Molestation and the reputations of great men

[alfred russel]

Serious question, languish, and one that is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic Church's problems.

Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?

Assume he wasn't caught but it is known among a select few- it is out of society's eyes. Should it be kept that way? Does he cease being a great man, and become instead defined for his sinful indiscretion? Finally, consider this- the man is beyond punishment now, being quite dead, and it is only his memory that is in jeopardy.

I am very much at grief about this, as it effects numerous dear to me, and of course calls for a re-imagining of how I knew certain people and their life narratives. You can never know everything that goes into making someone who they are, that's for sure.

Is it a great crime and disservice to pretend the molestation never happened?

I know languish is fond of making light of my life and times, but i'd appreciate a serious response at this, if that was at all possible.

Lettow, to give a serious answer, I think it depends on the circumstances.

If the person is still alive, I think there is an imperative to bring the issue forward.

If the person is dead, obviously they can no longer be held to account. I can see a case for overlooking a serious crime if the victim has also passed away. For example, kosciusko is a major hero in Poland and national symbol--and for good reasons. Is it worth holding a sort of trial into his legacy based on rumors from 200 years ago? I tend to think not. However, if the victim still lives, honoring their abuser is quite disrespectful and could be seen as effectively continuing the abuse.

[garbon]

Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.

Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.

California's reputation isn't for being "forward/ing thinking" (whatever that means), it's for being permissive.

Again it is common to think of child brides in backwards states, not California.

Besides, by hell it ain't. California is one of the most forward thinking states in our lot.

[Maximus]

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the reputation it has. Teach is spot on.

[garbon]

That California is known for permitting people to sleep with young teens?

[Eddie Teach]

Besides, by hell it ain't. California is one of the most forward thinking states in our lot.

Being "forward thinking" is usually something one thinks of himself rather than to use to describe others. And considering it means something different to each person you might ask, it's not a very useful descriptor anyway.

First thing most people will think of about California laws is pot legalization. This dovetails with the reputations of LA and San Francisco for indulging in hedonism and there you have it, California gets a reputation for being a place where anything goes. Whether it's more accurate to call California forward thinking rather than permissive doesn't matter, nor does what Californians think of themselves. Its *reputation* is what people in the rest of the country and the world think of them, right or wrong.

[garbon]

I actually understand what you're saying about the country viewing California as permissive.  What I'm not sure about is whether or not that extends into permissive attitudes towards sleeping with children - as it is some of the more conservative states (that would tend to view California that as morally bankrupt) that allow adults to sleep with those who are 16 (and or get married).  I guess it is possible that they hypocritically believe that California is eve more permissive thatn they are in that regard.

[Neil]

Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.

Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.

Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.

[garbon]

Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.

I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.

[Eddie Teach]

I actually understand what you're saying about the country viewing California as permissive.  What I'm not sure about is whether or not that extends into permissive attitudes towards sleeping with children - as it is some of the more conservative states (that would tend to view California that as morally bankrupt) that allow adults to sleep with those who are 16 (and or get married).  I guess it is possible that they hypocritically believe that California is eve more permissive thatn they are in that regard.

I don't see how hypocrisy has anything to do with it. People make basic assumptions about things they don't actually know and sometimes turn out to be wrong. I'm also not sure too much weight should be given to state laws like this when forming an opinion of the people as the differences between states are frequently the result of historical circumstance/accident.

[garbon]

The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first?

[Neil]

Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.

I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.

All you homos get judged togther.  You, NAMBLA, Perez Hilton, Martinus, all the same.

[Eddie Teach]

The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first?

I haven't seen much in the way of moral outrage about Californians sleeping with teenagers, other than the occasional rape of a 13 year old by a famous director.

[garbon]

Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.

I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.

All you homos get judged togther.  You, NAMBLA, Perez Hilton, Martinus, all the same.

Whatever dude.

[garbon]

The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first?

I haven't seen much in the way of moral outrage about Californians sleeping with teenagers, other than the occasional rape of a 13 year old by a famous director.

So they don't have moral outrage and are quite okay with adults sleeping with 16 year olds?

[Eddie Teach]

So they don't have moral outrage and are quite okay with adults sleeping with 16 year olds?

Unless it's their daughter.