Stallion Spotlight

0201171029b-1

Real Estate Spotlight

DJI_0011-HDR
  • 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 AllOverFarm View Post
    I personally don’t think it was ever accepted....
    people just didn’t want to get involved. To point the finger at someone and accuse them of something, is not something people are comfortable doing.
    To cause conflict, causes anxiety. It was easier just to warn girls to “ stay away from that guy”.
    Exactly, it makes so many people uncomfortable they would rather let someone else deal with it.

    I find this even myself, people ask me something and if I even start to tell them what happened to me, they immediately get this look on their face like they are so uncomfortable and just want me to stop. So many people don't want to know about the ugly truth in the world.
    Boss Mare Eventing Blog

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zirgs View Post

      Aug. 14, 2019, 07:33 AM
      About George Morris on the SS list Mia Sorella
      I am sorry to hear about your abuse. I have a MSW degree and have been the first to tell a young adult and child that their abuse was not their fault. I have had some vomit on me, as they expel the horrors of their abuse. There is no excuse to abuse.

      Society has oppressed these conversations, thus children were not empowered to speak. It is the silence that has allowed abuse to fester and not allow closure.

      It is good that we speak openly and constructively.

      However, to dictate to me whom I am allowed to work with and select for my children is just as abusive.

      In healthcare several decades ago maternal and child death rates at birth were very high. Rather than fine hospitals and dictate solutions, hospitals were required to publically post their Birth Vitals and Statistics. As parents were empowered to choose where to deliver their children, hospitals responded to fix problems. The medical specialty of OBGYN, Prenatal Care and NICU spawned from the posting of performance.

      Tranaparency and education are constructive mechanisms to make lasting change.

      Dictating and stripping parents of their rights to choose harms all of us and violates our freedoms.
      Deep breath. I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they haven’t taken their argument to its furthest logical conclusion and don’t realize the conclusion they have reached, which seems so obvious to them, relies on a flawed underlying premise.

      You have a MSW which gives you a depth of knowledge and tools for analysis in just this type of situation that far exceeds what the vast majority of people have available to them. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that most parents do not have a MSW in their back pocket. Hypothetically speaking, if SafeSport ONLY conducted investigations and published their conclusions (withholding any details to protect victims) and no further consequences followed (e.g. no sanctions imposed, no impact on whether they can participate in their sports NGB). Just a publicly available list with names and their infraction (e.g. John Smith - Sexual misconduct with a minor) and then SafeSport hands over their information to law enforcement. Law enforcement elects not to proceed with charges because a statute of limitations applies to the incidents with the strongest, most irrefutable evidence (let’s say letters containing confessions by the accused written in their own hand writing) whereas the evidence for the most most recent incidents is not strong enough to obtain a conviction.

      So you, with your MSW, visit John Smith and in your well informed opinion feel he is not a risk to your children. You are able to be present at the barn and supervise every moment he is with your children. You decide the skills your children will learn outweigh the likelihood they will come to harm and take the calculated risk of enrolling them in his lesson program.

      I happen to have done my undergraduate degree in Philosophy and have a MLIS. Let’s assume I am better than the average bear at researching John Smith’s history, evaluating the quality of the sources and critically examining all of the available information. I decide based on his show records that he is very successful, there are no suspicious gaps in the timeline of the show records, I can find no indication of any animal welfare issues, no records of criminal conviction, and no suggestion that he has gone by any other name in the past. Just his name and an infraction on the SafeSport list. I decide to meet with John Smith. By all indications I have done my homework, more than the average parent does I suspect, and I should be able to make an intelligent evaluation of him. However, I admit that I have crap judgment when it comes to men. I ask him about SafeSport and he gives me a sob story about how it was a long time ago and he was 20 and she was 16 and now he knows it was wrong and would never ever do something like that again. I fail to notice him eyeballing my 12 year old son and think how nice John Smith is for offering to give him a free first lesson right then and there. John goes on and on about how super impressed he is with how my son rides and how he really has a future in this sport. He offers to make a special exception and let my son join his elite junior team at a steep discount. And guess what? Next month they’ll be traveling out of state and my son can stay with the other boys in their hotel room because he always provides the kids with their own hotel room!!

      Ugh. I feel dirty just writing all that. Just because you feel confident in your ability to determine whether an identified child abuser is a risk to your child, doesn’t mean every other parent has that same skill set and ability. My point is that SafeSport is about protecting as many children as possible in as many different sports as possible. SafeSport, #metoo and breaking the culture of silence is bigger than the individual and their right to choose, it’s bigger than one man’s business or reputation, and it’s bigger than horse sport and industry.

      It’s about breaking the cycle and ending a plague that has reached epidemic proportions while everyone whispered and decided that money and fame and reputation were more important than abusing children. Child abusers aren’t created in a vacuum. People don’t wake up one day with a hankering for children. They think it’s “normal” or that’s “just how it is” or “it only was a few times and they won’t remember 10 or 20 years from now” or they wouldn’t be where they are today if that didn’t happen because in all likelihood they experienced the same thing themselves.

      Go look at the “most popular” lists on any of the popular free porn and erotica websites (hint: the majority do not feature a plot line about a husband and wife engaging in passionate love making). WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE. And we need to stop whispering and looking the other way because god forbid some old white guy might not be able to teach a few clinics, drug some horses or endanger horses and riders (by his own admission in his autobiography).

      And since I don’t want to make a separate post on this. PSA!! There are exceptional riders and trainers who are immaculate horsemen/women and admirable human beings outside of the upper echelons of the h/j bubble. You actually can get “George” quality training elsewhere without compromising on things like basic ethics and animal cruelty and child abuse. I didn’t know who GHM was until a few years ago and was totally perplexed by his cult following. The man came across as an obnoxious bully and the things he was teaching are not earth shattering concepts if you diversify and try using a coach from a different discipline or different continent.

      Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to intelligently respond to some of the ... more interesting posts here. Clearly the “if you ignore it maybe it will go away” approach isn’t serving the best interests of the collective “we” anymore.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
        Originally posted by greysfordays



        I have a feeling it's going to take at least one BNT with the guts to stand up and say publicly that they unequivocally support SS and I don't think that's going to happen unless and until GM's appeal is denied and he's really, finally booted out.

        Can anyone think of someone of stature who wasn't named in GM's book as being a "dear friend to this day", a good friend with whom he did some fabulous horse deal or other, or at least someone he caroused with? I said somewhere up thread that I thought his book was intended as a warning to everyone as to just how far reaching his influence was and now I think I'm really believing that.

        Come to think of it, are there ANY BNTs, named in "the book" or not, who have come out with a solid statement in support of SafeSport?
        AK....and look what happened to her.
        Boss Mare Eventing Blog

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jealoushe

          AK....and look what happened to her.
          Right you are. Lost sight of that in all the mud-slinging.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sunflower View Post
            I struggle with all of the arguments about what the age of consent was. Consent is not an automatic given just because someone is of a certain age. A person still must CONSENT to the activity-- which means acting free of duress or coercion. Even if the age of consent is 12 or 15 or whatever, can that person really be said to be able to consent to sexual contact or activity? Especially if the person wanting the sexual contact or activity is an adult, someone in a position of power or influence.

            Just because an activity might be or have been legal does not make it right-- there is the oft commented situation of the legality of the atrocities committed in/durng Nazi Germany.

            Just because someone is of legal age to consent to sexual contact or activity does not mean that they did consent. Whether their consent is valid in any given situation depends on that situation entirely.
            That isn't the point at all. I was explaining how recent the age of consent laws are as an indicator of how society thinks about these things. Until relatively recently, alcohol consumption and cute panties were indicators of consent. Still wrong, but definitely indicators of how people thought.

            Comment


            • "Accepted" and "acceptable" are two very different things. "Acceptable" implies that there is a power to accept that is exercised. "Accepted" can mean not doing anything, i.e tolerating it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by KellyS View Post
                I think a lot of this is arguments about semantics.

                When I say "socially unacceptable," I am referring to the fact that society knew sexual interactions with minors (I'm going to stick to this topic) was wrong. Otherwise, why would we be having all these conversations about parents/adults ignoring it, and those sexually abusing minors doing it behind closed doors?

                To me, "socially acceptable" means that society on a whole agrees on a set of values, whether or not they do anything to protect and enforce these values.

                At no point in the past hundred years (and even beyond that), would someone admit in their social circles (outside "circles" of other abusers) or in public that they were sexually abusing minors. They KNEW it was wrong and they didn't flaunt it.

                That's why we have all these people defending George Morris by saying he's a nice guy, etc. He kept his proclivities behind closed doors. If it was "socially acceptable," he wouldn't need to hide it.

                Hiding a behavior or action is a clear indication that a person is doing something they interpret as socially unacceptable.

                Now that's my definition of the term, and it's fine if you feel differently. However, it's silly to go round and round telling people they are wrong because they don't define something as you do.

                With regard to how victims feel, I think we are overlooking the innate shame and embarrassment felt by victims that has nothing to do with society, now or then.

                I didn't understand it until I was sexually assaulted last year. I am in the most open, welcoming, and supportive environments someone could have both at home and at work. However, I still felt embarrassed and ashamed after the assault and debated whether to tell anyone.

                These feelings are just as important to consider because they are just as likely to keep people from coming forward and one more reason why we need to provide safety and privacy for victims who have come forward.
                I agree that this is, in part, an argument about semantics. But semantics *are* important when it comes to communication and our analysis of how to prevent future issues.

                "When I say "socially unacceptable," I am referring to the fact that society knew sexual interactions with minors (I'm going to stick to this topic) was wrong. Otherwise, why would we be having all these conversations about parents/adults ignoring it, and those sexually abusing minors doing it behind closed doors?"

                The law knew it was wrong. Parents knew it was wrong. But it was accepted that it was the way to get ahead. That's not naiveté - that's acceptance. We point at these parents now as anomalies, but they weren't really - the same way it was tacitly accepted that in order to get ahead as a woman in the workplace you were going to have to sleep with some uglies.

                Was it right? No. Did anyone think it was right? Absolutely not. But it was a thing that we accepted as a culture.

                What else would you call that? What else would you call the Hot for Teacher video? Or the Pepsi commercial (look it up) or the Jailbait porn videos (labeled as such). They were so common that everyone knows the term "Girls Gone Wild" or the "Barely Legal" series. If we had any sense of non-acceptance, those would be considered as abhorrent as the people with videos of even younger children, which were not considered a felony before 1992. I'm sure if pressed, people would have said those things were sick in 1980, and yet we, as a society, didn't do anything.

                There's a difference between knowledge of right and wrong, and acceptance. In this case (sexual abuse of minors) I absolutely agree that both the perpetrators and the bystanders with knowledge knew it was wrong. But they all accepted it. They didn't go to authorities (that would be the big sign of non-acceptance). They rationalized it as the cost of "being close to GM" or "getting that new position". They silenced victims. They supported perpetrators. They knew.

                I agree that we should provide privacy, I'm not sure how you're interpreting any of what I have said to be the opposite.

                As a fellow rape victim, I bore a ton of shame, wrestled with whether to tell or not. I still haven't "outed myself" to those close to me (although those who know my screen name IRL now know, I suppose). Those bruises that I bore post-rape go deep. I do 100% blame my rapist but I also blame a society that sees women and children as possessions of men.

                I see our attitudes as complicit in my rapist thinking he was entitled to my body, and when I came home with bruises on my arms no one asking me what had happened. Those who saw me surely knew that *something* bad had happened, even if they didn't know a sexual crime had occurred. Their silence, borne of embarrassment or not wanting to get involved or whatever the case may be was a tacit acceptance of what had happened to me.

                It wasn't naiveté, you'd have to be a fool to believe that a 20 year old female comes home with thumbprint bruises all over her arms and a bruise on her cheek and think that it was just a "happy night out".

                I am NOT conflating things that don't belong together - they absolutely do. I lived in the town where Sandusky was a predator. The town claimed that Joe Paterno was "naive". While he may not have known for certain that Sandusky was buggering boys, he most definitely knew that there was smoke. Society said that unless you can prove it without a reasonable doubt, the doubt belongs on the accuser. This was commonly accepted during the time of the reporting - Penn State was not special in this way. It happens in Universities and Schools all across the world. This is woefully, dreadfully common and it has been until now an accepted behavior of the perpetrators. Which is why they needed sanctions, fines, and a big ol' set of training videos to get it through to people that just maybe it shouldn't be accepted anymore.

                Silence is acceptance.

                If it wasn't, we wouldn't need Safe Sport.

                We need Safe Sport.

                Because we, as a society, need to change.


                Comment


                • People didn't want to get involved for sure. When I was little - 5 or 6 - I used to have night terrors where I would scream at the top of my lungs. Apparently, it was plenty loud enough for people up and down the block to hear if the windows were open. We moved away, came back for a visit maybe 10 years later and one lady asked me "did your parents used to beat up on you?" Not outraged, just like she was curious. I said no - why would she think that and she replied "well, we used to hear you screaming all the time." Never thought of doing anything, though, I guess.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                    They did. They absolutely did.

                    Otherwise we wouldn't need Safe Sport.

                    Otherwise Epstein wouldn't be a thing, and otherwise we wouldn't have the Me Too movement.
                    The fact that SOME people accept a thing, promote a thing, practice a thing, does not mean that it is societally accepted. SOME people sell their children. That does not make it societally accepted.

                    But you, who weren't there, know more than I, who was. Carry on.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sunflower View Post
                      I struggle with all of the arguments about what the age of consent was. Consent is not an automatic given just because someone is of a certain age. A person still must CONSENT to the activity-- which means acting free of duress or coercion. Even if the age of consent is 12 or 15 or whatever, can that person really be said to be able to consent to sexual contact or activity? Especially if the person wanting the sexual contact or activity is an adult, someone in a position of power or influence.

                      Just because an activity might be or have been legal does not make it right-- there is the oft commented situation of the legality of the atrocities committed in/durng Nazi Germany.

                      Just because someone is of legal age to consent to sexual contact or activity does not mean that they did consent. Whether their consent is valid in any given situation depends on that situation entirely.
                      This is such an interesting subject! We now know that human brains don't completely mature until mid/late 20s. Huge physical changes are going on in teen brains that pretty much guarantee judgment cannot be at its best. I don't think we'll ever get to the point of banning sex until our mid/late 20s , but who knows? (I'd defy anyone to enforce it though...)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by poltroon View Post


                        Until the late 1970s, a woman needed her husband's permission to get a credit card. (A man, of course, did not need his wife's permission.)
                        That was not my experience. I got my first credit card in the mid/late 70s. Had a very good job and was supporting my writer husband. Did not need his permission to get the card. However, in spirit you are not wrong. While I didn't need my husband's permission, the CC company wanted my parents to guarantee the card. I flatly refused and made ugly noises at the CC company. They gave me my credit card.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post

                          The fact that SOME people accept a thing, promote a thing, practice a thing, does not mean that it is societally accepted. SOME people sell their children. That does not make it societally accepted.

                          But you, who weren't there, know more than I, who was. Carry on.
                          Where wasn't I?

                          Ok, so let me ask you - why do we need safe sport if all along society knew it was unacceptable to have sexual relationships with minors?

                          We know for a fact that parents knew with Nassar and we know that many knew with GM (whispers etc.). Why did society not out these beasts before?

                          What was their silence? What do you call that? You WANT to call it an aberration but the statistics do not bear that out. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are molested. (https://www.d2l.org/the-issue/prevalence/).

                          My math is poor, but that's about 12 million kids, 700,000 annually. That's a LOT of kids, and a LOT of perpetrators.

                          40% of those are reported (so that's 280,000). Only 55% of those get even followed up on by CPS, and then far fewer are taken to court. Although 80% of those taken to court are convicted - huzzah! That tells me that it's not the court system failing these kids. It's US. It's parents, it's friends, it's teachers (only 25% of which have adequate training as mandated reporters).

                          This PDF is chock-full of our failures as a society - http://www.d2l.org/wp-content/upload..._Reporting.pdf - and it was worse in the years leading up to now.

                          Far far worse!

                          Do I blame the perps, absolutely. But I also blame US. As a society. We've turned a blind eye for years and people don't do that because they are bad people. They do it because the societal costs are great. There are ingrained beliefs about what you do and don't interfere in (see Bluey's post) there are concerns about taking kids away and putting them into foster care (see the pdf I provided before about people's attitudes after the McMartin cases).

                          I was absolutely around for the 80s and 90s. You're telling me it was better in the 60s and 70s? I call BS big time on that one.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post

                            That was not my experience. I got my first credit card in the mid/late 70s. Had a very good job and was supporting my writer husband. Did not need his permission to get the card. However, in spirit you are not wrong. While I didn't need my husband's permission, the CC company wanted my parents to guarantee the card. I flatly refused and made ugly noises at the CC company. They gave me my credit card.
                            In 2003, I tried to buy a car as a single woman. First, I had a heck of a time getting help at the dealership. Then the first question was "are you married, because we won't talk to you until your husband is here".

                            I left the dealership and never came back.

                            I visit another dealership now pretty frequently, as I have an e-car and need to charge it. I've spent many an hour wandering around the lots staring at cars and not a SINGLE rep has approached me. I thought that was pretty funny in this day and age, so I tried it at different lots - now keep in mind, I'm married, female, and generally speaking look respectable (although some days after barn work you just never can tell). I STILL can't get anyone to help me. I should be an easy mark at a car dealership but I'm not - because of outdated beliefs about wearing the pants. My husband goes alone and I have to go rescue him before he buys a car.

                            I know this is a total side note, but things haven't changed that much.

                            Comment


                            • A friend who is in a 12 step group sometimes goes to woman only meetings. She said that she is the only one in any woman only meeting she's attended that was not raped, or sexually abused in some way. There are lifelong repercussions.
                              You can't fix stupid-Ron White

                              Comment


                              • I have slogged through this entire thread. I have many thoughts but want to touch on this one. It’s easy to blame people who knew. Far easier than the perpetrator. Why I never spoke up was because it wasn’t my story to tell. I heard the whispers but had nothing concrete. It wasn’t until later that some of my friends confided in me when we became adults. At that point it wasn’t my story to tell. At that point there was no recourse because of the statute of limitations and it would have been he said she said/he said he said.

                                Of course I told my friends to speak up and that I would be right there with them. But again, it wasn’t my story to tell. All I could do was support my friends and when asked about trainers warn people and suggest better ones. I’ve always been a nobody in this sport and never cared if people started whispering about me because I told people about what I knew and heard.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                  I agree that this is, in part, an argument about semantics. But semantics *are* important when it comes to communication and our analysis of how to prevent future issues.
                                  But we don't all have to agree in order to solve the problem. You and I are not ever going to agree on this semantic point. I will never agree that "silence is acceptance" of sexual predators, child molestation, and rape. And you have made no indication that you agree with my interpretation of the semantics.

                                  But that is not an obstacle to solving the problem. In fact, I think SafeSport and the increased awareness of these issues in sport following the Larry Nasser case go a long way toward preventing future issues whether the fundamental problem has been societal acceptance (as you believe) or the dynamics of power, wealth, and social class (as I believe) or that women and children have been historically viewed as property with few/no rights (an excellent point made by someone else).

                                  Awareness of the problem (and recognizing that it is indeed a problem), the creation of a safe and anonymous reporting system, and a system that has a proven track record of eliminating predators and abusers from the sport will, I believe, go a long way toward preventing future issues no matter what you think the underlying cause might be.

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

                                  Homer Simpson

                                  Comment


                                  • One thing the anti-SafeSport crowd is overlooking is that SafeSport (unlike the criminal justice system) doesn’t just protect children. It also protects the reputation of trainers who may have been falsely accused, because the investigation (unlike criminal proceedings) is not carried out in the public eye. Forget criminal conviction; there are a LOT of people out there who honestly believe that if a person has been arrested he or she must be guilty of something. Being arrested on charges of child sexual abuse will permanently destroy a person’s reputation even if the charge is later proved to be completely unfounded. But with SafeSport, if the investigators conclude there’s insufficient evidence to justify a sanction, the only ones who know a charge was levied are the investigative team, the accuser(s), and the trainer. The trainer’s reputation in the world at large has not been ruined.

                                    Since fear of ruining an innocent person’s reputation is one of the many reasons people are reluctant to report suspected abuse, this aspect of SafeSport ought to be more widely appreciated.

                                    This sport (and most others) NEEDS SafeSport. It may need a few tweaks, but it fills a necessary role.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post

                                      Where wasn't I?

                                      Ok, so let me ask you - why do we need safe sport if all along society knew it was unacceptable to have sexual relationships with minors?

                                      We know for a fact that parents knew with Nassar and we know that many knew with GM (whispers etc.). Why did society not out these beasts before?

                                      What was their silence? What do you call that? You WANT to call it an aberration but the statistics do not bear that out. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are molested. (https://www.d2l.org/the-issue/prevalence/).

                                      My math is poor, but that's about 12 million kids, 700,000 annually. That's a LOT of kids, and a LOT of perpetrators.

                                      40% of those are reported (so that's 280,000). Only 55% of those get even followed up on by CPS, and then far fewer are taken to court. Although 80% of those taken to court are convicted - huzzah! That tells me that it's not the court system failing these kids. It's US. It's parents, it's friends, it's teachers (only 25% of which have adequate training as mandated reporters).

                                      This PDF is chock-full of our failures as a society - http://www.d2l.org/wp-content/upload..._Reporting.pdf - and it was worse in the years leading up to now.

                                      Far far worse!

                                      Do I blame the perps, absolutely. But I also blame US. As a society. We've turned a blind eye for years and people don't do that because they are bad people. They do it because the societal costs are great. There are ingrained beliefs about what you do and don't interfere in (see Bluey's post) there are concerns about taking kids away and putting them into foster care (see the pdf I provided before about people's attitudes after the McMartin cases).

                                      I was absolutely around for the 80s and 90s. You're telling me it was better in the 60s and 70s? I call BS big time on that one.
                                      Never did I say it was better in the 60s and 70s. Did not say that. I have merely argued, and will continue to argue, that it was never "accepted". (Your word.) People dealt with teacher/child rape more quietly. But they never accepted it. It was not accepted societally. That does not mean that individuals did not accept it. But "some" is not all or even most.

                                      Nor am I arguing that shining a spotlight on the problem isn't better than keeping it quiet and dealing with it privately. It is far, far better. Children and parents have soooo much more information available now. They have more avenues for action. It is 1000 times better than when I was a teen. But I will stand my ground on saying that it was not "accepted" back then. Because it was not. Again, I was a teen in the 60s, which is the period mentioned in the GM controversy. That is the only period of which I am speaking. I am not making claims for the 80s or 90s because I was not a teen then.

                                      As near as I can see, social costs are still great.

                                      As far as music and videos and little girl models - imo, that is another discussion. I've always seen that as a knee-jerk reaction to women's lib, an effort to put us back in our proper places, to infantilize us once again. (After all, most of the people in charge of those industries were/are men.) But that is my own opinion and I have no problem with people not agreeing with me.

                                      Comment


                                      • Ok I obviously lived in a different world,Savannah and Atlanta and Staunton Va and Berkeley in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s cause sex with underage children was reported and prosecuted. (And credit cards? Hell in the 60s in college in Va Rich's in Atlanta sent me my unsolicited card followed by American Express. My parents never were notified. )

                                        And how do I know about sex crimes? In the 70s and 80s and 90s I tried hundreds of cases in Atlanta That was 1/12
                                        /'of all felony cases in Fulton county's cities and county. I got 1/12 of all the murders and rapes and child molestations etc during those years. I took the kids to chuckie cheese and to meet the judges etc. And as the first woman hired by the DA, I made sure I put child molestors in prison. Where,btw,my defendants who committed other crimes,exacted additional punishment.

                                        idahorider's post is good. Quit arguing about olden times. The assaults on children were handled then as they are now. And btw unless GW is senile now, he hasn't changed. I tried guys who had completed their sentences and reoffended.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post



                                          But that is not an obstacle to solving the problem. In fact, I think SafeSport and the increased awareness of these issues in sport following the Larry Nasser case go a long way toward preventing future issues whether the fundamental problem has been societal acceptance (as you believe) or the dynamics of power, wealth, and social class (as I believe) or that women and children have been historically viewed as property with few/no rights (an excellent point made by someone else).
                                          Actually, I believe that those three things are intertwined to cause the tacit societal acceptance, which is why we have a much higher rate of prosecution of African American individuals who commit the same crimes than the powerful white men.

                                          I think we're vehemently agreeing.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X