Stallion Spotlight

Sandro Hit Standa Eylers

Real Estate Spotlight

barn1
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by vineyridge View Post
    is it properly an "appeal", which would be a very unusual procedure for arbitration, or is a a de novo fact finding, which is what most arbitrators do. I know that in the Caster Semenya process before CAS, it was a full blown fact finding hearing.

    As someone who was once an arbitrator long ago, I can tell you that arbitration does not necessarily follow the same evidentiary rules as the court system. But in general arbitrators are not selected from a random group of people, even professional people; there are very different arbitrator selection processes, depending on the context of the governing "law", i.e contracts, labor contracts, or special laws requiring arbitration like Safe Sport.. The procedure that arbitrators use is established by the governing system that gives them jurisdiction, which they must stay within.

    It isn't a free wheeling situation at all.
    Ok, I finally looked at the SafeSport rules, because there appears to be so much misinformation about how the arbitration process works. I have to admit, with everyone continually assuring us that there are appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure fact-finding integrity, I was a little shocked to see there is "No discovery," except in exceptional circumstances. I also saw no reference to subpoena power.

    As a litigator, the two most important tools I have are the ability to conduct discovery (for example, to identify potential witnesses or obtain relevant documents) and to subpoena witnesses (for example, the key witness who might be able to impugn the testimony of the other side's witness). These are standard procedures in the JAMS rules, so SafeSport made a deliberate choice to disallow them.

    I'm a little surprised. We have litigated high-stakes cases in JAMS, and have not had our hands tied like that. I'll let other lawyers weigh in.

    Comment


    • This whole social change discussion is confusing me. OK, I get that social mores change over time. But I was a teenager 50 years ago and it was NOT OK for teachers to have relationships with teen students, male or female. I'm not sure what people have to get used to here. It is true that such things are prosecuted more often and more publicly than 50 years ago. 'Bout damn time.

      Comment


      • OneGrayPony I think I get what you're trying to say.

        A big problem in our sport has been freshly aged out girls suddenly marrying or otherwise entering into public sexual relationships with their much older trainers. I was a little surprised to learn that this has been common in gymnastics and figure skating as well. Sports dominated by women at the lower levels, that yet have mostly male elite coaches. And it's not uncommon for these to be serial ... ie I'm sure we can all think of coaches who have done this more than once.

        It's skeevy and always has been, but most of the chatter has been quiet background disapproval, rather than explicit, "Dude! That's not OK." I'm sure most of the people participating in the ISWG group etc have attended weddings of that sort, and some their own. They're unmoored and a little concerned.

        I get that but I also don't think that SafeSport is interested in going after cases without a claimant and I think too many people are assuming that the relationship that they think they know about is all there is to know, when it might be the tip of an unpleasant iceberg.
        If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bluey View Post

          My ace in the hole here, I was around in the late 60's, early 70' and know first hand it was NOT OK to be an abuser, especially child abuser, just was NOT OK.".
          I've been around since the 70's. I've had my butt slapped by all kinds of folks through the years. I've watched athletes on TV slap each other's butts as well. I've had a coach do it, a drunken coworker, a sibling. I've been tickled by uncles, aunts, siblings, friends, coaches. I've been hugged without asking for it. All these things now violate my personal space. If a coworker did this today, it would be assault whereas before it might have been seen culturally as a silly little pat, tickle, etc...

          My French coworkers air kiss me on both cheeks when I see them. Their culture is different. Imagine kissing your American coworker? Not. Gonna. Happen.

          There is a cultural aspect that should not be overlooked. What is now considered an invasion of personal space has changed. Not every situation is all out rape, and we have to keep in mind that what is considered inappropriate today was not the case in the 70's.

          For the record, I am so glad there is no more tickling allowed. I always hated it. I do miss comforting people with hugs. But slapping is a funny one. Grown men in football uniforms making millions of dollars a year used to do it. That seems to have stopped with the changing times.

          Sex with a child who is not old enough to consent was always wrong. But not everything is about the act of sex. For example, what is determined to be assault has changed with time. We can't deny there has been a cultural change. When I was a kid, a parent could spank their unruly child. In most states now, DFaCS will come after you for this. We've evolved. I will tell you this - if we apply the cultural norms of yesterday to today, my parents would be in jail. We cannot deny there has been a change in the standard of what is considered to be assault or inappropriate contact with a child.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post
            This whole social change discussion is confusing me. OK, I get that social mores change over time. But I was a teenager 50 years ago and it was NOT OK for teachers to have relationships with teen students, male or female. I'm not sure what people have to get used to here. It is true that such things are prosecuted more often and more publicly than 50 years ago. 'Bout damn time.
            Certainly was not ok, but it was socially accepted, which is why a common stripper uniform is a schoolgirl. - Van Halen - "Hot For Teacher" (Official Music Video) - YouTube

            My ace in the hole here, I was around in the late 60's, early 70' and know first hand it was NOT OK to be an abuser, especially child abuser, just was NOT OK.
            I'm STILL NOT SAYING IT WAS OK! I don't know how many times I can say this before my meaning is clear.

            What I am SAYING is that people looked the other way for a very long time because it was ACCEPTED.

            Not acceptable, but ACCEPTED. And the definition of child sexual abuse HAS CHANGED, like it or not, because the definition of the age of consent HAS CHANGED. We think of child sexual abuse as rape against an unconsenting victim but very frequently these victims do consent because of grooming, and we have decided as a society that a child cannot consent, but this is quite recent in our history.

            I am NOT for one moment suggesting that GM's behavior was OK. I am NOT suggesting that he shouldn't be set down. He should. He should get the full book of the law and every other thing thrown at him.

            What I AM saying is that those of us who are outraged should look at our own behavior with NEW eyes. We should not accept that the letter of the current law or culture is equal to morality. We should examine ourselves and say "hey, maybe *I* shouldn't do this thing just because it's culturally accepted now because SOMEDAY it might not be".

            That is what I am saying. That it's getting twisted is hard for me to fathom.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

              Palm Beach what is the criteria to be found guilty by Safe Sport?

              You realize anyone can report you for a sex offense and based on the report, you too could join the list of banned people. Even if the legal court exhonerates you of the offense, Safe Sport has the right to still ban you.
              The criteria for Safe Sport is the preponderance of evidence. Which is the same criteria used to remove someone's license to practice medicine.

              Criminal courts do not exonerate. They find 'not guilty'. Which is not the same as 'innocent'.

              It is why OJ was found liable in civil court after being found not guilty in criminal court.
              *****
              You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                Ok, I finally looked at the SafeSport rules, because there appears to be so much misinformation about how the arbitration process works. I have to admit, with everyone continually assuring us that there are appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure fact-finding integrity, I was a little shocked to see there is "No discovery," except in exceptional circumstances. I also saw no reference to subpoena power.

                As a litigator, the two most important tools I have are the ability to conduct discovery (for example, to identify potential witnesses or obtain relevant documents) and to subpoena witnesses (for example, the key witness who might be able to impugn the testimony of the other side's witness). These are standard procedures in the JAMS rules, so SafeSport made a deliberate choice to disallow them.

                I'm a little surprised. We have litigated high-stakes cases in JAMS, and have not had our hands tied like that. I'll let other lawyers weigh in.
                To keep beating my own personal dead horse...

                SafeSport was created by Congress. It was explicitly created as an extra-judicial process. There were reasons why it was created to function the way it does. We keep seeing posts from attorneys who want to drag SafeSport into the judicial system. I am opposed to doing so. I'm not saying that the process can't be improved. I posted way back in this thread some ways I thought the arbitration process could be improved. But, I think that, in general, attempting to make the process run just like the criminal justice system is not an improvement.
                Last edited by NoSuchPerson; Aug. 14, 2019, 01:18 PM.
                "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                that's even remotely true."

                Homer Simpson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                  Certainly was not ok, but it was socially accepted, which is why a common stripper uniform is a schoolgirl. - Van Halen - "Hot For Teacher" (Official Music Video) - YouTube



                  I'm STILL NOT SAYING IT WAS OK! I don't know how many times I can say this before my meaning is clear.

                  What I am SAYING is that people looked the other way for a very long time because it was ACCEPTED.

                  Not acceptable, but ACCEPTED. And the definition of child sexual abuse HAS CHANGED, like it or not, because the definition of the age of consent HAS CHANGED. We think of child sexual abuse as rape against an unconsenting victim but very frequently these victims do consent because of grooming, and we have decided as a society that a child cannot consent, but this is quite recent in our history.

                  I am NOT for one moment suggesting that GM's behavior was OK. I am NOT suggesting that he shouldn't be set down. He should. He should get the full book of the law and every other thing thrown at him.

                  What I AM saying is that those of us who are outraged should look at our own behavior with NEW eyes. We should not accept that the letter of the current law or culture is equal to morality. We should examine ourselves and say "hey, maybe *I* shouldn't do this thing just because it's culturally accepted now because SOMEDAY it might not be".

                  That is what I am saying. That it's getting twisted is hard for me to fathom.
                  IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. How often must I say this? I WAS THERE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME IN MY LIFE WHEN IT WAS ACCEPTED FOR TEACHERS TO RAPE UNDERAGE STUDENTS. Period. I have no idea where you lived, or even if you were a teenager 50 years ago. But where you lived must have been pretty bizarre.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                    OneGrayPony I think I get what you're trying to say.

                    A big problem in our sport has been freshly aged out girls suddenly marrying or otherwise entering into public sexual relationships with their much older trainers. I was a little surprised to learn that this has been common in gymnastics and figure skating as well. Sports dominated by women at the lower levels, that yet have mostly male elite coaches. And it's not uncommon for these to be serial ... ie I'm sure we can all think of coaches who have done this more than once.

                    It's skeevy and always has been, but most of the chatter has been quiet background disapproval, rather than explicit, "Dude! That's not OK." I'm sure most of the people participating in the ISWG group etc have attended weddings of that sort, and some their own. They're unmoored and a little concerned.

                    I get that but I also don't think that SafeSport is interested in going after cases without a claimant and I think too many people are assuming that the relationship that they think they know about is all there is to know, when it might be the tip of an unpleasant iceberg.
                    Thanks poltroon - it is a huge problem for sure.

                    And I think those of us who knew about these things may not be judged kindly in the future when things come to light.

                    I know one in my region, and I don't even know if there's anything to be done at this juncture. There were whispers then, but they were just whispers. They are married now. At the time, it was accepted. Not acceptable, but accepted. Should those of us who saw it as skeevy have said something? Yes, that would have benefitted her and probably stopped a predator. But it was culturally accepted (not acceptable) so no one said anything.

                    So that people can maybe understand my position - I was definitely groomed by much older men in my early teens - think 12-13 years old. At the time, I saw the attention as flattering, and at the time I had absolutely no comprehension that it was something to be alarmed by.

                    I see it as a benefit that I'm seeing those things now as not okay. I wish the adults around me had seen it as not ok, but they didn't. I was told that it was natural for older men to take an interest in young women. I was told that I was just "early to be sexually attractive". It *was* culturally acceptable in the 90s to call a 12 year old sexy.

                    I still struggle with my rape in my early 20s because of the conversations around what a woman should and should not do and the cultural acceptance of blame because of drinking to excess (both me and my rapist)

                    Was it wrong then? Yes. Was it accepted then societally that it was my fault? Yes. Is it still? That's starting to change.

                    It's a GOOD thing, but what I wouldn't have given for someone back in the 90s to say to me "hey, I get it that you were drinking, but it still isn't ok". But that didn't happen because at that point in time it was tacitly acknowledged that a woman who is drinking is opening herself up for rape. In fact, a college roommate of mine was raped at a fraternity and had to leave because it was still accepted that women were "setting themselves up" by going to fraternity parties.

                    We should *all* be acting like those things that have the potential to harm others are wrong, regardless of their past history, but we should also acknowledge that the people THEN didn't think that the others were doing wrong, so that NOW with the benefit of hindsight we can say "hey, we'll do better by going above and beyond what culture says is ok".

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rollingabout View Post

                      And let’s teach the girls not to rape boys, get pregnant to trap them or make false allegations when they don’t get their way. Women are sexual predators too.

                      go to www.reddit.com/r/MensRights to read real horror stories on what women can do to men.
                      Boo ****ing Hoo.
                      It's a small world -- unless you gotta walk home.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

                        My father immigrated to the USA because of dictatorship that arrested both of his parents based on their association with the democratic leader. He grew up with Aunts and Uncles. In the USA he served the military and the many decades as USA Deparment Of Justice Attorney in Charge held the highest clearance serving Presidents in both parties. His cases have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Annually our home was inspected by investigators, to ensure integrity.

                        I uphold our Constitution.

                        When we stray from a land based on laws, we all will suffer in the long run.
                        And yet you feel that SafeSport rules should be ignored/abolished... when it is the law.

                        As an aside - what is the position of DOJ Attorney in Charge? Do you mean Attorney General?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post

                          IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. How often must I say this? I WAS THERE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME IN MY LIFE WHEN IT WAS ACCEPTED FOR TEACHERS TO RAPE UNDERAGE STUDENTS. Period. I have no idea where you lived, or even if you were a teenager 50 years ago. But where you lived must have been pretty bizarre.
                          RAPE is sexual abuse, but not all sexual abuse is rape.

                          We do not know that any of these people are guilty of rape, but we DO know that they are guilty of sexual abuse. THAT definition has changed.

                          Please read my other post, then maybe I will have made myself more clear. I just really don't even know what to say at this point.

                          Actually, I'll quote myself, to make it a bit easier:

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                          Thanks poltroon - it is a huge problem for sure.

                          And I think those of us who knew about these things may not be judged kindly in the future when things come to light.

                          I know one in my region, and I don't even know if there's anything to be done at this juncture. There were whispers then, but they were just whispers. They are married now. At the time, it was accepted. Not acceptable, but accepted. Should those of us who saw it as skeevy have said something? Yes, that would have benefitted her and probably stopped a predator. But it was culturally accepted (not acceptable) so no one said anything.

                          So that people can maybe understand my position - I was definitely groomed by much older men in my early teens - think 12-13 years old. At the time, I saw the attention as flattering, and at the time I had absolutely no comprehension that it was something to be alarmed by.

                          I see it as a benefit that I'm seeing those things now as not okay. I wish the adults around me had seen it as not ok, but they didn't. I was told that it was natural for older men to take an interest in young women. I was told that I was just "early to be sexually attractive". It *was* culturally acceptable in the 90s to call a 12 year old sexy.

                          I still struggle with my rape in my early 20s because of the conversations around what a woman should and should not do and the cultural acceptance of blame because of drinking to excess (both me and my rapist)

                          Was it wrong then? Yes. Was it accepted then societally that it was my fault? Yes. Is it still? That's starting to change.

                          It's a GOOD thing, but what I wouldn't have given for someone back in the 90s to say to me "hey, I get it that you were drinking, but it still isn't ok". But that didn't happen because at that point in time it was tacitly acknowledged that a woman who is drinking is opening herself up for rape. In fact, a college roommate of mine was raped at a fraternity and had to leave because it was still accepted that women were "setting themselves up" by going to fraternity parties.

                          We should *all* be acting like those things that have the potential to harm others are wrong, regardless of their past history, but we should also acknowledge that the people THEN didn't think that the others were doing wrong, so that NOW with the benefit of hindsight we can say "hey, we'll do better by going above and beyond what culture says is ok".

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mosey_2003 View Post

                            Boo ****ing Hoo.
                            I <3 this response.

                            The subreddit for Men's Rights activism is, indeed, a real horror story... but not for the reason rollingabout is suggesting.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                              RAPE is sexual abuse, but not all sexual abuse is rape.

                              We do not know that any of these people are guilty of rape, but we DO know that they are guilty of sexual abuse. THAT definition has changed.

                              Please read my other post, then maybe I will have made myself more clear. I just really don't even know what to say at this point.

                              Actually, I'll quote myself, to make it a bit easier:

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                              Thanks poltroon - it is a huge problem for sure.

                              And I think those of us who knew about these things may not be judged kindly in the future when things come to light.

                              I know one in my region, and I don't even know if there's anything to be done at this juncture. There were whispers then, but they were just whispers. They are married now. At the time, it was accepted. Not acceptable, but accepted. Should those of us who saw it as skeevy have said something? Yes, that would have benefitted her and probably stopped a predator. But it was culturally accepted (not acceptable) so no one said anything.

                              So that people can maybe understand my position - I was definitely groomed by much older men in my early teens - think 12-13 years old. At the time, I saw the attention as flattering, and at the time I had absolutely no comprehension that it was something to be alarmed by.

                              I see it as a benefit that I'm seeing those things now as not okay. I wish the adults around me had seen it as not ok, but they didn't. I was told that it was natural for older men to take an interest in young women. I was told that I was just "early to be sexually attractive". It *was* culturally acceptable in the 90s to call a 12 year old sexy.

                              I still struggle with my rape in my early 20s because of the conversations around what a woman should and should not do and the cultural acceptance of blame because of drinking to excess (both me and my rapist)

                              Was it wrong then? Yes. Was it accepted then societally that it was my fault? Yes. Is it still? That's starting to change.

                              It's a GOOD thing, but what I wouldn't have given for someone back in the 90s to say to me "hey, I get it that you were drinking, but it still isn't ok". But that didn't happen because at that point in time it was tacitly acknowledged that a woman who is drinking is opening herself up for rape. In fact, a college roommate of mine was raped at a fraternity and had to leave because it was still accepted that women were "setting themselves up" by going to fraternity parties.

                              We should *all* be acting like those things that have the potential to harm others are wrong, regardless of their past history, but we should also acknowledge that the people THEN didn't think that the others were doing wrong, so that NOW with the benefit of hindsight we can say "hey, we'll do better by going above and beyond what culture says is ok".
                              Every one of us had our own experiences and our own take on the times then and today.

                              That is fine, is how discussions work, everyone brings to the table what they know and rarely it will be the same.

                              I hope all learn more about this and so go forth doing a bit better in their lives, as much as they can.

                              As for GM, I hope so much said he did wrong is not true and if so, that is a terrible wrong to him.
                              If it is, as they seem to have decided with what is known, then sad that at his age he is having to face terrible consequences, but lets remember that if so, painful this may be for him, he is not the REAL victim here.

                              Comment


                              • But all sex between minors below the statutory limit and adults is rape.

                                And I was alive in the 90s. I definitely don't think it was culturally acceptable or accepted to call 12 year olds sexy.

                                Let me apologize in advance.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                                  To keep beating my own personal dead horse...

                                  SafeSport was created by Congress. It was explicitly created as an extra-judicial process. There were reasons why it was created to function the way it does. We keep seeing posts from attorneys who want to drag SafeSport in the judicial system. I am opposed to doing so. I'm not saying that the process can't be improved. I posted way back in this thread of some ways I thought the arbitration process could be improved. But, I think that, in general, attempting to make the process run just like the criminal justice system is not an improvement.
                                  No one is suggesting it should run like the criminal justice system. But the point I made is: it does not even have the normal procedural safeguards of typical JAMS arbitrations (which are civil cases).

                                  Some day there will be a case where a false accusation is made. Suppose there is a witness whose testimony could prove that the accusation is false, but this witness would "rather not get involved." Under SafeSport rules, without subpoena power there is no way to make them come in to testify to what they know (or even to make them testify by phone, or provide a written statement.) The accused would be out of luck, unless he could persuade them to come forward out of the goodness of their heart.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                    Certainly was not ok, but it was socially accepted,
                                    I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. That behavior was never socially accepted. The social change that you're talking about has to do with wealth and power, not changing attitudes toward sexual practices.

                                    Historically, being wealthy and powerful meant that you could do whatever you wanted, regardless of society's moral opinion. That's why peasant farmers with pretty daughters did their best to hide them when the feudal lord and his soldiers rolled through town. Nobody thought it was socially acceptable for the lord to pick up a pretty young peasant girl and take her back to the castle, but he had all the power and he did whatever he wanted to. The disapproval of his peasants or others within his domain was entirely irrelevant to him because they had no power and their judgement had absolutely no impact on him.

                                    Step forward hundreds of years to, for example, Jeffrey Epstein. Nobody, not even Jeffrey Epstein, truly believed that what he was doing was socially acceptable. If he had, he wouldn't have taken pains to hide it. But he, and his cronies, didn't care. They were wealthy and powerful and felt that gave them the freedom to indulge their desires and the capacity to hide it from society.

                                    George Morris and the upper echelon of the horse world of that era who continue to support him are the same way. It wasn't so much that they believed having sex with underage boys and girls was socially acceptable, but rather that they believed their wealth and positions at the top of the sport insulated them from the expectation that they would comply with societal expectations. The thing that has them reeling isn't changing social attitudes toward having sex with minors because that has always been frowned upon in general society. The thing that has changed is a societal willingness to allow wealth and power to exempt them from compliance with societal standards related to having sex with minors.

                                    "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                    that's even remotely true."

                                    Homer Simpson

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                      Certainly was not ok, but it was socially accepted, which is why a common stripper uniform is a schoolgirl. - Van Halen - "Hot For Teacher" (Official Music Video) - YouTube



                                      I'm STILL NOT SAYING IT WAS OK! I don't know how many times I can say this before my meaning is clear.

                                      What I am SAYING is that people looked the other way for a very long time because it was ACCEPTED.

                                      Not acceptable, but ACCEPTED...
                                      This is also how I see many things back in the 60's and 70's. Sad, but true. "Looking the other way" was an art form at that time - fingers in ears, singing "La La La La"... but again, just my experience. Other's experiences from that period may vary.
                                      ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                                        No one is suggesting it should run like the criminal justice system. But the point I made is: it does not even have the normal procedural safeguards of typical JAMS arbitrations (which are civil cases).

                                        Some day there will be a case where a false accusation is made. Suppose there is a witness whose testimony could prove that the accusation is false, but this witness would "rather not get involved." Under SafeSport rules, without subpoena power there is no way to make them come in to testify to what they know (or even to make them testify by phone, or provide a written statement.) The accused would be out of luck, unless he could persuade them to come forward out of the goodness of their heart.
                                        except no one is banned or sanctioned based on a single uncorroborated allegation.

                                        This is a red herring.

                                        Let me apologize in advance.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Bluey View Post

                                          Every one of us had our own experiences and our own take on the times then and today.

                                          That is fine, is how discussions work, everyone brings to the table what they know and rarely it will be the same.

                                          I hope all learn more about this and so go forth doing a bit better in their lives, as much as they can.

                                          As for GM, I hope so much said he did wrong is not true and if so, that is a terrible wrong to him.
                                          If it is, as they seem to have decided with what is known, then sad that at his age he is having to face terrible consequences, but lets remember that if so, painful this may be for him, he is not the REAL victim here.
                                          I have absolutely no pity for GM. There's not just smoke there, there's a big a&& roaring flame.

                                          Let it not be insinuated for one moment that I do.

                                          I have no pity for those around me who said it was ok because it was culturally ok at the time. It's understandable that they are squawking now, but I do have empathy for them because they are feeling like perhaps they are culpable because it was accepted. That much is true. They are. The fact that something is culturally accepted doesn't make it right.

                                          I want this to CHANGE. I want people to say that just because culture says it's ok for people to say it's not ok. We don't do that as people. We should. We don't.

                                          When we pretend that it wasn't culturally accepted at the time to goose women, or have sex with inebriated teens at parties (see Pretty in Pink) or marry young children, we whitewash our own history and we forget that as a people we have a responsibility to go AGAINST our culture when potential harm to others could happen.

                                          Another example are the good Germans who supported Hitler. It was culturally accepted to support Hitler at the time. We don't look at those people kindly now (and Germans don't particularly think it's a great period in their history). We, as a culture, should be looking at things in our present where we are doing wrong because it's culturally accepted - that's the lesson here.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X