Elmo

[spotty_dog]

I wanted to say something along this line before, but was caught off guard and surprised by spotty_dogs response, and then the follow up responses. More like flabbergasted and then taken aback for being blasted, but it's the debate section after all.

I'm looking and I'm not finding any blasting. None whatsoever, from me or anyone else. I simply pointed out that the fact that Clash is gay applies only to any relationships he may have with consenting adults. If we're identifying this much older man as a predator of young boys below the age of consent, then we are probably not concerned about his relationships with consenting adults. So specifying that he identifies as gay is about as relevant as specifying that he is black. And since, as DD points out, gay men are often conflated with pedophiles, I didn't feel like it was a point that could be passed up -- I won't stand for the implication to be made that parents shouldn't trust their children with gay men, because anyone can be a predator or pedophile (and most people aren't.) But I'm also not "that guy" who is going to pick nits on the internet. I pointed out the implications of the language used, and I left it at that.

I agree that the term 'gay' has been reclaimed, and it's not offensive in and of itself. You're putting too much emphasis on that aspect of why I might have chosen to critique the way you used the language you did.

Frankly, it's your Jerry Sandusky comments that upset me a little. I had chosen not to pass comment, because I was pretty sure your intentions were not bad, but since you brought up the semantics again...Jerry Sandusky's actions were evil and reprehensible. Using his victims' male biological sex, combined with his apparently successful marriage to a consenting adult woman, to identify him as "bisexual" is a gross misrepresentation of an entire group of people who actually self-identify as bi when it comes to their consenting relationships with adults. It's just not OK to mix and match so cavalierly between normal human relationships, and criminal acts. They aren't the same.

[diggitydot]

...and that is at what age is it appropriate?

What age is what appropriate?

Child predators can and have picked very young kids before they're aware of material that may seem way beyond the maturity level of young children. At the same time if they don't know how to voice their objections to someone being inappropriate with them, or if a parent, guardian, or adult doesn't know how to handle the situation when a child mentions an adult was inappropriate with them in a sexual way that they may not know how to describe because it's all new to them then what? The predator gets away with it.

Not necessarily. When kids are introduced to inappropriate sexual contact or behavior, the child's behavior frequently changes -- sometimes drastically. Even in children who may not be able to vocalize what they've experienced, their sudden and unexplained behavior shift is typically the first sign that something major is occurring in their life. Getting that kid to a forensic psychologist trained to work with abuse victims is a great first step.

As for adults who don't know how to handle the situation, I think they're pretty damn normal. No one really knows how to handle it until/unless this particular shit sandwich is dropped in their laps.

Statistically speaking, VERY few abuse survivors speak out or report the offending party. Most sex abusers "get away with it".

[poky]

Not everyone is going to know Kevin Clash's name until it's dragged out long enough, and I assure you he'll be refereed to as the gay elmo guy by those unfamiliar with his real name long after he's gone and replaced. If you have two Kevin's working for you and one of them's gay are you going to avoid identifying him as the gay Kevin, or if one is black as the black Kevin?
.

The answer to both of the questions I quoted above is yes, actually.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

I would say Kevin S. and Kevin D. just like in grade school. I actually go out of my way to not use race/orientation as a descriptor. Interests, where they're from, their job titles - all better ways to distinguish them. I wouldn't say "Catholic Sally" or "Jewish Sally".

[MrsK]

I would say Kevin S. and Kevin D. just like in grade school. I actually go out of my way to use race/orientation as a descriptor. Interests, where they're from, their job titles - all better ways to distinguish them. I wouldn't say "Catholic Sally" or "Jewish Sally".

I'm sure Jen means that she goes out of her way NOT to use race/orientation as a discriptor. I agree with Sandy and Jen. I dealt with this not to long ago when my almost 3-yo didn't know the name of a girl at school and told me she was called "black girl". He's not yet three and it is offensive for him to identify people by race; it's even more offensive and immature for an adult who knows to be sensitive to do go around reffering to people as "gay Kevin" or "black Kevin".

Also, I'm sure that there are others that can address this better than I (I've been impressed by how articulate everyone has been here), but it bothers me when you use the word "dyke" so liberally. It's one thing for minority groups to adopt and empower words that the majority community once used to opress. But it's quite another for someone who is outside of that minority group to use those words. It's like how some African Americans have claimed the N word. Even so, regardless of how close their relationship to an African American, white people should not use the N word. The "some of my best friends are _______________" argument is a thin one at best. The "some of my best friends are" defense has a long history. (See this article but, everyone, pleeeeeease let's not get into a debate about Rick Santorum or any of the other political figures referenced. I'm posting it purely for the explaination regarding the origins and implications of the "best friend" defense: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...riend-defense#) It appears to me that while you do not intend to be offensive, you do not understand the nuances of the words you choose.

I also agree that Kevin Clash's sexual orientation and the sex of his accusors is immaterial.

[Chrisada]

What Mrs K said. I'm black and yes some black people use the N word, I however NEVER use it. And it highly irritates me to hear anyone say it. And just because you have a black friend who freely uses it doesn't mean it's now ok for you to use. I would think that would go for dyke also. We've have a similar discussion on iMSN before, and I'd hope I'd be more than just Black Chrisada to someone in the white community I live in.

[Chrisada]

In fact I had a friend here in crazy town, who told me she labeled me as Black Chrisada in her phone because she had another friend with the same first name. I thought is was bizarre and lame. Isn't that why we have last names??

[MrsK]

Furthermore, I really hope that Kevin Clash will not go down in history as "the gay Elmo guy" or the "pedifile Elmo guy". How about the original voice of Elmo? Whether or not you like Elmo, creating Elmo is a significant accomplishment.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

Thanks MrsK - I edited it. I should stop posting at 3am

[diggitydot]

In fact I had a friend here in crazy town, who told me she labeled me as Black Chrisada in her phone because she had another friend with the same first name. I thought is was bizarre and lame. Isn't that why we have last names??

What?! Um, yeah -- THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LAST NAMES! Holy balls.

[Cinderella]

Did you guys read that a third accuser has come forward saying that he and Kevin Clash had sex when he was a teenager? He's also in the same age range as the other two when it happened. Also the first accuser decided to go back to his original accusation and take back his recant thus forfeiting his settlement.

That's interesting about looking at the difference between someone's sexual preference, as in the gender they prefer, and in someone's crime, as in a pedophile prefers children. I always thought if someone is with one gender, no matter the age, that's the way it's defined. Like the sex offender and serial killer Jeffery Dahmer who preferred males. He raped and murdered men and boys and clearly he was gay. That's not saying all gays are pedophiles. It seems like the big No No is to point out the dude was obviously gay and that it's only ok to focus on the serious nature of the crimes committed because of the difference in the nature of it?

This is what the dykes, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders all harped on at meeting after meeting in college. Don't be afraid of the "L" word and so forth. I got that it was to empower them in their gender identity but they didn't make any kind of definition like it's ok only to use it if you're one of them. In fact it's the opposite where they encouraged everyone to use those words. As of lately I have to wonder if that was only at my school and in my community? Maybe it's not the same everywhere but it sure felt liberating.

I get that bit about only blacks being able to say the "N" word to each other. My husband has used the word "Negro" to describe his features, or what shade of color someone is like ash, coffee, ect. I grew up in the Texas and there are a lot of people of color and ethnicities I've known through out life. At times they've described their skin color and other ethnic features. Such as my black skin is called ash and I have to use oil to keep it from always looking dry. I figure if they don't have a problem using this language with me and discussing it then why should I or anyone else for that matter when it's not meant to be insensitive. It seems like a double standard to use it among themselves and with others not of the same color and then get offended when it's being used with them by one they don't identify with as their own. Even as a liberal, progressive, broad-minded person I think the political correctness has gone overboard on the gender and race issue. To describe someone as African American doesn't seem right either because maybe they weren't born in Africa even though their ancestors maybe from there. Would you call me Western European American to be politically correct? Does anyone else see the absurdity of it as I do?

I just noticed I didn't describe Kevin Clash as the "black," gay, pedophile Elmo guy. I do see the point in that the obvious doesn't need to be stated. Though nobody made that point as frank as I just did. Rather I got the following from the responses: your argument is invalid, such and such is offensive because of x, y and z, or I'm offended because of something you said and/or the way you said it, or that didn't really offend me but "it or this other thing" did offended me. Does that sound about right?

[diggitydot]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.

By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

[poky]

That's interesting about looking at the difference between someone's sexual preference, as in the gender they prefer, and in someone's crime, as in a pedophile prefers children. I always thought if someone is with one gender, no matter the age, that's the way it's defined. Like the sex offender and serial killer Jeffery Dahmer who preferred males. He raped and murdered men and boys and clearly he was gay. That's not saying all gays are pedophiles. It seems like the big No No is to point out the dude was obviously gay and that it's only ok to focus on the serious nature of the crimes committed because of the difference in the nature of it?

What I don't get is why the need to pigeon-hole everyone WRT their sexuality? As DD points out, some of the people you're talking about aren't even on the scale, because they've never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships, and even people who have are along a continuum of attraction, not just at two or three spots along it. Why does it matter?

[Cinderella]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Yep that explains it but I'll have to read it more later. I have to go to bed soon.

What I don't get is why the need to pigeon-hole everyone WRT their sexuality? As DD points out, some of the people you're talking about aren't even on the scale, because they've never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships, and even people who have are along a continuum of attraction, not just at two or three spots along it. Why does it matter?

I think that's the other point they're making. It's irrelevant. No need to state the obvious because it's not the main point anyways.