Eh, no, Breen’s youngest (known) victim was a 3 year old, not ten years old. His crimes were against multiple victims (at least 22)
Did you actually read the rest of my post? Because I addressed that.
Note also, that in the OP (which on at least two occasions, she stressed that she not only read, but was sooper-dooper familiar with all the facts therein) I wrote
So it’s not just the 10-13 thing with Victim X, it’s also the 3 year old he “pencil-eraser fondled” (blech–just typing that made me feel dirty) and all of his other victims.
Which I reiterated in post 150. She was still using the term in post 338.
So the question should be
Broomstick: you used the word “ephebophile” to refer to MZB’s husband’s crimes, which were against multiple children of both genders 3-14. You said on many occasions you knew this long before the OP was posted and that you’d read the OP. Fenris has produced a cite that appears to show that that was a wildly incorrect usage given that you stated you knew one of his victims was three (3) years old. How can you explain this apparent discrepancy?
Quite true, my post was imprecise. The victim IN QUESTION, about whom all the debate between Fenris and Broomstick raged, with me commenting, was 10 when the crimes started, and they lasted for 3 years.
I think it’s quite unambiguous that Breen was in fact a pedophile.
Possibly I’m misreading, but it seems like the summation of your post is:
The short version of this is: the less-brokenness of the perpetrator does not make it better for the victim.
Which seems to be arguing that the paramount thing IS the suffering of the victim.
That said, I think the distinction between raping a 3-year-old and raping a 10-year-old is very minor… and as far as I can tell, so does Broomstick. But I don’t see why my saying that it’s very minor (instead of saying that they’re absolutely identical and child rape is child rape and there are no gray areas) suddenly makes me a sympathizer or apologist for child rape in any fashion.
That’s a reasonable and relevant question, and I’m curious to see Broomstick’s answer. But there’s a difference between asking this question, pointing out where Broomstick was at-best-mistaken-and-at-work-dishonest, and asking her to resolve the discrepancy; and jumping to “she deliberately lied in order to defend a rapist”, and presenting that conclusion as if it were proven and objective truth.
You know how you came charging into the thread saying people were reading things into Broomstick’s posts? You’re doing it into mine. When did I say you were a sympathizer or apologist for child rape?
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you personally were doing so, although I can see how it came off that way. The second part of my post there was intended to be taking a step back and discussing this thread in general.
If he’s a paedophile, he’s a paedophile, he isn’t temporarily an ephebophile just because a particular victim might be an “old-looking” 10. Something Broomstick, by her own admission, already knew. So why bring up ephebophiles at all?
Okay.
Then, to return to your previous question, yes. The paramount thing is the suffering of the victim. That is the basis of criminal law, generally, that we have a victim and someone did something to that victim that we find to be wrong. (I know there are “victimless crimes,” but I think they are sufficiently divorced from the reality of child rape that we don’t really need to talk about them.)
Rehabilitation is something we think of later, after we determine that there is a victim and a criminal and something needs to be done with the criminal so that there are no other victims. Same with punishment or imprisonment or whatever we determine comes next.
Mooshing them both together, that the crime is somehow different because of the potential for rehabilitation—which is what Broomstick appeared to be doing—does not make sense to me.
I’ll stop there because it’s simplest if I do.
THAT is an editing of my statement to completely change the meaning of what I said, which is symptomatic of the bullshit that has ensued in this thread.
First, it was in response to this question in post #294:
And what I actually said, in post #330, unedited but with a little added emphasis, was
In other words, Fenris you deliberately cut out 90% of my post, including the part where I actually answered the question I was asked by Emiliana.
That is how you lie, Fenris, by mis-reading, by selective editing, by doing everything you can to show my words in the worst possible light. If you were really confident of your position you wouldn’t have cut out the majority of what I write to support what you claim. If you were really confident of your position you’d say which posts you were referring to so people could go back and read the actual posts instead of settling for your highly edited view of the world. But you don’t - you don’t actually quote me, and you don’t say where you’re getting these distortions.
Maybe the adolescent-raper isn’t as bad as baby-raper. Baby-raping is such a heinous offense that I don’t think society should allow such people to ever run free again. I’m not sure adolescent-rapers should be let free, either, but IF their sexual desires could be redirected towards older individuals who were capable of giving consent maybe they wouldn’t re-offend. Maybe. But if your only outlet for sex is babies then the only safe outcome would be lifetime celibacy. Some people can do that - but if the baby-rapist could do that they would have kept their evil thoughts as just thoughts. Obviously, a baby-rapist can’t keep control of his impulses, therefore, society must control those impulses by confining him so he can not harm any more children.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear - from the victim’s perspective it’s all equally bad. Rape is never acceptable
Never said it did, because it doesn’t. However, I think some rapists are a greater hazard to society than others. We have an obligation to everyone to make sure that, once caught, such people can never harm anyone else.
Whether or not the person can be rehabilitated doesn’t change the crime they were convicted of, but it does matter to the future and to society if they are likely to re-offend.
See ablve.
Yes, in those posts I was speaking from a societal POV. I agree that from the victim’s perspective the effects of the crime are the same, but I don’t want any more victims.
It is particularly sad when a people are victims of a rapist that was previously convicted then released, because it means society failed to protect them.
Okay.
But in the case in this thread, whether Bradley or her husband, they are both dead, right? So why is their ability to reoffend relevant regarding the crimes they committed or how we should feel about them?
An entirely reasonable and relevant question, which I think can and should be asked, and I’m curious what Broomstick’s response is.
But the existence of that reasonable question is a far cry from (for instance) knowing with certainty that Broomstickm deliberately lied, and her motive was to make MZB’s and Breem’s crimes seem less heinous than they were.
From Wikipedia:Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys
[/quote]
”Pubescence” is the very beginning of puberty, which begins at the “tweens”. 10 would be a bit early than the usual 11-12 given for boys, but a year’s difference is not outrageous when discussing developmental matters.
Apparently, Fenris reads different authors than I do.
Also, apparently, there is yet another term, hebepheilia, to refer to those sexually attracted to kids in early puberty, or basically the “tween” years. So maybe I should have said hebelphiliac.
Of course, there’s nothing that says you can’t have multiple problems in that area. Apparently Jimmy Saville in England fucked and raped everything from infants to the elderly, many of whom were also ill, injured, and/or disabled on top of everything else. Now THERE was a scumbag and it’s a goddamn shame he wasn’t stopped before he did all that. I’m not sure if there is a technical term for someone of that sort. If there is, in light of what’s been brought up in this thread, Walter Breen may well have been one of them. I’m glad Breen died in prison, the only shame is that he wasn’t sent there earlier.
I didn’t know about the 3 year old until this thread. Until this thread I thought all of his victims were in the 10 and up range. I clicked on the links, glanced at them, thought I’ve heard all this before and did not click further links within those links. Presumably somewhere in all that verbiage the three year old is mentioned it doesn’t spring out immediately, that’s for sure.
The first link discusses the “Breendoggle” of 1964 but says only that it involved child abuse with no further details. The second link is a book review of The Heritage of Hastur and Breen isn’t brought up in the book review, he’s brought up in the comments, which information would have been nice to know because then the person linking could skip down to there if they desired. Again, no details are given about Breen’s victims in that link, only that they exist. Link three is MZB’s testimony where she says she thought Victim X was 14 or 15, and I’d seen that before and I stopped reading because I really didn’t feel like re-reading it again. Maybe there was more there, but it would be helpful if Fenris had included something like “notice this bit here” to direct the reader’s attention. Or, like in his link about MZB, title the link something like “MZB was raping her from the time she was 3 to about 13” because it makes it clear what he wants the reader to search for in the link. THAT sure as hell got my attention and, as new information, I read it.
I have, on several occasions in this thread, acknowledged that I learned something new and changed my stance in accord with new information. It puzzles me that this has been utterly ignored, since changing one’s stance to fit new information is usually seen as desirable.
I think you’re vastly oversimplifying. For instance, if Joe is driving his car and kills Bob, and the court is discussing whether Joe should be found guilty of negligence, or vehicular manslaughter, or second degree murder, many factors will be considered, but whether Bob died instantly or was instead trapped in the wreckage and slowly and agonizingly burned to death seems, while clearly important to Bob and his family, legally fairly irrelevant, and likely even prejudicial.
If it was a rainy night with poor conditions, and the jury is trying to decide whether Joe’s actions were basically an entirely innocent and understandable (if tragic) mistake, or whether there’s compelling evidence that he was recklessly texting while driving, or something like that, I don’t think that a lengthy description of the agony that poor Bob suffered before he expired is something that will help the jury reach the fairest and most legally correct verdict.
(Note: I am NOT saying that vehicular crimes like this are analogous to rape, I’m just trying to show why suffering-of-victim can be so divorced from severity of crime.)
Again, taking a step back for a second so that we don’t get stuck in the minutiae, I claim that raping a 25-year-old is a terrible crime. And raping a 3-year-old is a FAR WORSE crime. And raping a 15-year-old is somewhere in between. I don’t think those three positions are hugely controversial. So there is a scale, and things do change as the victim ages. So is raping a 10-year-old nearly identical to raping a 3-year-old? Well, maybe. You might make a good argument that there’s a plateau of some sort. But I don’t think it’s something that’s so self-evidently and obviously clear that disagreeing is immediately unacceptably ridiculous. Nor do I think that taking the position that raping a 3-year-old is worse than raping a 10-year-old automatically diminishes or excuses the horrificness of raping a 10-year-old, any more than saying that raping a 3-year-old is worse than raping a 15-year-old diminishes or excuse raping a 15-year-old.
(I do agree that if someone is weirdly invested in the idea that raping a 3-year-old is worse than raping a 10-year-old, or keeps starting threads about it, or asks us to really imagine the details of each crime so that we can explain at great length WHY one is worse than the other, or various other such skeezy behavior; that would be a pretty serious warning sign in its own right. But I don’t think Broomstick has gotten anywhere remotely near that point. Nor is even the most creepy discussion-of-rape-on-a-message-board even in the same universe as actually COMMITTING rape.)
You’re changing the act by saying there was negligence, etc.
I honestly don’t see this conversation with you as being productive. Sorry.
Broomstick lies a lot. All over the place. It’s what she does and we don’t pretend to be shocked by it anymore.
Yeah, yeah - I get accused of that. Oddly enough, after 14 years and 18,500+ posts it’s only ever the same 2 threads that are ever brought up as cites. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a high ratio of bullshit to truth.
Damn, and here I thought this trainwreck had already jumped the rails and was nothing more than a smoking pile of debris. 