|
Andrew Vachss is an attorney turned author who has an established platform in Parade Magazine. He also "represents" children exclusively. One cannot imagine how he represents them inasmuch in every case I have ever heard of, if a child is victimized he is represented by the state. The one harming the child is prosecuted by the state, so one wonders what does Vachss do exactly? Does he sue the perpetrator? |
In most cases, if a child is murdered or abused or tortured it is a "defective" parent. Parents such as this are usually dysfunctional in all areas, including earning money, so what is Vachss suing for? One wonders. |
But as one studies Vachss’ modus operandi it becomes clear that he has an
agenda, not a hidden agenda, he makes no effort to hide it, but an agenda
for all to see:
|
I have never heard of the man until today when I read his article in the may 2 issue of Parade Magazine. But it is clear that he is a crusader for children’s rights. Which is okay, since no one wants to see children hurt. He approaches this very emotional issue with a zeal almost unprecedented. My problems with Vachss is that he is confused, regardless of the fact that he is extremely well-educated and articulate. Like so many well-educated people, he frequently intertwines facts with his own beliefs. |
One of the most common error these crusaders make is to equate sex with children with the murder of children. If a woman murders her own child, Vachss lists this right alongside someone who fondles a child and calls them both "child abuse". |
And anyone who has sex with a child, is a "predator". This nomenclature reflects this attorneys obsession with the bible. His listing of "right and wrong" further declare his obsession with condemning sex which is a direct connection to the bible, and religion. |
It further disqualifies him as any kind of authority on the subject because it becomes clear he is preaching, nothing more, nothing else. |
Another great error these types make is their inability to delineate exactly the difference between children of different ages. The list all crimes against children as just that, a crime against a child. It doesn’t matter if the "child" is 17-years-old, ready to turn 18. To this crusader, a child is a child even if he is married with children - if he is legally a minor. He cites the case of the teenage boy who murdered an eleven-year-old boy. This boy previously had had sex with an older man on numerous occasions, and if memory serves he traveled some distance across country to get with this man. Furthermore, the teenager was an admitted homosexual. Yet Vachss described the meetings and the adolescent as a "victim" of a "predator". The "predator" did not murder the teenager, he did nothing more, ostensibly, than have sex with the kid, yet the teenager went home and lured an eleven-year-old into his bedroom, sodomized him, and murdered him. The "predator" did not teach the boy how to do this, nor that he should do it. The murder was committed because of the confusion in the teenage boy’s own mind. Confusion over his being gay, and overpowered by the religious bull shit fed him by his parents over a lifetime. |
Confusion caused by the Catholic Church.
|
Another article by Vachess proclaims gloom and doom for the human race if women don’t stop murdering their babies and if "predators" don’t stop having sex with children. He says the species is being destroyed because we don’t love our children enough. Furthermore, he says, man is the only species of animal that doesn’t punish nor destroy those who prey on children. This is pure bull shit. |
First of all, women have been murdering their own babies since the beginning of time. Ever since there have been humans, women and men, have murdered their own offspring. Vachss’ error lies in the frequency of this crime. It almost never happens. Not even 1/10th of 1% of women murder their own babies. Then the crime is committed by women who have been driven insane by the church. |
Next, we have seen any number of documentaries on animals that prey on, even eat, the infants of their own species - particularly the apes and higher primates. These rogues are never punished, never banned from the tribe and are not even shunned. Dominant males kill off infant males to preserve their own position as rulers of the tribe. They are never punished. Vahss is full of crap. |
Next, sex with children has been going on also from the beginning of time. So has incest. Man has a built in attraction for members of the tribe younger than himself. In other words, all men are attracted to younger females. Older females are pushed aside, and younger ones take their place. Even as recently as in my own time, men have been attracted to children. In my childhood, men could legally marry a ten-year-old and many of them did. A not to distant cousin of mine married a 56-year-old-man when she was ten. She sufferedd no ill effects. Vachss says this is not a moral issue, but a plea to save the human species. His language proves otherwise. When he employs words that are prejudicial and inflammatory, he belies his religious poisoning. He hates sex with a religious fervor. |
Without taking any stand whatsoever as to the rightness or wrongness of sex with children, the fact remains it has been going on forever, and the human species still survives. Except for the ignorance caused by the church, it has thrived. Vachss never attacks the church. It wouldn’t be profitable for him. |
Instead, he harps on stronger laws and longer sentences for the "predators". Being a lawyer, what else could one expect. It’s money in his pocket. |
Vachss is a highly educated man, but far from being a philosopher. Yet his kind pontificates from shore to shore and his advice and "knowledge" is accepted as gospel. |
He is smart, but he is not wise.
|
One judge even cited one of his articles as a basis for sentencing a man convicted of sodomy with his own daughters to 300 years in prison. One suspects the sentence would have been the same even without the Vachess article. |
I don’t know what sodomy means in the state in which the man was tried, legal terms can be confusing, but even if it means the same there as it does everywhere else the girls were not irreparably harmed. It is a proven fact that sodomy does no harm to anyone. Ten million sound and healthy homosexual throughout the world proves this. Men even sodomize their own wives. That is, they penetrate them anally. Almost all gay persons indulge in reciprocal sodomy and they suffer no harm, on the contrary, they enjoy it. Yet Vachss portrayed these girls as being damaged for life. The Puritans agreed any girl who was "deflowered" was ruined for life. Vachss is the classical Puritan. |
What harmed the girls was not being sodomized but their own attitudes -sick attitude toward sex created by organized religion. |
Sex doesn’t hurt anyone. And something that is not bad for adults, is also not bad for children. A sick attitude toward sex created by organized religion is what does the damage. |
It is generally accepted by experts that the hullabaloo surrounding a sex case involving children, the interviews by cops, the interviews by "social workers" and "counselors", the testifying on the witness stand, in short, the entire legal process, does the child ten times more harm than the sex act itself. I personally have known dozens of adults molested as children and the only ones that displayed any degree of mental problems were the ones who had mental problems to begin with. |
One case that comes to mind was the Caryl Chessman case. He did something horrible to some young girl and the newspapers made a big stink about how the girl was brain damaged and would be for life. Chessman caused it. Later, diligent reporters dug up evidence that proved the girl was retarded, was before she met Chessman, and had been all her life. Like so many sex cases, this case was tried in the newspapers. The media does its fair share of keeping the people ignorant. But we repeat: Sex doesn’t hurt anyone. |