)
> - they are attracted to passivity and trust, not self
>defense and anger.
You see the same thing in the more protected "survivor" groups,
notably in a.s.dis. (although there, there's a substrate of surprising
toughness) - people who've been broken at a certain age, and stuck
there. That side of things - well, it gives me the creeps rather, but
it's primarily sad.
> They want to deal only with the pre-existing conditin of the
>child, before abuse - and are terrified by the after effect. Is that my fault?
No. Although the fact that someone's vulnerable is hardly
justification for hitting him. Or for gloating over the fact that he
fell down Plop when you did. Don't like that, and ain't going to
pretend I do.
It may be, granted, that this group was always going to go that way.
'Though the interesting thing is that it hadn't done so before, and
trolls and enraged victims were part of the landscape.
However, and much as I understand how visceral revulsion is - hell, it
has to be, it's your protection -, I do think the desire to annihilate
someone for what he *is*, not what he does, to attack in defence, is a
fault.
>
>Well. Anyone that fantasizes and ACTS upon the victimization of children is
>less than me. YES.
I'll go that far! But the day he stops, and gets serious about not
doing - there's a lot to be proved, but if he proves it, *really*
proves it, he's no worse and maybe a little better than those of us
who aren't doing it just because we aren't tempted. Not necessarily
nice, or interesting, or any of the things which make one want to
spend time with a person, but as good as anyone else who isn't
victimising children.
There were at least a couple hereabouts who were serious about it.
Them I respected, and learnt from.
>
>What are these boy-love groups? I'd be happy to kick some XXX there.
<<grin>> Not really?
How about alt.support.boy-lovers (and presumably .girl-lovers)?
(Isn't that creepy, alt.support. ?) Quote:
#I tend to think that boylovers and child molesters are not the same.
#Boylovers in my view are men that have emotional and perhaps physical
#attractions to boys. They would never take advantage of them
#personally and are looking for companionship and friendship to fill
#the missing void in their lives. On the otherhand a child molester in
#my opinion is a rapist and a predator that would take advantage of any
#boy in any way to satisfy their selfish desires and sexual fantasies
#at the expense of the boy regardless of consequence or laws and most
#importantly regardless of the boy they are abusing.
Doesn't that sound pure and high-minded (nah, nothing to do with the
possibility that The Law might be reading), and as though there
couldn't *possibly* be anything amiss with adults looking to children
for "companionship and friendship to fill the missing void [!] in
their lives"? Mind you, there's also the moron who thinks "faggots"
aren't human.
And when you've thrown up all you have, there's alt.support.incest to
have a go at.
Baba Yaga
--
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea: massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
- Gene Spafford
|