Murder in Springerville: 8-Year-Old Pays Ultimate Price for Adults Lack of Boundries

Posted on July 8, 2009 by Rob Taylor

This is a horrible case that illustrates the fundamental problem with a society where adults are encouraged to abdicate maturity and spend their time “partying” and never living their lives any differently than they did when they were teens:

CHESNEE, S.C. â€”Â Police in South Carolina say an 8-year-old girl has been shot to death by the estranged husband of her father’s girlfriend.

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the man grabbed the girl in a headlock Wednesday and shot her twice in the driveway of a home in Chesnee, about 60 miles southwest of Charlotte, N.C.

He then shot himself in the stomach. He was taken to a hospital but his condition and identity weren’t released.

The coroner’s office identified the girl as Heather Brooke Center.

Wright says the shooter was driving his estranged wife and the girl to swim and play. Investigators aren’t sure why he shot the child.

The sheriff says the suspect has a long criminal record and will be charged with murder if he recovers.

So here’s a man who has an eight-year-old daughter and is apparently single for some reason, which is acceptable but means he has to be even more on the ball than a regular father. He finds a girlfriend, who is in the middle of a divorce with a man with a long criminal history and this is where good parenting should come in.

My heart goes out to the father, but why would he expose his daughter to what is by nature a chaotic situation? All divorce is, by nature, acrimonious. Some few and laudable cases exist where people are able to comport themselves as ladies and gentlemen and separate “amicably” if not part as friends but most divorces begin and end in bitterness. Breaking up with thugs is likely to cause it’s share of drama.

This divorce involved a man with a “long criminal history” whose not yet ex-wife was in an intimate relationship with some other guy. Is it too much to assume that the girlfriend would want to keep the little girl away from the criminal she just dumped? Was the father unaware of the potential danger of allowing his child to be cared for by a jealous ex of his new girlfriend?

Obviously they didn’t consider this, and the poor little girl was the one who paid the price. A single father doesn’t need a girlfriend, especially not one who will bring danger into his child’s life. It was selfish of him to not either stay single or keep his relationship with the woman separate from his home life. It is selfish but unfortunately not unusual.

And neither is this result.

“Romantic Predators” and the Minimization of Child Rape

Posted on May 27, 2009 by Rob Taylor

I got an email this morning and I was going to politely, but firmly, brush the sender off but reading through the piece I thought it was important to show people what America’s culture of perpetual victimhood has wrought. The letter comes from Brian who runs a blog called Victimized over the AOC and follows other blogs supposedly dedicated to the “plight” of victims of what I guess they’re calling “romantic abuse” where someone is, prepare yourselves, lied to by potential Internet suitors.

Too bad but I would ignore this or express some sympathy for these sad sacks who had their hearts broken (and accounts emptied no doubt) by some smooth typing virtual Cassanova were it not for the fact that they seem to be claiming that lying to get in some loser’s pants is morally equivalent to raping a child. Here’s the email I opened this morning:

Brian wrote:
I follow Lovefraud (lovefraud.com) and Cyberpaths
(http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com)Â which feature sexual/ “romantic” predators
who prey on adults in the same manner molesters prey on kids.

The difference between a pedophile and these “sociopathic seducers” is simply
that “sociopathic seducers” target adults; pedophiles target kids.

Consent to sexual relationships is legally based on the lack of force and an
adult partner. However, there are many factors which can negate consent
morally, even if it doesn’t do so legally.

If someone lies about the true purpose of the “courting,” then meaningful
consent can’t be given, and you have a victim and a perp.

Some have said that in some cases, adults who have been sexually abused as kids
can’t emotionally consent to sexual relationships because they are emotionally
kids until they are treated.

Sociopathic seducers will simply use psychological coercion to gain what they
want from their adult victims, while rapists use force, and pedophiles use
kids.

The concept of “consenting adult” is meaningless because sociopaths will
exploit other power differences besides age, and will do whatever it takes to
make sure they have power over their victims.

Similar age and marriage simply acts as a cover for a sociopath to do their
damage because a 30 year old with a spouse will always be less suspicious that
a 30 year old “loving on” a 15 year old.

As a conservative, you empahsize waiting until marriage, but with these
sociopaths, marriage would simply be a way to access someone’s grown daughter
(or son) in a way similar to a pedophile’s accessing kids.

Website: http://victimsover18.blogspot.com/

Because I feel his heart may be in the right place I feel bad about fisking this steaming pile of Internet nonsense that’s been fertilized with a liberal dose of … well liberalism. This idea that adults are the victims of other adults who fib their way into fellatio is not just a monument to the desire of all people who make bad decisions to be seen as victims, but it leads to the most evil and wicked of all logical fallacies, namely that a one night stand or relationship gone bad is morally equivalent to the sexual exploitation of children. How any adult could write or say such a thing with a straight face is beyond me.

But let me take some of Brian’s argument point by point:

The difference between a pedophile and these “sociopathic seducers” is simply
that “sociopathic seducers” target adults; pedophiles target kids.

No, that is not the difference at all. The “sociopathic seducers” Brian is complaining about are just shiftless slut hunters who know that if you say (or type) the right things to certain people you’ll be rewarded with sex. Pedophiles prey on children specifically because they are incapable of fending off an adult’s advances, they are at the mercy of the predator. The “victims” in Brian’s scenario refused to fend off someone’s advances, and were at the mercy of no one. Remember that we’re not talking about domestic violence here, when you read the sites it is clear that what we’re talking about are people feeling betrayed by their online lovers. To compare this in any way to child rape is disgusting.

Consent to sexual relationships is legally based on the lack of force and an
adult partner. However, there are many factors which can negate consent
morally, even if it doesn’t do so legally.

If someone lies about the true purpose of the “courting,” then meaningful
consent can’t be given, and you have a victim and a perp.

According to this every woman who stuffs her bra and kisses her hot friend at the bar is raping the men she dates when he finds out she’s not a busty bisexual swinger. This is juvenile sour grapes masquerading as victimization. If you’ve consented to sex with a person and you’re an adult, finding out he isn’t as rich/important/single as he purported to be is not rape. It is not abuse, just as the person who told you a tramp stamp of your boyfriend’s name would be a good idea (and still look fabulous when you’re 50) didn’t abuse you. In these cases you are abusing yourself. Affairs go bad, it’s part of life and it isn’t being victimized. Again to claim this is similar in some way to raping children is completely unacceptable.

Some have said that in some cases, adults who have been sexually abused as kids
can’t emotionally consent to sexual relationships because they are emotionally
kids until they are treated.

I don’t know who these “some” are but infantilizing abuse victims serves no one. While I agree that there are victims of sexual abuse that may act out in ways detrimental to themselves, not respecting their boundaries and wishes is a continuation of their abuse. Deciding that someone else can decide when she can give consent is more of a rape than this supposed romantic predation. Some people who are abused go on to have good marriages, some don’t. Some need more therapy than others. This is irrelevant to the point at hand. This is a straw man designed to garner sympathy for this unseemly idea of “romantic predators” by linking the “victims” to a group I would support in a cynical ploy to deflect attention from the essential fatuity of this movement. Adults, whether they are the survivors of childhood abuse or not, should be treated and respected as adults capable of making their own decisions.

Sociopathic seducers will simply use psychological coercion to gain what they
want from their adult victims, while rapists use force, and pedophiles use
kids.

I suppose failing that, they fall back on hypnosis and Black Magic. If “psychological coercion” is, as I suspect, Brain’s euphemism for being manipulative then strippers and panhandlers are predators too. I suspect he’s claiming that people saying something like “C’mon baby, it hurts!” in the time honored “blue ball” ploy are morally equivalent to rapists and child molesters. If you can make that argument, you are at best childishly naive. There is no similarity between a child being raped, a woman being raped and someone smooth talking his way into intercourse.

The concept of “consenting adult” is meaningless because sociopaths will
exploit other power differences besides age, and will do whatever it takes to
make sure they have power over their victims.

No the concept of consenting adults is never meaningless, it is the basis of all sexual morality. When two adults both agree to have sexual relations, no matter how big a whopper one or both told when they met, they are both agreeing to sex. Non adults do not have that capacity and non-consenting adults are not having the same experience. Even with a cad the sex may be good and I suspect sex with a gold digger to be fantastic. Both these people may be horrible people who getting into a relationship with is a mistake. But does that make the sex with them the same as child rape? Was sex with Kendra Wilkinson a rape of Hugh Hefner just because she was lying when she said she loved him?

Similar age and marriage simply acts as a cover for a sociopath to do their
damage because a 30 year old with a spouse will always be less suspicious that
a 30 year old “loving on” a 15 year old.

I’m not sure what this means but I assume it means that some douche he knows is cheating on his wife with a teen. In which case call a cop, but claiming that the marriage itself is the same as rape is a sad misunderstanding of adult relationships, and an indelicate way to make an argument.

As a conservative, you empahsize waiting until marriage, but with these
sociopaths, marriage would simply be a way to access someone’s grown daughter
(or son) in a way similar to a pedophile’s accessing kids.

Uh, no. As a “Conservative” I believe in limited government, low taxes and a strong national defense. I don’t “emphasize” waiting for sex until marriage, nor do I care what any adult does sexually unless they are really victimizing others as in breaking the law. This immature understanding of Conservatives is just another facet of the over all immaturity of the movement Brian is representing.

The linchpin of these people’s argument is that there are “genetic” sociopaths who are constantly stalking them and we must in some way keep them from doing things which, if I understand Brian correctly, are not only legal but pretty much not my business. These so-called “romantic predators” have rights like every other American, including the right to get married and pick up losersÂ (sorry I mean victims) on the Internet. Aside from the desire to be stroked as if they suffered a brutal rape or years of horrendous abuse I’m not even sure what these people want.

But I suspect all they want is for people like me or Pagans Against Child Abuse or Absolute Zero to stand up for them the same way we do for kids. In America we have a cult centered around victimization that validates bad choices (like “dating” online or sleeping with some dude you just met) with a theology ofÂ weakness and populates these people’s inner universes with a demonology of predators that includes anyone they feel slighted by.

The one night stand they had is now an encounter with a vicious rapist. Their high school crush on a teacher was emotional exploitation perpetrated by a criminal genius who secretly got his or her jollies ignoring them. Nothing is their fault, no relationship can have simply not worked out. They are perpetual victims of the world’s predation and in their minds they deserve the same sympathy and time from the rest of us as a child who has been raped.

In a sense they are the predators, greedy for the psychic investment of the rest of us into their petty and infantile lives. Brian and the people he supports claim that there is some connection, some equivalence, between their failed relationships and children being raped. What kind of person must you be to even think I, or any rational person, would entertain an idea so vile?

The New Misogyny: Carrie Prejean a “Hypocrite” for Incredibly Tame Modeling Photos

Posted on May 6, 2009 by Rob Taylor

I’m going to do you a favor before you head over to the spyware infested scam site parading as a gossip blog that is claiming to a have “scandalous” picture of the left’s new favorite punching bag Carrie Prejean and give you a picture that is actually equally as racy:

Now imagine she was turned away from you, topless but with her arms positioned so that you get just a glimpse of side boob, the same amount that you would see if she was wearing this top and there’s your “racy” photo. You’ll excuse me if I don’t seem particularly impressed but I started out my blogging career on a Wrestling/Sci-Fi blog where I posted pictures of models like this:

(Model/Indy Pro-Wrestler Tara Bush)

Lefty activists live in their own little world where people on the right are all the preacher from Footloose. I’m far to the right of most people and I have promoted models and artists that are much more risque than Prejean’s Victoria’s Secret inspired “racy” photo. I, and most people I know, understand three things that people attacking Prejean are hoping the general public are too stupid to know:

Models often take off their clothes for particular photo shoots.
Christians aren’t religiously prohibited from modeling.
There’s nothing wrong with artistic, or non-artistic, nudity.

The only problem I would have with this supposedly racy photo is that the girl was apparently 17 when it was taken, but I don’t remember liberals mocking Jessica Biel when she posed topless at 17. Who’s the real hypocrite?

Always ready to propagandize for some lefty cause celebre, Matt Lauer, who claimed the world would be ending about now a few years ago, used his dreadful morning televison program to claim conservatives would be disgusted by Prejean’s photos. Lauer even claims the photo is too graphic to run on air, even though it’s simply a Victoria’s Secret style underwear modeling shot.Â As Allahpundit points out, NBC had no problem airing self-glorifying videos made by the Virgina Tech killer, so the sudden onset of Victorian sensibilities at the Peacock is suspect, to say the least.

Only the most partisan flack would think that Lauer claiming this fairly tame photo was too hot for TV was not a cynical ploy designed to make people think she basically made porn by a news organization which thinks its viewers are too dumb to be able to find a copy of the photo with a Google image search and see for themselves that Lauer was lying.

This profound disrespect for the people watching is a part of the overall misanthropy that has become acceptable in society, especially by the left I would put forward, as are the misogynist attacks on women launched by men who hate anyone who doesn’t kowtow to them. This attack was of course kicked off by professional douchebag Perez Hilton, who also recently called Tila Tequila a whore for having a body cast done at a cancer charity. In that post I point out that Hilton’s brand of class envy based misogyny has become an accepted part of the public discourse and it is something that men (and no matter how affected his behavior, Perez Hilton is still first and foremost a man and thus, I feel, should be judged by a certain standard of behavior) should be ashamed to partake in.

In this case he is leading a movement to call her a hypocrite as if models can’t have religious views on marriage. This is silly. I’m a Republican and I support gay marriage (or I did, after the MLK memorial service was interrupted by ACT UP I decided to put my energy into causes where the people have some class) which doesn’t make me a hypocrite. If I was a Christian and supported gay marriage I would be a hypocrite because the Bible does in fact spell out what constitutes a marriage. Christians can support a state sanctioned civil union called a marriage, but Marriage is a sacrament in Christianity, so to them having gays receive the sacrament of marriage would be like holding a rave in a church.

In other words, Prejean isn’t a hypocrite, she’s a woman who works as a model who’s drawn the ire of people who believe that a woman is only deserving of respect when they parrot the ideas they believe in. She is yet another woman targeted by a misogynist to whom society gives a free pass because he lisps and has the mannerisms of an 8-year-old girl. My godfather was a gay man, and he was a man’s man. He comported himself with dignity, class and respect. He did not accept that being gay meant living in a state of perpetual effeminate adolescence and he never delved into misogyny of any type. He and most gay men are ashamed of Perez Hilton being held up as a spokesman for them, by straights of course.

The mincing effeminate act that Perez Hitlon puts on may charm the New Yorkers who think of gays as some sort of urban elves whose sole purpose in life is to entertain them, but it does more to hurt the cause of gays who want to be treated equally than a thousand Carrie Prejeans. Perez Hilton creates an image of gay men not as adult men who like other men, but immature “men” who hate women and seek to degrade, humiliate and abuse them at any opportunity. Cattiness is wearisome in women, in men it’s unseemly at best.

This is not keen insight. Every observer sees this and even Matt Lauer knows Prejean did nothing wrong, which is why he resorted to lying on air about how racy her photo was. Lauer, and people like him, will do anything to prove he supports gay rights even trample the rights of a woman. Perez Hilton is a rallying point for leftists to show their support for gay marriage, even though he is clearly not only wrong but a horrible person who is doing a disservice to gays by making a living being a cartoonish caricature of one.

So who in this scenario is really the hypocrite?

The New Misogyny: Tila Tequila Called Whore for Doing Charity Work

Posted on April 9, 2009 by Rob Taylor

Call me old-fashioned but I’m not big on calling women “whore” or some permutation of the word, especially women who are trying to do something good for someone. To me the only time it might be appropriate to make such a reference is when a woman has done something especially horrid, like Shana Brown, a woman I happily referred to as a gutterslut when she was caught drugging her 13-year-old daughter so her boyfriend could rape her.

Outside of that level of depravity I think it’s disgusting to call a woman a slut or whore. I don’t care if they are Internet models, porn stars, strippers or the girl you know who is cheating on her boyfriend, it is immature misogyny to call a woman a whore simply because you happen to not like or approve of some facet of their life. It is a crass and unmanly position to take in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Shamefully there are those that disagree and happily attempt to degrade any woman that draws their petty ire. During the ’08 elections I wrote about adult film actress Gauge suffering outrageous personal attacks from her “fans” after writing what was essentially Republican boiler plate about supporting John McCain because she was pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. In that case there was a hypocritical element to the attacks because she was abused with comments like this:

Hey Gauge, I just watched a video of you fucking 5 guys. Please tell us again how wrong irresponsible sex is. Iâ€™ve seen a lot of your work but you never had the guys wear condoms. Donâ€™t you think itâ€™s irresponsible to engage in unsafe sex? How many STDâ€™s have you had? Considering how big a skank you are, I bet youâ€™ve had a lot. Well since your boy McCain is crashing and burning, I canâ€™t wait for the election. Obama is going to win in a landslide.

This of course from someone who watches her movies. This liberal, as I said on that post, viewed women like Gauge as de facto sex slaves who perform deviant acts for their pleasure and aren’t entitled to be anything more that a girl on a DVD doing things that are marketed to people whose self-loathing and anger makes them want to see attractive women degraded. I don’t like modern pornography, which has replaced hedonism with humiliation and decadence with degradation, but the people who attacked Gauge are fans of that. They are the ones who should be ashamed, not Gauge.

Now in a similar incident Tila Tequila was apparently called a whore by “Perez Hilton”after pictures of her in lingerie and a trenchcoat showed up on gossip blogs. The rotund celebrity parasite didn’t provide his emotionally stunted followers the context for these photos apparently. It seems the world’s most famous Internet model was raising money for a breast cancer charity:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWNJD7ST7MI[/youtube]

Think what you want of Tila Tequila, and I happen to think she exemplifies Capitalism and American exceptionalism as I’ve said before, but here’s a woman taking time to help the Keep-a-Breast foundation and while doing that she is called a whore by not just a narcissistic star-stalker but by the rabble of ne’er-do-wells who seem to travel from website to website calling this person who they’ll never meet and will have no effect on their lives vile names. My question is why?

There’s an essay by Anton LaVey (I think it’s in The Devil’s Notebook but I’m not sure) in which he examines misogyny and comes to the conclusion that the misogynist is competing with women for male attention, and his anger derives from his failure to win that competition. Using such now eyebrow raising phrases as “closeted homosexual” for men like this he implies that they are predominantly stunted people who live in a permanent state of semi-girlish pre-adolescence. With the ever more misogynist pornography, attacks on female political figures and and the abandonment of the ideas of womanhood being something to respect I think this essay has become more important than ever.

Were this simply a spat between two celebrities this story would be meaningless but Perez Hilton’s brand of envious misogyny has become an acceptable stance for men to have regarding women. One need only check the comments on some YouTube video or article that allows comments to see men partaking in what is essentially gender specific class envy where women like Tila Tequila are claimed to be deserving of abuse simply because they are successful.

The same jealousy and misanthropy that drives class warfare drive the hatred of pretty, rich and famous women who a large segment of our society believes are “whores” for simply living their own lives. That would be bad enough itself but in this instance a woman doing a good deed, one that anyone who has the opportunity to do should do, is being attacked for no other reason than that it is now acceptable to treat women poorly in our society.

Call me “Conservative” but I believe in respecting women, even ones you may not agree with. I don’t believe in infantilizing women by any means, I think respecting a person means treating them as individuals equal to yourself, but I simply won’t accept that it is O.K. for a man to call a woman a whore simply because she has a photo of herself in lingerie when she’s basically a lingerie model. I don’t think it’s acceptable to encourage degradation in porn by buying the mot extreme forms of it, then claim adult film actresses are skanks for working in the industry which you created. I think men should reserve name calling for the Shana Browns of the world, not women who are simply minding their own business.

I’m not a misogynist. I like women, even ones I disagree with, and think that all are worthy of respect. But it seems that this is a minority view these days.

Update: Welcome Tila Tequila fans! Due to a surge in traffic to the site, comments are taking a few minutes to appear. Please be patient, and thanks for reading.

The Death of Manliness: The Acceptance of Masochism and the George Weber Murder

Posted on March 27, 2009 by Rob Taylor

It isn’t my intention to cast aspersions on the character of murder victim George Weber. And please don’t try to call me a homophobe because everyone knows I’m pro-gay rights. I am not convinced however, as some may argue, that the website Craigslist bears the majority of the responsibility for his gruesome death. What is at fault is a larger culture of depravity and self-loathing, drug use and abdication of responsibility, particularly the responsibility for your own safety.

First the facts of the case. George Weber connected with 16-year-old Anarchist/Satanist/Sadist John Katehis when the minor responded to Weber’s Craigslist ad looking for a partner for rough sex. The two rescheduled a March 18th rendezvous to the following Friday, where Weber is believed to have paid Katehis $60 to engage in S&M and bondage with him. Weber was to be the “bottom” for Katehis. At some point the 47-year-old Weber, hands and feet bound with duct tape, was stabbed around 50 times by Katehis.

Much has been made about Katehis’s MySpace which clearly showed him to be potentially dangerous. It is unlikely Weber came across that however.What we do know is that the 47-year-old Weber invited a strange young man (and I believe Weber assumed he was 18 since Katehis has an online history of lying about his age) to his house for a rough sex session prefaced by the two drinking vodka and snorting cocaine. If while reading this it seems blatantly obvious that this would end badly then you are apparently ahead of the game. Weber is not alone in posting ads looking for this same thing and as far as I know no friend of the broadcaster has even expressed shock at what 30 years ago would be considered a death too unseemly for comment.

Weber was a masochist who wanted to be choked while performing oral sex on a young man. In today’s society we simply shrug at this as if there is nothing wrong with the pathological compulsion to be sexually humiliated and abused even though in this case the reasons such a thing shouldn’t be condoned is staring us right in the face. The sadists who make up the S component in S&M are not simply people with a “kink” who want to party with you. They are people for whom pain and suffering, and death, are more arousing than the sex itself. Masochism at it’s very base it a desire to be abused or re-enact abuse, so by its very nature it attracts abusive, dangerous people.

Not to mention the cocaine. Cocaine users are unpredictable at best, and again while I wouldn’t claim Weber is responsible for his own murder, he was responsible for his own safety. And at the risk of being insensitive here the facts are this: George Weber met a strange teen and got him drunk and coked up with the intention of allowing that teen to bind him with duct tape and abuse him while he performed oral sex the teen. Express this desire to a psychiatrist and that person may feel sufficiently fearful for your safety that you’ll be committed. In the aftermath of a murder it is considered in bad taste to mention that this compulsive abuse seeking is a recipe for personal disaster.

New York is full of people who not only condone, but encourage this sort of death-seeking and worse, have convinced each other it isn’t unsafe at all. The most basic responsibility a man has is his own safety and the safety of his loved ones. It’s an old fashioned concept but it is true, and when we live in a state of blissful naivete and abdicate that basic responsibility to ourselves and others we invite people into our lives who will take advantage of that. When we allow our inner demons to drive us to Caligula-like depravity, and consciousness numbing substance abuse, we consign ourselves to a hell of our own making where the demons are very real, and very evil.

Make no mistake, only John Katehis is responsible for George Weber’s murder, but it is a society that produces “men” who don’t have the slightest hint of the self-preservation instinct, who are unaware of the dangers of allowing strangers to physically dominate them, who fill their off hours in drugs and sexual activities that would have gotten him arrested if not for Katehis’ savage disregard for human life, that is responsible for his death.

When I lived in New York for so many years, I witnessed the effeminization of men (and infantilization of women) being lauded as a more modern and progressive cultural alternative to “Red State” ideas of being a Man’s Man. I met many people who sneered in disgust at the idea that you should always be prepared to defend yourself or your family. The idea that you are the only person responsible for you, that you need to guarantee your own safety and learn to avoid danger was considered wild-eyed insanity. But in a city where men and women are regularly preyed on by people just like John Katehis, what drives men to stick their heads in the sand and not take responsibility for their own safety?

We’ll never know, but I would suggest that when our culture began to look down on the concept of manliness we began our slide into perpetual sexualized adolescence, which in turn creates an illusion of safety that entraps those people who, like Weber, are driven to push themselves to the limit to satisfy some inner compulsion. As more people blame the site where Weber and Katehis met we’ll perpetuate that illusion, until the next George Weber when we’ll need to point the finger at yet another symptom of our own decline.