But officer the four year old seduced me!

[Gabriel]

NEW YORK - A Queens day-care worker was arrested Wednesday after being accused of sexually abusing a 4-year-old boy multiple times. Khemwatie Bedessie, 38, allegedly separated the boy from 14 to 16 other children during nap time, then took him into a bathroom where she sexually abused him, Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown said.

"The child, I fear, may never recover from the emotional trauma that was allegedly inflicted upon him," said Brown.

An investigation began in early February after the boy told his mother of three alleged incidents at the Veda's Learning World day-care center in Ozone Park.

The incidents allegedly began in January and ended during the first week of February.

The woman, a teacher's aide, had been working at the day-care center for approximately four years, but the alleged abuse happened recently, in January, according to police.

The woman was arrested after turning herself in at a Queens child abuse center Wednesday morning.

Parents were asked to pick up their children early Wednesday and detectives were on hand to explain the situation.

"I got a call from work, so I rushed back now. I have no idea what's going on here," a parent said.

Calls to the day-care center were not returned.

Parents said the center would be closed Thursday, but according to the District Attorney's office, the licensed facility is not in danger of being shut down.

"There's no reason to believe at the moment that anyone within the management of the day-care center knew what transpired," Brown said.

Bedessie faces charges of first-degree rape, six counts of first-degree sex abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child, which can bring a sentence of 25 years in prison.

[Gabriel]

The woman, a teacher's aide, had been working at the day-care center for approximately four years, but the alleged abuse happened recently, in January, according to police.

This paragraph bothers me. It is implying "Its not so bad. It only started recently."

The point is to say this is an isolated incident. It is isolated behavior, with an isolated individual,... She isn't really so bad. She is a bit off, a bit mentally ill and under lots of stress and needs some R&R with a therapist.

If it were a man, the language would be used to impugn his character, indicating that this is permenant character trait and pervades everything he does.

[gwallan]

But is it my imagination but when a guy is accused of rapes or murders they articles or reports always seem to put an adjective with him, like creep, monster, pervert, etc? But with female accusers, if they put the gender at all, sort of put more of a personal spin on it, like "Mother of 2" and the like? Maybe they'll even go below the belt and put the word "accused" in there.

No, it's NOT your imagination.

[Mr. X]

Actually this isn't just some bias for women as perps. Judge Cashman in Vermont gave a rapist of a six year old he raped for 4 years a 60 day sentence before being overwhelmingly pressured into changing his sentence. That was a little girl and a male offender.

I think it has a lot more to do with our new, "progressive" society. No one is really evil (unless you're a republican or rich). Basically the social bar has been lowered instead of the intellecutally elite rasing their standards. Sex, abortion, drugs, doinking your coffee table... all on demand and all without judgement.

I tell you, forced acceptance of pedophiles is next. If one group can force people to accept them then why not all groups? I mean its all about acceptance isn't it? Its all about forcing everyone into one pot, stiring it up and making a big old batch of grey people cookies.

[slayton]

I think it has a lot more to do with our new, "progressive" society. No one is really evil (unless you're a republican or rich).

That's so true.

[Men's Rights Activist]

I see this has been posted over at Free Republic to get the chivalrous, conservative reaction.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589483/posts

"Here's another story of a female teacher sexually abusing a male student. As in most of the cases, the teacher says it's the students fault. At what age is our society going to consider a woman abusing a boy to be a serious crime, instead of just an enlightening experience? Society seems to have a serious double standard in the way the two sexes are treated when child molestations with the opposite sex occur. Why are women as evidenced by court sentences so much less accountable?
In a previous thread on FR, one poster said, "People such as this should get the death penalty." I wonder, "Does he still feel the same way when the perpetrator is a woman?"

I'm certainly not defending child molesters, and as far as I'm concerned I think we should throw the book at them. I'm just wondering why females are treated so much more lightly by our legal system, and even our discussions here at FR.

I'm a lifelong conservative, but I have to wonder, "Is there a gender bias, a gender hypocrisy at work in our legal system and in conservative circles?"

[Rob]

Mr. X,

You are absolutely right when you say that forced acceptance of pedophiles is on the way.

SCARY AS HELL, ISN'T IT?

But the precedence has essentially been set because of pedophilia's similarities historicaly to homosexuality and by the trail that the gay right's movement has blazed through the legal system.

Hear is my argument:

1 - There was a time when homosexuality was absolutely illegal. You could be charged and convicted for practising homosexuality.

2 - The next step was to acknowledge that legal punishment could not rehabilitate a homosexual.

3 - Since legal rehabilition did not work, step number 3 became to treat homosexuality as a mental illness and the wise people in the psychiatry/psychology professions did all kinds of studies and treatments to treat gays for the "mental illness that was homosexuality".

4 - Psychiatrists and Psychologists failed miserably in treating homosexuality and eventually it had to be acknowledged that homosexuality is not a disease or a psychological disorder, but rather it was acknowledged to be "the way that they are - someone was born homosexual". Therefore, homosexuality could no longer be viewed as pervesion of nature/mankind, but rather homosexuality had to be acknowledged as something that occurs naturally, through no fault of anyone involved. How can you attack nature?

5 - The last step, the gay rights movement emerges and demands full equality with the rest of society. Any discrimination or slurs against homosexuality will no longer be tolerated in the PC world. Homosexuality and the subsequent lifestyle must be embraced legally and ultimately by all society.

---

In the world of pedophelia, we are following along the same path, aren't we?

1 - Pedophelia is illegal and we lock people up for it.

2 - We have acknowledged that imprisonment does not rehabilitate the pedophile. We "know" that after release, a pedophile has an EXTREMELY high chance of re-offending and being imprisoned again. This is why society has created sex offenders lists.

3 - Psychiatrists and Psychologists have done all kinds of studies and treatments with pedophiles trying to figure out a way to "cure" offenders of their psycho-sexual disease.

4 - THE PRESENT - Psychiatrists/Psychologists/the Rehabilitation System are all acknowledging that they have failed miserably in correcting the pedophile's tendencies for this kind of sexual activity. It is starting to become acknowledged that pedophiles are born that way and will remain that way for life... - what should we do with them now?

The Precedent has been Set!

5 - The future...



God help us all!

[The Biscuit Queen]

Typhon, this was not to you, it was to Galt. He is capable of replying to me himself. As I said, I should have PMed it. We all know your POV, and I really am in no mood to hit my head against a brick wall talking to you about it. We both know niether of us agree or is about to change our mind about this. I do not accuse you of bad behaviors, I would appreciate the same.

[ericatruth]

what a sicko - give her 25 years plus. Better yet, give me a pitchfork and tell me where she's at.

[typhonblue]

Mr. X,

You are absolutely right when you say that forced acceptance of pedophiles is on the way.

SCARY AS HELL, ISN'T IT?

But the precedence has essentially been set because of pedophilia's similarities historicaly to homosexuality and by the trail that the gay right's movement has blazed through the legal system.

The difference? Homosexuality has not ever hurt any individual. It was conceptualized as a sin against god, or nature, or something abstract.

In order to legalize pedophila, you would first have to prove that it does not cause the harm to *an individual* that it is said to cause.

For instance, you could follow the same damn argument to rape. Rape is illegal. Rapists maybe mentally ill. Doctors can't reform them. Therefore rape will eventually become legal.

Do you think that's likely to happen? No, because, like pedophilia, rape is percieved to hurt someone in the here and now, concrete. Namely the rape victim or the child.

[typhonblue]

Typhon, this was not to you, it was to Galt. He is capable of replying to me himself. As I said, I should have PMed it. We all know your POV, and I really am in no mood to hit my head against a brick wall talking to you about it. We both know niether of us agree or is about to change our mind about this. I do not accuse you of bad behaviors, I would appreciate the same.

BQ, you repeatedly go into threads that are *not about you* and attack any statement that relates, however remotely, to your life experience and can be somehow twisted to be negative towards you.

I don't see how this behavior does anything but shut down avenues of conversation and force people to think, constantly, "what will BQ think that I'm saying about *her* life when I'm not even refering to it?"

It's like having trip wires all over the board. A subtle, and very feminine, intimidation tactic.

If you have these sensitive issues about your life, don't throw them out into the public sphere. Galt never needed to know if you were a homemaker, and he certainly doesn't need to tip-toe around your choice as a homemaker, so as not to offend you, now that he knows you are one.

[Rob]

Typhon,

I know your argument, and of course its the same argument that everyone will use. In it's simplistic form, we know this is the correct argument. However, the law is not simple.

BUT, let me ask you this... Is it right to imprison someone because of the way they were born?

IF (or should I say when), the psychology community begins to talk about pedophelia as a valid form of sexual orientation (whether they like it or not, or whether it hurts others or not does not negate it from being considered a valid orientation) - then what happens to the basic human right of not allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Would the gay community suddenly agree to allow discrimination against sexual orientation to protect the children?

Since these people are born this way and have no chance of changing it, should we be psychologically testing all people at the age of puberty and immediately locking up those who we find with a pedophelic orientation?

If we find that legally it is against our basic system of law to lock these people up, then is it justifiable to lobotomize them to protect the children?

If it is said that it is unhelpable for a pedophile to be a pedophile and therefore, to protect the children, we begin to strip him of his basic rights and freedoms - then where does the law start and stop? Will any of us have rights left? Why shouldn't we then assess the most aggressive personalities and take away their right to be married or even to drive a car (prevent road-rage). This is a huge can of worms.

Will Human Rights Lawyers flock to argue this "pro-bono" up to the Supreme Court? Don't they already fight for things like the free speech of Nazi's?

If one pedophile can beat a sexual crime because it is unfair to discriminate against him because of a sexual orientation he can't help - then whats to stop society from being forced to open up the jail cells and let ALL of those convicted with pedophelia go free?

It's quite simple for us to say that it will never happen because..., or to excuse ourselves from asking these difficult questions because... - but trust me, these questions are coming.

And, by the way, there are already groups who are fighting for the rights of pedophiles - it's coming.

(AND - just to make it perfectly clear, I DO NOT SUPPORT PEDOPHILES! I am just pointing out the argument - and it has some valid points. I believe it's only a matter of time before these points get argued in court - and after all we have read on this forum, do you trust the courts?)

50 years ago, EVERYONE in society would have laughed you out of the room if you would have told them that in Canada two men would get married and legally adopt children. Yet, through the Charter of Rights, here we are.

[johnnyp]

The difference? Homosexuality has not ever hurt any individual. It was conceptualized as a sin against god, or nature, or something abstract.

I think the argument is along the lines of concenting adult, not "does not hurt someone".  There is a difference.

A similar argument is being used to legalize drugs.

[typhonblue]

Let's move it to a less charged example.

You could argue that some have an in-born propensity towards kleptomania. Does that mean they should be able to steal whatever they want? After all, if they have no control over what they are, then they are being descriminated on the basis of being genetically different when they are charged with a crime.

Ultimately people do have to be judged by how they affect others. And when they affect the property of others the negative behaviors should be dealt with.

You could argue that children are, in many ways, the protected property of their parents. In other words, parents have a limited set of powers over children. They cannot abuse, kill or sell them, but they can move them and make other life-altering decisions for them. If a person violates a parent's property, then they are liable for that violation. (And I believe in looking at sexuality as a form of property a person has. It takes a lot of the fuzzy emotionality out of the issue and I believe if children percieve it as property, rather then something secretive and shameful, they are more likely to speak up when its taken away. Even if that sounds machivellian, I think translating these personal boundary issues into property issues makes them a lot clearer to children.) So, finally, parents are acting as children's guardians and do not have the right to steal or sell the property of their children, even if the children in question are incapable of entering into contracts in regards to their property.

How does that relate to pedophilia? Children are not legally capable of agreeing to give away their property. Therefore pedophilia is a theft of a child's property.

Finally, pedophilia is almost acceptable in society already. As long as the perpetrator is a female not a male. And the child isn't *too* young. So all legalizing pedophilia will do is to level the playing field between men and women.

I haven't yet heard an argument that I agree with that states female pedophilia is less damaging then male. So why the particular stigma attached to male?

[FP]

Mr. X,

You are absolutely right when you say that forced acceptance of pedophiles is on the way.

SCARY AS HELL, ISN'T IT?

But the precedence has essentially been set because of pedophilia's similarities historicaly to homosexuality and by the trail that the gay right's movement has blazed through the legal system.

Hear is my argument:

:roll:


Surely you're not serious?