‘Glee’ Actor Mark Salling Arrested for Possession of Child Pornography

[MikeyGMin]

But it's not true in others. I believe the latest, although not unanimous, conclusion is that while abuse may influence a few, mostly it's a matter of being born/wired that way, if we're talking about attraction to prepubescents (the true meaning of the term pedophile). Attraction to teenagers/youth (hebephile) is common and sometimes reinforced by society but can be dealt with by sticking to partners who are over the age of 18 but look younger. Hence all the porn out there with young-looking men (gay porn) and women (straight porn).

 

 

From personal experience. I was molested for two years as a pre-teen and it certainly didn't start a cycle of abuse in me. It might be more common that physical abuse creates a cycle.

 

My abuser was a 29 year old (when it started) friend of the family. I have often wondered if that imprinted something on me or it's just a coincidence. My whole life I have been attracted to men who are in the 25 - 35 year range. I was a very predatory teenager who put several men at risk when they succumbed to my advances. For many years the objects of my desire were age appropriate, but alas, now that I am getting up there in years, they have become inappropriate again.

[Kenny]

Headlines like this one are funny: Mark Salling's Friend Shocked by His Child Pornography Arrest

 

As opposed to what? "Stalling's friend: That figures."

 

http://www.people.com/article/mark-salling-friends-shocked-child-pornography-arrest

[Guest]

My whole life I have been attracted to men who are in the 25 - 35 year range... For many years the objects of my desire were age appropriate, but alas, now that I am getting up there in years, they have become inappropriate again.

 

News flash. Probably at least 90% of the world's population (of any age) is attracted to those who are 25-35. This was true from me when I was 15, when I was 30, and it's true for me now that I'm in my 50s. It will probably be true for me if I make it to my 90s. There's a reason most models are in their 20s or early 30s. It's because that's what human beings are usually pre-wired to find the most sexually appealing. There are self-evident biological reasons for this. There are obviously strong evolutionary pressures which would promote the survival of genes which encourage men to want to fuck females who are in the peak of their fertility, just as there are strong evolutionary pressure for women to want to fuck men who are in their physical peak, able to protect the family.

It's fairly obvious from a biological perspective why people try to go for mates closer to the 25-35 range, unless the mate provides a strong financial or other incentive. Do you really find it surprising that Donald Trump keeps dumping one wife for anther who's younger? Then there was that string I have on dancers in the Gallery section. I couldn't for the life of me understand why a 25 year-old dancer (who I thought was successful) would hook up with a man who looks like he's at least 60. Then a kind fellow forum member pointed out to me that even fairly successful dancers tend to be low on cash.

So, let me reassure you that you are not "inappropriate" for being attracted to men 25-35. Most of the human population shares your feelings. Yes, I'm sure there could be some responses from some men in this column who will assure us that they prefer older men. Once or twice I have had a request for pictures for older men in the Gallery. But by far the most viewed and liked pictures are men who are in the 25-35 range (and that goes for other contributors to the Gallery section also). So take the thoughts of being "inappropriate" off of your mind. You are NORMAL!

[Bearofdistinction]

I thought Hastert was a wrestling or boxing coach. Why are the boys wearing kimonos?

 

 

I had an occurrence several years ago where a youngster contacted me through Grindr. His stated age was 18. But then in conversation he told me he was 16. He was the one who initiated the texting in the first place. I'm not usually attracted to youngsters like that. When he told me he was 16, I said I can't talk to you, and I immediately blocked him.

 

I have had similar occurrences but not on GRINDR--- so prior to ending conversation I provided information for the local LGBT Teen Support and Social Groups ---- I remember being 16 gay and horny and not knowing where to go. After the information exchange for resources - I ended and blocked all conversation ---- Interesting to me is these guys who claim to be 18 are 16 look

22-24 (My absolute Minimum Age Threshold) although I generally prefer older like 30 at the bottom of the age range and 60 on the other end. Is this all a scam? I don't know I looked 20+ when I was 15

[LADoug1]

Let's see what happens.

 

The most important thing to remember at this point.

[LADoug1]

From personal experience. I was molested for two years as a pre-teen and it certainly didn't start a cycle of abuse in me. It might be more common that physical abuse creates a cycle.

 

My abuser was a 29 year old (when it started) friend of the family. I have often wondered if that imprinted something on me or it's just a coincidence. My whole life I have been attracted to men who are in the 25 - 35 year range. I was a very predatory teenager who put several men at risk when they succumbed to my advances. For many years the objects of my desire were age appropriate, but alas, now that I am getting up there in years, they have become inappropriate again.

 

Thank you for sharing such an intimate story. I'm so sorry this happened to you. Curious about what you mean that the men you find attractive now are "inappropriate". How old are they?

[sincitymix]

reminds me of the time I found a picture my bf sent me when we were both about 16, him in his car with an erection coming out of his pants. When I found the picture again I reluctantly destroyed it, since I was definitely very older. I destroyed it because now that I am in 30's, if it was found, I could technically be charged with possessing child porn(?) , despite it obviously being from many years ago.

From the article, wasn't most of the videos and pictures of boys around 16 or so? wouldn't that make him a Ephebophile?

[MikeyGMin]

reminds me of the time I found a picture my bf sent me when we were both about 16, him in his car with an erection coming out of his pants. When I found the picture again I reluctantly destroyed it, since I was definitely very older. I destroyed it because now that I am in 30's, if it was found, I could technically be charged with possessing child porn(?) , despite it obviously being from many years ago.

From the article, wasn't most of the videos and pictures of boys around 16 or so? wouldn't that make him a Ephebophile?

 

Unfortunately, no. If you read some of the updated news since this first broke many of the girls were prepubescent.

[MikeyGMin]

Thank you for sharing such an intimate story. I'm so sorry this happened to you. Curious about what you mean that the men you find attractive now are "inappropriate". How old are they?

 

Thanks. Although I know it was completely wrong of him and very creepy in retrospect, at the time I honestly didn't mind. The little horn dog in me was completely into it and kept going back for more. He also never buggered me.

 

"Inappropriate" just from a social and realistic point of view. I realize that many / most people think that men in this age range are at their most beautiful, so I don't really find the attraction inappropriate. Acting on it however makes me feel like a cliché of the older man chasing the younger man. I think that Calvin Klein looks ridiculous with his boy toys, and don't want that for myself.

 

The regular that I mention all of the time is only 27-years old. I absolutely indulge that attraction and love every minute of it, but I don't try to date men that young. I just don't think it's realistic.

Edited March 21, 2016 by MikeyGMin

[josh282282]

But unless she offered out of the blue, which I don't think even he argued, the idea of consensuality or lack of a power differential is absurd when talking about a powerful man well enough off to rent a suite in an upscale NYC hotel and a maid. What do you expect her to do when propositioned by such a person in a hotel room by herself: say no and risk violence, or say yes?

 

Well, um, yes, Quotetheraven, I DO expect a woman to decline sex if she doesn't want it. There is SIGNIFICANT evidence that the female accuser was a LYING PIECE OF SHIT and eventually the whole rape charge was dropped cuz it was suspected to be bogus accusations from a liar. My opinion is she was offered sex by a (heterosexual) man-whore and saw him as a cash cow. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

 

Don't believe me? Read on.

 

From CBS NEWS:

 

"The woman's asylum application described how she and her husband were persecuted and beaten by regime forces in Guinea. She claimed her husband was imprisoned, tortured and subsequently died at the hands of police. The woman later admitted to prosecutors that her account was false and that she had been coached by another man to create the fictional account for the purposes of the application."

 

"The woman twice relayed to investigators emotional accounts of how she was gang-raped in Guinea. She later said those accounts were false and were similarly used for the asylum application process. However, she did still claim that she was a rape victim, though the details did not match her original story."

 

"The woman admitted to using a friend's child to fraudulently claim an additional dependent and increase her tax refund. She also misrepresented her income to maintain her housing."

 

Additionally, the New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, reported that:

 

- In the day following her accusations against Strauss-Kahn, the woman had a phone conversation with a man imprisoned and charged with possession of 400 pounds of marijuana. In the conversation, which was recorded, she spoke about possible benefits of pursuing the case, two officials told the paper.

 

- Investigators discovered the imprisoned man was one of several people who deposited around $100,000 in cash in the woman's bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made from around the country - in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania. The woman claimed to know nothing about the deposits, saying they were made by her fiancé and his friends.

 

- The woman was also paying phone bills to five different companies, though she told investigators that she owned just one phone.

 

Here's the link to the article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/da-strauss-kahn-accuser-cleaned-after-encounter/

 

Quotetheraven: PLEASE leave your man bashing to another site. FYI: MEN come here to support each other, get information, let loose, laugh, share stories, and enjoy each others (online) company. We DO NOT come here to be bashed (by woman) and hear our gender being accused (by you) of being rapists (I've noticed you bring that accusation A LOT to this forum but we are [mostly] G.A.Y. we don't rape woman so it's not quite germane to this forum). Those accusations & dramas are for OTHER websites/forums. Please stop doing the man-bashing here. It's not appreciated.

 

PS I'm fully aware that rape happens and fully support those who are found guilty of such heinous crime be put in prison for a long, long time.

[+ SundayZip]

Quotetheraven: PLEASE leave your man bashing to another site. FYI: MEN come here to support each other, get information, let loose, laugh, share stories, and enjoy each others (online) company. We DO NOT come here to be bashed (by woman) and hear our gender being accused (by you) of being rapists (I've noticed you bring that accusation A LOT to this forum but we are [mostly] G.A.Y. we don't rape woman so it's not quite germane to this forum). Those accusations & dramas are for OTHER websites/forums. Please stop doing the man-bashing here. It's not appreciated.

 

Wow. I find this comment to be hateful and offensive. I have not now nor have I ever read man-bashing comments from QTR and I very much welcome her perspective and participation in this forum. I'm pretty sure that your intolerance is not shared by the vast majority of forum members.

[+ FreshFluff]

Josh, your comment above is completely off-base. I often disagree with QTR, but I've never found her comments to be anything approaching man-bashing. If anything, she's the optimist here, the one who believes that we're products of our culture and environment.

Edited April 4, 2016 by FreshFluff

[Guest]

While I don't think QTR is a "man-basher" I do agree with Josh to the extent that I often find that when it comes to rape cases, she often takes the position that "accusation" = "indisputable fact". I find it particularly troublesome for someone who's had education and training as an attorney that she seems oblivious to the fact that sometimes accusers have other ulterior motives. I would think that an attorney, of all people, would know enough to insist that all of the facts be laid out before making judgments. Jumping to conclusions can cause irreparable harm to potentially innocent people. Sometimes the person who's being accused is the real victim, and the accuser is the actual criminal. The case Josh quoted is an obvious example of the accuser being a serial liar and criminal, and the accused being the victim. Seldom is it so obvious, but other examples include the Duke University Lacrosse case and the Kobe Bryant case.

[mike carey]

While I don't think QTR is a "man-basher" I do agree with Josh to the extent that I often find that when it comes to rape cases, she often takes the position that "accusation" = "indisputable fact".

I disagree with this characterisation. @quoththeraven is not a man-basher nor do I think she takes the view that accusation equates with guilt. Without putting words in her mouth, I read her take on this as taking issue with the frequent dismissal of rape claims as the alleged crime being somehow the victim's fault or that critics deny the power differential between alleged perpetrator and alleged victim. I don't think QTR was talking about the specifics of this woman's claims, but rather the immediate reaction to dismiss her claims before any further information came out. The power differential is relevant and real, 'She should just say no' should not be the default reaction in such cases. The discussion was about how to deal with rape accusations in general, not about the merits of this specific case. 'This woman lied so all rape cases are questionable' is not a reasonble position to take. (And of course not all rape victims are women.)

[+ SundayZip]

Sometimes the person who's being accused is the real victim, and the accuser is the actual criminal.

 

No one knows the actual frequency of false rape accusations. Some claim the numbers to be quite high, but then you learn what's in their numbers: cases where the alleged victim has withdrawn charges due to pressure from police, family and friends or cases that are dropped because someone thinks they don't have enough evidence or they think the victim will not make a credible witness.

 

Chicago Public Radio (This American Life series) recently released a story about the rape of an 18 year old girl. No one believed her and the police threatened to prosecute her for making a false accusation. This girl was confused and overwhelmed by it all and just wanted to make it go away, so she succumbed to pressure from the police to sign a statement that she lied about the rape. A couple years later, police found the rapist during the investigation of another rape case. The guy turned out to be a serial rapist and he even had pictures of the 18 year old girl, bound and gagged, just as she had originally described to the police.

 

The story illustrates what often happens to a rape victim and how easily police and even family and friends can shift the blame to the victim.

 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/581/anatomy-of-doubt

[mike carey]

Chicago Public Radio (This American Life series) recently released a story about the rape of an 18 year old girl. No one believed her and the police threatened to prosecute her for making a false accusation. This girl was confused and overwhelmed by it all and just wanted to make it go away, so she succumbed to pressure from the police to sign a statement that she lied about the rape. A couple years later, police found the rapist during the investigation of another rape case. The guy turned out to be a serial rapist and he even had pictures of the 18 year old girl, bound and gagged, just as she had originally described to the police.

That is wildly inappropriate. Proving an accusation is false is almost impossible and if the evidence doesn't stack up it's easy enough for the police or the [crown/state/district] prosecutor to say so and not proceed. If the police don't believe a claim they have no right to insist that the complainant recant their complaint. As in this case, the prosecutors should keep the details on file in case better evidence comes up.

[Guest]

I disagree with this characterization. quoththeraven is not a man-basher nor do I think she takes the view that accusation equates with guilt.... with the frequent dismissal of rape claims as the alleged crime being somehow the victim's fault ... 'This woman lied so all rape cases are questionable' is not a reasonable position to take.

 

So I make the statement "While I don't think QTR is a "man-basher", " and you interpret that to mean that I think QTR is a "man-basher"?? Or maybe you read my posting with pre-conceived ideas, perhaps? It's interesting that you state rape claims are frequently dismissed because they're thought of as the "victim's fault." Notice that your use of the word "victim" rather than "accuser" again pre-supposes the innocence of the accuser and the guilt of the accused. You express concern about a "power differential" between the accuser and the accused (or, as you would call them, the "victim" and the "perpetrator"). Actually, such "power differentials" make me want to look all the more carefully over the substance (or lack thereof) of the accusations, and the solidity of the evidence. Most of the famous cases here in the US in which it turned out that the accuser was the actual criminal involved cases in which the accuser was of much lower socioeconomic standing (such as the Duke Lacrosse case, the Kobe Bryant case, and the DSK case).

Here in the US, district attorneys and judges are usually elected, which puts political pressure for successful convictions, regardless of the facts of the case. I don't know how prosecutors and judges get their positions in the Kingdom of Australia. Maybe the sovereign appoints them. But if these people are elected, one has to question where their interests lie. Even when cases are dismissed and the accusers are thoroughly discredited, the lives of the accused can be irreparably damaged (such as those of the Lacrosse players, their coaches, etc.). And if false convictions almost occur when the defendants have lots of financial resources to defend themselves, think of how often false convictions probably happen when the accused have to depend on public defenders.

I want to conclude by saying that rape is one of the most heinous crimes which exists. In no way do I want those responsible to go unpunished, if at all possible. That being said, if there's any worse crime than rape, one of them has to be putting an innocent man in prison and utterly destroying his life (with the state's hand in it, no less). The horrors of rape should not cause us to lose our minds, and abandon the legal principles which govern our society. "All rape cases are questionable" is somewhat of a silly statement to make, but I think one should acknowledge that all rape accusations must be investigated seriously, and with an open and objective mind. To do otherwise may lead to horrid injustice.

[mike carey]

I was disagreeing with the characterisation that QTR says "accusation" = "indisputable fact", the rest of the quote was for context. I thought what I meant was clear, sorry that it wasn't clear to you. And yes, I should have thrown in an 'alleged' before victim as well as saying alleged crime. The purpose of my post was to express the view that people often make unwarranted assumptions and judgments when allegations of sexual assault are raised, and more commonly when the complainant is a woman. (There is a different set of negative dynamics when the complainant is a man.)

 

The flip side of the Duke/Bryant/DSK cases are cases like the Cosby accusations and those against Jimmy Saville at the BBC that were widely dismissed because they were 'just not possible'. (DSK had a disadvantage too, in that so many people thought it was perfectly in character.)

 

Judges in the Commonwealth of Australia are appointed by politicians, for criminal courts by state governments. Judges are not shy to object to political 'interference' in judicial processes, including objecting to minimum sentences enacted by parliaments. For lower courts prosecutors are usually police, for more serious cases the police hand the brief of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecutors in the DPP are called Crown Prosecutors and are appointed by the Attorney-General. Neither judges nor prosecutors are party-political appointments.

[Guest]

I was disagreeing with the characterisation that QTR says "accusation" = "indisputable fact", the rest of the quote was for context. I thought what I meant was clear, sorry that it wasn't clear to you. And yes, I should have thrown in an 'alleged' before victim as well as saying alleged crime. The purpose of my post was to express the view that people often make unwarranted assumptions and judgments when allegations of sexual assault are raised, and more commonly when the complainant is a woman. (There is a different set of negative dynamics when the complainant is a man.)

 

The flip side of the Duke/Bryant/DSK cases are cases like the Cosby accusations and those against Jimmy Saville at the BBC that were widely dismissed because they were 'just not possible'. (DSK had a disadvantage too, in that so many people thought it was perfectly in character.)

 

Judges in the Commonwealth of Australia are appointed by politicians, for criminal courts by state governments. Judges are not shy to object to political 'interference' in judicial processes, including objecting to minimum sentences enacted by parliaments. For lower courts prosecutors are usually police, for more serious cases the police hand the brief of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecutors in the DPP are called Crown Prosecutors and are appointed by the Attorney-General. Neither judges nor prosecutors are party-political appointments.

Thanks for clarifying, Mike, because I had gotten the sense that you mis-quoted me. You must realize that you Australians then have the distinct advantage of having judges and prosecutors who don't need to answer to an electorate. I suspect this is why all of these awful cases that one hears about come from the US, not another country such as Australia, where judges and prosecutors don't have to answer to the public's thirst for "justice" (even when it's sometimes false justice). I prefer your system immensely, since I feel that judges' and prosecutors' biggest priority should be getting to the truth, rather than getting re-elected/keeping one's job.

I haven't heard about the Jimmy Saville case, but the Cosby case is another case that troubles me somewhat. I guess I feel uncomfortable when I hear someone saying "I haven't told anyone about this before, but Mr. Richman raped me 10-20 years ago, and now I want a million dollars." Of course, the sheer number of accusers makes one wonder as well (are they all a bunch of money-hungry schemers?)--although it's interesting that apparently none of the dozens of women who have come out of nowhere ever got pregnant or contracted an STD.

I agree with you "that people often make unwarranted assumptions and judgments when allegations of sexual assault are raised," although I strongly suspect that in most cases the assumption is that the accuser is the victim and the accused is the criminal (as you seem to do).

Edited April 5, 2016 by Unicorn

[mike carey]

Thanks, Unicorn. Governments get agitated about what judges do, or what cases are prosecuted but they can't sack the judicial officers short of gross impropriety. While they are not court proceedings, we are in the midst of a Royal Commission into the way institutions like churches, schools and welfare agencies responded to sexual abuse of children. It interviewed the former cardinal archbishop of Sydney via video conference a few weeks ago from Rome and that generated a lot of media coverage in Europe and elsewhere that may not have happened if he had been questioned in person in Australia. The RC has resulted in scores of people coming out and saying that they had been abused as children up to 30 or 40 years ago but hadn't said, or had been silenced because they weren't believed. Most want only an apology for the way they were treated. In the last few days a few cases for compensation have been launched against wealthy private schools.

 

(A Royal Commission is an inquisitorial judicial enquiry that seeks to establish the facts of a situation. It won't, and sometimes can't produce evidence that can be used in a court but will tell people what didn't work in the past so that procedures can be set up to prevent a recurrence.)

[Guest]

Well, I can certainly understand a child not saying anything, especially regarding a religious leader such as a priest. I can imagine that a child might believe he would go to Hell or something. Many of the (former) children here in the US have been financially compensated.

[+ quoththeraven]

Josh - There are ambiguities in the Strauss-Kahn situation, but unlike the Duke case (or, imo, Tawana Brawley's case), we don't know conclusively that rape didn't occur. (There's a significant difference between cases where it can be shown that there was no sexual contact between the parties, like the Duke and Tawana Brawley cases, and ones where the defense alleges consent.) Ditto with Kobe Bryant, Patrick Kane, and a whole host of other celebrities accused of rape.

 

It's not a matter of man-bashing. It's a matter of assuming that rape accusations are untrue unless the evidence is irrefutable or the circumstances so heinous a scapegoat is needed (the Central Park "wilding" case, for which a group of teens was wrongfully convicted). Here's another article on the case SundayZip mentioned:

 

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/16/an-unbelievable-story-of-rape#.8GNJXIVGH

 

When we read about arrests for other crimes, we don't generally have the same skepticism. And the most recent studies, which have been careful to only treat allegations that have conclusively been shown to be untrue, show a low rate of demonstrably false accusations - around 5%. Sadly, the above case, where a rape victim was not only pressured into recanting but pled guilty to false reporting, thus leaving her rapist free to rape others, would at one time have been counted as a confirmed false allegation.

 

Not only is this an issue of general concern, it's not as though men can't be raped or that women can't be rapists. That very skepticism gives predators cover to continue to operate, whether they're your average garden-variety rapist or a pedophile like Jerry Sandusky or, apparently, Dennis Hastert. I say "apparently" because to the best of my knowledge, the person Dennis Hastert paid off hasn't gone on record as to why he was being paid, thus there are no allegations.

 

Even if all rape victims were women, it's not as though gay men (which even if all three women who post here left is not the entirety of this forum anyway) live in a vaccum. You're part of society, too. It could even have personal application; we all had at least one female relative in our lives, and most of us have female friends. They're all potentially subject to this too.

 

I would also like to point out that I was not the one who brought up the topic of rape (as opposed to child porn) in the first place and that the gist of my post was that Strauss-Kahn wasn't a particularly good example to support the argument. Also, it seems a little disingenuous to in one breath say the topic that I didn't bring up in the first place is irrelevant to gay men and in the next accuse me of bashing (straight) men.

 

In any event, if my opinions or participation in the forum are truly that bothersome, as opposed to you having a bad day and taking it out on me, the ignore button is your friend.

 

Sincitymix - Those photos were always child porn irrespective of your age. Teenagers who have sent explicit photos of themselves to others have been prosecuted under child porn laws. As terrible as it was to destroy a piece of your past, it was probably wise to destroy that photo.

 

Unicorn - I think our attitudes toward sex and consent are fucked up. That includes our attitudes toward people who say they've been raped.

 

When it comes to legal process, it's a different mater. I would have dropped the case against Strauss-Kahn. I would have acquitted the New York City cops accused of raping a woman they escorted home from a club because she was too drunk to get there on their own even though I believe they did it because there was no conclusive physical evidence and she was so intoxicated she could barely remember anything.

 

I also differ with those who think advising young women not to get drunk at parties is victim-blaming. Getting drunk makes things easier for predators. (See previous paragraph.) I see not getting drunk as a risk reduction technique no different than locking a car or front door to prevent theft and other crimes.

 

I'm saying that with rape allegations, the inclination is to assume they're false until conclusively proven true. I'm saying let's start off assuming they're true and then try to confirm them, in the process of which we hope unsupportable cases will fall apart. If I really felt accusation equals indisputable fact, I would never have characterized the Duke or Brawley allegations as false. Also unsupportable cases need not involve false accusations. They can be cases that the prosecution feels it's unlikely to win. Acquaintance rape (which is what the majority of rape cases involve), which usually involve the defense alleging consent, are notoriously hard to prove.

 

I've never said shakedowns are impossible. I've said they're not usually the reason why rape accusations are made. Where we disagree is that in the kind of high-profile allegations that get discussed here, it's always your first theory. I would be interested to know why you haven't been fulminating against people for assuming that Dennis Hastert was paying off a victim of child sexual abuse without proof or even an accusation on the record. That seems inconsistent. Is it because child victims are more believable than adults? Or more sympathetic? Or that since the statute of limitations on any crime has passed, it's okay to speculate?

 

In any event, I appreciate the vote of confidence that I'm not motivated by hatred of men.

Edited April 9, 2016 by quoththeraven

[+ quoththeraven]

I often disagree with QTR, but I've never found her comments to be anything approaching man-bashing. If anything, she's the optimist here, the one who believes that we're products of our culture and environment.

 

You made my day (or in this case, early morning) by calling me an optimist. I know several people who would be surprised by that characterization.

[josh282282]

I'm saying that with rape allegations, the inclination is to assume they're false until conclusively proven true. I'm saying let's start off assuming they're true and then try to confirm them

 

QTR, thank you SO MUCH for proving my point. How in the world you have come up with such man-hating idea? In our society, people are innocent till proven guilty. But not with you. I shudder to think what the world would be like if you were in charge.

 

This forum was started by a Gay man and it's for Gay/Bisexual men and their escorts. And these men on this forum I have learned are quite intelligent, witty, kind, insightful, and deep. We come here for support, information, humor, and community. I really want you to reconsider your (incessant) need to throw in our faces how men accused of rape are (in your eyes and should be in others eyes) guilty. If we wanted to read such anti-men propaganda, the media is FULL of options. Do you truly think we come to this forum for this?

 

An analogy: there is a breast cancer forum started by a female breast cancer survivor written for breast cancer survivors and those currently battling it's terrible assault. A man starts posting how breast mammograms are being done too frequently and a waste of money and the science doesnt support yearly mammograms. Don't you think the women on the forum would get mad at the guy screaming out that mammograms save lives? Are you even for one second considering what you post and it's location?

 

 

I do agree with Josh to the extent that I often find that when it comes to rape cases, she often takes the position that "accusation" = "indisputable fact". I find it particularly troublesome for someone who's had education and training as an attorney that she seems oblivious to the fact that sometimes accusers have other ulterior motives.

 

It is my STRONG opinion that due to the fact that the men on this forum are reluctant to join in (too much) controversy or painful topics. I suspect this reluctance applies to this topic of rape/rape allegations/presumed guilt. Who wants to get involved with this? But two of us on this forum HAVE commented on this (Unicorn: I am not suggesting you agree with everything I write, only that you made the same observation as I did). I think there are others who have made the same observations but just won't join this tempest. And I respect this, cuz I greatly respect my peers on this forum. Amazing men.

 

In regard to assuming men are guilty when they are accused of rape, I ask once again that you stop such assertions on this forum. I am certain there are more receptive forums.

[+ saminseattle]

This forum was started by a Gay man and it's for Gay/Bisexual men

 

I hadn’t really been following this thread, but just the other day I was thinking, “Where is QTR? I haven’t heard from her in weeks. I miss her posts.” Well, here she is again, and I, for one, am glad. I also believe that the administrators of this site have made clear that women are welcome here, so I don’t think it’s really fair to suggest that this forum is just for gay and bisexual men (even though most of us probably are).

 

I do tend to agree with you that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but I think reasonable people can disagree about how far to take this concept. Certainly, in this country, the State is supposed to prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before sending the person to jail. But if the State can’t meet this burden, that doesn’t mean the accused person is innocent. The accusations might be false, or they might be true, but without sufficient corroborating evidence to secure a conviction. In this situation, I try to assume the person is innocent because I think trying to guess at the truth based on inconclusive evidence is unfair to the accused and would leave him/her vulnerable to general prejudices I may hold, even if unconsciously. On the other hand, I have to admit there is something to saying, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Suspicions and rumors and circumstantial evidence may not be reliable enough to justify jailing someone, but they may be enough to reverse the burden of proof in some people’s minds, if not in a courtroom. This may be unfair and have unfortunate consequences if the person was falsely accused, but it’s not crazy or irrational.