School Shooters, Depression and Prevention
The killer in a Colorado school shooting focused on taking female hostages. I wonder what we will find out about his history that led him to conclude that this rampage was his only solution? Notice that many mass murderers/school shooters kill themselves or are killed by the police during the crime. The men and boys who commit these crimes are often highly suicidal and decide that if no one cares about their perceived pain and emotional turmoil, they might as well take others down with them in a high drama episode that lets the world know how they feel.
It makes sense to me that we try to address male depression and high suicide rates as a way to prevent these killings. Ignoring the emotional problems of men and boys can have terrible repurcussions that affect not only the mental health of men and boys, but affect innocent victims like the girls at this high school. Prevention on the front end makes more sense than doing nothing if we are truly interested in saving lives. None of this excuses what these killers have done, but it is better to figure out how to put a stop to these rampages then it is to decide what to do with a perpretrator once they have killed. As a therapist who has worked with potential killers and seen how effective correcting these cognitive distortions and behavior can be, I think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
It makes sense to me that we try to address male depression and high suicide rates as a way to prevent these killings. Ignoring the emotional problems of men and boys can have terrible repurcussions that affect not only the mental health of men and boys, but affect innocent victims like the girls at this high school. Prevention on the front end makes more sense than doing nothing if we are truly interested in saving lives. None of this excuses what these killers have done, but it is better to figure out how to put a stop to these rampages then it is to decide what to do with a perpretrator once they have killed. As a therapist who has worked with potential killers and seen how effective correcting these cognitive distortions and behavior can be, I think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
posted by Helen at 9:14 AM
62 Comments:
Dr. Helen,
I had an excellent talk with an acquaintance (from my local political club) last night. We started talking because his family, like mine, fosters kids. He got involved in fostering because a friend of his teenage son was being emotionally abused and neglected by his alcoholic parents.
It takes a lot of stones to take in a teenage foster kid, even if you know him (my wife and I foster a little four year old girl). In my eyes, this guy is on par with a marine or a fire fighter for what he's doing.
I'm not a big fan of the government-as-parent, but there are legitimate times where someone with authority has to step in. We as individuals can't save a whole generation of kids, but the more people who step up to the plate to help out one kid, the less of these horror stories will happen. Maybe not everyone can handle a teen, but there are thousands of kids who start out in the system practically from birth.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes loving parents, one set at a time. Many more people have the abilities to raise foster kids.
We need more.
Years ago, it was determined that adolescent girls had a problem with plummeting self-esteem which took its toll in increased pregnancy rates, low test scores, drug use and other issues. When the schools attempted to address the self-esteem challenge by changing the ways it dealt with girls, its attempts were poo-pooed by the public and the parents. Now that things have changed for the positive, people are pleased with the results.
Helen suggests addressing young mens' depression which is probably a really good idea, but is our twisted culture ready to admit that a young man might have a problem with depresssion, suicide or anger management?
I think many parents would much rather chalk these issues up to "boys will be boys" and sweep them conveniently under the carpet than actually address the problem. Stay tuned for more killins, many many many more.
Or...as I am seeing on more than few message boards this morning the male violence problems could be solved if we arm the teachers. :rolleyes:
It does actually take an entire village to rear a child well.
Included in that village, most importantly, should be two parents or, if absent, parental stand-ins.
Kudos and thanks, Jerub-Baal.
No Hillary fan here, although I do not hate her either which puts me in that middle minority as far as she is concerned, but I endorse the village thing.
I think about how few non-parental male figures my daughter has in her life, and it is sad. She has lots of adult female roll models, but not too many guys. I think they would help her to see me in a better context, she would be better able to recognize my foibles and strengths. As it is, she will think all men are like me and that has a definite downside.
Trey
Too easy with a village for everyone to fob the ultimate responsibility off on someone else. Village care is superficial.
What a kid wants, really, is ONE person (at least) who will go to the mat for him. Unconditional love. The rest is gravy
I would agree with anon. The reason I disparage the 'village' concept is not because extended family and community don't matter, they do. The reason the "it takes a village" idea is so repugnant is preciesly because it removes responsibility from the parent. We have gone for more than a generation in our entire culture casting about for someone else to blame, someone else to shoulder the burden, looking for the easiest way out. There is no easy way out when you have brought a child into the world.
Or at least, there should not be.
Indeed, bringing a child into the world entails great responsibility. The greatest of all. Let's teach that concept.
For the title of her book, Hillary Clinton carelessly borrowed from a well-known African maxim. And she left out the most important word: Entire.
It takes an entire village...
Sure, her omission probably reflects her nanny state philosophy but let's not throw out the baby with the village bath water.
It isn't either/or; it's all: village, family, and, yes -- most importantly -- parents who are responsible for rearing the next generation of individual villagers who have a shared responsibility for rearing the generation after that...
I was determined not to do it, since I do agree with your general idea in this post..I was determined not to make fun of you this time. And then you go and say, "As a therapist who has worked with potential killers and seen how effective correcting these cognitive distortions and behavior can be..." This makes me cringe. Potential killers? How can you be sure? Were they really, really angry? Do all really, really angry guys kill? Or were they really, really depressed? And do all really, really depressed guys kill? How about really, really depressed and angry women? Do they all kill? Or are we all just potential killers? Does the sympathy for these potential killers end when they become actual killers, or is true just for mothers who kill?
Anonymous 2:37:
I am not sure what your beef is with me? Do I think all angry, depressed men are potential killers? Of course not. Are some angry, depressed women capable of harming others? Yes. I deal with courts, attorneys and agencies that send men, women, boys and girls, who have problems with anger, have often made threats to harm others or have already commited violent acts such as assault etc. So the potenial is there for harm. Perhaps potential killers is a bit strong--maybe they are at "risk for violence." Is that better? Regardless of the name, treatment is better than assuming the feelings are nothing to address--even if the person is not harmful--isn't it important to address the angry, depressed feelings and help a person cope in a more adaptable fashion?
Anon wrote: "Too easy with a village for everyone to fob the ultimate responsibility off on someone else. Village care is superficial."
You miss the point! The statement is about responsibility, not irresponsibility! Remember how when you were young, you would get fussed at by a neighbor who saw you doing the wrong thing? Then your parents would give you grief all over again! Remember how your parents would back up the teacher when she fussed at you? That is the village concept. MORE, not less responsibility.
"What a kid wants, really, is ONE person (at least) who will go to the mat for him. Unconditional love. The rest is gravy."
Again, we disagree. Children need and respond to loving, supportive communities. A loving community buffers the loss of a primary caregiver should that tragedy occur, and bolsters it when it is there. We agree that a significant bond with one or both parents is key, it is fundamental. We probably agree that two parents are better than one. I am with you about unconditional love. But the rest is not gravy, it is veggies, starches, and a little dessert!
Trey
Latest info I have read is that he sexually assaulted at least some of the female hostages... so that explains the motivation behind picking them at least.
I appreciate that therapy in the form of early, timely intervention MIGHT turn a killer-about-to-happen into something less. Unfortunately, by the time such treatment is recognized as necessary for an individual AND CAN BE IMPOSED, it may well be too late. I somehow doubt that most budding maniacs voluntarily undergo extensive therapy, and history suggests that friends and family rarely take necessary action before the dramatic event finally occurs.
Too bad we do not yet have highly effective diagnostic tools and policies that could function as early (K-12) criminal detection and prevention aids. And if we did, the ACLU would be all over them for violation of rights. You can only do what the system will allow, Dr. Helen. Thanks for that, and I only wish it were possible to be more.
I wonder if he has a record and was released from jail after a minimal sentence. I am working on a bill that requires life in prison if the perpetrator assaults two children or reoffends after being treated or incarcerated. I mean, enough is enough, and twice is twice too much.
Trey
titurator veritatis-
How do you explain the BTK Killer? He was an avid churchgoer - a deacon too if memory serves. I guess pornography made him do it.
How do you explain priests and ministers that rape and molest? I find it difficult for you to blame pornography in those cases, although maybe some of them did possess pornography.
And if the family is the be all and end all, what about criminal parents? What about abusive parents?
Somehow, I don't think allowing you to force your flawed and misguided views on others is the answer.
" I wonder what we will find out about his history that led him to conclude that this rampage was his only solution?"
Maybe that he's crazy? Howcum we think we can address insanity rationally? Isn't this also, by definition, insane?
its suicide by cop.
men feel let down and angry but its unfocused, its anger at the world, and because we see more and more pro woman, anti male bias, we cant do anything to let that anger out in constructive ways.. so it builds, and we get angry and have to do something, a lot of young men kill themselves, this is just another way of killing themselves if they dont have the nerve to do it themselves.. its sad that this happens, but all this will do it make more and more angry upset men do more things like that..
titurator veritas-
I don't have time to wade through your comment point by point, so I'll just make a couple points:
- You don't have a "solution", you have a sexually repressed fixation on pornography. Trying to force your sexually repressed opinions on normal, law-abiding adults isn't a "solution".
- My outlook is based on natural law as well - don't violate the rights of others. Notice mine doesn't involve forcing my opinions on others.
- A parent that commits a crime against their offspring is a criminal. Your nonsense about putting the family before the invidual definitely ends at that point. There are plenty of greedy, pathological, dishonest, violent, controlling, etc. parents.
- Sorry, I don't have a problem with legitimate, responsible, honest authority. I do have a problem with criminal, corrupt, dishonest, greedy, swindling, racist, ethno-supremicist, religio-supremicist, biased, pathological, vicious, capricious, hateful, incompetent, ignorant, illegitimate, etc. authority. And rightly so.
Anonymous 1:55:
Even in the heat of psychosis, there is a line of thinking that often makes sense. The halluciations or delusions that people have are often a window into how they construct the world. And FWIW--we don't know that the killer was insane--and even if so, in his mind, his act was probably completely rational.
Porno is a symptom, not the cause.
And, Titurator Veritatis I think you have an interesting viewpoint, but blogs work better with pithy statements than they do long, well, the word diatribe comes to mind. Sorry, I could not think of a nicer word that makes the same point.
And in responding to criticisms or disagreements, people respond best if we discuss the ideas rather than the words. If that makes any sense.
Trey
tmink-
Porn is a symptom of what? Normalcy? I don't see how mainstream, run of the mill porn is pathological in any way. I truly wonder how objective some mental health professionals are - it seems like the religious want to pathologize the non-religious, the socialists want to pathologize the non-socialists, etc, etc, etc... Is this trying to help people or trying to make everyone believe what you believe and live like you live?
from; (1)child physically abused by father, his friends, the principal of the elementary school, and others (2)Juvenile delinquent with several court actions prior to what was then "reform school" (3)perpetrator of actual drug assisted rape, (4)and as a result, inmate for over ten years and continuing parolee from Texas prisons, I think you folks are correct sometimes, incorrect sometimes, and occasionally just plain obtuse.
One of the more difficult challenges in surviving this life is learning to accept responsibility for one's actions.
I could blame all those people from my childhood and youth for the problems I experienced but ultimately, after I became a man, I made my own decisions, however awful they may have been.
It took a compassionate correctional counselor, some strong authority figures, and at least a half dozen respectable role models to motivate an inner look at who/what/where I was and why. Without that intervention, I shudder to think where/what/who I might be now.
As it is, for all practical purposes, reentry into society is now pretty much complete. Wife, children, grandchildren, job, property, responsibilities and even self-respect have been finally accepted. There still exists an inner fool, though, that must be controlled less often as the years accumulate.
Damn! I'm not sure why I'm telling you this and it's only a small sample of what now seems almost unbelievable. If anyone has questions, I'll try my best to answer. If not, thanks for the catharsis, I'll just go back to work now.
Media is now reporting that prep was a delusional petty crook living in his Jeep. Purported suicide note found. Insane? Yes. But who isn't, these days. This guy sounds just one step removed from a university professorship. Can't lock us all up. How do you propose to identify these cases before implosion?
anonymous 5:57: "You don't have a "solution", you have a sexually repressed fixation on pornography. Trying to force your sexually repressed opinions on normal, law-abiding adults isn't a "solution".
I'm surprised that someone would still use this "sexually repressed" B.S. excuse to dismiss anyone who doesn't affirm their own disordered appetites. Titurator Veritatis, as his name implies (Truth of the Tiber?), is coming from a uniquely Catholic perspective on this issue. His focus on the family harkens back to the original Lockean view of the social contract, as opposed to a John Stuart Mill view (it is, needless to say, also uniquely Catholic). His 1 suggested solution, getting rid of pron, is hardly a bad idea. I'm not going to get into why, but needless to say dismissing it as a result of a "repressed fixation" is idiotic.
Of course, Titurator Veritatis, I think that it may be too late at this point. It's more than pron, it's a sexual liberation of individuals from their responsibilities. But the dark side is that the desires and glamor of the fantasy do not mesh with the reality. When that obvious truth hits men who have anger issues, it's explosive.
Chariz:
Thanks for sharing with us and I hope your life will continue on track.
To others:
Is regular pornography normal? I think so. Many people enjoy pornography. I do think, however, that when sex is mixed with violence, some susceptable people can use it to act out their sick fantasies.
"enjoyable" + "many" do not equate to "normal"
"Pornography as symptom" does not, for me, indicate anything causal concerning the porn, but rather that those who are fixated on violent sexuality are more prone to seek out and use porno as either a substitute (i.e. fantasy) vehicle or as a bridge to manifestation. In the first case (by far the more common) the porno serves as a non-violent and safe outlet for the individuals' fantasies, while in the latter case I have a hard time believing that absent the enabler (porno) the individual would not by themselves manage to cross over from fantasy to manifestation.
As such, certain kinds of porno can be a symptom of potentially dangerous fantasies but is by no means a clear indicator.
As a side note, long before it was vogue we had a shooting incident in my Junior High back in the late '70s. In that case, though, it wasn't a troubled teen but the Vice Principal who was dealing in lead. An irate parent objected to his son being disciplined by a "nigger" and told the Vice Principal he was going to get his shotgun and teach him a lesson. rather than allow the idiot to follow through on his promise Mr. Blount took his revolver from his desk and shot the man in the leg. Later at the trial Mr. Blount was found not guilty of attempted murder, as he sufficiently demonstrated to the jury he had no intent to kill but rather to simply to stop the man and that had he wanted to kill the man the short range would have hade it quite easy to do. Needless to say, though, he was never rehired by the school system, but neither was anyone else hurt in the incident.
to blame porn for violence, is a bit of a red herring, i think anyway, if no one could release their frustrations, then you would have more violent people..
blaming porn is exactly like the excuse the devil made me do it.. look at the spanish inquisition did people blame that on porn.
one of the serial killers blamed his murders on porn.. and he became the poster child for anti porn..
they will go for the porn the want, or they will find a release in another way.. of course the people saying blame porn, mean porn that men look at.. not the stuff women look at..
Hopefully, I can still add something useful to the discussion here. I think the defining issue here is personal responsiblity, manifested through self control. I am what most would consider a fundimentalist, but I agree with those who said that porn is not the problem. For those who find porn a trigger for outrageous behavior, the problem existed before the magazine or website came before their eyes. The problem they have is with self control and, with the exception of those with chemical or physical abnormalities of the brain, self control is a taught characteristic. This is why I have put so much emphasis in what I have said here on the family. The family is the place where the most deeply taught lessons of personal resonsiblity and self control can be inculated into a child.
The village can be of assistance, but usually only if the family is intact and functional. I perfectly agree with Trey, that the village is an opportunity to add reiforcement to the family. However, most of what I see (at least here in Massachusetts, admittedly a skewed demographic) is the surrendering of family responsibility to the schools and the state. It is highly probable that my view is colored by my being a foster parent. I get to see the lack of parental responsibility and its results up close in the kids we take in.
When Charlz said " There still exists an inner fool, though, that must be controlled [less often as the years accumulate.] " he said something particularly important. That 'inner fool' is there in all of us. It is the parents burden to teach their children how to rein it in.
Mercurior,
Yes, Charles Manson blamed his murderous rampages on Beatles music-I haven't noticed any laws lately outlawing the Beatles. People will blame external sources as much as they can in order to avoid personal responsibility--and why not?--people/courts seem to buy into it.
Jerub-baal,
Yes, all of us tend to have aggressive tendencies which must be sublimated to some degree. However, parents are not the only ones who can change this--our society allows many people with pathological tendencies to flousish until such time that they finally commit a heinous act that cannot be ignored. There is a certain percentage of the population--about 1%, sometimes more, that lives without conscience and no amount of civilizing influence or treatment can change that--yet.
Anon 11:59 made a good post that I would like to respond to.
"Porn is a symptom of what? Normalcy? I don't see how mainstream, run of the mill porn is pathological in any way."
My objection to porn is that it separates the emotional and spiritual elements of sex from the physical, and I think that leads, well, has lead to devaluaing sex and misunderstanding it's power. I think we treat sex like Koolaid when it is really closer to pure grain alcohol. The only connection to this thread is that a previous poster built his argument as porno being causal, and I disagree with that.
I DO think that porn is problematic. I think it mechanizes sex, and that is a loss on the one hand and may turn ugly on the other. Some teen clients have alerted me to current sex practices that I feel are misogynistic, and I believe that porn supports that. Things like a donkey punch, something ou will have to look up for yourself!
"I truly wonder how objective some mental health professionals are - it seems like the religious want to pathologize the non-religious, the socialists want to pathologize the non-socialists, etc, etc, etc..."
A really great question! I believe that sunjectivity is the stock and trade of humanity, that objectivity is like logic, a good idea and something to strive for that is never achieved. But also, I so not really speak here as a mental health professional, but as a human being. My professional role is more constricted, reading and posting here is a hobby.
"Is this trying to help people or trying to make everyone believe what you believe and live like you live?"
I really do not try to help anyone on the blog, I try to think and post and have fun. Working as a therapist is my job, the relationship has strict rules and limits. Here I am myself and joyfully espouse personal beliefs openly. At work I am on my patients' dime, and am subservient to their needs and agenda.
Many of them do not know that I am a radical Christian, that I like to fly fish, and am a complicated right winger! Those things have no place in my practice, but I let my freak flags fly here. And I have never tried to make anyone believe what I believe, colossal waste of time! But I am not anywhere above sharing my thoughts with the hopes of persuading someone to consider them. I enjoy it when people do that for me, like you did in your post. Thanks. God bless you! But you can relax knowing that like you, I am different at work. It is best that way! Check out my little photo blogs, just fmily pics on one and artsy stuff on the other. My patients don't get bored with that stuff either.
Trey
Trey, though I think this is getting of topic, yes, I personally agree that porn is problematic, in just the way that you say. The issue that I think Dr. Helen is trying to get at here is more basic. I have had my personal problems with pornography, so maybe I'm shy at throwing stones. It is, however, only an outward manifestation of an inwarn condition. What drives young men to commit heineous acts begins at a more basic level. I'm not a mental health professional as you and the good Doctor are, but my limited observations lead me to believe that an awful lot of this can be avoided in the family with a loving enviroment from birth, that sets boundaries for behavior with increasing levels of responsibility as the child can handle them. A parent can't guarrentee that their child will be perfect and law-abiding, but there is no better insulation for society against evil than a good family. A person with attachment issues and no sense of moral restraint is a time-bomb. The best way to avoid attachment disorders is to provide that attachment from the beginning of life.
I know I'm preaching to 'my betters' (in terms of understanding psychology) here, so maybe I should just clam up for a bit...
Agreed, and well said. And that has nothing to do with porn!
Trey
Jerub-baal,
I agree that a person with attachment issues and no moral conscious can be potentially dangerous. However, certainly most of us can think of people who commit crimes who come from a good home, so violence is much more complex than just having a poor upbringing and "attachment problems."
As psychologists, we look at different factors to assess potential risk of harm to others. These include past behavior, how early the violent acts occurred, (before 11 is often a bad sign)the context of violence--some people commit violent acts only in certain settings, substance abuse, the peers and community one is around, famly conflict and aggression, social stress, personality traits, tendency towards anger as an enduring trait, impulsivity, deficient empathy, and mental disorders. Psychologists look at these factors and weigh them against the type of support and resiliency a person has to make some judgements about future violence. So, you can see that violence is a complex matter that involves many aspects of a peron's life and probably not just one. I wish it were so easy that we could just find the one cause of violence, but there is no magic bullet. On the positive side, sometimes, if you can change one aspect of a person's life, for example, reduce their daily stress, reduce their impulsivity, etc. you can change the outcome of the person harming others.
Dr. Helen,
I believe we are really on the same track. I certainly don't believe in a simple cure for all problems. However, I am not a clinical psychologist with the theories, education, and expertise to step in and seek to save that one worst case kid, I'm just a dad. I live in a community in the outer wheel of a small metroplex (centered on Boston) that has five schools in the bottom of Massachusett's educational barrel, with a high drop-out rate, a high teen pregnancy rate, and more than enough of a drug and gang culture. It could be worse, but it's bad enough. One kid with a gun in school makes headlines, a thousand in a school system on drugs or pregnant or dropping out doesn't.
As you said at the end of your original post, "...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." All I want to do is use the ounce I've got. If I can, I'd like to help others like me to do the same. If everyone did that, maybe the job you have would be easier.
Respectfully,
Matt Andrade
Dr. Helen-
There is a certain percentage of the population--about 1%, sometimes more, that lives without conscience and no amount of civilizing influence or treatment can change that--yet.
I'm curious, what if you ran into somebody that was falsely accused? That was accused of committing some crime but didn't. They have the same amount of empathy, conscience, understanding, etc. as anyone else, but don't feel guilty because they didn't do anything wrong. I have to conclude that, unless you investigated the matter and found out the truth, you would assume there was pathology when there was none there. I wonder if you would realize it if you ran into an innocent person.
tmink-
My objection to porn is that it separates the emotional and spiritual elements of sex from the physical, and I think that leads, well, has lead to devaluaing sex and misunderstanding it's power. I think we treat sex like Koolaid when it is really closer to pure grain alcohol. The only connection to this thread is that a previous poster built his argument as porno being causal, and I disagree with that.
I DO think that porn is problematic. I think it mechanizes sex, and that is a loss on the one hand and may turn ugly on the other. Some teen clients have alerted me to current sex practices that I feel are misogynistic, and I believe that porn supports that. Things like a donkey punch, something ou will have to look up for yourself!
Well if someone can't distinguish porn sex from sex within the context of a relationship I don't think the problem is porn.
Also, I hope you're not confusing a joke with people's real views on sex. The "donkey punch" is a joke - anyone who would do something like that in reality is a criminal and has some real problems. But singling out men for humor like this is misguided - look at all the vicious misandrist "husband", "man", etc. jokes told by women.
I think some of you have an idealized view of the "village". I come from a snotty, arrogant, elitist, hyper-competitive little town. I wouldn't put it past the "village" in this case trying to destroy someone outside the "in" crowd just for the sake of destroying the competition. Especially if the "bad" kid was on their way to doing better than the "good" kids of the "in" crowd.
You can't have someone not in the "club" doing better than the "club's" rotten kids, you see. They should know their place. When the "village" is equivalent to a slightly more subtle version of the KKK, the "village" shouldn't be trusted with caring for anyone.
Jerub-baal,
Just a dad? If every kid had "just a dad" --the job of psychologists would not be as necessary. Keep up the good work.
Anonymous 12:55:
The decision of guilt is decided by a judge and jury, not a psychologist. That said, psychologists are sometimes asked to evaluate the validity of a defendant's confession--and sometimes find that the confessions were coerced, made in error etc.
Anonymous 1:13:
Yes, some villages shouldn't be trusted to care for kids--such as schools that tolerate abuse and ridicule that can lead vulnerable kids to feel there is no way out but to take matters into their own hands.
The "village" does very much end up raising the kids. If the parent fails miserably in creating a child that can live within the confines of local, state and federal laws then it becomes the village's responsibility to mediate, judge, punish and incarcerate the kids.
dr. helen-
I wouldn't assume that people who react strongly when subjected to abuse, harassment, menacing, threats, ridicule, humiliation, etc. are "vulnerable". In my opinion nearly everyone would react similarly. Look at the Williams sisters (or maybe it was just one of them) years ago when they were being jeered in France and were reduced to tears. Here are world class athletes of tremendous achievement who have been in front of television cameras under tremendous pressure for a number of years - and it didn't matter when the abuse was turned on. Look at the celebrities that snap when harried by paparazzi - not all of that is celebrity snottiness.
Various aspects of this kind of "social" sadism have been studied before. Like the Amish or Menonite practice of "shunning". Or what is called "gang stalking" or school or workplace "mobbing". That kind of isolation, harassment, ostracism, menacing, etc. would have a strong effect on anyone, not just the "vulnerable". And a lot of the cowards that victimize people with this kind of behavior are adept at acting "innocent", or "afraid", etc. - blaming their victim for natural, understandable, justified responses.
The "village" does very much end up raising the kids. If the parent fails miserably in creating a child that can live within the confines of local, state and federal laws then it becomes the village's responsibility to mediate, judge, punish and incarcerate the kids.
If that's actually the case and someone commits a serious crime, that is correct. But often the "crime" is not really a crime at all, like rejecting one of the town snobs' daughter. Or being on their way to being more successful than the neighborhood gossips' kids. Or not kissing the ass of some of the petty, self-important town snobs sufficiently.
Yeah - those are really serious crimes. We need to spend taxpayers' time and money on enforcing the greed, hate, jealousy, neuroses, petty egos, opinions, etc. of some people that have managed to weasel themselves into being able to manipulate the government. Real smart.
Anon 1:04 wrote: "Well if someone can't distinguish porn sex from sex within the context of a relationship I don't think the problem is porn."
Helllooooo. I NEVER said the problem was porn, I gave reasons why I am not a porn supporter and problems that viewing porn can cause in my opinion. Read the posts more carefully please. And what we see affects us, this is established. I do not want to make porn illegal. I want to keep child porn illegal. I want to disuade people from using porn. Think of it as part of the market place of ideas.
"Also, I hope you're not confusing a joke with people's real views on sex. The "donkey punch" is a joke - anyone who would do something like that in reality is a criminal and has some real problems."
NOT a joke. I had a 14 year old boy laughing about this in my office on Friday. I am not laughing. Also, a soon-to-be-published porno of an over the hill teen star hasbeen has him executing a "dirty sanchez." Another misogynistic sex act, this time on dvd coming soon to not my house. NOT a joke. Joke to you, repugnant to me, interesting idea to hasbeen tv stars.
We have different ideas about sex, that is cool. But if you want a discussion, disagree with the ideas instead of dismissing them. In that way we can have a discussion.
Trey
tmink-
No - the "donkey punch" IS a joke and it certainly is repugnant. (As repugnant as a lot of the misandrist jokes out there.) Just like diarrhea jokes, guy with no arms and no legs jokes, and dead baby jokes. But of course if someone would actually act out the joke without their partner's consent it would be a crime.
And by the way, that kind of gallows, scatalogical, and sexual humor is popular with a lot of people in stressful but highly respected jobs - like police, firefighters, EMTs, etc. so if you're trying to pathologize anyone that likes that kind humor you're basically barking up the wrong tree.
And the "dirty sanchez" is not necessarily misogynistic, since women can do it too. A lot of women joke about it, in fact. Of course a woman doing something to a man without his consent can be a crime too.
We have different ideas about sex, that is cool. But if you want a discussion, disagree with the ideas instead of dismissing them. In that way we can have a discussion.
Uhh, we can have a discussion if you don't try to talk to me like I'm one of your patients. You're just as dismissive of my ideas as you think I am of yours.
What silliness! I never talk about my ideas this candidly with my patients! I am talking to you like a friend, an equal. I work for my patients, they are my boss.
At least we agree that hitting your sexual partner in the back of the head with the purpose of knocking them out is wrong. I believe it is wrong even if consent is given, we probably part company there judging by your last post. Causing brain injury for sexual thrill is dangerous, short sighted, and I would add, depraved.
I still think you are missing the point about discussing ideas. But I have been thinking about your original post. I think you are ignoring the deep learning that takes place when powerful rewards are given for a repeated behavior. The orgasms that occur when people watch porno are powerful neurochemical events that will STRONGLY imprint the visual materials that occur at the same time. Just science there.
What do you think?
Trey
trey-
From what I heard the purpose of the "donkey punch" was to startle, not to knock out. (Not that I've studied this, I just heard about it somewhere in passing.) So I agree with you that its not OK if people are being knocked unconscious. And of course anything done without consent is not OK.
I'm not an expert on porn or anything. For the most part I view softcore magazines - not much racier than a lingerie catalog. I think some people can develop problems if they become obsessed with porn, especially if it is violent, S&M, etc. but most people can view it without a problem.
graham-
Sometimes we have to make decisions which result in harm to others to protect ourselves and the people we care about.
No "we" don't. You can make your own house into a fortress, arm yourself, get a dog, get a security system, etc. but in no way should you violate someone's rights. Then you are a criminal, no matter what lame excuse you come up with. Except in cases of imminent self defense (the only legal kind) your right to "protect" yourself ends at anyone else's body or property.
The "decision" part seems arrogant, like you think you are some higher being that has a right to make decisions that violate other people's rights. You aren't and you don't.
As far as the talk about dogs and breeding goes, I find it a little disturbing. Especially because the upper-class Victorian hobby of breeding dogs inspired the eugenics movement which inspired the Nazis' racist ideology. People aren't dogs.
ok the it takes a village, i have a big problem with that idea.. it gives the responsibility of punishment to someone else.. and you are expected to look after someone you have no link to.
this is what a lot of the childfree rant about, we are expected to look after someone elses kid, because they dont want too the expect complete strangers to be their village.
a family should look after their own, and not expect you or me to look after them. parents who use the whole village idea are using that idea as an excuse for bad parenting..
Mecurior wrote: "a family should look after their own, and not expect you or me to look after them. parents who use the whole village idea are using that idea as an excuse for bad parenting.."
A family should look after their own, we agree. I should not expect you to do my job with my kids, amen. But, I sure appreciate the help I get from other adults. Two examples.
My eldest daughter had acted out against a girl in her school, the mom called me. We had a good talk, I assured her that it would stop and thanked her for calling me. I punished my daughter, made her make amends, then called the other girl's mom to see how things had been. The school did not alert me, this caring mom did. She had my back, and I responded by dealing with my responsibility. Her calling me supported my being a responsible parent. That is one part of a village.
My oldest daughter is from my first marriage. During the course of the divorce/custody fight, she was told by a psychologist that I never loved her and other lies. The statements hurt my daughter deeply. My reassurance was not going anywhere with her, so I asked a dear lady from my church who knew me and what I went through when I thought I would lose my daughter. This kind lady took my daughter out to lunch and helped ease her mind, she was an antidote to the injury and worry inflicted on my child. In this instance, the village was a historian to the truth.
Then there are the stories about when our triplets were born and our church helped so much because there were some things that were overwhelming those first 6 months. But there are too many of those to list!
I see that as the appropriate use of community. People telling you things you need to know and supporting you in things you need to do. We TOTALLY agree that my family is my responsibility, but it is good, sometimes a Godsend, when I give assistance to others and get it as well.
Trey
mercurior-
this is what a lot of the childfree rant about, we are expected to look after someone elses kid, because they dont want too the expect complete strangers to be their village.
a family should look after their own, and not expect you or me to look after them. parents who use the whole village idea are using that idea as an excuse for bad parenting..
I think the main issue is the "It Takes a Village" people really just want to meddle and tell other people what to do. Essentially, they want to force their opinions and views on others using collectivism as a justification.
tmink-
My eldest daughter had acted out against a girl in her school, the mom called me.
What if the other girl was actually at fault? What if it was adults in the "village" acting out on your daughter and claiming she was at fault?
Again, this is where the "village" crap breaks down. Too often it is a group of arrogant busybodies that want to meddle, tell other people what to do, and force their points of view on others. The town gossips, old boy network, and other assorted meddlers want to tell other people what to do, and they've seized on this feel-good, reasonable-sounding, collectivist vehicle to try to do it.
Hey Anon, good point, a lousy village is no help at all. From what the mom said, and the verification I got from school, I knew I got a good report from the mom. But it would be foolish to accept whatever the village says.
Now as I think about it, if the good people in the village speak up, perhaps the bad people will move elsewhere.
What do you think?
Trey
It does take a village, a vigilant village where citizens notice unusual behaviours which common sense would tell almost rational adult are potentially leading to a tragic event.
I have just gone through 2 years of helping a friend of mine develop a case and ultimately convict and incarcerate a man who was stalking her. The problem is that our laws do not call many of the signals sent out by obvious psycopaths crimes. Until the tragic event actually occurs, no crime has been committed, and the police can do virtually nothing.
I'll bet that many people who were acquainted with this killer had all sorts of suspicions that something was wrong with him prychologically. But the law offers no mechanism for investigating fears that someone might ultimately commit violent acts.
Until that changes, we all have to be vigilant all the time, and be prepared to act heroically, sometimes risking our own lives, when the bad thing happens.
Trey-
Well you can't trust everything a school or teachers say either. It's all about pushing their ideology and covering their ass when they screw up. I know of a group of teachers that arranged for an older student to assault a student they didn't like. A lot of these people are cowardly, juvenile assholes.
If you have a "bad" village its usually by design - the "bad" people run it for their benefit, comfort, and advancement. So I don't think that's possible - the "bad" people ARE the village - they run it or enable those running it.
Anon 11:35 - you are just TOO cynical for me! I am sure I appear TOO naive to you. Thanks for the ideas.
Trey
anon. 10:41PM-
I have just gone through 2 years of helping a friend of mine develop a case and ultimately convict and incarcerate a man who was stalking her. The problem is that our laws do not call many of the signals sent out by obvious psycopaths crimes. Until the tragic event actually occurs, no crime has been committed, and the police can do virtually nothing.
If that's really what happened, that's good for you. But unfortunately I have known of several female stalkers and females who stalk and make false claims. A female that will make false claims to their family, the police, or criminal groups is quite dangerous. As dangerous, if not more so, than a male stalker.
I'll bet that many people who were acquainted with this killer had all sorts of suspicions that something was wrong with him prychologically. But the law offers no mechanism for investigating fears that someone might ultimately commit violent acts.
And rightly so - too often that kind of crap would be used by obnoxious jerks to smear, harass, and abuse people they don't like. Take the aftermath of Columbine - these wackos were rounding up anyone that wore black, listened to loud music, and/or played video games that they didn't like. All to no avail - except these wackos got to smear, harass, and abuse people they didn't like - because the phenomenon is so rare that it basically can't be identified before it happens.
I'll bet that many people who were acquainted with this killer had all sorts of suspicions that something was wrong with him prychologically. But the law offers no mechanism for investigating fears that someone might ultimately commit violent acts.
Until that changes, we all have to be vigilant all the time, and be prepared to act heroically, sometimes risking our own lives, when the bad thing happens.
No, it's still much more dangerous to ride to work or school than to sit there. One should report an actual crime* if one witnesses it, but other than that it would be more effective if you watched where you were going when driving. (And that's an actual crime - not you and some buddies committing dozens of crimes and torts in an attempt to goad someone else into something you can claim you are in "fear" of.)
trey-
I may be cynical, but I was just telling you about something that actually happened: Some teachers arranged for an older student to assault a student they didn't like. And they and their schill were bragging about it!
So I wouldn't call myself cynical, but a realist who has thrown away the rosy-colored glasses because they don't jibe with the reality.
But depending on which populations you work with, I think you would be well served to know about this type of thing. Especially the group stalking, school and workplace "mobbing", and the like. (Other terms are "gaslighting" or the masonic/star "white glove treatment".) Sometimes it really is "everyone else" and not the person being scrutinized or scapegoated.
I think this absolutely beats the band, ** It takes a village to raise a child***
I beg your pardon it takes a Mother, with help from the Father and the Grandparents if they are still around, you don't go around expecting other people to rear your child. Teachers are for teaching not for rearing the children either.
The trouble with shootings in schools comes down the fact that the USA is a gun orientated society. They have this feeling and quote it regularly that they have the right to bear Arms.
In fact the Constitution included that so as to raise a Militia in times of war or uprising, it never meant each individual had guns. This was just a misinterpretation of the real thing. Now it is too late, and the sort of thing that happeed the other day is happening around the USA.
Some of these men maybe sick but not all of them some have been indoctrinated by organisations whose aim is to cause mayhem and grief, and some are simply downright evil.
Hey Giselle, what does the right to bear arms have to do with tragedies like these? The gun was just the instrument of the insanity, plenty of people are murdered with cars, knives, clubs, you name it.
Also, in a general comment, the whole village quote, like Ms. Clinton herself, seems to elicit a skewed distribution, bimodal in fact! Just as people either seem to hate or love Hillary, people seem to see the village quote as divine wisdom or some excuse to avoid parental responsibilities.
Trey
Hey Giselle, what is your basis for stating that the school tragedies are due to gun ownership? I think that thee murderers could have killed with a knife, a club, a car, or their bare hands.
Also, isn't if funny how Hillary Clinton and this village quote of hers elicit such strong reactions with very little middle ground? People venerate or despise her, it is rare for someone to be basically neutral about her. The same things seems to be true about the village statement. I think healthier children come from more integrated, healthier communities. Parental responsibility is foremost, but non parental adults are CRUCIAL in the healthy development of children. Coaches, ministers, teachers, neighbors, all of them can bless or curse the children they come in contact with. I think a large part of my job as a therapist is to serve as a corrective parent even though I am part of the village and not the family. But I think it is stunning how polarizing Ms. Clinton and her village statement are.
Thoughts?
Trey
Oops, my original post looked like it went to hyperspace, Helen, can you erase one of them. Sorry.
Trey
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
百分百成人av圖片aa片免費看影片做愛aaa片免費看短片成人短片豆豆聊天室google台灣台灣論壇尋夢園視訊聊天室show-live視訊 免費視訊辣妹台灣kiss台灣情色網080aa片台灣甜心視訊聊天網台灣18 tw18 com台灣成人網台灣a片王本土自拍自拍貼圖瑤瑤電玩美少女瑤瑤瑤瑤寫真走光080aa片直播2008真情寫真aa影片下載城美女寫真xxx383美女寫真
Post a Comment
<< Home