Local CBS News Affiliate Considers Teacher Accused of Child Rape “Hot”

25 thoughts on “Local CBS News Affiliate Considers Teacher Accused of Child Rape “Hot””

1. You mean to say that after nearly two decades, you can’t even get Mary Kay LeTourneau’s middle name correct? And yet you’re here bitching about the media getting things right?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Yeah, because a typo is the equivalent of a rape accusation. “after nearly two decades…”? You write that as if I’ve been following her “career” and am STILL having problems with it.

      So, you mean to say that, after nearly 5,000 words, this is the one flaw that you’ve found in the reasoning of this article and the only thing that you’re capable of adding to this discussion – that I accidentally left the “e” on? Or was your intention to reinforce the actual point, which is that people are focusing on the most trivial aspects of this situation, rather than humanizing those affected by it and considering the larger picture?

      Log in to Reply

      1. Wow, Dead C. I stumbled upon this years later, read the entire thing, including the comments, and conclude that you are one of the most reasonable and thoughtful people I have ever had the honor of reading. I would not have had nearly the patience for all of this.

         Log in to Reply

         1. Oh yeah, this whole fiasco.

            Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. It’s a lot to go through.

            I just scanned through the comments briefly to see if I could even remember why I engaged at all or how I could have had any patience for it. Now I do. I was trying to lure someone over here simply to get them off of a young girl’s Facebook page, because he was being incredibly “inappropriate” and aggressive toward her. I forgot all about that part and how it started, but now it makes sense why I would have bothered with such ridiculou’s shit, when I could have just blocked it outright.

            Log in to Reply

2. Wow probably the hottest teacher that was caught yet. Where was this woman when I was in high school. lol

   Log in to Reply

3. Dead C, we agree on 99% of the issue of this case. As a matter of fact, I see only 1 fundamental difference in our thinking; I do not feel it has damaged the boys, and I will tell you why. I was a “victim” myself. I was 17 and she was 23. I will not delve into the specifics of it, and I have still never told anyone her name to avoid any potential backlash on her. I can still picture those times as clearly now as ever, and I will be 40 in a couple of years. It was tense, because I knew she could get in serious trouble over it, but she was kind, gentle, open, and completely tolerant of my sexual immaturity. It was a much more relaxed feeling with her than previous girlfriends. If there was any damage done to me, it was feeling that I would never find another woman like her after we broke things off 2 years later. The fact that she was a teacher, (which was an initial turn-on point for me) took a backseat to how gentle and understanding she was. In fact, were it not for her, I probably would have knocked a girl up before 20 as it was her that impressed on me the importance of birth control. I still today, after 6 years of marriage to a woman that I love more deeply than anything, remember back fondly on that teacher. I am, in fact, still friends with her and talk to her on Facebook, but as far as anyone knows, she was just an old high school teacher. I’m not saying what Meredith Powell did was a smart thing to do, the law is the law, however misguided, but I am saying that anything she may or may not have done is almost certainly not “damaging”.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Hey Brian,

      First of all, I appreciate your willingness to share your story, because it’s a lot more revealing and insightful than the shit that’s been going down on most comment sections elsewhere. At first, when I read your above response in my inbox, I assumed that this was a response that came from over on the Seattle Weekly page to a response that I myself had left to one of your most recent comments there. Apparently, they never approved my post, but I appreciate you reading this article and commenting on/responding to it.

      The fact that you claim that the boys are “almost certainly” not damaged, is definitely where we differ in our opinions. I feel that the one thing that brings credibility to your perspective is also the one thing that may compromise it; your first hand experience. While you have insight into how you specifically experienced a similar situation, as most of us don’t, you may also be basing far too much of your views on that personal experience. What I’ve read from you up until this point has been a complete rejection of the possibility that this is an issue on any level and I feel that’s an extreme angle to take.

      Whether or not you feel that the actions were damaging or the fact that she was caught and punished is where the real issues begin, Powell was still willing to put these kids in a situation which she knew could result in the manner that it has. The students at the school are publicly shaming the victims and blaming them for what’s happening with their beloved “innocent” teacher and they are in a position to feel some level of guilt for her incarceration and loss of position, if nothing esle. Many have accused them of lying and, after she admitted it, her plea of not guilty, still puts them in the position of being accused of false accusations, simply for responding to their police interrogations honestly. You didn’t have to face those repercussions, but they will and are.

      Also, as you describe your scenario, your teacher (if she was, in fact, “your” teacher, rather than just “a” teacher) evolved into a longtime relationship with an nurturing figure that you cared for, so it sounds as if emotions were involved. It’s possible that none of the students involved with Powell realized that she was fucking around with multiple other kids and, if they did feel an attachment to her, they could be emotionally wounded in that regard. The details imply that it was all physical, since it carelessly involved multiple students, which feels like she’s taking (regardless of if she gave one a blow job) from their emotional ability to process things, rather than feeding into and nurturing that maturity. Physical objectification, whether towards them or towards her, is still one of the messages that seems to be being projected in this scenario. There are too many potentialities and factors to simply dismiss this case as “they weren’t affected,” “they enjoyed it, so it’s fine,” and/or “this is ridiculous, Powell did nothing wrong,” without examining this entire scenario further. That’s what the courtroom is for.

      Also, you were 17 and the teacher was 23, which does make for a stronger case, considering that you were only 6 years apart, rather than 9, like these 15 year olds were. You were, statistically, most likely finished with puberty, not right in the middle of it. Also, you had prior sexual experiences, which these boys didn’t necessarily have, so their first “relationships” were quite likely with an older woman, that they were supposed to view as an authority figure, who was passing herself around and expecting them to hold that experience in for, at least, the next 3 years. Their first experience with sexuality might have been one that associated shame and secrecy. I’m not convinced that’s providing a great foundation for emotional maturity, healthy functionality, and understanding in the future.

      I’m not going to accuse you of lying about your situation or what you took away from it, because you seem genuine, but I definitely don’t believe that the possibility that there could be any negative effects on ANY other minors that experience situations such as this, is something that can be completely written off, as you’ve continued to do. To me, that logic seems similar to someone that enjoyed S&M claiming that there’s no way that spousal abuse is real, simply because they personally enjoy being choked. It’s much more likely that you had an experience that, for whatever reason — mostly, the specifics that you mentioned — did not result in any noticeably negative effects, and might have actually been a positive for you, rather than the idea that this behavior of pursuing underage students as an authority figure and educator should be handled with a blind eye, because it’s a non issue, with no potentially damaging repercussions, across the board.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Also, while I feel that the discussion on my site is already starting out as a more productive one than on the Seattle Weekly page, and I realize that I probably shouldn’t risk rupturing that dynamic at this point by stepping backwards, I still would like to address your statements from that comment section which I took issue with, by posting my original response, which the Weekly failed to moderate and approve.

         Under their article, you made the following statements in addressing what you feel the difference would be with a gender reversal:
         “It’s not acceptable then because she would clearly have a problem with it, the boys obviously didn’t.”

         You also spoke of “narrow mindedness” people lost in “fantasy” about dealing with “reality” and implied that I had “no case.” At the end, you encouraged me to take a poll of 2 independent groups consisting of 20 strangers to see how one would respond to a female teacher as the predator in this scenario, while asking the other group how they would feel about the inverse.

         So, here is/was my response to that logic…

         You were missing a huge point and that point is that much of society does
         hold onto a skewed, imbalanced, and archaic views. To try and respond to
         that point by repeating that society has a skewed view, reinforces the
         point that works against that logic, rather than the point that you were attempting to make.

         Consider another challenge, go back to 1860 and ask people about their views on
         slavery and if they believe that black people have human souls or
         deserve equal treatment. You can even look at the history of womens
         rights. Some people speak out when injustices are happening, regardless
         of popular opinion, especially when popular opinion breeds those
         injustices. Sometimes laws that are made, are made to readjust society,
         not to reflect it, because plenty of people continued to harass and
         even physically assault African Americans and women, regardless of the
         law, because they didn’t agree with these readjustments and how it
         affected their own agendas. People are still adjusting to these
         concepts, or refusing to. The outrage that people are having to this
         situation is coming from the lack of outrage in this situation, and the
         justification of it. That’s the whole point. Humans will exploit each
         other to their own benefit and will continue to do so, unless
         repercussions are in place. That’s the fundamental reasoning behind having laws in
         the first place.

         Regarding your
         claim that girls would “clearly” have a problem, if the situation was
         reversed, and that these boys didn’t, also feels incredibly flawed. I’d say
         that there is a much larger precedent of young girls pasting images of
         “sexy” male celebrities who they fantasize about all over their walls
         and lockers, than the reverse, but when they sleep with a teacher they
         are victimized by an authority figure and viewed as exploited. They are
         viewed as weak, and not because they are minors that didn’t understand
         what was happening to them, the consequences, or how to remove themselves from the
         situation, but because they are women. The views that you present come across as
         sexist views and assumptions based on your fundamental beliefs about
         females as a species.

         That’s actually one of the concerns
         regarding the sexualization of children and what the victims
         experienced; their perspectives about relationships, gender issues, and
         sexuality can easily become warped and damaged, because of them.
         Whether or not the female is in the position of the student or the
         position of authority, she is still being widely objectified by those who embrace your
         interpretation. As the student, she is manipulated, “exploited” and
         used for sexual purposes by an authority figure, so it’s wrong. In
         other words, she would have a problem with it. With the reversal of roles, the
         teacher is the one being “used” by the students, so the fact that she is
         the authority figure makes it alright, because she’s old enough to make
         the decision for herself. Either way, the female is the objectified
         figure “taking it” and the male is the perpetrator. Those views on women
         are regressive, at best, but I get the feeling that you believe that
         you are sticking up for and supporting the female rights in this case,
         while, in reality, you are actually giving very little credit to women
         as a whole. Those views are not progressive, they are sexist and
         oppressive. That’s not supportive of Meredith Powell as a women whose
         rights are being trampled, it is supportive of the right to exploit
         sexuality and maintain the imbalanced public perception of it. I wonder
         what the public view would be on a female teacher engaging with a
         female student, or with a male and a male? And depending on that
         response, I wonder how it would reflect other progressive views on
         sexuality and gender. Your idea of polling strangers, isn’t a bad one, but the list of questions and scenarios should be expanded.

         If your point is to look at this situation
         objectively, while claiming that there are fundamental differences
         between genders, that sinks that narrative even more. Scientifically,
         women are considered to mature earlier and faster than males, which,
         technically, would actually increase the gap in maturity between the
         individuals involved in this case even more than if the genders were
         reversed. Since you reject the example of a gender reversal and
         sleeping with a 10 year old as being a relevant comparison, because you
         didn’t personally hit puberty until later, it might help you to know
         that, on average, girls begin puberty around 10 – 11, with boys
         beginning it at 11 – 12. Studies further show that males don’t
         generally even complete puberty until at least 16 – 17. In this case,
         the boys who had contact with Powell, were both 15 at the time. If you
         feel like venturing into history to support past concepts about sexual
         maturity, please note that, in recent centuries, puberty has begun
         earlier, much of which is because of such reasons as diet and
         environmental factors. Adolescent maturity, on the other hand, is a
         completely separate issue, and something that many could even argue is
         moving in the opposite direction, with less and less responsibility
         placed on children and required of them.

         As for the way that the
         culture has developed (a concept which you’ve mentioned repeatedly), it has developed to the point where, based on
         studies and historical evidence, what has occurred at
         Lincoln Elementary is considered to show a high level of potentiality
         to be detrimental and that it is a crime. The statistics are not on the
         side of your own one-dimensional “narrow minded” views, of which you’ve accused me of. They do not
         promote your own individual “fantasies” of a teenage boy, who doesn’t
         take into account the larger picture or the potential emotional effects and
         repercussions.

         You state that the boys didn’t have a problem with it, but I
         probably would have enjoyed doing mounds of free cocaine when I was 15,
         if I was introduced to it and presented with it by a teacher. I would have
         liked the physical sensation, but that doesn’t mean that it should have
         been supplied to me, encouraged, that it wouldn’t create future
         repercussions, or that I had the mental maturity to handle my shit. The fact that a 15 year old would want to do something,
         or enjoy it, alonge, isn’t much of a case. If you located and spent time
         watching a bunch of youtube videos made by 15 year olds, I would venture
         that you might be able to separate your current mindset as an adult
         remembering your teenage desires, and realize what the average 15 year old’s mind
         is really like, including their lack of maturity and comprehension,
         flawed self image, and inability to process emotions at that age.

         Poll
         20 parents. Poll 20 females. Polling 20 young men, or aging creepy
         dudes, is probably going to give you the results that you believe it will, but,
         like I said, if you go poll certain demographics in certain areas,
         you’re probably going to hear that “queers don’t deserve to live,” that
         “women shouldn’t leave the kitchen,” and that “blacks are lazy and
         ignorant.” It still seems like a superficial argument by based on
         superficial factors and superficial desires. There’s a lot more involved in this case than simply, “girls are affected by these things” and “there’s no way that anything foul was done if it involves young boys.”

         Log in to Reply

4. Chris, I understand how difficult it is to change one’s beliefs, especially ones so deeply ingrained. I would like to apologize for some of my harshest remarks, for in giving you the benefit of the doubt, in all likelihood, you couldn’t help yourself. While I do not have a degree, the fact is, I have become something of an expert on this subject, following years of investigation and research. Not with the intent or motives you have implied. My research began in response to a group who were advocates for the death penalty for child molesters. I am against the DP, and I wanted to know if the justifications these people were claiming were valid ones. In fact, none of them were valid. The reality is, Powell is not a sick deviant. And those boys are not scarred for life. The Rind study is but one small piece of the puzzle. There is the DSM-IV. You should read the section on mental disorders as pertains to paraphilias, such as hebophilia, and pedophilia. Like it or not, this IS about religious beliefs. And our society has been systematically lied to … all to stop premarital sex. I’ll be back to continue this later.

   Log in to Reply

   1. It definitely does sound as if your beliefs are “deeply ingrained” and difficult to change. Wherever they come from, intense research or otherwise, you are on a mission to spread information and expose what you believe has been concealed from the public. Nobody’s interested. In focusing on whatever crusade you are on, you operate in an extremely condescending manner and continue to do so, fabricating narratives where they don’t exist and spewing unfounded accusations toward everyone. You’re implication is that they are supporting or endorsing all manners of bullshit that they don’t connect to or identify with, just because it doesn’t fit within your particular focus or area of “expertise.” You’ve demonstrated an inability to think or communicate outside of your own comfort zone, redirecting everything back to the 1 or 2 key “points” that you want everything to be about, even when the conversation has absolutely nothing to do with what you’re trying to mold it into. This is exactly why you bounced all over that poor girl’s Facebook page, reposting the same fucking quotes, regardless of what was being discussed or posted about. Outside of that narrative, the conversation dies and just becomes you repeating the same things over and over again, which aren’t nearly as profound or relevant as you seem to believe them to be. Your disregard for the human element and specifics of the conversation is a direct reflection of your lack of acknowledgment and/or understanding of the greater human element at large. The fact that you embrace a controversy which, at its core, concerns people because it pertains to recklessness and the lack of consideration for how it may effect others, it not surprising.

      Whatever you’ve read, there is endless information that you have not, and endless aspects which you refuse to consider. The conflict with you seems to be that you’ve determined that, if people do not agree with your studies — and more importantly, the way in which you’ve interpreted them or chosen to deliver them — then they are single-minded and applying ignorant, misinformed concepts across the board without analyzing the specifics of the situations for what they are. The irony, however, is that is exactly what you’re doing. You’re applying whatever information you’ve studied and this one singular concept that you’re obsessed with and believe to be true to every situation, without considering the specifics to the specific situations at hand. You generalize, while accusing others of doing so. Meanwhile, you are completely dismissive of the individuals involved. The human and emotion aspects and realities take a back seat to whatever sterile, soulless piece of information you’ve chosen to desperately cling to. But in the way that you wield your beliefs and reject how you may be trampling over others, it reflects your own self-importance and how you draw it from being able to commandeer someone else’s forum, in an attempt to reposition the spotlight toward yourself. It’s not truth-based, it’s attention and ego-based.

      I can also claim somewhat of an expertise, as far as counseling various individuals over the years, regarding emotional trauma and the different ways in which people process information, but I would cite more direct involvement and interaction, than in putting my faith in one document that I’ve read, while attacking another. The dismissive attitude that you demonstrate regarding the idea that ANYONE could be negatively affected by a situation, just because you’ve learned that there might have been a “Christian agenda” somewhere in the far distant past, regarding some worthless law, is ridiculous. Sit down with someone that’s experiencing emotional trauma and point to your documents — “I’m sorry, but that’s impossible. It states right here that you’re not really experiencing the emotions that you believe. The Christians are behind it.”

      It doesn’t matter if historically a law was instigated for a particular purpose or with a particular agenda in mind, but you’re obsessed with Christian extremism and systematic lies. Meanwhile, the article above is about the motivations of a media pushing whatever fits their narratives and serves their purposes, regardless of the facts that pertain to THIS particular case.

      I have a couple of psychological and behavioral science references to pull up myself. Have you heard the proverb that, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail? Here… I’ll just pull the following from the following, wikipedia link, since they’ve consolidated the point regarding that saying for me already.

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_all_you_have_is_a_hammer,_everything_looks_like_a_nail

      Etymology:

      Likely traditional. In this form, perhaps from Abraham Maslow, The Psychology of Science, 1966, page 15 and his earlier book Abraham H. Maslow (1962), Toward a Psychology of Being:

      “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

      Similar concept by Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, 1964, page 28:

      “I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.”

      Labeled “Baruch’s Observation” (after Bernard Baruch) in The Complete Murphy’s Law: A Definitive Collection (1991) by Arthur Bloch.

      Also often attributed, without citation, to Mark Twain (for example in Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, page 8).

      Proverb

      if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

      1.) With limited tools, single-minded people apply them inappropriately or indiscriminately

      2.) If a person is familiar with a certain, single subject, or has with them a certain, single instrument, they may have a confirmation bias to believe that it is the answer to/involved in everything.

      What I’m saying is that you have acted single-mindedly and are not only applying your single-mindedness indiscriminately, but extremely inappropriately.

      If you would drop your bullshit, let go of your leaden life raft for a minute, and think objectively — not while moving around within the limited safety zone that you need to remain in, so that you can redirect the conversation back to the issue that you have with the same law that I have no interest in, but legitimately objectively — you might have been able to recognize your Westboro Baptist Church methodology.

      Maybe you could consider the purpose of the Free Powell page, as far as it concerns and serves, or fails to serve, the intention of the 9th grade girl who created it. The fact that it was created at all is a direct reflection of the emotional effects of the situation on those who are even only secondary parties to it. You can blame the law for there being drama surrounding it, but even then, it’s a situation that Powell recklessly created, regardless of the potential repercussions that it would serve for those around her. But even in removing Powell from the situation, the administrator of the page wanted a support page, a way to take some sort of control of what was happening around her and create some understanding and context for her it. At first, it was because they thought Powell was innocent and that the boys were accusing her of disgusting, immoral acts. That means that they believed that what she did was wrong, while also attempting to attack and discredit the students and call them liars (note that reflects their own perspectives on the acts — not what the Christian laws have told them — as well as emotional abuse directed towards the victims). After Powell admitted to what she did, it became a page where the 9th grader was forced to defend her own feelings. This is unfortunate, because one shouldn’t be judged on their feelings, but rather their actions (another thing to consider in this case). After the confession, the page isn’t about the teacher or the laws anymore, it’s about a 9th grader having to defend her own emotional confusion and the right to digest and process this confusion among her peers that are also experiencing it. It’s about her processing distrust and confusing, her own beliefs, and the idea that she was defending something so adamantly, only to find out that it really occurred. All this did was bring in strangers who wanted to crack jokes about it, spew hated in her direction, or dump their own agendas on her page for their own purposes and egos. Objectifying her teacher with comments about how someone would be happy to fuck her, doesn’t help this girl’s cause. Telling her that she shouldn’t care about someone and that Powell should burn, even though the girl may feel betrayed by the situation and foolish, is also pointless, because it’s an issue of emotions, not facts. Likewise, coming on there to tell her that it’s perfectly okay to fuck kids and the only issue is that Christian extremists are pushing this agenda, as you’ve repeatedly done, is not only incredibly backward, it’s dismissive of what she’s dealing with or cares about, just because you want to be heard. Nobody gives a fuck about that, because, it isn’t about you and your concerns have repeatedly demonstrated themselves as being about you and what rights you believe that you have, not those inolved.

      How do you know that Grace doesn’t consider herself Christian? You might be attacking this girl’s belief systems. You might be attacking a girl who’s already being attacked, for something completely different, but under the guise of supporting her. If I had a 9th grade daughter and some dude was trying to approach her on the internet to explain why it’s okay to fuck adults, while spewing a bunch of crazed shit at her about the man and Christianity skewing the issues, I’d come at them. Leave the kid alone. But these aren’t things that you were willing to take into consideration and be reasonable about. I simply made a post suggesting that she assess what she wanted to get out of the page being public and, depending on what she determined that to be, made the suggestion that she might want to privatize it to avoid any further emotional attacks and misinterpretations; in other words, to restructure the page in the way that might best benefit her, because she doesn’t owe the rest of the world anything — especially not the voice to attack and catapult vile commentary at her. She seemed to appreciate that and responded. That was that. Then, out of nowhere, you come in with your one beat-to-death angle ranting about Christians, how it’s all about some push to promote marriage, and all kind of other irrelevant bullshit. You’ve already pissed that onto every other comment so, if anyone gave a shit, they’d already respond to it. If no one is responding, it’s not because they don’t hear you, it’s because they don’t respect you. It had nothing to do with the context of what we were discussing.

      Again, I was talking to someone directly, trying to understand who they were, what they felt, what they were dealing with, how their needs could best be addressed, and you steamrolled in and, most likely, spooked her out, just because you can’t shut the fuck up. You’re ranting about how you have a right to her forum, because the world needs to know whatever bullshit you feel needs to be said. Well… get your own forum. I only stayed on there responding to you long enough to try and redirect the point and attention back to her having the right to heal alone and that she doesn’t owe you the platform, just because you sound like a crazed wingnut.

      Look back into your studies and consider your own obsessions. Like I stated before, it’s a swarming a funeral with picket signs Westboro mentality that leads you to believe that your words on high trump everything else. It an idea that you deserve the listeners, while trampling disrespectfully through the space of others.

      The reasons that I believe you are a lost cause, is because you’ve made no effort to actually communicate or view anything objectively, and somehow you defend that stance by believing that no one else is being objective. You accused me of supporting the Christian extremists. Look around the site a little bit — you’re off base. You’ve accused me of supporting some random law, which you applied inaccurately (once you show a penchant for pulling misinformation repeatedly, your credibility is already dead). I never cited the law as gospel, once — I am not one for law or gospel. Even your empty comment above is all about whether or not I called Meredith a sick deviant, which I don’t believe I’ve done either; I actually tried to think about how she might have been approaching things from an emotional standpoint and to humanize this case more than anyone else has. You’ve been throwing accusations at people from the beginning, when most of the time people aren’t even arguing with you, they’re just asking you to shut the fuck up. As for researching the death penalty, is that not something that you can determine if you support or not without reading a study. Either you’re for killing people or you aren’t.

      The truth is that Meredith Powell’s actions were deviant. She deviated the system and employed secretive tactics to cover up for something that she knew that she wasn’t supposed to be engaged in. This isn’t a scenario where the heart was involved, it’s a scenario where she tried to engage in sexual acts with a number of students and, based on her status as an authority figure, it complicates the situation, because it’s difficult to peg down how much of a role her authority and that dynamic plays into her influence. Someone who actually read her blog, before it was privatized, contacted me to tell me that he felt that I had hit the nail on the head with this article, to which I responded that I don’t know what happened, I’m just trying to speculate on some possibilities and add some new aspects to consider into the conversation. He then replied that Meredith’s parents recently got divorced after 31 years of marriage, she’s really into Justin Beiber (sexualized as a minor), her boyfriend recently broke up with her… she was all kinds of emotionally wounded. If her emotional state manifested itself by her pursuing the minors which she was hired to watch over, then it was misdirected and shows a lack of professionalism and trustworthiness, at best.

      If you want to attack everything because of Christian roots, then make the case that we should be able to rape and murder each other, while you’re at it. I don’t give a fuck where anything comes from outside of me, because my beliefs come from my own experiences and communicating with others about their experiences. They come from real experiences and emotion, they don’t come from a book on propaganda that tells me what my emotions should be, nor do they come from a written law. If your point is that no law should be applied indiscriminately across the board, I never disagreed with that. I never called for Meredith Powell’s head. In fact, all that I said was that, if she can’t not fuck the kids, she probably shouldn’t be teaching. If nothing else, I guarantee that it’s a distraction from their studies, which she’s been employed to direct them in. So, that’s another example of you not even listening to what I’ve said, but indiscriminately accuse, regardless. The truth is that, based on the case that you’ve tried to present, just because you’ve found a connection to the promotion of marriage and Christianity infiltrating the system and defining certain laws, you’ve chosen to apply that concept indiscriminately across the board. It’s not a situation where I’m stating that, because of the laws, every single situation, regardless of the specific facts and details associated with it, is wrong and should have equal repercussions. I don’t believe that the court system works, but that, ideally, it’s supposed to work to address each situation independently. But… my point is that, what you’re doing with your anti-laws is equally parabolic, in much the same way that you employ the same rigid Christian extremist tactics that you pretend to rally against, but only at the opposite end. What you are stating is that, because of the laws and your disbelief in the righteousness of their potential roots and original agenda, every single situation, regardless of specific facts and details associated with it, is right and should have no repercussions. You reject that that there is any possible way that anybody can be negatively affected by any of this, and, to me, at it’s source, is the exact same flawed dismissive logic that you pretend not to believe in, steals the individuality from those involved and ignores their experiences and identities as humans.

      Log in to Reply

5. Regarding the Rind study. The methodology was peer-reviewed … twice … before publication in the APA. Further, the AAAS, while neither endorsing nor condemning the material findings, found no reason to question the original reviewing process. At the time this went down, many research scientists and academicians expressed grave concerns over the religious, political, and/or ideological censorship of valid scientific research. Dallum was front and center in attacking the study. Ostensibly an unbiased expert on CSA, she was in fact closely affiliated with religious conservative organizations. In any case, between her, Dr. Laura, the Family Research Council, and the US Congress, the Rind study was effectively suppressed.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Who gives a shit? Show me the peer reviewed study where anybody believes that you’ve made a relevant point and you’re not a callous asshole.

      Log in to Reply

      1. If I was truly callous, I wouldn’t subject myself to the abuse just to help a total stranger who is in legal trouble.

         Chris, I was about your age when my child died. I could not begin to make you understand how deeply this affected me. Decades later, the shock remains. Do you think I loved my son any less than you love yours? There is nothing I can do for him. He is gone forever. And my heart aches.

         What is happening with Meredith is an injustice of immense proportions. What she did was wrong. Absolutely. But not as wrong as society makes it out to be. She deserves punishment. But not the punishment society would impose. Our laws as written do not accurately reflect the actual harm suffered by the victims.

         I can’t help my son Chris. But I can try to help people like Meredith.

         Log in to Reply

         1. While I’m genuinely sorry for your loss, your inclusion of that information here still feels like something injected that isn’t really relevant to the conversation that we’re having.

            A bigger problem is that I never accused Meredith of being an evil monster. In fact, the conclusion of my entire article is about how she, as well as the victims, are actual people and more than just caricatures that can be exploited to reinforce certain talking points. I explain that, if anyone made the effort to look into her life, they would see an otherwise “normal” individual that loves her family and who has students that feel she was the only one who ever gave a shit about them. I reflect on the possible factors relating to her self image and explain that we all have internal issues that we struggle with, but if you can’t get a handle on those issues and allow them to potentially affect others who have been trusted in your care because of that, then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to hold that position anymore and expose anyone else to those potentially damaging actions.

            So, that being said, there are a couple of things that are still confounding me about your approach towards me and this topic in general. One is the idea about how my statements and approach to discussing this topic aren’t reasonable and objective. Direct me to how many other articles have tried to humanize Meredith Powell and understand this with a more open minded approach. And I don’t mean articles that either embrace or reject her in entirety, but honestly try to consider it on an even level. I’ve simply try to present some ideas to the discussion, not chisel something out as definitive, although I’ve read a lot of definitive statements about how there is no way that the boys were negatively affected at all in this scenario, elsewhere.

            When you immediately attack and accuse somebody of something that they don’t identify with, as you have, the natural response should be confusion. You’re directing a lot of your statements to the wrong person and into the wrong conversations. I never said that you didn’t love your son — who I never even knew existed — and I never really unfairly attacked Meredith Powell, either. If anything, I asked people to imagine themselves in a scenario where it might make sense to them and I implored those who represent themselves as the “news” informing America, to make more of an effort not to trivialize her as either “hot teacher” or a one-dimensional monster out of context. It might be of further note that I actually called out one site directly, regarding their poor reporting, in their comment section, which included stating that using a headline that she “raped” 2 children, creates a completely different and more violent connotation than the reality of the the situation warrants and that, being as she has yet to be convicted and pleaded not guilty, it is neglectful, slanderous, and a shitty ploy to get traffic, with little disregard for the individuals that are actually affected by this case.

            Again, not to be insensitive about your son, but you do seem to be projecting certain things that you feel strongly about into some random directions. The idea to try and help Meredith is one thing, but that doesn’t mean that you needed to post all of that stuff all over that page in the manner that you did and in the places that you did. They read as intense assaults on the system in general, not supportive encouraging remarks to anyone. I was actually trying to help out someone that was dealing with their own involvement in this situation on a very real level and you used that as an opportunity to throw out what only reads as anti-Christian propaganda, before stating that you’re coming after me with your words next. There was no reason to address me at all, especially not to accuse me of being a supporter of Christian extremists. Feel free to ask the Christian extremists how they feel about me, by the way… it’s not good.

            From my perspective, your focus on clearing Powell’s name, because of some larger view that you have on the subject — not Meredith as an individual, because you don’t know her — on some level, didn’t allow you to take into account what the real issue might have been for Grace, what her real concerns were, or what the real purpose of her starting that page was. As a 9th grader, she’s, most likely, only keeping that page open, at this point, because the attention it has brought is larger than her and both exciting and confusing. But, at the core, I think she’s still using that as a way to deal with what’s going on, perhaps even using it as a distraction. Either way, the rant about your feelings about the government and regulations, at large, didn’t seem appropriate.

            Likewise, the students are being completely disregarded. Your statement that what Meredith did was wrong above, was the first time that I’ve heard you even entertain that idea on any level. The idea that she deserves punishment, is the first time that you’ve stated that on any level. The concept that there is any emotional trauma, even potentially, for CSA victims was never expressed by you until today, either. Until now, it seemed that there was a complete rejection of any of those possibilities and that’s what I’ve found issue with. Statements being made that there is no way that those kids are negatively affected, is what I find issue with. Your belief that the punishment that society chooses to shell out may not be proportionate to the crime is more than reasonable, but I don’t feel that’s been how you’ve represented your case up until this point. That would have been completely understandable.

            I don’t like the outright dismissal of the kids involved and the whole thing being written off as a non issue. If you reread the article above, and likely anything else that I’ve said up until this point, my issue is with not looking at this for what it is, from either angle. Dismissing the case because she’s a woman, or hot, or anything else, while the same people are calling her a malicious rapist to the public, is telling. The idea that something horrendous occurred simply because it’s in the law books and is connected to what you believe are unrighteous Christian propaganda and motivations, is just as bad as determining that absolutely nothing foul occurred and that no one is negatively affected by it, for the exact same reason. Both are dismissive stances which refuse to look into the actual situation. Let a trial occur. Let the details be examined. Let the teenagers be examined. Too many people are claiming that nothing happened to them. They are being reduced to caricatures as much as she is. Defend her if you feel that it’s necessary, but I don’t see the need to attack the victims and reject any effects that it might have on them. You can support the idea of looking more analytically into the case, without invalidating the children, just as you can support the victims, without burning a stake on the Powell family lawn.

            Log in to Reply

            1. This article might also be of interested to you (not sarcasm). It deals with the word “trauma” how it is defined, and the potential negative effects, whether or not they are “trauma” related

               http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths/201001/child-sexual-abuse-problematic-yes-traumatic-not-necessarily

            2. Chris, I am familiar with Susan Clancy, and read that review quite some time ago. It is truly astonishing how engraved (not ingrained) beliefs are. Digging for truth is an arduous process. Still, it has it’s intrinsic rewards. No rush in replying to all your points? Good, because I have a lot to say, and only so much time to devote to it.

               Who first? Let’s start with Mercer. An excerpt from the article.

               “The Trauma Myth” emphasizes repeatedly the clear evidence that childhood experiences of sexual exploitation by adults are associated with a long list of later problems, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, relationship and sexual problems, eating disorders, self-mutilation, and so on. Because one in five children is reported to have experienced sexual abuse (and probably there are more, unreported, cases), such abuse is responsible for significant numbers of mental health problems. It’s important that we learn how to prevent it and to treat its results, not only for the sake of individuals but for the mental health of the whole population. To prevent child sexual abuse and treat problems that result from it, we need to have a real understanding of how these experiences cause bad outcomes. However, much work in this area is based on the assumption that trauma theory, which attributes many mental health problems to the past experience of severe pain and fear, and trauma theory may not provide a good framework for understanding the impact of sexual molestation in childhood.

               The author is undoubtedly very intelligent, and well-intentioned. And (unfortunately) her critical thought processes are clearly impaired, presumedly due to her flawed basic assumptions and personal biases. She has a lot of company.

               I have, as I said, done quite a lot of research on this. It seems in this particular area of psychology, more than any other, psychologists are guilty of (perhaps for some) the most egregious crime in science. That being forgetting a very basic tenet: Cause and effect. I can’t begin to count the number of articles I have read on CSA, written by well-respected experts like Dr. Mercer, generally referencing a particular science paper in a prestigious psychological periodical. After reading the article, which, to be clear, is really nothing more than an opinion, I go to the source paper. That is always more of a struggle to wade through. But when you dig far enough, you will discover something critically significant. The ‘disclaimer’. It reads (more or less) as follows … While the authors of this paper feel there is a strong correlation and/or association between (x) and (y), this remains a highly complex issue. Though every effort has been made to control for other factors (family environment, economic status, genetics, etc) the authors can not state there is a direct cause and effect.

               To date Chris, this has not changed. The littany of disorders and other negative outcomes attributed to CSA have never been proved.

               Psychologists have yet to show a direct cause and effect. Yet the ‘experts’ continually ignore this, writing articles like the one above in Psychology Today, treating this as if it were a given. It isn’t.

               Clancy took a lot of heat by butting heads with the establishment, contradicting the message it had been feeding us. A message still on virtually every anti-csa site out there, characterized by dire warnings such as this: “The pain and terror of child sexual abuse is still going on. Nearly every 90 seconds another child lies in her bed, silently screaming, as she hears her bedroom door slowly open …” Clearly, the message is designed to promote panic and hysteria … outrage … a need for revenge … justice. And it is a lie. Unfortunately, a lie society has embraced, and perpetuated for decades.
               Excerpt …

               Clancy is not the first to point out that children’s sexual experiences with adults are not necessarily experienced as traumatic (severely painful or terrifying) at the time when they occur. But her interview research with adults who had been molested as children clearly showed a continuum of child experiences, ranging from terror and pain at one end, through puzzlement without distress in the middle, to physical and emotional gratification at the opposite end. In fact, most of her interviewees reported that in childhood, at the time of the event, they were not frightened or in pain. The abuser’s actions did not involve force or even penetration of any kind, but were generally limited to rubbing, kissing,or fondling of genitals, nor did most of the abusers threaten the children in any way. Nevertheless, those adults, as well as the ones who had experienced trauma, reported symptoms related to their experiences, and now felt that the sexual event had had a deplorable effect on them.
               And the facts do support Clancy on most of this. But even she has serious bias issues. Problems with critical thinking skills, and a lack of research. For one, she was unaware (apparently) of the frequency of actual intercourse that was occuring. Far more prevalent than she believed. Further, she clearly failed to factor in the plethora of alterante reasons why an adult would come to believe the ‘deplorable effect’ was due to the CSA. In fact, the evidence of society itself being the cause of deleterious effects later in life is profound and compelling. In other words, society has convinced the adult they should feel bad.
               Please go to Pandora’s Project. This is a sex abuse ‘survivor’ site. You may find it interesting.

            3. Honestly, I’m not interested in devoting endless amounts of time reading about fucking children and I agree that people should feel badly about doing it. It begs the question why, if you do not have a degree in it or deal with it in your profession (perhaps you do, I don’t know your profession) then why would someone devote so much time and energy in an attempt to advocate for child molestation and rape. You attempt to denounce CSA sites for mentioning that children are sexually abused — it is after all child sexual “abuse” — and to suggest that children are negatively affected by it, but many children are aggressively abused. Is it your take that children are never maliciously abused? Because, if not, I don’t understand your point.

               I like how you refer to them as “experts” with quotation marks, meanwhile consider yourself an expert, based on reading research that they’ve done first hand. You consider reading about their first hand research, as your own research, yet discount their findings. Of course it states that even the source material is an opinion, to some degree, because humans are complex, which is exactly why crossing certain boundaries with them, especially in critical developmental states in their lives, is more cut and dry than simply stating that there are neither any immediate or long term effects. You’ve made such blanket rejections as possibility time and time again, as if, simply because of a technicality that states that certain findings cannot be definitively stamped as “fact”, regardless of the fact that they have been thoroughly researched and the findings all point to a specific direction. Everything is opinion, there are no facts, because the basis of proof is that proof exists and you can’t prove proof, without using it. It’s semantics. These “predators” are flipping a coin with the emotional development and health of another individual due to their own physical compulsions. I don’t endorse that and I definitely don’t go to great lengths to validate it, as you seem to be doing.

               I physically injured myself at a job and still have problems with my wrist because of it. The problem wasn’t there before hand, but has been ever since. I also incurred another injury, which even yielded an apology from the company whose product was responsible for causing it. It would have been an easy lawsuit. In both situations, the doctors refused to make a solid claim about my injuries. One affected my ability to sue, if I chose to do so, and the other affected my L&I. I continued to work with my hand in a brace, lifting luggage. On both occasions, my injuries were diagnosed and validated, yet the causes weren’t. Often, those who have such degrees act like Matlock and want to crack the code themselves, they do not like anyone to self diagnose. Slamming your hand in a door and having blood squirt everywhere is less interesting a diagnosis than, “We believe that your hand was slammed and that blood shot out, but we believe that it’s possible that both incidents happened coincidentally and that you have a super rare case where your blood just squirted out on it’s own. It’s incredibly rare, but there is a prior incident in this medical book.”

               A lot of people claim that PTSD is fake too, but I’ve experienced it. The mind is complex and anything that’s been “proven” can have holes shot through it. Simply the fact that just about everything that our 5 primary senses tells us, science disproves — what you see is really upside down, the colors we see are actually negative reflections of what we perceive, nothing is solid but rather a magnetic field over separate molecules — yet we define everything based on the 5 senses — categorically, it feels like this, looks like this, etc. But this is the world that we experience and the rest is semantics. Just because the mind is complex and emotions are hard to wrangle, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It doesn’t mean that the soul doesn’t exist or that he can’t track abstract emotional pain, just because we can track physical pain receptors. You may hate on religion, but the archetype for Judaeo-Christian religions was faith — although that’s since been tainted. The point, however, is that everything is faith. You exist because of faith. Your perceptions are your truths. It’s all semantics and, if the system is your demon, it is still the system in which we exist and it doesn’t invalidate the results. If you live in an environment filled with death, you might not bat an eye to watch someone have their throat slit in front of you. Does that mean that, if you say it happen today on the street that it wouldn’t haunt you? Does it mean that it wouldn’t haunt someone else or affect them differently, just because it didn’t directly affect you in the same manner? We are all products of the system and the system is a product of us.

               To take a page from your book, If organized religion holds so much power, conspires against us and rigs the system, whose to say that such organized religion, which has been repeatedly charged with corruption and sexual abuse toward minors, doesn’t play a role in discrediting the scientific findings or weaken them for their own purposes?

               This was supposed to be a one off article about a quick story. This site is supposed to be about explosions, noise, and wacky art projects. Instead of writing responses in this comment section, I could be writing entirely different articles. I tire of this subject, because it’s a disturbing one and I don’t care to obsess over the sexual exploitation of children. It’s not a pleasant image — for me at least. I have no horse in this race, as I am not fornicating with children and am not a minor, nor am I in a position where I need to counsel a victim of this sort of abuse at this time. Furthermore, I’m an unsure of what your particular horse is.

               My interaction with you came as has already been addressed. I wrote a message to someone else and you tried to go at me. Now you’ve found a platform to dump all of the supposed studies you’ve been doing privately in your own life and present your case endorsing sexual interactions with minors. Bravo, but it is a vile mission. One minute you say that there are no repercussions and the next you say that there might be. One minute you say that what Powell did was “wrong” and that she should be punished, and the next you say that adults shouldn’t feel bad about partaking in CSA. Your own opinions haven’t been consistent. I’m moving on, at this point.

               In the past, regardless of how hateful or crazy comments may have gotten, I never censored any of them, unless they were homophobic or racist. Racists and homophobes have their own studies and belief systems in place. Even Hitler had his findings about the inferiority of Jews. But, I’m over this topic and I’m not sure that I will approve any more of your statements, because of a similar reason that I don’t allow certain hate speech on here. I don’t really want to allow for any more statements endorsing sexual interaction with children on my website. You’ve had quite an opportunity to state your case quite a bit and I allowed for the conversation, even though you initially acted like a completely belligerent and condescending asshole right from the beginning — an have continued to venture back into that territory at points.. That was generous of me. Good luck to you, but not in respect to decriminalizing pedophilia.

         2. Wait, what???? HOW does Meredith’s crime and her punishments represent “an injustice of immense proportions”?? That’s absurd, unless you subscribe to the 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not punish the beautiful”. And for the last time, – this has nothing to do with true “harm” suffered by adolescent boys. This story is about someone placed in a position of authority recognized by our government, who then went on to abuse that authority by breaking the rules very clearly laid-out for her prior to her being hired in that position of authority. The very fact that Meredith Powell was a teacher is alone grounds for boosting the penalties considerably beyond what could be the norm for some random next-door neighbor violating the 15yo next door. You can deduce as much for yourself based on the fact that any 16/17yo next door is perfectly legal to give “consent” to a 24yo (who is not in a supervisory position) in Meredith’s state and in most others.

            So what Meredith did IS clearly wrong, and it is very likely AS wrong as society makes it out to be. She shouldn’t get a break just because she’s “attractive”. Having already confessed to so much of her wrong-doing, Meredith surely has limited potential for causing any favorable effect on her sentencing. But if she were wise, she would ask her lawyers to strongly consider the effects of social media on her apparent lack of personal boundaries. It could be revolutionary while proving quite the wake-up call to others all over this world. femaleteachersexscandals.blogspot.com

            Log in to Reply

            1. Cool. You waste your breath on this guy for a while. In all honesty, the stuff he’s saying here is a million times more reasonable than the stuff that’s since been removed from the Free Powell page

6. You make am awful lot of assumptions Chris. I have not read your book in its entirety yet, but I will.

   “Christian agenda, in the far distant past, regarding some worthless law”.

   Chris, is 1988 the far distant past? I think you will find the RCW regarding child rape was rewritten then.

   If you don’t mind, please keep the conversation on a respectful level, and I will do the same.

   Yes, I am very much aware of the emotional trauma that is associated with CSA. It’s cause is open for debate.

   Have to go now.

   Log in to Reply

   1. It’s a little late for that. I have no respect for you and you chose to initiate this poisonous aimless debate over on that Facebook Page, by stating that you had some words for me, after I simply left that respectful comment for Grace. I only suggested that you bring your tirade over here, with the hopes that you would finally restrain yourself from going off on that 9th grade girl’s Facebook page, since it was clear that all you really desired was a platform.

      I see that you’re readjusting your approach for my site. My latest “assumption” is that you welcome the opportunity to attempt to discredit me on my own forum, by readjusting to present yourself publicly in a particular manner — an emotionally restrained, level headed intellectual, referencing studies, this time around. I’m less concerned with public opinion and your backhanded “apology” for your “harshest remarks,” is ridiculous. It’s a demolition derby over here. I’ll speak my mind in the fashion that I do, even more so, now that I’m not invading a teenage girl support page to do it. That’s where we differ. And that’s also what OUR discussion has been about this whole time anyway; why you couldn’t get the fuck off that girls page and quit throwing crazy conspiracies at her and inappropriate subject matter. Now you want to present yourself as someone interested in an actual conversation? Not interested.

      Log in to Reply

7. And my compassion is not limited to Meredith. I want to help those who love her, and are now confused, and struggling with their thoughts and emotions. How could this wonderful person be the sick evil monster society is making her out to be?

   She isn’t. She is a normal human being. Her sexual attraction for her students was normal. As was theirs for her.

   Those who love her have the right to be told the truth. The right to know she is not some pervert.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I only just addressed this in my previous comment, which was posted after you posted this, but like I said, to be emotionally supportive to someone in any way, you have to consider what they need, rather than what you feel you need to say or do.

      Also, while I agree that there should be more insight into the case, unless you know Meredith Powell and the specifics in this case, which nobody still seems to really know — nobody even knew that she was doing the things that she was doing — it’s actually quite possible that she was some deviant pervert. As an outsider disconnected to the actual case and the actual people, you are projecting your own emotions into this and she definitely shouldn’t be championed as some folk hero. As much as people are being presumptuous and cavalier with tossing false information around, I don’t believe that people should be raising her up overhead, when they really have no idea what happened or who she is at this point. You can not know her, condemn, and hate her, or you can not know her, champion her and love her, but either way seems misguided and foolish to me.

      Log in to Reply

8. James, I see that you’ve commented again and that, when you finally started to sound less like an asshole, you’re back to it. Why don’t I think that it’s appropriate for a strange man to try and engage a 9th grade girl into a conversation about how sex with minors is natural, while telling her that Christianity (which her parents might have instilled in her) is reprehensible, and the only reason for it’s public rejection, before stating that you have some words for me, next — especially when none of it has anything to do with the discussion that we were having? I think it’s obvious.

   I’m not sure who you’re accusing of deception in an attempt to perpetuate an “agenda,” because like I’ve clearly stated and represented up until this point, I’ve had no agenda, other then open conversation and pointing out how people are commandeering Grace’s support page as their own platform, directly to her. Meanwhile, you’ve stated your agenda repeatedly.

   I’m trying to be considerate toward you at this point, even though you haven’t really demonstrated that you deserve it. Meanwhile, you’re throwing ridiculous accusations my way again. First of all, I never accused Meredith Powell of undeniably being “A sick monster who destroyed those little kids and deserves to rot in prison?”

   As for your comment, “I’m human too, and I reacted to what I considered deeply offensive comments directed at both Meredith and her supporters.” I’d implore you to be realistic for one moment, rather than ignorantly reactionary. The initial post that we’ve been referring to this whole time, in which you launched into your tirade against me, is posted verbatim, below. This is what you consider deeply offensive and an attack on Meredith and her supporters? This is what you consider an inhumane depiction of this “innocent” educator, regardless of the fact that the last paragraph begins with “what people forget is that Meredith is a human being”?

   The 9th grader, Grace, who started the page did the radio interview where she stated that she believed that her teacher should serve some time and that she started the page before Powell admitted to the charges. She agreed that it might be sending the wrong message with the title and that she just wanted a support page. She was posting things over and over about being assaulted with negativity and offensive responses. That’s what I was addressing.

   As you know, she responded by saying “I
   tried to change the name because it does get tiring having new people
   constantly say “Why do you want to free a child rapist” or something
   along those lines. I tried to change the name but I no longer can
   because I have 200+ followers which is pretty stupid.”

   After that was the point at which you went off with everything you had to say, which was completely insane and irrelevant to the topic.

   Read it again, and consider who you were attacking and what you were attacking them for. You’re not even paying any fucking attention, you’re just screaming at the wall.

   What I posted to the Free Powell wall, which prompted you to attack me and inform me that you had a right to this forum and the people had a right to know the truth:

   “This page turned into a circus as soon as it popped up, because it’s
   such a polarizing issue. I listened to your interview on KIRO and I
   think that you did a really good job considering the circumstances.
   Still, I feel that the point about having a “Free Powell” page still
   remains, as you yourself stated that you didn’t believe that she should,
   in fact, be freed, but that she should serve a sentence for what she
   did. The implications of this page and its title, however, are that she
   should be released without any repercussions for what happened and
   that, by nature, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what happened.
   Your posts stating that the victims were never traumatized, reinforces
   that sentiment.

   Since the only things that this page is
   yielding, other than notoriety and attention for yourself, as the one
   who started it, are statements by strangers blindly agreeing that
   nothing inappropriate was done and that the kids aren’t victims; people
   saying the exact opposite and attacking you for making it; or people
   making inappropriate, disgusting, and derogatory sexual comments about
   your teacher; have you considered privatizing the page? I understand
   the idea that you may want to start a page where those who know her can
   show support for her and each other, during this time, and a private
   page would allow that, without all of the craziness and arguing between
   people. Otherwise, it really is a public forum for chaos, that seems to
   endorse her behavior, which draws in both creepy trolling pedophiles
   and people that will look to attack what they believe you are trying to
   publicly endorse and champion toward the public, so that nobody really
   wins. In that regard, it ceases to remain as simply a support page. A
   private support page would seem more authentic and wouldn’t bring in
   people looking to attack you, or creepy perverts leaving vile
   commentary. People love a soap box and this should be about more than
   getting some fame or attention from this, both from yourself or for
   anybody else that comments on here.

   What people forget is that
   Meredith is a human being, that the boys are human beings, or even that
   you are a human being who started this page. People are either
   attacking Powell, or they are attacking the boys, they aren’t being
   objective about what happened. Us strangers are distanced from the
   situation and are speaking on this as a hypothetical making morality
   judgments, not as an actuality. As a public forum, it becomes
   voyeuristic and people swarm like flies to things like this in the
   electronic age with these type or open formats. As long as it remains
   in this format, nothing healthy will come of this page, other than
   bickering and perversion. It’s something to consider, if you really
   want a space for support and healing, because this will never become
   that in its current state. However, if you want to remain in a place
   where you will draw attention and public recognition, regardless of
   positivity or negativity, because of the excitement involved, this is
   definitely the way to go.”

   Log in to Reply

9. “this court document”? Was there supposed to be a link included somewhere? I posted this piece 2 months ago and, as it states within it, to my awareness, there were no documents available for me to view at the point. In fact, I began writing it the night of the court case. Also, this isn’t supposed to be a piece “reporting” the news, it’s actually a commentary about how people shouldn’t rely on those less credible sources so much, and about the level of importance that is, or is not, placed on situations such as this. My question to you is why you’re reading this at all, if you could simply read the court documents.

   Log in to Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.