|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from challenger
Monday, January 17, 2005 - 00:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is a old pic. of Sarah D. I saw her 13 yrs ago and she was like 20 years older then she was in that photo. Her security is still intact.
(reply to this comment)
| from Jerseygirl
Friday, February 20, 2004 - 09:28
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I’ve followed some of the recent discussions here lately and I keep thinking about the movie Sleepers. To me it’s always been about people having to be held accountable for their mistakes, or dare I say ‘sins”. So they may have found themselves finally and decided that what they were doing was wrong and now they must change, well I’m so happy for them but it does not change what they did. One of the reasons I hate religious people, namely Christians, is their whole attitude of “well all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, I’ll just ask the lord for forgiveness and go on my merry little way”. God may have forgiven them but I certainly have not.
I’m not an expert and I haven’t been one to venture out and get therapy yet but I’m sure we’re all familiar with the term “closure”. How in the world can anyone move on with things when there is so much left without closure for each one of us? I try to keep in mind that getting all heated up and irrational is not going to help the overall case but honestly I really want some people fed to the lions! At this point I am a student and still trying to make my fortune so I couldn’t really afford to give a lot of money to the cause yet but I’ll tell you that if I knew Sara was in Texas and would appear in court I would fly down there in an instant to lend support to anyone of us who would testify against her and the cult. A dear friend of mine once recounted to me about when she and one other person were the only young people testifying against the cult and how she knew that all of us still in the group were praying against her to trip and fall etc. I hated to hear her suffering like that and I know that I will never let anyone feel so alone in a situation like that again if it’s in my power to help. It would be something I could do.
These people need to know that we are out here and we KNOW!! They aren’t going to be able to pull the wool over our eyes or put on their god damned sheep’s clothing and continue to run around free. Just as in the movie, after they had their day in court, some of the boys didn’t end up going far and their past got the better of them, but some of them were able to find peace and quiet and some way to move beyond what had happened. I hope that for the sake of those of us who need to see action and see people getting their just deserve, that it will happen, and that we can gain some sense of closure or at least of being heard and believed. If nothing else, I want it for my friends who couldn’t make it to see that day.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Mydestinyismine
Friday, February 20, 2004, 21:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. Except for one thing. Not all Christians use that verse. I've been reading some other publications that talk about God and Jesus in a totally different way. You ever heard of the book "Wild at Heart"? It's really interesting. Anyway, one thing it mentions is that Jesus was not like Mother Theresa. When it came to the pharisees and guilty parties he let'm have it. What I'm trying to say is that Christians are not supposed to be passive and just let everything go under Rom 8:28 and that other verse you mentioned. Christians are not supposed to be "Nice guys". God wasn't to merciful with the Egyptions and other nations that did evil. I don't remember God or Jesus turning the other cheek. Berg was just a sissy. St.Paul said that if one chooses to be give his life to God he shouldn't raise a family. He also said that children are God's gift and should be the parents priority. That's why berg hated him so much, also the sexual doctrines. TF is not Christian, they don't follow the bible(they follow their own twisted version) and I'm positive that each guilty individual and TF's ungodly beliefs need to be exposed. I don't have any cash but would support it. And the sleeper thing, it's cool you mentioned that cause me, my bro and friends have always thought of our lives in TF as similar. I didn't personally experience sexual abuse but did experience the rest to certain degrees. And I see other x-members that did go through worse traumas as needing support from all of us. (reply to this comment) |
| | From banal_commentator
Friday, February 20, 2004, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, what phrases like "Only God will be my Judge" essentially means is that one is above the law or what we call "civilization," and only some metaphysical force is justified in punishing them. Bull shit, We have laws for a reason, even if they are too general and although you have to look at things "case by case" and even though "its all relative." Blah blah. NO, you sin, we slap; you sin, we slap, you sin, we slap. No one is born-again. An internal sense of hell and damnation or fear of the judgement day is not suitable punishment for a filthy child molestor.
Disclaimer: This is not an anti-catholic comment. I have like 5 catholic friends. Hee hee hee hee (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Albatross
Friday, February 20, 2004, 13:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
On the question of being "Anti-Christian": The Family has made "Christianity" the nominal linch-pin of their culture,policy, dogmas, doctrines, and life styles. I find much to fault in all of those. I find fault because they have been parts of an abusive system which violated countless human rights. If they put forth "Christianity" as the touchstone for all they do, it should surprise noone that Christianity, or at least their brand of it, is targeted as being a contributing factor in a host of abusive behaviors. It bears pointing out that the original support for the abusive behavior was religious and doctrinal in nature. And now, the rock that the abusers hide behind is their "Faith" and their rights as adherents of that faith. The danger of allowing those who strongly wave the banner of religion (any religion) a free pass on questions of human rights and adherance to legal norms, is that in respecting the believers, we disrespect and disregard the rights of those who suffer at their hands.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from banal_commentator
Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 08:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are they still in the cult???
(reply to this comment)
| from anovagrrl
Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
She's smiling because she now runs a "secret" club for Jeezus' End-time Toddlers called Praise Land. Here's her promo for the little kids of SGAs who think Auntie Sara and Uncle Alf are great babysitters:
"Hey sweetie, you know how good it feels when Auntie Sara takes you to Praise Land? That's a secret place where only YOU can go with Auntie Sara because Jeezus picked you as His special boy. If you were to tell ANYONE about Praise Land, the Anti-christ will kill your mommy and daddy and take you away forever."
"If you even tell mommy and daddy about Praise Land, they could die and go away forever and you would never see them again. That's just how special Praise Land is for little boys who are growing up to be great big men and superheros in God's Endtime Army. Mmmmm...isn't that chocolate yummy? There's lots of chocolate and icecream for little boys who know how to keep Praise Land a secret."
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from someone
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 18:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I remember her alright...from back in Brazil. At complete nympho, who wore tiny, skimpy sarongs. Also, not to disparage her daughter...but I heard that she ended up stripping and such. Goes to show what kind of mother she was (is).
(reply to this comment)
| from Nick
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gezuz, you all have no lives at all do you.
I know where she lives and have been to her house a few times in the past. My X uses them as a baby sitter for my son.
The thing is that even if I did give you all the address, and I wouldn't, you wouldn't do a damn thing about it. Your all talk and hot air.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From Spat
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 19:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nick,
I have nothing but good things to say about you, I find you to be a down to earth person who is not fast to accuse but reaches sound and convincing conclusions once you are presented with the facts.
I have in the past argued the case that the family is no longer a dangerous place for children, and that I feel my brothers that are still in the group face no current eminent danger. I still feel this to be the case so I do not encourage or back legal action to try and destroy the family as a group or a religious belief, I believe they have a right to freedom of religion as long as its practiced within the boundaries of the law. I furthermore feel the family to be doing a great job in many places with their humanitarian aid programs.
This being said I still considered that individuals that were abusive should be punished for their deeds. I do not believe that apologizing in the letters is enough. I personally never suffered abuse from Sara Davidito, I never even meet the woman. But I do remember reading the Davidito book, I remember seeing a picture of Sara engaging in oral sex with a 2 year old, I also recount her vivid personal “testimonies” of her sexual exploits with kids. Most importantly I can recall the effects this writings had on my life, I remember getting blow jobs from adult women at the age of 4, I remember having “sharing nights” I remember little girls dancing naked on films of “love”.
I feel that this woman is directly responsible for some of that, I believe she has not paid for her deeds I believe saying “sorry” is not good enough.
Perhaps it’s not my place to bring her to Justice since I never even meet the woman, I however do feel I did pay a price for her “ideas”.
All I can ask of you is that you consider the evidence and take into account what you lived thru, and ask yourself if your kid had been Davidito in that picture what would you do? Do you not consider this woman to be a criminal? Is she not responsible for the damaged lives of 100’s maybe 1000’s of innocent kids?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From God of Grammar and Usage
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 08:42
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Spat,
I have provided two choices for you below. Please pick one.
em·i·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.
- Towering or standing out above others; prominent: an eminent peak.
- Of high rank, station, or quality; noteworthy: eminent members of the community.
- Outstanding, as in character or performance; distinguished: an eminent historian.
im·mi·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.
About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Spat
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 21:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have no problem with getting head; I love women and I love sex, sex between consenting people of legal age is great.
I do have a problem with a kid having sex with adults and not knowing any better thinking that that's the norm. You cannot believe the anger I felt for not knowing any better, for thinking that it was "showing God's love". For being taught to deny it, to outright lie, to be a “deceiver yet true”, to hold it inside because "the System cannot accept the freedom God has granted us"
No I did not feel ashamed, No I did not cry at night and cuddle in my bed, But I hold nothing but anger and contempt for the people that exposed me to that at the age of 4 in the name of "love", having learned that that is not a normal childhood and that in fact mine was tainted. You cannot imagine the moral dilemma I faced in learning that what I was taught to think of as "beautiful and natural" was in fact a crime and harmful for children.
I feel many of my issues and sexual traumas might subconsciously have to do with it, so I take offense of you poking fun at my recount this is something I lived thru this is something that did happen.
If you feel having sex with kids at the age of 4 is correct, and something to laugh about. You do not belong in this forum. Furthermore I hold no respect for you as a person.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 09:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please can we stop this? It's completely inappropriate and extremely hurtful to joke or disparage someone's grammar regarding such a topic. You have the absolute right to your own opinion regarding your own experiences, but how can anyone determine what is the "least damaging" abuse to anyone else? Are we really this desentitized that we've lost all empathy or respect for anything other than our own perspectives? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, I did apologize for joking about Spat’s experiences, but surely you realize that everybody comes to conclusions based on their own experiences. I’m sure your opinion of TF is based largely on your own experiences. From what I gather, you have no empathy or respect for first-generation adults who joined the cult or current cult members. This is based on your own perspective. I have to admit that I share this perspective, but I don’t understand why it’s necessary to have selective empathy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 12:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
It’s not necessary to have empathy at all, but I think we have a very immature and callous outlook on life if we don’t. Isn’t that one of the definitions of a sociopath? The inability to feel empathy?
Not that I am always the most empathic person myself, but as a matter of fact my personal views on accountability for abusers are black and white, my personal opinions on the first generation and current members are not that simplistic. I have a number of close friends who are first generation former members. I can imagine something of what it must have been like to be a woman in your twenties, with 6 children, being forced to have sex with any man who wanted you, with no access to medical care or birth control, being sent out to support your family and home through prostitution.
Even someone like Sarah, who’s abuse was perhaps the most documented, was also the person who wrote “A Liberty or Stumbling Block”. This was the only publication that ever acknowledged the extent of the sexual abuse in the Family and how damaging it was to the girls and boys .
“. It was very heart‑breaking to see from especially the teen girls' own testimonies that overall, sex has not been a good edifying experience for them as children or young teens, & has left most of them stumbled & fearful & overall very regretful of almost every experience they've had with adults, but not with young people, not with their peers! Not only girls, but even some of the young male teens too have had all sorts of encounters with adult men.‑‑Some System & some not! This may shock some parents & adults to hear what your children have experienced, & especially that it appears that some of you are guilty in this matter, & not the "teachers" & samples & lovers you may consider yourselves to be.)”
While I don’t believe that FGs are all monsters, I do believe that no matter what the circumstances, we are accountable for our own actions as adults and must take responsibility for them. Almost none of them have, which is why I harp on it so much.
Normally I don’t like to bring up Berg in a discussion, but the idea that it was not harmful for little boys to be stimulated by adult women came directly from him.
“40. EVEN THAT POOR LITTLE MEXICAN BABYSITTER MY MOTHER SLAPPED OUT OF THE HOUSE WHEN I WAS THREE FOR PUTTING ME TO SLEEP BY FONDLING MY PENIS, I even felt that was unjust and unfair! I don't think I ever forgave my mother for that, really. I thought that was very very mean and unfair when the poor little girl was only trying to put me to sleep!--Besides, I liked it!
41. I LIKED IT WHEN SHE PETTED AND SUCKED MY PENIS TO PUT ME TO SLEEP--AT THREE YEARS OF AGE! Well, why shouldn't I?--I still like it! “ -- Real Mothers
He later referred to this incident again:
“6. LOOK AT ME, I DON'T THINK IT DID ME ANY HARM! Of course if you'd ask any of my enemies, they'd say, 'Ahah, see! That's what made him such a sex maniac!'” -- My Childhood Sex
I think the vast difference between his opinion of how little it affected him and the reality of how much it did speaks for itself. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 19:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, there are 10,000 possible reasons why Berg became a pedophile and sex maniac. The fact that he liked being fondled as a kid could have something to do with it, but it could also have nothing to do with it. I’m sure you realize that the most obvious answer is not always the correct one.
My point about empathy is: almost everybody in this world thinks they have been wronged in some way. We choose to sympathize with those whose negative experiences are more or less similar to our own, or whose negative experiences we can easily relate to.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 21:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can you give me 10 alternate theories out of the 10,000?
It's always been interesting for me (sometimes perhaps morbidly so) to try to understand the why and personally this was my conclusion long before I left the group. Based on Berg's own writings he was sociopathically unempathic. Everything he wrote and dictated to the Family was ALWAYS in direct relation to himself and his own experiences. He completely lacked the ability to understand or accept anything he himself had not experienced.
FFing came about because of his own experiences with prostitutes on the road for Fred Jordan while away from his wife. The "Law of Love" and sexual sharing was because he had the hots for the young girls who were friends of his children. He pulled out the whole "beat them with the rod" thing every time there were problems with teenagers, because that's what his father did to him. He saw the opera Salome with the Dance of the Seven Veils (if you haven't seen it, the woman ends up naked on stage) when he was a boy and that's where the obsession with those freaky veil dances came from. Families with children should travel around because that's what he did as a child. Parents should "forsake" their children because his mother did to him (remember "Please Stay Mommy"?) Anyway, the list goes on.
I can't find it quickly and to read the whole book is much too depressing, but I do recall (I hate that I can still remember all this stuff) that in the Davidito Book, Berg told Sara that he wanted this little boy to have "all the love and sex I never did as a child", which is why he personally instructed her to engage in sexual interaction with the children in her care. He believed that his own experiences with adult women were positive and wanted to implement the same with all the other children in the Family, and in particular his own. This is precisely (IMO) what makes the whole thing so messed up. It's the NAMBLA philosophy of "if you love them then it's not wrong", which is what the majority of perps in the Family and even many victims still think now.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, February 20, 2004, 06:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Any hypothesis that would account for Berg’s deviancy would have to take into account his obsession for incest, which apparently was just as strong has his pedophilic instincts. Since Berg’s mother was an object of his depraved fantasies, Freudian psychologists would probably say that his development was retarded in the genital-locomotor stage of early childhood, so he was never able to outgrow his “Oedipal” tendencies (attraction to the opposite sex parent). Freud’s adherents probably would cite his early sexual experiences, as well as the absence of sufficient attention from his father. So, you have chosen the most likely explanation, from the viewpoint of orthodox psychology.
There is much evidence, however, that while Freud’s ideas were helpful, orthodox Freudian psychology puts individuals into a box, and generates conclusions which are not necessarily true. Freud’s whole “Oedipus complex” theory has even been called into question, by individuals who argue that child abuse may actually have been much more rampant in his day than he was willing to accept, so the supposed “fantasies” related by his patients may have in fact been recollections of real events.
I could easily copy and paste 10 varying theories of human deviancy, and come up with 10,000 possible reasons why he was a deviant (e.g. maybe his pacifier was too oval) but that would just be a waste of our time. Suffice it to say that, while many of them have merit, none of them have been proven to be absolutely true – if they had, we would be able to predict exactly who will be a deviant / abuser.
My favorite hypothesis for Berg’s abusiveness goes something like this: He was an asocial dork as a child and teenager. His efforts to communicate with women were frustrated, and he was frequently picked on by bullies. He was also under extreme pressure to conform to ultra conservative Christianity, and was punished for ordinary teenage sexual activity. These pressures built up, and when he was finally able to release them, a torrent of deviancy resulted: sexual abuse of his daughters, demands for absolute veneration, and you know the rest.
I agree that almost all of Berg’s writings were based on his own experiences. But aren’t everybody’s? If George Bush was gay, do you think he would be advocating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? That’s why it’s so dangerous to give any human absolute power in any sphere of influence. At least Bush is counterbalanced by the rest of the US government, and the American people. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Wolf
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 19:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, there are 10,000 possible reasons why Berg became a pedophile and sex maniac. The fact that he liked being fondled as a kid could have something to do with it, but it could also have nothing to do with it.
My point about empathy is: almost everybody in this world thinks they have been wronged in some way. We choose to sympathize with those whose negative experiences are more or less similar to our own, or whose negative experiences we can easily relate to. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Friday, February 20, 2004, 18:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Until reading the above thread I gathered from your previous comments that you were an intelligent guy who happens to have a softer view of TF than the most of us who weren't lucky enough to escape as unscathed as you. I have to say, though, that I'm shocked at the lengths you've gone to in order to reinforce and justify your inappropriate and insensitive comments. The things you've said on this thread are disturbing and disgusting!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, February 20, 2004, 23:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don’t feel like responding to this, but since your underlying gist is “you think adult / child sex is OK in some form, therefore you’re disgusting”, I have to respond.
Let me repeat what I said above: I think any form of adult / child sexual contact is wrong and should remain illegal. Adults simply have no right to take advantage of children. And my comment to Spat was an insensitive joke.
Why did I bother expounding on Jules’ reply to my comment? Because if Berg was “predisposed” to becoming a pervert by his childhood experiences, many of the rest of us would be as well. I simply don’t think that’s true. My own experiences as a child have not instilled any kind of inordinate desires in me.
At the same time, I don’t think it would be fair on my part to compare my experiences with the abuse young girls in TF have suffered. The thought of adult men touching small girls in any way is so disgusting it makes me want to puke, and though I will always be ashamed of the times adult women had sexual contact with me, I don’t think they had any permanent negative effect on my life, and comparing it to the horrible scars left by adult men on young girls would be trivializing the girl’s experiences. Even those who were just spanked harshly had it much worse than me.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 09:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excellent point Wolf! While our past experiences and background will always have an effect on our future there is also the (IMO even more important) factor of CHOICE! We each have the choice of how to react to our experiences, and this is where I consider many psychological theories to be flawed - in that they are based on what can actually be measured and recorded, thus missing out on very important aspects such as one's character, and ultimately the choices that they made.
While I agree that one's character and choices can - and often are - influenced by their experiences the important thing is that they are not DICTATED by them. As someone mentioned from the example of the movie Sleepers, the boys in this story each took very different paths - despite having shared similar experiences. The blame for the negative lives led by some is no more exclusively borne by those expreiences than the success of the others is due to them.
Although the experiences were similarly negative, the fact that each one chose a very different life, proves that they WERE stronger than their experiences, and thus their decisions were the most significant factor in their development - and not their experiences.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 16:51
 (Agree/Disagree?)
And yet, what a person may later achieve in their life or not achieve or how they deal with the pain has no bearing and is completely irrelevant to the unlawfulness of the acts committed against them. Yes, a victim has choice, but what they choose to do with their pain does not excuse the perpetrator. Whether someone recovers or not or ends up dead at their own hand or sees to it that the perpetrator is brought to justice is NOT THE POINT. The focus is on the act of the perpetrator. The wrongfulness of that act or harm is not changed by the reaction of the victim. Forgiveness, bitterness and acceptance are not legal terms, much less affirmative defenses and are irrelevant to the elements of crimes against children.
In fact, it is the other way around. Often, vigilante justice has been excused through jury nullification of the law when the accused has been the parent of a child who has been molested or abused or when the accused is the molested or abused child himself. What people need to understand in order to combat the fallacy of the bitterness defense that the Family loves to throw at its child victims is that the two, the act and the victims’ reaction, are not linked and are irrelevant in analysis of the other.
Yes, I am stronger than the Family abusers who both molested and beat me, but that doesn’t make them any less culpable than if I had never recovered and taken my own life. There are those that have taken their own life as a result of the hell heaped upon them by the Family. Does that make the beatings or the sexual abuse any worse than what happened to me or others here who are still alive and survived? Hell no!
It all comes down to this: the crime and the victims’ reaction is not linked and has no bearing on one another. It’s time we stopped buying the excuses and propaganda of our abusers, STOP FOCUSING ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE VICTIMS, finally denounced the oppression and coercion of our childhoods’ and learned that sexual abuse is sexual abuse, not “love,” and child abuse and exploitation is child abuse and exploitation, not “godly punishment for rebellion,” and medical and physical neglect is medical and physical neglect, not “prayer and exorcism.”
Further, whether someone reforms and pays their debt to society for their crimes will never erase what they did. It will forever live in history. The affect of what they did will always be a part of the lives of their victims, regardless of how hard that person works or what they do with the future. Having achieved success or having accepted the abuse which was inflicted on us or even having “moved on” will never change what happened to us. It can never be erased. Sara could apologize publicly for the harm she did to children and serve time in jail, but it will never undo the molestation she committed. A reformed pedophile is still a pedophile. A reformed murderer is still a murderer. That is why they don’t let murderers off death row or commute their sentences just because they claim to have “found Jesus.”
These are concepts which society at large accepts and understands. Due to our early indoctrination, many of us are still grappling with them. If we’d grown up being taught by everyone around us that murder was acceptable according to the Bible, “an eye for an eye,” etc., then many of us might still believe that its justified or that someone “deserved it” or “asked for it” or the perpetrator was absolved because the victim never forgave them just as many of us think similarly about sexual and physical abuse right now. The absurdity of that belief which is propagated by the Family time after time is much more evident when we replace the crime of rape and child abuse with murder. Think about it. Someone said here just a few days ago that oral sexual molestation was not as bad as other types. Are you kidding?! Replace sexual molestation in that statement with murder. Then along the same line of thinking one type of murder is worse than others? It’s all a crime. It’s all unlawful. The victim is still a victim, and the perpetrator still a perpetrator.
Further, is an unpunished murderer any less dangerous than one who has been apprehended, prosecuted and served his time? Or is the crime any less egregious because the perpetrator was never punished? If anything, I would argue that an unpunished criminal is more dangerous because they got away with it once and according to human nature may feel that they would again.
Again, this is not rocket science. There are not a lot of grey areas. A child molester is a child molester whether they molested every child they ever cared for or just one of them. A child abuser is still a child abuser regardless of whether they abused one child, five children or a hundred children and regardless of whether they did it ten years ago, two years ago or last week. There is no statute of limitations for such crimes. Notice that Michael Skakel was convicted of murdering Martha Moxely 25 YEARS after she was killed, and he is serving time today for what he was accused of doing when he was 15 years old.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 05:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, in the past you’ve accused me of being vague. I don’t really care what you think of me, but I’m making an important point here, so I’m going to be as clear as possible.
Read the following account of my experiences and decide what you think. Names and location are left out to protect the victims.
When I was 10-11 I lived in a large commune where there was substantial adult / child sexual activity. There were at least two adult men who had regular sexual contact with minors. One 12 year old girl related to me that she was freaked out when one of these men asked her to sleep with him. Another 13 year old was also scared that these or other adult men would ask her to sleep with them. There were also young teenage girls 13-18 years old who initiated sexual activity with these men. There was one adult woman in the commune who sometimes fondled the young boys. I don’t recall any of them (us) objecting or expressing discomfort about it at the time. One boy about my age liked sex with adults and initiated sexual contact with both this woman and two other women. Since the two other women never initiated sexual contact with any of the other boys, I assume they had no personal interest in young boys but felt they couldn’t refused the boy who asked for it.
Five of the individuals I described above committed criminal acts. Say, in a hypothetical situation, I was living in the same country as all five of these individuals and able to press charges against any of them. If you were in my place in this hypothetical situation, would you press charges against all five of them? Do you consider all five of these individuals to be equally dangerous, and do you consider their crimes equally severe? Recall your comment “There are not a lot of grey areas. A child molester is a child molester whether they molested every child they ever cared for or just one of them.” (reply to this comment) |
| | From itsxena2u
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 17:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know what you mean. There have been several young girls in TF who flirted with older men. It was their way of getting the attention they needed. Sometimes it was because they did not have boys around who were their same age or because they lacked a father figure to help them in this crutial time in their lives. The teenage years are especially dificult for women. It is a time when they are going from children to womanwood. She is still getting accustomed to the changes in her body, the great increase in hormones as well as trying to cope with the hormonal imbalances that accur during her menstrual cycle. It is also a time when she is confused emotionally and needs the support of a father or a father figure.
Unfortunately the men interpreted this the wrong way. Whether sex with a minor is consentual or not it is still a crime!! I don't care if a 13 yr old girl is flirtatious and even asks the man to have sex with her. It is ultimately the man (or the adult in this case) to refuse knowing that it is wrong. The problem is, deep down these adults knew it was wrong but because the letters promoted sex with minors, it then made it easier to succum to it because after all "if the Word says it's alright then it is, regardless of what the system's laws are". Another factor is that in most 3rd world countries sex with minors is not a big issue. Many 13 and 14 yr old girls marry 40 yr old men and bear their children. There are no laws prohibiting sex with children. That is why many pedophiles and child molesters go to south american/asian countries so they can have all the sex they want with boys and girls and not get caught. Fortunately a lot of countries are starting to toughen up in this area. But it has not always been this way.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 17:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Also, as a girl growing up in the Family, there were constant, and I mean constant, references to sex. Coloring books, flannelgraphs, nap times. All of it intensely sexual and all of it centered around grooming children into sexual partners. As a young girl of three, seven, eleven and thirteen, acting sexual and responding to sexuality was very commonplace in the Family. And even expected.Therefore, for a thirteen year old girl to flirt, ask an adult man for sex, etc, cannot be seen in the same light as a girl who performs the same behavior yet grew up in a different lifestyle. The mind set does not belong to the girl, but the environment and so you cannot analyse the behavior based on the individual but the group.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 23:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
There’s a pretty big difference between flirting with someone and asking them to sleep with you…but I understand your point. As I see it the difference is this: most women did it because they felt they had to. The men actually wanted it. That said, if the boy decides to take the woman to court when he grows up, he has every right to even if he did ask for it.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 09:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I vaguely recall calling you vague! =)
I don't know, Wolf. I think some basic knowledge of the criminal law in the US might help you. In the US, and many other countries, a minor has no capacity to consent. So, statutory rape is a strict liability crime meaning the mind set of the parties is irrelevant. So, it doesn't make any difference who initiated it or if the child consented. A child has no legally recognized capacity to consent, which is due to the law acknowledgment of the vulnerability of a child and their relatively easy nature to coerce. Does this make sense? If an adult took part in a sexual incident with a child it is a crime. Yet, in your little scenario you were not the victim as I read. Rather, you heard about it. That is hearsay, so going to the authorities would have been pointless. I do not speak of hearsay when I speak of abuse in the Family. I only speak of what I experienced and what I witnessed. That is very different and again not very grey at all. Either you know first hand what you are talking about or you do not. But, all this is not really on point to my comment concerning the indoctrination of the cult in our thinking.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 10:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is frustrating…I know all five adults committed criminal acts; I said so in my post! I asked if you think all five crimes were as severe (see my post below), and if you would consider it worth your time to press charges against all five, if you personally witnessed the events in question, as I did.
I would only get involved in legal action against the two men in the story.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 10:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I, honestly, don't have time to get into a hypothetical discussion with you. You'll argue with anyone and anything on the most absurd points here. I won't be drawn into rating the severity of abuse with you. It's stupid and pointless, especially when its abuse neither of us experienced. You'll have to find someone else to argue with you today. I sure as hell am not going to categorize what sexual abuse was worse! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 12:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for being supportive, Ne Oublie, but I do see the relevance in Nancy’s post. It’s the same argument she’s always used, the equivalent of “a thief is a thief; it doesn’t matter if he’s stolen a loaf of bread or two million dollars in diamonds”. For the life of me I can’t understand the merit of looking at things in such a black-and-white way, but I do see how it relates to your post.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 13:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reason why her comment was irrelevant is because I was not discussing the legality of what Berg's Mexican nanny did to him - rather I was commenting that however it may or may not have affected him remained his own decision. In the same way that it would be for any of us, or (returning to the example I borrowed) the individuals in the movie Sleepers.
The fact that one of the boys grew up to be a lawyer didn't exonerate the priest's actions, any more than the two growing up to be criminals incriminated him.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 12:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's your opinion. What I wrote is very relevant to the stuff you were spewing. The fact you can't see it is evidence that you're still affected by the indoctrination I was describing. Whereas, Wolf's "let's hypothetically rate which abuse is worse" is more than a waste of time. It's offensive to the people who might have suffered the abuse he doesn't think worthy of prosecution. The two of you, unless you experienced the abuse you so lightly toss around in your comments, really have no credibility to comment.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 13:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thankfully, I am confident in my ability to form my own opinions that I don't seek your - or anyone elses' - approval. Nor do I care how similar my opinions may be to those held by another individual, or group of individuals. My sense of identity is drawn from myself, and not from others' perceptions of me.
Incidentally, in my experience I have found that it is those who are insecure in themselves (whether consciously or not) who feel it necessary to lash out at anyone who holds opinions other than their own, or indeed to constantly remind others of their achievements or qualifications.
I imagine that your response to this post will be to either attack my credibility - likely by accusing me of still being 'indoctrinated', or else a repeat of your "I'm too busy for this triviality". However, as I said already, it's seriously no concern to me what you may think of me or my opinion. So long as this is a public forum, I believe I hold as much right to post my opinion as you have to post yours. I don't expect to change your opinion, just as you aren't going to change mine - but the debate is fun!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Wolf
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 23:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, I agree with most of what you said here, but you are well aware that even a murderer will receive varying degrees of punishment, depending on the circumstances of his crime. Further, while sexual abuse may have even worse effects than murder sometimes, it is different in that the victim lives through the ordeal (if the victim doesn’t live the perpetrator is a sex abuser and murderer). The perpetrator will be sentenced according to the severity of his crime, and according to the effect his crime had on the victim. Do you think the police would be justified in putting more priority on finding a serial killer who is still killing than a murderer who committed his crime 10 years ago and is not known to have committed any crimes since?
Perhaps you think we have no business discussing severity of crimes on this site. If so, I disagree, especially if some kind of collective action is in the works. Individuals have a right to take action against anybody who committed a crime against them, regardless of how it affected them. However, any collective action should be prioritized, and that requires coming to a consensus about the degree of individual guilt. Of course, action can also be taken against the whole group, but even that will require singling individuals out for their crimes.
BTW, my comments in this thread are not in reference to Sarah D. If her crimes are judged by severity, she will be in big trouble, because the effects were so far-reaching.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From exister
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 13:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
It sounds to me like you are trying to cut Sara D some slack, which basically hints at all of the subtle ways in which the cult still runs your life. As far as I am concerned those of you who are chummy with current members are all inherently suspect. The tentacles of guilt and thought control run deep and die hard. Free yourself from them and you will see that there is no quarter for these criminals.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Friday, February 20, 2004, 10:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Exister, I respect your opinion and I by no means think that an abuser should get away with her crimes. There are so many crimes committed by the Family against us they are with out number. However, I am still in contact with people who are in the Family people who without thought for themselves came between me and my abusers and who in turn suffered for their actions. I respect these people and would do anything for them and I will fight on their behalf in an instant. It is wrong to lump everyone together, to blame innocents for the crimes of the guilty. That being said, I am equally happy to oppose those whose actions made my life hell. I have no problem exposing them for what they are. Criminals, who have been carrying out their evil deeds behind the cloak of "God's will". They should be made to suffer as we have suffered.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Mydestinyismine
Friday, February 20, 2004, 21:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wrote, "There are rabid, angry exers on this site who in a previous life were active accomplices of those who gave me hell."
Who you refering to here? Children that told on you and are now adults? How can you count that against them? I'm sure you did things as a kid just to have an advantage.
You also wrote, "I don't think that those who left after me are necessarily evil, just a little dumber, weaker and slower than me that's all."
And like Jules said, you're dumber, weaker and slower than those who left before you. I left 8 years ago in Japan and didn't go to school because I didn't know I could. Those of you who left in the US or had relatives or friends to help you are lucky. All I had was working at night or teaching English. So I may not be as intellectual or articulate as you, and this is a reason I refrain from writing at times, but I'm not dumber, weaker or slower. In a way I see myself as stronger then you because I can have friends in TF and not let it effect my opinion or stance. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Mydestinyismine
Friday, February 20, 2004, 21:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wrote, "There are rabid, angry exers on this site who in a previous life were active accomplices of those who gave me hell."
Who you refering to here? Children that told on you and are now adults? How can you count that against them? I'm sure you did things as a kid just to have an advantage.
You also wrote, "I don't think that those who left after me are necessarily evil, just a little dumber, weaker and slower than me that's all."
And like Jules said, you're dumber, weaker and slower than those who left before you. I left 8 years ago in Japan and didn't go to school because I didn't know I could. Those of you who left in the US or had relatives or friends to help you are lucky. All I had was working at night or teaching English. So I may not be as intellectual or articulate as you, and this is a reason I refrain from writing at times, but I'm not dumber, weaker or slower. In a way I see myself as stronger then you because I can have friends in TF and not let it effect my opinion or stance. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, February 20, 2004, 11:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Exister, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. What gives you the right to determine who is a "true exmember" or what beliefs the rest of us should have? What about the people who left long before you? Are you "dumber, weaker and slower" than them? To all of us who left the Family, whenever it was, GOOD FOR US! It's never too late to start to rebuild your life and CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF what you believe, not what you or anyone else tells us is what we should think and do. I personally find nothing more annoying than this sort of personal attack and blanket categorization. If you disagree with someone, why not explain your views, rather than calling them "dumber and slower"? That's a really lame argument in my opinion. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Friday, February 20, 2004, 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
It wasn't an argument actually. Do you think I am silly enough to actually argue such a weak point? I would semantically categorize it as an outrageaous jibe at the assholes that contributed to my childhood misery. It was loads of fun to write too. I laughed gleefully as I typed it out. So maybe I have finally gotten the last laugh. Ah, now that feels good, maybe even therapeutic. Thanks, movingon.org (smiles and gives two thumbs up).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Friday, February 20, 2004, 10:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Agreed, Andy, but there are also those who couldn't leave until after us because of their age. We have to make an exception for them. I even think Daniel left after we did because I think he's a year or so younger. There's also an exception for those who stay in contact with current cult members just for the purpose of helping younger siblings. Just a clarification, I think you'll agree with. Otherwise, carry on.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 15:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right Andy!!! I totally agree! There is NO middle ground when it comes to pedophiles. People who currently choose to leave their children with a self-proclaimed pedophiles and an accused child abusers are criminally negligent in my book. It's insanity, plain and simple. I don't have to have ANY empathy for child abusing cult members! I despise them and think they should be behind bars where they cannot harm anyone else and where they will finally get what they deserve. End of story! It could not be more god damn black and white! But, I don't think Jules is the one here advocating the stupidity that we should empathize with this pedophile witch. I think it's the usual suspects with little else to do with their lives.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 14:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh Exister, how can I truly be free? Please help me cut the tentacles. :D
Most of the time the things I have read from you I agree with and even if not, it's usually interesting to read things from such an intelligent viewpoint. I have made my position on child abusers and the responsibility of the individual abundantly clear so I'm not going to repeat it. It is a fact though that in a group like the Family, where abuse was part of the dogma, situations were frequently more complex than your average pedophile. Wasn't Sara a cheerleader for the Dallas Cowboys? How did she go from that to sexually abusing a toddler? Personally, I don't really care. I would not ever leave my child in her care, and she should be prosecuted for what she has done. However I would rather leave the simplistic worldview and the fanaticism to the Family.
The thing is that, IMO, off handed remarks, accusations without evidence or knowledge and blanket categorization undermine the credibility of all of us speaking out. This web site has had a substantial impact on the group and young people still in because what most people write here is factual, specific and accurate. Inflammatory rhetoric, on the other hand, doesn't really say anything. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 12:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Isn't this the same old argument others have used, as well? "I didn't see the abuse, so therefore, it didn't happen." This makes perfect sense! Since we are each omnipresent, then we certainly would have seen the abuse much of which happened when we were children and often happened in foreign countries in homes which were in "secret" locations. The cult the Family is such an open and honest one, as well, that they certainly would have told us and published something on each and every event. Ricky, the boy who this book was written about, certainly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about this woman who "cared" for him for more than ten years! Besides, your ex who probably spent many an hour with this woman certainly knows her history. She would have admitted it if she had actually molested or abused any children in the past, anyway.
Nick, it is your son, but I would NEVER allow my child to be in the presence, much less alone with an individual who has openly admitted in writing that she molested a child. Where I live that is criminally negligent, and I could be charged if my son were harmed and I knew of the individual's prior history.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Mydestinyismine
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 01:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
No offense, but, what are you refering too? I'm just curious why you wrote what you did when nothing has been brought up about any of what you wrote. Except, "Nick you are absolutely a wonderful father." That was the only thing people questioned because he lets that known child abuser babysit his kid. But, I think once he explains his side better those who doubt his father qualities will no longer. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Mir
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 12:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sweetheart, wake up and smell the coffee!!! For God's sake, don't leave your kid with those creeps! What you "think" doesn't happen and what ACTUALLY happens can sometimes be two very different things, as my parents found out TOO LATE. I wouldn't risk it for one minute... It only takes one freaky incident to screw up your kid for life(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Mydestinyismine
Friday, February 20, 2004, 23:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think what she was saying is that if you don't know Nick personally that you can't judge his character. She wasn't refering to people like Bin laden, berg, bush, etc... whose careers and actions are well documented and known world wide. I personally don't agree with his decision on babysitters, actually I'd say horrible decision, but this doesn't mean I think he's a bad father. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 08:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the point is (or should be) that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the degree of credence lent to that opinion will be measured by the quality of the information on which that opinion is based.
In other words, an opinion of someone which is based on a couple of comments on an internet forum is far less credible than one which is based on long-term first-hand interaction with that individual.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 18:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nobody has to know Nick to know leaving your kid with a professed child molestor is not a good idea, at the very least. I don't personally know every person in the cult the Family, but I can certainly judge that anyone who brings their children into that madness with its lack of medical care and education, not to mention its bizarre sexual "prayer" is not putting their children first or even aware of what is best for their children. We're not even talking about some random member, either! We're talking about one of the Family's worst and most notorious child molestors and abusers!!! HELLO?! It's not rocket science! Child molestors: BAD. Child abusers: BAD. Bizarre sex cult: BAD. Sara Davidito, the epitomy of all three: BAD. Exposing children to any of these: BAD. What is so f*ing hard to understand here? "Judging fairly"?! By whose twisted standards? Not legal ones. Not rational adults with children who prefer not to take chances with their children's lives and well-being. Jesus Christ! Why are we even having this conversation?
I'm going to exercise the same perogative that you did earlier and state my given right to speak my mind as many others here have, having first been the one who was unfoundedly attacked and say that in MY OPINION, Heidi, you are just as annoying and bizarre as I remember your parents to be. The apple sure as hell didn't fall that far from the tree in your case. I don't usually dislike many SGAs, but for you I make an acception. And some people might say, "Oh, that's not fair." Well, much worse has been said to me, and I usually ignore it, but now it's my turn. I get the same creepy feeling I used to get around your parents everytime I read your comments. In the real world, people make judgments all the time, especially about weird sex cult members who write about sex with children and who have been known to beat and kick the children in their care. Get a clue! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
That Alf creep just has chomo written all over his face. I know this is terribly unscientific, but after working in a prison for a couple of years you gain an ability to spot the pedophiles by their facial features. They typically look like lost children. I always figured it fit in with the psychological profile of a molester, which is basically someone who never matured emotionally and therefore seeks emotional/sexual gretification from children.
I will be in San Antonio next month, maybe Sara will let me buy her lunch so I can demand that she answer for her crimes. Or maybe she will be nowhere in sight having crawled back into the hole she came from.
(reply to this comment)
| From Nick
Thursday, February 19, 2004, 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
That’s the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard! Never once has there been any scientific link between someone facial features and pedophilia.
You’re as bad as the Arian nation saying that anyone that’s not white and blonde is not pure.
Outlandish and ridiculous comments like that totally undermine whatever little validity your cause had in the first place. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Albatross
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Damn..I'll fix this..but for now if you want to see what she looks like go to the images under Albatross.
(reply to this comment)
| From Nancy
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 11:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's the one I was writing about. Ask Tim to fix the link for you cause there's just something creepy about seeing that witch's face under your photos. Do you need me to get you a nice cleansing spell from New Orleans once you move her picture? Some witch-be-gone spray? Shhh, shhh! "Be gone! You have no power here!"
Can we take a road trip to Houston and hang out at the Wal-mart parking lot in order to run into her selling posters and begging for donations? We could invite one of those news magazine tv shows to confront her. "Ma'am, are you the woman who abused this boy? Aren't you the one who wrote this book? Ma'am, come back! We'll buy one of your posters in exchange for a statement, but it has to be a statement in English, no honda shonda panda babble."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]