Oprah Winfrey Exploits Shawn Hornbeck
Oprah Winfrey is the brightest star in CelebrityWorld; she doesn’t have to flash her vagina for publicity. Ohmygawd, what a frightful thought –Â the only thing worse would be if she appeared in public without any makeup.
The Queen of TV talk has a very faithful audience, she could discuss strategy with the chess champion and still garner high ratings.
The tubby talker doesn’t have to resort to exploiting children who make the news because some misfortune or tragedy befalls them.
But that’s exactly what Oprah did when she interviewed 15-year old kidnap victim, Shawn Hornbeck, and his family.
Shawn Hornbeck was only 11 when he was kidnapped by Michael Devlin, a 41-year-old pizzeria manager, over four years ago.
Shawn was freed on Jan. 12, when authorities entered Devlin’s apartment, searching for another missing youngster.
From WSBTV.Com:
“During an interview with Oprah Winfrey on a TV show that aired Thursday, Shawn’s parents said they have not asked their son about his ordeal on the advice of child advocacy experts.Â
‘OK, I’m gonna go there and ask you, what do you think happened? Do you think he was sexually abused?’ Winfrey asked Shawn’s parents, Craig and Pam Akers.
Both nodded and said, ‘Yes.”‘
Disregarding the advice of child advocacy experts, Oprah asks Shawn’s parents on TV if their son was sexually abused. His parents should have refused to answer the question. In fact, if his parents had any common sense and decency they wouldn’t have subjected their son to a TV interview so soon after his long ordeal.
Shawn must be mortified knowing that when he returns to school all his classmates will know that he was sexually abused by an adult male.
Oprah should stick to her usual New Age bullcrap and interview self-help experts and other neo-spiritual con artists.
Oprah Winfrey, you bloviating cow: Leave traumatized children alone!
I write a weekly column for a small town newspaper in Virginia, and I also write for several Web sites. Please leave a comment or send me an email at: rreyes4966@aol.com | More from Robert Paul Reyes
Stumble It!
January 19th, 2007 at 8:46 am
I couldn’t agree more. The only thing I would add is that Shawn’s parents are more culpable that Oprah. What she did, she probably sees as her job. What they did was exploit their son for personal advantage.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Sgmlee, you are right! Shawn’s parents sacrificed their son’s psychological well being for their 15 minutes of fame.
Shame on Oprah Winfrey!
Shame on Shawn’s parents!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Several of us were talking as soon as the story broke that the guy was an obvious homosexual. It was just a matter of time before the embarrassed kid spoke up. This guy just circumvented going through the schools and the gay-straight alliance crowd so he could have immediate access.
I don’t know the parents personally, but I am aware of their tortured lives for the last 4 years. Seems people blame them and not the (homosexual slur deleted) that abducted and has been raping their son for the last 4 years, but I don’t want to sound homophobic. (sarc)
January 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am
S Baker, everybody agrees that Devlin is a pedophile pervert who should burn in hell. I don’t need to argue that point.
I criticize Shawn’s parents because some deluded persons can’t see that they are abusing their son by not allowing him to recuperate in private.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Robert, this is one of your “broken clock” essays and you are right that this poor kid deserves better.
But these statements: “Oprah Winfrey is the brightest star in CelebrityWorld; she doesn’t have to flash her vagina for publicity…[she]doesn’t have to resort to exploiting children who make the news because some misfortune or tragedy befalls them” highlights your profound confusion about the representational framework many of us refer to as “reality.” Oprah DOES have to pander to the basest instincts of the daytime TV audience (mostly female.)She is not a shining star because of any real talent but because she is a slightly more poised Jerry Springer. She holds up the salacious images people crave and helps them not feel guilty for looking.
And yes, Oprah is the darling of your lefty-liberal-socialist sewing circle so don’t poop in your own nest.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am
stands2p said,
“Robert, this is one of your “broken clock†essays and you are right that this poor kid deserves better.”
As in “even a broken clock is right twice a day”? I like it when a writer expresses himself in a unique way.
It’s not liberals that Oprah appeals to, but women of all political stripes
January 19th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Sometimes it happens.
Red fabrics with dye that leaks in hot water is put in the same load of laundry as the boys’ underwear. I understand that buying new underwear and throwing away the PINK underwear is a cost item and most family budgets are tight.
But a parent who insists her boy wear PINK underwear to school is as inexcuseably clueless as the parents who nodded their heads when asked if they believe their child was sexually abused by a man.
As for Oprah, explaining to her why you don’t require a boy to wear PINK underwear to school or ask if he has been sexually abused on NATIONAL TELEVISION is as futile as explaining to a true believer Muslim why statutorily raping a 9 year old girl is as wrong for Muhammed as it is for anyone else.
A brick wall is more likely to get it.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Roger you may be right, but hopefully our readership won’t be as dense as Oprah
January 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Wow! We sure are quick to assume sexual motives upon this guy and what happened to this boy during his 4 years with him.
If Shawn Hornbeck was, in fact, raped, I wonder why this guy accused of kidnapping him is only being brought up on kidnapping charges? I also wonder why all the “experts” say that nobody should ask this boy what happened.
Would we be so quick to assume all these nasty sexual motives if a woman had done the kidnapping? And considering all the older women in the news lately who have raped young boys, please don’t tell me that women don’t do this. I also wonder why it’s better not to ask this boy what happened but it’s totally OK to ask a young girl to prosecute the perpetrator. Are girls better than boys at handling such questioning?
Is it possible that no sex was involved? Is it possible that in a country where the only thing men get these days when their wife or girlfriend has “his” child is financial responsibility and a bi-weekly visit after the break-up, this guy wanted a child of his own without a woman who’d take the kid and most of his income in a break-up?
Just wondering.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Dittohd wrote:
“Is it possible that no sex was involved? Is it possible that in a country where the only thing men get these days when their wife or girlfriend has “his†child is financial responsibility and a bi-weekly visit after the break-up, this guy wanted a child of his own without a woman who’d take the kid and most of his income in a break-up?”
Anyone who belives that a man would risk life behind bars to kidnap an 11-year-old boy for a platonic relationship, is not in touch with reality.
Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?
Believe me, child molestation charges will be filed against this monster. Prosecutors are just being overly cautious, gathering evidence to present to a grand jury.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?”
Not to mention that male child porn is most likely on 90% of the male homosexuals in the country.
Read the following post from a male homosexual confessing his findings in “Gay” community.
“As someone who has lived the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ for over 20 years, I think that children of a mature enough age should be taught the basic social facts about homosexuality.
One lesson would be enough, and it would focus on all the main features of homosexuality, including:
1) the vastly increased chance of serious sexual diseases including HIV/AIDS.
2) the underdeveloped sense of responsibility of homosexuals to themselves and others.
3) it’s tendency to dominate an individual’s life, through it’s addictive nature.
4) the obsessive and predatary interest in youth.
5) the self-destructive nature of the disorder and of those who actively indulge it.
Graphic images of the results of homosexual activity and data about the habits and consequence of homosexuality in society should be enough to support what I would concider to be an essential part of a young adult’s education. ”
I bet Devlin would never admit to being a member of NAMBLA.org The marketing of homosexuality by hollywood is NOT the Will and Grace show folks.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
S Baker, I strongly disagree with your comments, but you have a right to express your views.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Shawn must be mortified knowing that when he returns to school all his classmates will know that he was sexually abused by an adult male.”
What a sad state of affairs that at this point – one would think that this would be Shawn’s main concern… Do you really think that Shawn is most concerned with what people are going to think right now? No – he’s just getting used to the idea that he doesn’t have to live in fear every minute of every day.
Why should boys have to be so fearful of what people are going to think if they’ve been sexually abused? He’s a CHILD. It was not his fault. He could not have done anything to prevent it. Why is the stigma so much worse for young boys who are sexually molested than it is for young girls? Is an 11 year old boy any more capable of “fighting back” than an 11 year old girl? No- he’s not.
I don’t think that Oprah did anything wrong… first, I think that the parents knew what questions were going to be asked. Shawn was obviously given permission to refuse to answer questions. She handled the interview with compassion and kindness and tried her best to celebrate the fact that both boys are home.
The message that needs to be continually sent to both boys is one of praise – “Good job, you did what you had to do to survive.” and one of understanding, “It was NOT your fault”.
S Baker – are you insinuating that MOST gay men are into child pornography? Are you insinuating that MOST gay men are capable of hurting young boys? If so – I beg to differ. Sex and molestation are two completely different things. Every gay person that I know is very protective of children and would NEVER want something like this to happen.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Sonjavon wrote:
“Do you really think that Shawn is most concerned with what people are going to think right now? No – he’s just getting used to the idea that he doesn’t have to live in fear every minute of every day.
Why should boys have to be so fearful of what people are going to think if they’ve been sexually abused? He’s a CHILD. It was not his fault. He could not have done anything to prevent it. Why is the stigma so much worse for young boys who are sexually molested than it is for young girls?”
**************************
Of course Shawn is not most concerned with what kids will say about him in school; I never implied anything of that sort. But, it’s an undeniable fact that kids do care what others say about them. And for a boy, nothing could be worse than the news getting around that he was violated by an adult male.
Of course it wasn’t Shawn’s fault, I never said he was at fault. The only one at fault is Devlin, and I hope they fry his a**
Why is the stigma so much worse for a boy? It shouldn’t be, but that’s just the way it is.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
S. Baker wrote that homosexuals have an “obesessive and predatory interest in youth”
From: http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/
Talking Points about Pedophilia
You may hear: Gays and lesbians are pedophiles and child molesters.
The truth is: The vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual males.
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of an adult to a child. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of an adult to an adult of the same gender.
This myth plays right into the fears of parents for their children, but the facts don’t support this nasty, divisive ploy. Sex abuse crimes are a major problem. Sex abuse criminals should be vigorously prosecuted. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of sex abuse criminals are heterosexual males.
“The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.” 1
Those who promote the myth that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles also ignore the fact that many cases of pedophilia are by adult men against young girls, and the almost total lack of reported cases of pedophilia by adult women against young girls. Homosexuality does NOT equal pedophilia.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Of course it wasn’t Shawn’s fault, I never said he was at fault. The only one at fault is Devlin, and I hope they fry his a**
Why is the stigma so much worse for a boy? It shouldn’t be, but that’s just the way it is.
………………..
I will agree with you – I hope they fry him too – but not before putting him in a cell with someone who might be inclined to give him a taste of his own medicine… sorry, I’m that mean.
Perhaps through Shawn the public can be educated that the stigma should be no worse for boys than for girls. Perhaps we can teach people that a violation is a violation and that in both cases the victim is the victim.
Being a female who was at one time sexually abused, I can speak of the liberating feeling that comes with talking about the experience. With putting the blame where it belongs. Of having people affirm that “it was not my fault”. Young boys who have been through the same sort of trauma should have the same opportunity.
As a mother of a young boy, the questions that I have, have yet to be answered… what ideas can I give my son for staying safe? What can I do to prevent some monster from brainwashing my son into thinking that there is no hope?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Sonjavon wrote:
“I will agree with you – I hope they fry him too – but not before putting him in a cell with someone who might be inclined to give him a taste of his own medicine… sorry, I’m that mean.”
*************************
No apolgy is necessary — there’s nothing wrong with righteous anger. I feel the same way.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
S. Baker said, “Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?”
So?
Does your assumption mean that all men who have normal adult porn on their computer or purchase it at a newsstand are abusing or having sex with women?
Sorry, but in my opinion, there should be nothing legally wrong (or imply anything nefarious) with having any kind of pictures on our computers. This is just another way of the feminists crucifying us men at every turn. Why do we concentrate only on pictures? Could it be because we men, not women, concentrate mostly on pictures?
What about sexy women’s novels that describe sexual acts with children but don’t have pictures? They don’t exist? Are we sure?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Dittohead wrote:
“S. Baker said, “Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?â€
So?
Does your assumption mean that all men who have normal adult porn on their computer or purchase it at a newsstand are abusing or having sex with women?
Sorry, but in my opinion, there should be nothing legally wrong (or imply anything nefarious) with having any kind of pictures on our computers.”
*********************************
An image of child porn is not just a bunch of pixels, it’s damning evidence that a child was sexually exploited.
There is nothing worse in the world than sexually abusing a child. Anyone who has images of child pornography should be sent to prison for a long time.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Does your assumption mean that all men who have normal adult porn on their computer or purchase it at a newsstand are abusing or having sex with women?
Sorry, but in my opinion, there should be nothing legally wrong (or imply anything nefarious) with having any kind of pictures on our computers. This is just another way of the feminists crucifying us men at every turn. Why do we concentrate only on pictures? Could it be because we men, not women, concentrate mostly on pictures?
What about sexy women’s novels that describe sexual acts with children but don’t have pictures? They don’t exist? Are we sure?
…………………………
As a female – I could care less if you have pornographic pictures of adult women on your computer. However, if you have pictures of CHILDREN in pornographic situations – I do have a huge issue with that. I’ll even go so far as to say that anyone who would enjoy looking OR reading about children in sexual connotations need some serious help.
This has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with decency. As a woman – I can tell you that there are plenty of women out there who enjoy pornography… you men don’t have a monopoly on it. But again – BIG difference between children and adults.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Sonjavon, very well stated. Thanks
January 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Except that I spelled difference wrong … lol
January 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s Ok, I will make the correction
January 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
You did not read the post closely. The post was a quote from a male(homosexual slur deleted) of 20 years.
Robert, you must have really flipped out over the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. And Queer Nation must really drive you and others with homophilic tendencies crazy. Get over it. You bought the marketing of sexual deviance but others haven’t. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species in case you haven’t noticed.
Having lived in the Bay area of San Fran I saw what has been common practice for male (homosexual slur deleted) to pick up young boys — they referred to them as twinks and often passed them around the “loving community.” This still closeted part of the lifestyle resides back in the corner, nevertheless, it is still there. This part of homosexual behavior is nothing new and has been going down since Roman times when catamites were marketed for sale and pleasure. Nothing ever changes, only the marketing and names for said behavior.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
S Baker wrote:
“Having lived in the Bay area of San Fran I saw what has been common practice for male (homosexual slur deleted) to pick up young boys — they referred to them as twinks and often passed them around the “loving community.â€
**********************************
Every culture has deviant subcultures. I was born and raised in the San Francisco, and I take issue with your characterization of homosexuals picking up young boys as a “common practice.”
January 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
sonjavon said: As a female – I could care less if you have pornographic pictures of adult women on your computer. However, if you have pictures of CHILDREN in pornographic situations – I do have a huge issue with that. I’ll even go so far as to say that anyone who would enjoy looking OR reading about children in sexual connotations need some serious help.
This has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with decency. As a woman – I can tell you that there are plenty of women out there who enjoy pornography… you men don’t have a monopoly on it. But again – BIG difference between children and adults.
————————————————–
Cheez! I guess if we’re protecting “the children”, we can be as irrational and over-the-top as we desire and all the lesbian-feminist-brainwashed kiss-ups in the pack will rush to your support. Hear! Hear! Right On! You go, girl! You were so hyper to express your support of “the children”, you seem to have missed my point completely and then changed the subject.
I brought up the point concerning people having regular porn on their computer or purchased at a newsstand to make the point that looking at a picture does not equate to acting on it. I would venture to say that a majority of teenage boys don’t have sex but almost all look at naked women in magazines and computer pictures. My point is that thinking about something does not equate with action in most cases. I guess unless we are talking about men. Then we should throw them all in jail based on what they are thinking if someone thinks it’s morally wrong (and we’re protecting “the children”)!
If we are going to do that, we should also throw every woman in jail who thinks about killing her child soon after birth. Oh, excuse me. That has a bleeding-heart name for it, post-partum depression, so that’s OK. Right. It’s not her fault. It’s a disease!
Bull!
If we are going to throw men in jail for what they are thinking, we should provide the equal right to women. Should we hook women’s brains up to a thoughtomometers and fry every woman who has the thought of killing her child? If not, why not? Is thinking about having sex with a child worse than thinking about killing one? If so, how much worse? And why?
By the way, this has everything to do with feminism, even though you deny it. Most people are not decent 100% of the time based on other people’s opinions of what decent is and what’s not. Not being decent isn’t or shouldn’t be against the law and cause someone to be put in jail. Thinking and looking at pictures hurts no one.
I’m not saying that abusing children should be tolerated. I’m saying that looking at a picture hurts no one. If one person abuses a child, takes a picture of the act and sells it to 10,000 people, would you spend thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars and time going after the 10,000 people who looked at the picture or should the law go after the person who abused the child? I know, I know! Stupid question! You’d put all 10,001 persons in jail!
I guess these days we can justify just about any actions no matter how irrational as long as we couch them in protecting “the children”!
January 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Baker, in regards to your below comments:
S Baker said,
“Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?â€
Not to mention that male child porn is most likely on 90% of the male homosexuals in the country.
Citation? How would you know?
Read the following post from a male homosexual confessing his findings in “Gay†community.
“As someone who has lived the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ for over 20 years, I think that children of a mature enough age should be taught the basic social facts about homosexuality.
One lesson would be enough, and it would focus on all the main features of homosexuality, including:
1) the vastly increased chance of serious sexual diseases including HIV/AIDS.
2) the underdeveloped sense of responsibility of homosexuals to themselves and others.
3) it’s tendency to dominate an individual’s life, through it’s addictive nature.
4) the obsessive and predatary interest in youth.
5) the self-destructive nature of the disorder and of those who actively indulge it.
Graphic images of the results of homosexual activity and data about the habits and consequence of homosexuality in society should be enough to support what I would concider to be an essential part of a young adult’s education. â€
I bet Devlin would never admit to being a member of NAMBLA.org The marketing of homosexuality by hollywood is NOT the Will and Grace show folks.
January 19, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Ok, so you’re saying that because Mike Devlin was interested in boys, all homosexuals must be child molesters (or at least 90%). While we’re at it, Mike Devlin was also white, so all white people must be child molesters too. And Mike is male, so all males must be child molesters too. By your logic, you must be a child molester (or at least we can be 90% certain). Mike was also a pizza delivery guy, so all pizza delivery guys must be child molesters. Mike Devlin was from Missouri, so all Missourians must be child molesters. And Mike is an American, so all Americans must be child molesters (or at least 90%).
OR NOT.
When applying the same flawed logic to other groups, we find your arguments quickly fail. The facts are, about 95% of child molesters are heterosexual (remember Elizabeth Smart? Polly Klaas). In fact, given that about 8% of the U.S. population is gay, that’s a bad statistic–for heterosexuals.
Pedophilia and Child Sexual MolestationPedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age … 95% of known Pedophiles are heterosexual and 50% have consumed alcohol to …
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_child_sexual_mole.htm – 21k – Cached – Similar pages
The FACT is, most homosexuals are interested in post-pubescent adults, not sexually exploiting children. Society at large apparently knows the difference. When Palm Beach voters found out that Mark Foley was gay, they still voted for him. However, when they found out he had solicited underage pages, then the kicked him out. Learn the difference, and stop being a bigot. Yes, congressmen have been caught with underage females…but do we even remember their names?
S Baker, YOU are a danger to society…for your ignorance, bigotry, and homophobia.
I was just as apalled at Shawn Hornbeck’s abduction as anyone else. Devlin deserves life imprisonment…not for being ‘homosexual’ but for preying on children, who don’t have a free choice. Last I heard, lack of free choice was called rape.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Dittohd- actually my response was in regard to this statement:
“Sorry, but in my opinion, there should be nothing legally wrong (or imply anything nefarious) with having any kind of pictures on our computers. This is just another way of the feminists crucifying us men at every turn. Why do we concentrate only on pictures? Could it be because we men, not women, concentrate mostly on pictures?”
There is something wrong with having pictures of child pornography in your possession. Supporting, in any way the abuse of children is unacceptable.
My husband finds it funny that you have lumped me in with the lesbian/feminist/brainwashed kissup brigade… as I am neither a lesbian and hardly a feminist! I do believe in women being treated with respect and dignity but also happen to be of the opinion that the feminist movement has damaged the American family.
Your example of teenage boys looking at pornography not equating with them having sex is laughable… I’d venture to say that the majority of said boys would indeed go on to eventually have sex… therefore – using your logic – someone having child pornography on their computer would also go on to abuse children.
No – thinking does not equate action. However, downloading pictures or buying a book about a topic shows intent. Would I be concerned if a mother has thoughts of killing her child? Yes. Would I be EVEN MORE concerned if she downloaded images of dead children – yes – it takes it to a whole different level.
I disagree with you that thinking about and looking at pictures hurts no one. Garbage in = Garbage out. If you are looking at pictures of children being abused you are supporting it.
And yes – I would put every single one of the 10,001 people in jail and happily work 4 jobs to pay the taxes to keep them there.
Call me irrational, call me over-the-top – call me whatever you want… I’m a mom. And yes, I would do anything in my power to protect not only my child, but any child from danger… that’s what mom’s do. I find it reprehensible and a really sad statement of our society that anyone would ever even THINK that child pornography would be ok.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Possessing child pornography is a CRIME, and anyone possessing child pornography should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
We should heave DITTOHEAD and S Baker fight it out. I thought S Baker would win the award for ignorance, but Dittohead’s defense of child porn takes the cake…inexusable.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Dittohead,
Did it ever occur to you that the children in kiddie porn pics were EXPLOITED just to be in the pics? OK, you could argue that cartoon drawings of kiddie porn don’t directly harm a child, but downloading kiddie porn pics promotes the exploitation of children. I suppose you think that if you eat a chicken sandwich, you didn’t kill a chicken, did you? Yet your actions led to the chicken’s death.
S Baker, you are not much better. I have never seen a gay guy pick up an underage boy. Maybe they do that in San Fran, but most gays don’t. Also, your anti-gay crusade ends up hurting women, as the abuse of female children is forgotten/neglected.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but this story is a contrast:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244860,00.html
A girl. Abducted by a man. Hetero. And she attempted escape.
Bravo to her, but let’s not condemn Shawn for being mentally controlled.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I am disgusted by some of the comments. I cannot believe that anyone would say having kiddie porn is at all ok! I agree with comment # 31.
As for the essay, I think Robert is correct to criticize Oprah for bringing up the subject of abuse. Any normal boy would hate people knowing about the possibilty of something like that happening to him. It would be humiliating. The fact that it wasn’t his fault does not matter. When you are abused in anyway at all, you may know that you did nothing wrong, but it is still shameful.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“The fact that it wasn’t his fault does not matter. When you are abused in anyway at all, you may know that you did nothing wrong, but it is still shameful.”
Speaking from experience, the fact that it wasn’t his fault DOES MATTER. Hearing it repeatedly will make all the difference in the world. It is shameful – there is a lot of guilt that is carried by any victim of abuse. However – that’s exactly why victims need to speak out and talk about it… we’re not the ones who have something to feel guilty or embarassed about – it’s the sick, perverted person who abused us who should feel embarassed and guilty and shameful.
Talking about it openly is the ONLY way to heal. When you’ve been abused – your entire foundation gets rocked – it’s very possible to get a skewed view of what “the world” believes (especially if your abuser has used that as a tool to keep you quiet). When you tell someone what happened and they get angry at the bad guy, when they tell you “it’s not your fault”, when they cry with you – THEN you start to heal and your world begins to come together again. Oprah was trying to help… not exploit. At least that’s my take on it.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Sonjavon said, “When you tell someone what happened and they get angry at the bad guy, when they tell you “it’s not your faultâ€, when they cry with you – THEN you start to heal and your world begins to come together again. Oprah was trying to help… not exploit. At least that’s my take on it.” I think you are correct to a point. It is good to talk to people about it, but I don’t think it is something that should be on t.v. Talking to someone one-on-one is different than talking in front of millions of viewers. I like Oprah, and I don’t think her intent was to exploit, but I would have been a little more careful if I were her.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Yaaaaaaayyyy!!!! Finally.
You wrote something substantive that I agree with.
It was wrong for Oprah to ask the parents that question on tv. Is it not the same as putting female rape victims on tv? We don’t do that, do we. (Notwithstanding witches like the Duke stripper, but that’s something else entirely.) And yes, it may be wrong, but it’s much worse for a boy to deal with classmates than for girls (on something like this). The stigma will hang over him. Human nature is what it is, and pretending otherwise is stupid.
As for whether more pedophiles are “gay” or “straight” I don’t know. But I’m pretty tired of hearing people call guys who molest little boys “heterosexual”. They’re not.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I would imagine that a man who molests little boys, even if he wasn’t exclusively “homosexual”, must be bi-sexual… otherwise he would not want to mess around with males at all. But in my opinion, I don’t think the majority of homosexuals are into little boys.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
“Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?â€
Says who? What was it? An easy thing to say that results in instant condemnation, instant suspension of reason.
In my State a parent is not allowed to take a camera to a public beach or photograph their own child on a public beach. Almost any photograph of a child in almost any circumstance can be classified as ‘child porn’ by the sort of sick minds one finds so common in prosecutorial offices. Its one of those wonderful mendacious phrases that can be used to fit anyone up as a criminal. It is a phrase deliberately inciting of intolerance and the abandonment of the presumption of innocence.
I suppose if someone got off looking at a picture of the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus, it would be described as ‘child porn’. It is an hysterical nonsense phrase.
There was a series of photographs of teenage boys in Melbourne (Oz)a few years ago that appeared on some website or other. Fully dressed, catching a tram, walking to the bus stop, sitting on a bench. There was not a thing about them to differentiate them from normal family photos or ones seen of people in the street published in newspapers every day of the week. They were classed as ‘child porn’ simply because someone put them on a website which deviates visited. There was nothing pornographic about them. How friggin’ deviate does one have to be before we stone them to death.
I am astonished that some here are so quick to jump on the damn bandwagon and ride with such fury. For f*ck’s sake, get a grip of your knickers.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Amfortas wrote:
“Need I remind you that child porn was found on Devlin’s computer?â€
Says who? What was it? An easy thing to say that results in instant condemnation, instant suspension of reason.
Says who? From the New York Post: January 15, 2007 — Kiddie porn was found on the home computer of the hulking loner accused of kidnapping two St. Louis boys, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.
LAW ENFOROCEMENT AUTHORITIES, THAT’S WHO
Amfortas wrote:
“There was a series of photographs of teenage boys in Melbourne (Oz)a few years ago that appeared on some website or other. Fully dressed, catching a tram, walking to the bus stop, sitting on a bench.”
I doubt that a sick f*** who kidnaps an 11-year old child and molests him over a period of over four years will have innocent pics of fully dressed teenage boys waiting for a tram.
Amfotas wrote:
“I am astonished that some here are so quick to jump on the damn bandwagon and ride with such fury. For f*ck’s sake, get a grip of your knickers.”
It’s abundantly clear that Devlin kidnapped two boys. In fact even though he pleaded “not guilty”, he has already made a confession. As to the child porn charges, why are you so upset that child porn charges have been levied against a sick animal like Devlin?
January 20th, 2007 at 2:50 am
I am not ‘upset’ that child porn charges have been laid, Robert. And this Devlin fellow is not an animal, he is a man. I could ask a silly rhetorical question of you and why you refer to sick animals?
I do not trust the authorities.
I have sound reason not to trust authorities. Just look at all the lies ‘authorities’ say about men. Just look at all the cases, horrible in prospect, of satanism, child sexual assault in kindergartens, wherever, which were ephemiral fantasies of ‘authorities’. Just look at the Nifong fiasco and ask yourself if you trust them.
I asked what the ‘child porn’ was. What is its nature? I gave examples of the hysterical use of the term. I do not condemn without proof. I do not fall for the informal fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.
Have you seen the ‘child porn’ in question? Perhaps I would be less sceptical if you described it to me.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:19 am
This is quite an educational experience. I’ve learned more new words just reading these essays and comments then I have ever learned in an academic environment.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Amfortas, if you want to make a case that “the authorities” misuse child pornography laws to prosecute individuals with innocent photographs of children, do so in a free-standing essay. Don’t do it in the context of a discussion of a kidnapper and child molester. By making your case in this thread, you are giving the impression that you coddle child molesters.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Robert Paul Reyes – Wow! Accuse someone who disagrees with you that if they continue their point, they are supporting kidnappers and child molesters and everyone shuts up! Wow! You must really be proud of yourself.
Just out of curiosity, when the cops and media gave you all the initial “facts” of the Duke lacross team rape allegations via the media, were you sure of the lacross team’s guilt? Did you advocate frying them? Do you still believe that they are guilty? If so, why? Based on what evidence? If not, why? What changed your mind? Was it the lack of DNA on the woman? The DNA of several men in the woman that the prosecutor and DNA lab kept a secret for so long? The 100% lacross team line-up? Was it their alibis? Do you still believe they are guilty because women never lie about rape? After all, why would they lie about something like that? And we all know that no woman would ever support putting a man in jail and destroying his life over something he didn’t do.
Nothing the cops say in the news media means squat. Cops and DA’s lie all the time to make their cases, influence public opinion and the potential jury pool and manipulate suspects into telling them what they want to hear. Not all cops are always after the truth. In fact, the courts have already ruled that it’s OK for cops to lie to obtain confessions, including what they tell the suspect the results of confessing to a particular crime that the suspect supposedly did, will be. And that’s because nobody would ever, for any reason, confess to a crime that they didn’t commit, right? It also doesn’t matter if the cop lies to the suspect about what will happen and won’t happen to them if they do confess to the crime.
It is apparent to me that this guy who is accused of kidnapping this kid is already being “nifonged”. It is customary for cops to keep details of a crime secret. Why do you suppose they leaked the small detail that “kiddie porn” was found on this guy’s computer? Since there were two persons in the house and the boy probably spent more time in the house than this guy did since this guy was supposedly holding down two part-time jobs, and we know that the boy was using the computer to surreptitiously talk with his real father without the father knowing who he really was, changing his last name to that of the “kidnapper”, how do we know that the kiddie porn wasn’t downloaded by the boy? How do we know that the boy didn’t go there of his own free will? How do we know that he didn’t enjoy his life better with this guy than with his parents and that’s really what we have here.
By the way, what is “kiddie porn” anyway? Is it porn for kiddies? Is it cartoons of sex acts instead of real pictures? Is kiddie porn different from child porn? And if it is cartoons of sex acts, is it just as bad as real pictures since there are obviously no real children involved being abused? Does it even matter when we are putting men in jail for what they are thinking rather than what they do?
Many years ago when the horror of rape and domestic violence wasn’t so high in the consciousness of us all, we used to hear every so often about a large percentage of women having dreams about being raped. I wonder what percentage of today’s women still have these types of dreams? Should we give all women mandatory lie-detector tests to find out which women are having this fantasy so we can put them in jail before they act out on their fantasy by putting themselves or someone else in harms way or asking their boyfriends or husbands to act out their fantasy for them? Rape is against the law, after all. And what we actually do doesn’t matter anymore, right? Is thinking about something really that much different from looking at a picture and thinking about it? After all, if we think about something, how long is it before we start doing it?
You said in a previous post “…everybody agrees that Devlin is a pedophile pervert who should burn in hell. I don’t need to argue that point.”
I don’t agree. Not because I know he isn’t one but because I don’t know the facts one way or the other. And neither do you.
I don’t trust the cops, DA’s, or the media to tell me the truth about anything and anyone who does is either deluding themselves or is a brainwashed feminist kiss-up.
I know! I know! We have to protect “the children” so whatever we do or say towards that end is totally OK! God help us all when we each turn 18! Particularly us men! And I can assure you that when you are falsely accused of a crime and nifonged up the a**, nobody is going to look back at your past opinions in support of “the children” and say “This guy couldn’t have done it. Here, read what he previously said in support of “the children”. What they’ll say is, “Look at this kiddie porn! This proves he’s guilty! This is what they say in public to hide their real selves!” And everyone will agree with the cops because we all know that cops and DA’s and the media don’t lie. Whatever is on TV or in a newspaper or magazine has to be true otherwise the editors wouldn’t allow it to be printed or broadcast. Riiiiiight!
By the way, have you read that an Arizona legislator just proposed a bill that would make a large percentage of the minutemen who are helping to patrol our border with Mexico “domestic terrorists”? Kiddie porn? Terrorists? Guilty? Who cares? The end justifies the means! Let’s just do away with the court system and throw all men in jail based on whatever the cops, DA’s, legislators and the media decide is best for “the children”. Look at all the money we’ll save! And all that extra money can go to “the children”!
January 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Dittohd said,
“Robert Paul Reyes – Wow! Accuse someone who disagrees with you that if they continue their point, they are supporting kidnappers and child molesters and everyone shuts up! Wow! You must really be proud of yourself.”
******************************
Dittohead, your support of child porn is reprehensible and your reading comprehension is terrible.
This is what I actually wrote:
“Amfortas, if you want to make a case that “the authorities†misuse child pornography laws to prosecute individuals with innocent photographs of children, do so in a free-standing essay. Don’t do it in the context of a discussion of a kidnapper and child molester. By making your case in this thread, you are giving the impression that you coddle child molesters.”
By Amfortas making a case that the laws against chld porn are sometimes misued by authorites,in a forum discussing a child molester, he was GIVING THE IMPRESSION that he coddled child molesters.
BIG DIFFERENCE
I strongly disagree with those who support child porn, if I really wanted to “shut up” the opposing view, I would simply delete all your comments.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
OK, robert, going to call me names since I don’t agree with you. Nice comments and all because I don’t subscribe to deviant sexual behavior nor do I think the male anus is a sex organ. You even use the (homosexuall slur deleted) jargon of calling people that are disgusted with deviant behavior homophobic. Never have I met anyone afraid of (homsexual slur deleted). Are you pedophobic? Just curious where you stand.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
To S Baker: I will delete your entire comments if you post again using derogatory words for homosexuals. The word “queer” is just as unacceptable as “nigger” or “chink”
January 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Why am I not surprised you would compare Black people to sexual deviants. I have yet to meet a single Black man that doesn’t resent being compared to another male practicing homosexual behavior to some form of equivalent repression. That is a very disgusting attribution often used by “gay” people in an attempt to vilify those that find such behavior disgusting.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Dittohd said:
“how do we know that the kiddie porn wasn’t downloaded by the boy?”
Excellent point that no one else seems to have thought of. Authorities did not indicate the context in which the pictures present, merely leaked the existence of it. Which of course leads those who are quick to judge to make all manner of suppositions that may or may not be true.
And I also do not trust authorities due to exploitative experiences close friends have undergone at the hands of DA offices and other politicians and their local police departments.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Robert Paul Reyes said: Dittohead, your support of child porn is reprehensible and your reading comprehension is terrible.
I don’t support child porn and never said I did. Personally, I don’t particularly like hardly any porn. What a waste of good, hard-earned money! Speaking of bad reading comprehension! What I do support is putting people in jail for what they DO, not for what they THINK! Looking at a picture should not be against the law. It only involves thinking and hurts no one. Abusing a child SHOULD be against the law and the creator of the real child porn, if a child was used in its creation (child porn creators, I’ve heard, often use adults who look like teenagers), should be prosecuted.
By the way, if a teenager voluntarily participates in the creation of real child porn, should the teenager likewise be prosecuted? No? Are there any other crimes that you feel teenagers should be immune from prosecution? Are minors only minors when sex crimes are involved? If Shawn Hornbeck was the one who downloaded the kiddie porn that may have been found on Devlin’s computer, should Shawn be prosecuted? If not, doesn’t that support child porn based on your logic?
January 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
P.S. And what if the actors and producers of the kiddie or child porn are minors? Then what! Wow! What a conumdrum!
January 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
P.S. P.S. Oh, that’s right! We go to adults who are LOOKING at the pictures for the “child molestor” label.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
S. Baker, Robert is not comparing blacks to homosexuals, he is saying that none of those slang terms are acceptable. Difference. Although you seem to have a prejudice against gays. I guess you just don’t tolerate those who have different sexual preferences as you.
The way some of these MND folks talk about women so hatefully, I am surprised they haven’t “come out of the closet”. LOL.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Robert I have to take issue with you. It is not reasonable, and you have reasoned your way throught it, that my statement even could mean that I ‘give an impression’ that I ‘coddle’ child molesters. I did not even address molestation, let alone coddle. I mearly asked what this child-porn was. I sought the evidence.
Sure, an unreasonable person just might MAKE or TAKE an impression, but I certainly didn’t give one. You infer what I did not imply. The inference is entirely of your own invention.
This mentation you exhibit is precisely what is wrong with the whole sexual ‘crime’ business. The police and DAs hardly bother to seek evidence these days. Evidence is seldom called for in our Courts where a man is concerned. The simple accusation is enough. We are becoming slaves to that very ‘Authority’ that was so vividly displayed in the famous psychological experiments of 40 years ago. Someone in a white coat – or a blue uniform – says this and we jump to obey. All the way to the electric chair in some cases.
Robert, I am too old and overburdened with the weight of dismay to jump. Why not dispense with a trial altogether and just hang the man. You do a good impression of a lynch-mob leader.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
In my first line, second sentence, I missed a ‘not’. It was meant to have said “and you have NOT reasoned your way throught it”
January 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Robert Paul Reyes said: I will delete your entire comments if you post again using derogatory words for homosexuals. The word “queer†is just as unacceptable as “nigger†or “chinkâ€
Your the boss of this comment page, so what’s objectionable to you is out. I don’t want my comments deleted so instead of qu**r, I’ll substitute the word “T-Shirt” from now on whenever I feel the need to use that word.
We are all different and that’s why in my posts I support freedom rather than everyone becoming the same in what they like and don’t like.
“T-Shirt” can’t be all that bad, certainly not as bad a nigger or chink as you allege if a national TV program can use the word in its title and have three “T-Shirts” on the program, giving others advice. But then, maybe if you offer “T-Shirts” enough money, anything objectionable can be changed to no longer be objectionable. Right? Or is this just a difference of opinion?
Should someone go to jail for being a molester?
January 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
You are right, I don’t believe any deviant behavior that taxpayers are forced to fund is acceptable including homophilia, homopedophilia, incest and bestiality. Now Robert can call me a homophobe, pedophobe, incestophobe and beastophobe — there I said it for you. Some “Mens” news site you have here. Robert should try allowing a little diversity of opinion instead of regurgitating the hollywood portrayed lifestyle of homosexuality. It ain’t the Will and Grace show — its acts with rodents, rimming, felching and the like–the acts still hidden the closet that are verboten to discuss.
Robert deleted my reference to CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly reference about the cost of homosexual behavior to healthcare — billions and comparable in cost and average lifespan to IV drug users.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Homosexuality and Pedophilia
Media Monitor ^ | 11/2/2006 | Cliff Kincaid
In connection with media coverage of the Mark Foley sex scandal, the pro-homosexual media enforcers have been attempting to refute the idea that there is any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Yet Foley targeted young boys. This is something you are not supposed to write or talk about because it undermines the cause of homosexual rights.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says, “isn’t it telling most of the tiny number of homosexual male U.S. Congressmen have been caught in sex scandals-remember Barney Frank, who let his male lover, a hustler, run a prostitution ring out of his D.C. apartment? And Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds, who had sex with a 17-year-old boy and then turned his back on fellow House Members during the censure vote against him? And Bob Bauman, who in 1980 was charged with soliciting a 16-year-old boy for sex?”
Adding it up, LaBarbera says, “Let’s see: three homosexual Congressmen involved in sexual seductions of minor boys-ages 16, 17, and 17 (Foley). And yet homosexual activists ridicule anyone who suggests there is a predatory or pedophilic component to male homosexuality”
A Big Duh
January 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
P.S. This comment site needs an “edit” button. The moderator has the ability to adjust our comments but we can’t adjust our own?
Pretty discriminatory, I think. Feels like that “Big Brother” syndrome. Or is it “domestic terrorism”? Commenter molestation?
Call the cops!
January 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I suppose, in your view Robert, all the homosexuals get in a real frenzy when “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ comes on. Television sets must be destroyed at an horrendously wasteful rate. The “Queer Studies’ people at Universities all over the place must hardly get any study done, so incensed they must be at the use of the wicked word. I come over all queer when I hear such facile objections.
Black people call one another ‘nigger’ all the time. Homosexuals call each other queer. How come no-one else can?
January 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
To everyone here who has been reading my posts concerning not trusting what we read or hear in the media, here’s the latest in that saga:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011908.html
January 25th, 2007 at 1:39 am
You people sure do talk a lot. I think this issue is a dead horse, and that the media and yourselves will have forgotten this story a year from now. You will find other and newer (not to mention more irrelevant) things to argue about. Perhaps it will be issues other than homophobia, child porn, sexual abuse, and “miracle” missing children. What a large amount of flaming goings on here… (hyuck). The media by it’s very nature looks for “stories” to “expliot”. But remember that they are called “stories”. Why is this story any different than a news report of a traffic accident, or Chinese nuclear testing? Whoopdee do, some kid comes home after 4.5 years. Is this “amazing”? Is this newsworthy? In the modern world, sadly, yes. The media can and will expliot anything that can improve station ratings or paper’s readers, or websites hits for that matter. The question that no one (myself included) can really answer is, do you really care about Shawn Hornbeck? I think the best a large majority of people can think is, “I’m sure glad that didn’t happen to my child” or “I’m glad that didn’t happen to me when I was a kid.” Each of us (myself included) have taken this “story” as an oppurtunity to promote our own beliefs. Whether it be homosexuality, or homophobia, or pedophilia, or women’s lib, no one has discussed much about Shawn Hornbeck. What do any one of us KNOW about him, or Michael Devlin for that matter? All we have is bullshit coming from all sides, media, police, us (as in us!) People react in their own way. Some point the accusing finger (at anybody it seems). Some hide under their beds and never come out again. Some are quick to point out uninteresting facts and analysis. In a hundred years, no one will care. We’ll all be dead, and this webpage of comments will be long deleted and forgotten (this post included
). Maybe I have a point, maybe you’ll point out that I don’t. I’m sure you will find a way to aruge further about something further regarding this string of posts.
P.S. Robert Paul Reyes, Dittohd, & S Baker, I please try to respect and understand each other instead of flaming and “correcting” each other. It sound like each of you are trying to become the “Alpha Male” of postings. Each of you sound like you’re trying to establish an air of superiority over the others in terms of views and beliefs. Who really is a bigot? I would risk to say that there is no such thing aws a “bigot”. All people have different views on things and whether or not they are “politically correct” or “offensive” is irrelevant in the long run. My theory is, in a hundred years, they will have forgotten Shawn Hornbeck, Michael Devlin, and all of you. For that matter, me as well. lol (yes I will stoop to write “lol”) i’ve ranted enough. I’m just a human being like the rest of you that has enough time to write a comment in some obscure webpage about yet another “news-worthy” event. Kudos to everyone for explioting everyone.