Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 11, 2009
Homo What He Did Was Wrong, Yes—But...
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM
The lead story in the New York Times's national section today is about an 18-year-old high school student in Wisconsin named Anthony Stancl who allegedly set up fake profiles on Facebook—pretending he was a teenage girl—"to dupe 31 male classmates, some as young as 15, into sending him nude photographs of themselves over the last several months." Once he had photos of his classmates in the buff, "he threatened to release the photos to the victims’ friends or even all of Eisenhower [High School]’s 850 students if the youths who had sent them to him did not agree to perform sexual acts he demanded. The tactic was successful, officials said. Mr. Stancl is accused of using it to sexually assault seven boys."
Now, lying is wrong, and blackmail is wrong, and sexual assault on a minor is wrong—this kid clearly deserves to get in trouble—but doing this up as a sexual-predator-ravages-a-Wisconsin-town type story (the NYT's headline is "Sex Predator Accusations Shake a Wisconsin Town") seems slightly off. Consider the mitigating factors. First of all, teenagers lie to one another all the time. Second, these teenage guys (the victims) took photos/videos of their ding-dongs and sent them to a person on the internet—a person they'd never met (considering she didn't exist)—of their own volition. Third, gay kids in high school are the victims of humiliating pranks constantly, as well as the low-level humiliation of being "other," which is particularly pronounced if you don't grow up in a diverse, urban setting—if instead you grow up in a generic, picture-perfect, sports-loving, old-fashioned town made up of houses with triple-car garages and basketball hoops in every driveway and an oppressive sense of what's "normal" (i.e., not you) bearing down on you. According to the story, Stancl thought of what he was doing as a prank—"a fun-filled prank"—and his family lived on a quiet street "in a house with a triple garage and a basketball hoop in the driveway" in a sports-loving, "old-fashioned" town.
The commenters who felt victimized by my post yesterday about the gay-as-the-day-is-long photo editor in charge of high-school-wrestling coverage at Oregon's Mail Tribune will surely rush to the defense of the deceived jocks who sent naked photos of themselves to someone they didn't mean to, or point out that this is just one more piece of evidence that all gay people are predatory and are trying to recruit straights to their evil ways, but I can't help shaking the feeling that the "sexual predator" descriptor, at least based on what we know, is a little overblown. The guy wasn't a Catholic priest entrusted with the care of these minors, or a Fox News producer allegedly preying on the misery of five-year-olds. He was, like, the faggot in math class, the guy they probably made constant fun of, a guy who e-mailed a bomb threat to the high school in November (for unexplained reasons, though we know from Columbine what those reasons tend to be).
And while he's 18 and some of them are younger than him, they're all in high school together—so the "sexual assault on children and possession of child pornography" charge seems disingenuous. The photos/videos never saw the light of day (Stancl apparently kept them all on his computer, in "39 electronic folders, each bearing the name of a single student at Eisenhower"—what a freak!), sparing the guys who'd been duped the embarrassment of everyone seeing them naked while teaching them a valuable lesson: don't send photos/videos of your naked self to people you don't know on the internet, unless you want people you've never met to see them. The blackmail is the truly twisted part of the story, the part that, if the allegations are borne out, deserves serious reprimand; but the story has no information about what the "sexual acts" he made the seven guys "perform" were, nor any information about why those blackmail victims didn't just call the cops. The "sexual acts" he was going for might be less horrible than your imagination assumes. According to this article, more than half of the 31 victims "said the girl with whom they thought they were communicating tried to get them to meet with a male friend to let him perform sex acts on them," and seven of them agreed to it. In the absence of more information, it sounds like (this is a guess) he got the guys to let him give them blow jobs, in some cases repeatedly. You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were (if they were blow jobs), especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities. The cops only found out about all this when they were searching Stancl's computer for some other reason—that bomb threat.
Clearly, the kid has issues and should be prosecuted. But did any other gay guys who grew up in quiet, sports-loving, old-fashioned, three-car-garage heavy towns read the story and secretly, privately, give the kid props for managing to embarrass the straight jocks for once? He's twisted, surely, but he's also kind of a genius, no?
That image above is Waukesha County Sheriff's Department's photo of Anthony R. Stancl.
UPDATE: Um, I take it back.
4
You're suggesting a gay guy blackmailing a straight high school kid for a blow job is somehow OK,, somehow consensual? Somehow good karma for all the crap that goes on in high schools?
Are you f-ing kidding me?
I have lost all respect for you Christopher.
Are you f-ing kidding me?
I have lost all respect for you Christopher.
8
This is one of those cases where I can only assume you're making this silly, convoluted argument for the sake of generating comments.
9
It's almost embarrassing how you had to project your revenge fantasy on your highschool tormentors to make this sound okay.
Man, grow up. What this kid did was sick. He didn't retroactively score a point for 'your team' after you lost so badly in highschool. I'm sorry it sucked for you, but seriously go see a psychiatrist. Don't live vicariously through this kid's cruelty just so you can feel redeemed against people who messed with you.
Go to hell.
Man, grow up. What this kid did was sick. He didn't retroactively score a point for 'your team' after you lost so badly in highschool. I'm sorry it sucked for you, but seriously go see a psychiatrist. Don't live vicariously through this kid's cruelty just so you can feel redeemed against people who messed with you.
Go to hell.
10
I didn't say that at all, @4, and you're totally right, @5, this is totally related to me and the environment I was brought up in. To clarify, my point is nothing more than: isn't it refreshing for the straight jocks who treat the gay kids like shit every day to bear the humiliation for once?
11
Perfectly played, right into the hands of haters. Who's side are you on dude?
We've got a gay guy (Christopher) defending sexual blackmail and suggesting even straight guys must enjoy a blowjob from guys even if they don't realize it.
Everything the homophobes need to hear. Mr. Frizelle has set it up for them perfectly.
You are NOT. HELPING.
We've got a gay guy (Christopher) defending sexual blackmail and suggesting even straight guys must enjoy a blowjob from guys even if they don't realize it.
Everything the homophobes need to hear. Mr. Frizelle has set it up for them perfectly.
You are NOT. HELPING.
12
This kid is the definition of a sexual predator using coercive means to achieve sexual ends.
Also, your third point doesn't have any relevance what-so-ever. Gay kids are victimized has what to do with what to do with this kid's actions?
Your third point should have been; using something sent voluntarily to coerce actions under threat of public disclosure is wrong and this kid is wrong. (Think about situations here).
For a more simple point; Fag kids are justified in whatever behavior they engage in because they are societal victims. You really believe that?
Also, your third point doesn't have any relevance what-so-ever. Gay kids are victimized has what to do with what to do with this kid's actions?
Your third point should have been; using something sent voluntarily to coerce actions under threat of public disclosure is wrong and this kid is wrong. (Think about situations here).
For a more simple point; Fag kids are justified in whatever behavior they engage in because they are societal victims. You really believe that?
13
Fuck you. If this were a guy duping and assaulting teenage girls (and just for parallelism, an awkward guy who is regularly "humiliated" by the pretty girls in school), the abuse would not be in question by anyone except other abusive perverts. Are you an abusive pervert, Christopher?
In the absence of more information, it sounds like (this is a guess) he got the guys to let him give them blow jobs, in some cases repeatedly. You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were (if they were blow jobs), especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities.
Fuck you. If this were a guy duping and assaulting teenage girls (and just for parallelism, an awkward guy who is regularly "humiliated" by the pretty girls in school), the abuse would not be in question by anyone except other abusive perverts. Are you an abusive pervert, Christopher?
14
Manipulating people sexually with blackmail is never fucking genius.
I hated the jocks in my HS too but some of them grew up to be decent human beings after graduation. There is no way all 31 of his victims were such horrible jerks that we can chuckle at their experience.
And you are wrong to assume sexual manipulation, gay or straight, isn't scarring.
I hated the jocks in my HS too but some of them grew up to be decent human beings after graduation. There is no way all 31 of his victims were such horrible jerks that we can chuckle at their experience.
And you are wrong to assume sexual manipulation, gay or straight, isn't scarring.
16
Even more appalling in re-reading this is that you make him an actor of societal awareness and good in this part;
"sparing the guys who'd been duped the embarrassment of everyone seeing them naked while teaching them a valuable lesson: don't send photos/videos of your naked self to people you don't know on the internet, unless you want people you've never met to see them."
"sparing the guys who'd been duped the embarrassment of everyone seeing them naked while teaching them a valuable lesson: don't send photos/videos of your naked self to people you don't know on the internet, unless you want people you've never met to see them."
17
Frizzelle's rationalization is wrong, in the way that collective punishment of innocents in wartime is wrong.
18
Frizzle, your moral compass is warped.
This 18 yr old adult is a PREDATOR.
You should turn yourself in now before you do some serious harm.
This 18 yr old adult is a PREDATOR.
You should turn yourself in now before you do some serious harm.
19
@16, Hey now, Matthew Shepard taught gay people a valuable lesson - Don't hit on straight guys.
Im surprised this kid didn't wind up dead.
Im surprised this kid didn't wind up dead.
20
The only thing this proves is that "our side" (ie-the geeks, fags, and other non-jocks) aren't magically more moral or noble people just because they are victimized. Some of the people low on the social ladder can be just as vicious and sociopathic as any brain-damaged football player whoever pushed someone face first into a toilet for being criminally good at math, if given the opportunity. Regardless of whether he likes D&D or the Wizard of Oz better than the NFL, this guy is one of the predators and victimizers.
21
Your itemized bolding does not support your f'ed up argument at all.
Stick to grandiose pontification a la your imaginary standard The New Yorker, fool.
Stick to grandiose pontification a la your imaginary standard The New Yorker, fool.
24
@12 -- no, I don't "really believe that." I don't even kind of believe it. To quote my own descriptions of the kid and what he did: "wrong"... "wrong"... "wrong"... "deserves to be prosecuted"... "He's twisted"...
Y'all read the post, right? I'm not saying I think this kid is great and a hero because my teenage years sucked.
@13 -- your point is taken. I think equating being kicked til the wind's knocked out of you after school, or being terrified of going to school in the first place, or being upheld as someone who satan lives inside of (my family is craaaazy) is a little different form of humiliation than being humiliated because a girl doesn't want to go out with you. But I hear you. And: fuck you too.
Y'all read the post, right? I'm not saying I think this kid is great and a hero because my teenage years sucked.
@13 -- your point is taken. I think equating being kicked til the wind's knocked out of you after school, or being terrified of going to school in the first place, or being upheld as someone who satan lives inside of (my family is craaaazy) is a little different form of humiliation than being humiliated because a girl doesn't want to go out with you. But I hear you. And: fuck you too.
26
well 18 comments and no flame war... it's all pretty one-sided.
I guess Christopher can whine to Dan about how THIS 18 year old should NOT be treated as an adult facing child porn charges. Because, you know, he taught those kids a valuable lesson about strangers on the Internet.
This whole entry is disgusting to me. You guys would be forgiven for taking it down, seriously.
Christopher you should get some help. Learn a little something about sexual violence against adolescents and the damage it does.
I guess Christopher can whine to Dan about how THIS 18 year old should NOT be treated as an adult facing child porn charges. Because, you know, he taught those kids a valuable lesson about strangers on the Internet.
This whole entry is disgusting to me. You guys would be forgiven for taking it down, seriously.
Christopher you should get some help. Learn a little something about sexual violence against adolescents and the damage it does.
27
"You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were[...]especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities."
Nice. I think it's time for you to resign. Seriously. Quit the Stranger.
Nice. I think it's time for you to resign. Seriously. Quit the Stranger.
28
@Christopher: "isn't it refreshing for the straight jocks who treat the gay kids like shit every day to bear the humiliation for once?"
No. I do not find this case refreshing.
No. I do not find this case refreshing.
29
@24 If you hadn't bolded those parts I might have payed attention to them. And regardless, you invalidate or lessen that thought by your final fucking paragraph. Your moral indignation towards this guy is totally bogus.
30
this post skeeves me out almost as much as the court documents from that Fox producer -- I hope I never meet this Frizzelle guy *shudder*
31
Christopher, I think this post is far better for actual discourse than the one from yesterday. I'm not gay so I can't relate in the way you can I suppose, because that's what you seem to be doing. All I know is I was super fucking pissed in high school when the one openly-gay guy was forced out of the school by a bunch of fucktard bullies when he got a pass to bring his out-of-town boyfriend (basically the same age) to the school for a day.
But I'm not sure this is the same thing as a homosexual student being bullied.
Really, if we were to neuter those involved and look at it from an objective perspective I'm not sure one can cogently argue that anything he did was OK. And I think as a journalist you should understand the newsworthiness of this. It's a mass crime, not a one-hit wonder. It doesn't matter if he's gay or straight, he was still preying on other people.
I agree that the child porn charges are bullshit when it's another kid in possession. That's ridiculous.
But his crimes in general aren't okay, and it surprises me you're somewhat defending it.
Thanks for bringing it up, though, so we can all have a chat about the issue.
But I'm not sure this is the same thing as a homosexual student being bullied.
Really, if we were to neuter those involved and look at it from an objective perspective I'm not sure one can cogently argue that anything he did was OK. And I think as a journalist you should understand the newsworthiness of this. It's a mass crime, not a one-hit wonder. It doesn't matter if he's gay or straight, he was still preying on other people.
I agree that the child porn charges are bullshit when it's another kid in possession. That's ridiculous.
But his crimes in general aren't okay, and it surprises me you're somewhat defending it.
Thanks for bringing it up, though, so we can all have a chat about the issue.
32
Really interesting take on the story.
Now it appears you are experiencing the same "how dare you omit high moral dudgeon, you fiend" type of comments that Charles gets so much.
Thanks for having the stones to share your thoughts without pandering.
Now it appears you are experiencing the same "how dare you omit high moral dudgeon, you fiend" type of comments that Charles gets so much.
Thanks for having the stones to share your thoughts without pandering.
33
This post is disgusting, for all the reasons ably explained above.
Frizzelle? Can't you see this?
Savage? Care to comment? Or does The Stranger code forbid it? (Or maybe you're afraid it'll help this atrocity of a post unseat you in the most commented spot?)
Frizzelle? Can't you see this?
Savage? Care to comment? Or does The Stranger code forbid it? (Or maybe you're afraid it'll help this atrocity of a post unseat you in the most commented spot?)
34
"You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were (if they were blow jobs), especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities."
That makes my skin crawl.
That makes my skin crawl.
35
this is why kindergarten should start when you're 4 - then you're 17 when you graduate.
problem solved.
problem solved.
36
This kid is a bit fucked up, needs some help about appropriate sexual boundaries and needs to be punished to a degree...BUT, I also don't want to see a kid get labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life for stupid shit he did when he was a kid. In fact, the blackmail part of it is more heinous than the sex part...the 7 kids who agreed to have sex with him DIDN'T have to go through with it...unless the kids were mentally impaired or there's evidence to suggest that Stancl threatened them with violence, then it seems like they weren't that unwilling. It doesn't excuse what Stancl did, but there's a world of difference between a kid nefariously getting into the pants of another kid from an adult doing the same thing or from anyone using violence to force sex on someone. I think Christopher is trying to make the point that the media and the public in general have gone ridiculously overboard in its hysteria to find a pedophile under every bush. This kid wasn't going after the pre-pubescent; he was going after his PEERS...he's a fucking, horny teenager with a twisted mind and a lack of common sense. He needs some counseling but I don't think he needs to be labeled with permanent marker: CHILD FUCKER.
37
@1 and @3 and everyone else who said this is never ever ever ok for the win. Christopher for the lose.
38
@32, You're rewarding a stupid and ridiculous take for being controversial? You're too smart for this.
39
shame on you. if this were a straight man forcing women to give him blowjobs you wouldn't have this reaction. just because it's the dudes who normally are doing the abusing who got abused here doesn't make it in any way okay.
41
You are applying overarching themes (bullying en masse) to an individual situation.
Didn't the English department at UofW teach logic? OH RIGHT, they don't, and you dropped out.
You are not a journalist, nor a critical thinker.
Didn't the English department at UofW teach logic? OH RIGHT, they don't, and you dropped out.
You are not a journalist, nor a critical thinker.
43
@36, Yes, people that are coerced by non violent means are mentally impaired. Michael, don't bring yourself down to Chris' level.
45
Was it a beauty contest to replace Dan as editor? Because Christopher is so gorgeous but consistently so sadly mistaken...
46
@36-This is the sort of justifications most date rapists use to avoid taking responsibility for what they've done. Not all rape involves physical violence. This kid may not be a pedophile, but he is a rapist.
47
@24,
There's no evidence that the kid got the shit kicked out of him or even that he was a social outcast. For example:
And the reason anyone found out about this? Your fucking hero called in a bomb threat to the school which he considered a "fun" prank.
Also, try looking at the statistics of boys vs. girls who report sexual assaults. Shame keeps victims quiet, ESPECIALLY boys and men.
There's no evidence that the kid got the shit kicked out of him or even that he was a social outcast. For example:
He had an attention-loving side, they said, and while not the most popular boy at Eisenhower, he was not a loner.
And the reason anyone found out about this? Your fucking hero called in a bomb threat to the school which he considered a "fun" prank.
Also, try looking at the statistics of boys vs. girls who report sexual assaults. Shame keeps victims quiet, ESPECIALLY boys and men.
48
I think we can agree that Stancl is heavily wrong, while also contemplating the typical way in which prosecutors and media are exploiting irrationality for personal gain. "Possession of child pornography," as Christopher noted, is bullshit. If that were all there were to this case, charges should not have been brought. The issue here is clearly are the alleged sexual assaults (which we don't really know much about at this point).
While I appreciate people pointing out the dubious wisdom of blaming victims, I'm not going to attack Christopher for writing about something from an angle which is seldom examined.
49
Dan,
At the rate Chris is crashing and burning (this tops the wrestler leering yesterday) you're going to be getting your asses sued in no time.
At the rate Chris is crashing and burning (this tops the wrestler leering yesterday) you're going to be getting your asses sued in no time.
50
Hate to think what this year's Genius Awards will look like ... but I have to figure the crack-dealing Metro driver is also in the running.
51
Clap @32, I don't mean to reward the post for the controversy appearing in these comments, but I do mean to offer some support to the author. I read the post to be a personal-thinky piece, not a issue-conclusory one. A lot of commenters seem to be pulling their hair out trying to make this out to be some sort of agitprop to fight against. It just isn't so. The anger is quite sincere, but it is being misdirected. I hope Christopher will not let the risks of misreading dissuade him from continuing to write as he wishes.
(And I am so not too smart for this. In fact, some of my family, friends, employers, and creditors suspect I am too dumb to live.)
(And I am so not too smart for this. In fact, some of my family, friends, employers, and creditors suspect I am too dumb to live.)
52
@49's got it right. This is just psychopathic already. Note that only a couple of people here have only halfway defended Chris. They're probably nuts too.
Dan, tell him to clean out his desk and hit the road. You don't need this kind of shit going down.
Dan, tell him to clean out his desk and hit the road. You don't need this kind of shit going down.
53
You mean, identifying and humiliating your organization as rape-empathizes if the one who rapes is gay, 52?
"I hope Christopher will not let the risks of misreading dissuade him from continuing to write as he wishes."
Well, I suppose its a metaphor for unprofessional and skewed coverage overall, so they might as well just get it out there.
I am of course referring to Dan blaming blacks for Prop 8; excusing the mayor of Portland for frenching a 17 year old DESPITE his previous and printed advice against such, et al.
yep; might as well just go ahead and go on record about it.
In this way, I commend you Frizzelle.
"I hope Christopher will not let the risks of misreading dissuade him from continuing to write as he wishes."
Well, I suppose its a metaphor for unprofessional and skewed coverage overall, so they might as well just get it out there.
I am of course referring to Dan blaming blacks for Prop 8; excusing the mayor of Portland for frenching a 17 year old DESPITE his previous and printed advice against such, et al.
yep; might as well just go ahead and go on record about it.
In this way, I commend you Frizzelle.
54
His pornography collection was more than just other teenagers at his school. They were of kids younger (maybe a lot younger) than the 15 year old peer mentioned. And there were thousands of images. Does he still get a pass? He's 18 years old. He's an adult. He should get the punishment adult sexual predators get; the whole 300 years in prison. As somebody who knows people who work with sexual predators (adult and youth) they are not curable. Most aren't even treatable. Some can be controlled under certain circumstances, but not all the time or forever. This is just a first step. Like all rapists, if given the chance, he'll escalate from threats and intimidation to actual physical force. Nip this loser in the bud early, before he turns into a real monster.
p.s. Christopher Frizzelle, I don't care if you were bullied in high-school, don't project your fucked up shit on other people. How do you know it was the "Evil Jocks" who got victimized? Or that the Perv was "A Poor Little Victim"? NO, he is not a genius. He's a criminal. And your family (and hometown) isn't sick and crazy, you are!
p.s. Christopher Frizzelle, I don't care if you were bullied in high-school, don't project your fucked up shit on other people. How do you know it was the "Evil Jocks" who got victimized? Or that the Perv was "A Poor Little Victim"? NO, he is not a genius. He's a criminal. And your family (and hometown) isn't sick and crazy, you are!
56
Blah Blah Blah -- just more of the usual Frizelle vapid BS. If the gender/orientation in this story was turned around (geeky rejected straight guy tries to get straight girls) and you suggested that is was somehow "refreshing", I imagine you would be fired (or at the very least ECB would kick the living shit out of you). Fortunately for you, Savage has no integrity, so your job is safe, but I would watch my back when Erica is around.
57
You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were ... especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities.
THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF YOUR CAREER IN JOURNALISM. THAT, RIGHT THERE.
And then to have the GALL to tell your critics to "fuck themselves" (Christopher's comment #24).
Fuck us, huh?
You can pick out individual words as a defense (also comment #24) but you are forgetting these:
"KIND OF A GENIUS, NO?"
"SECRETLY, PRIVATELY, GIVE THE KID PROPS"
"THE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESCRIPTOR ... OVERBLOWN"
THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF YOUR CAREER IN JOURNALISM. THAT, RIGHT THERE.
And then to have the GALL to tell your critics to "fuck themselves" (Christopher's comment #24).
Fuck us, huh?
You can pick out individual words as a defense (also comment #24) but you are forgetting these:
"KIND OF A GENIUS, NO?"
"SECRETLY, PRIVATELY, GIVE THE KID PROPS"
"THE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESCRIPTOR ... OVERBLOWN"
58
when it was sam adams, it was okay because bb was an adult when they had sex, but here he's only 18 so he shouldn't be treated as an adult...
59
@58, Double reverse Stranger hypocrisy? Especially in light of that post on Fox News having it both ways?
61
@56,
ECB wouldn't do anything specifically because it was male on male. ECB doesn't have principles.
ECB wouldn't do anything specifically because it was male on male. ECB doesn't have principles.
62
sexual assault is sexual assault. The kid was getting off on the control he had over the guys. We shouldn't be applauding him, he's the kind of gay kid that grows up to beat his boyfriend and date rape some twink at the bar. Sexual violence or intimidation should never be applauded.
63
Issues, 60? A hot fucking story, 60?
These are the only types that could defend an article/post like this.
Let them be seen.
These are the only types that could defend an article/post like this.
Let them be seen.
64
@58 you must be new here.
The gays get to write their own rules. Basically if you're gay you get an exemption from the same type of garbage the SLOG rails against every day for anyone who is straight, or conservative, or religious.
A 40 year old making out with a 17 year old, sex at 18, lying about it and playing the gay card to get elected - that's OK. That's worth attending a rally to defend.
An 18 year old with thousands of under-age porno pics and sexually abusing under-age kids with an online blackmail scheme... THAT IS "KIND OF GENIUS, NO? GIVE THE KID PROPS!! All this predator stuff is "OVERBLOWN!!!!"
The gays get to write their own rules. Basically if you're gay you get an exemption from the same type of garbage the SLOG rails against every day for anyone who is straight, or conservative, or religious.
A 40 year old making out with a 17 year old, sex at 18, lying about it and playing the gay card to get elected - that's OK. That's worth attending a rally to defend.
An 18 year old with thousands of under-age porno pics and sexually abusing under-age kids with an online blackmail scheme... THAT IS "KIND OF GENIUS, NO? GIVE THE KID PROPS!! All this predator stuff is "OVERBLOWN!!!!"
66
No Christopher, it's not cool or refreshing. Revenge is pointless, this story is just all kinds of fucked up and sad.
67
@57 -- That "fuck you" wasn't to you. It was my response to keshmeshi, @13, who began his/her response with, "Fuck you." I meant it playfully -- I was just responding in kind...
Also, if it matters, I don't consider this post "journalism." I consider it "I went to lunch to find something to Slog about and decided to riff on this story and the way it was being presented and to wonder about the details we don't know yet." I haven't done any original reporting on this and have no idea what happened. My experiences in high school have nothing to do with this story, though they do have an effect on the way I might read the story in the newspaper over lunch. I thought it raised a couple side issues that would be interesting to talk about. I didn't say it in the post, though I should have, that anyone who was fucked over by this kid deserves the fullest protection and respect and justice.
Also, if it matters, I don't consider this post "journalism." I consider it "I went to lunch to find something to Slog about and decided to riff on this story and the way it was being presented and to wonder about the details we don't know yet." I haven't done any original reporting on this and have no idea what happened. My experiences in high school have nothing to do with this story, though they do have an effect on the way I might read the story in the newspaper over lunch. I thought it raised a couple side issues that would be interesting to talk about. I didn't say it in the post, though I should have, that anyone who was fucked over by this kid deserves the fullest protection and respect and justice.
69
in other words, you make claims to journalism (warning -- logic/rhetoric alert!) only when you want to claim journalism.
Everything else is just riffing.
the Stranger has a huge identity crisis it will never settle and will therefor never be an actual outlet.
Sorry, the truth fucking HURTS.
Everything else is just riffing.
the Stranger has a huge identity crisis it will never settle and will therefor never be an actual outlet.
Sorry, the truth fucking HURTS.
71
@67, Christopher, what are the "side issues"? That you find this story refreshing and think the kid is kind of a genius? That the boys he met deserve justice once they prove it really wasn't consensual because you have a sneaking suspicion it might have been?
You write in horrid defense of a sexual predator, then say well technically this isn't journalism and I'm standing by it regardless.....
Why don't you just admit you were wrong and apologize to everyone here?
THAT would be refreshing. And dude, I bet you went through some serious shit in high school but if you were abused - like actually, sexually abused - I am certain you would see this differently. You seem decent enough that this whole thing just looks like a giant mistake. Please say it is and just apologize instead of insisting this story is refreshing???
You write in horrid defense of a sexual predator, then say well technically this isn't journalism and I'm standing by it regardless.....
Why don't you just admit you were wrong and apologize to everyone here?
THAT would be refreshing. And dude, I bet you went through some serious shit in high school but if you were abused - like actually, sexually abused - I am certain you would see this differently. You seem decent enough that this whole thing just looks like a giant mistake. Please say it is and just apologize instead of insisting this story is refreshing???
72
"Riffing"???? WTF...using that term about a blog entry of any sort should get you fired.
SO -- when will all the SLOG contributors start tagging their entries as either "news" or "riff"??
SO -- when will all the SLOG contributors start tagging their entries as either "news" or "riff"??
73
@69, You hit the nail on the head. The Stranger, rather, Dominic, tries to be an actual journalist, but everyone else sabotages it by using Slog as a dumping ground for half baked journalistic ideas and personal issue blogging.
The entire thrust of Savage of late is that there should be no separation between news and opinion (Oh and that newspinon needs to be local first and foremost) because he sees that no real separation exists, but when he allows that wall to be broken, this is what happens. Then Chris does this kinda shit and tries to play "I was thinking out loud! I'm not being a journalist here. But trust my journalistic integrity! When I say so!" And we roll our eyes and say "HA!"
The entire thrust of Savage of late is that there should be no separation between news and opinion (Oh and that newspinon needs to be local first and foremost) because he sees that no real separation exists, but when he allows that wall to be broken, this is what happens. Then Chris does this kinda shit and tries to play "I was thinking out loud! I'm not being a journalist here. But trust my journalistic integrity! When I say so!" And we roll our eyes and say "HA!"
74
@71, Josh never backed down from the fact he made a joke that wasn't funny even after he felt compelled to explain it.
75
@67 you are a writer and you know that is not what you communicated. you implied these victims might have actually enjoyed being raped because they didn't report it. really, that does cross a line. that is a horrific rationalization, or the result of one.
76
Savage thinks opinion should be local, unless it involves a bird that smashed into a plane in upstate New York and/or self-promotion for his college sex chats and/or people who don't behave at airports.
77
*Snicker*
This is going to get hated on, but really...
What of this doesn't seem like one of those dark comedies/sadistic dramas that can be popular? Like Cruel Intentions, or something. It is ending with a happy ending: the sadist is punished. That, alone, should put a smile on anybody's face. Maybe its the difference between reality and fiction that is icking some people, or the lack of control of a person. But, its amusing considering how popular these works of rampant sexual manipulation can be. To not acknowledge your amusement of this story is to not acknowledge subconscious.
Now, really, how many of you fuckers haven't thought of murdering somebody? Not going through with it, but just thinking about it.
The problem is, that this kid DID act on it. And, Frizzelle is living these dark thoughts vicariously through the kid. I want to be horrified and offended, especially for the good of the gay community. But, I can't help but be amused at the story.
What the kid did was wrong, and stupid, and downright sucky. But, it is fodder for the likes of a Last Days or something. The main difference is Schmader sympathizes (in writing) with the victim, while Frizzelle sympathizes (in writing) with the criminal. And, that, I believe, is what people are reacting to.
This is going to get hated on, but really...
What of this doesn't seem like one of those dark comedies/sadistic dramas that can be popular? Like Cruel Intentions, or something. It is ending with a happy ending: the sadist is punished. That, alone, should put a smile on anybody's face. Maybe its the difference between reality and fiction that is icking some people, or the lack of control of a person. But, its amusing considering how popular these works of rampant sexual manipulation can be. To not acknowledge your amusement of this story is to not acknowledge subconscious.
Now, really, how many of you fuckers haven't thought of murdering somebody? Not going through with it, but just thinking about it.
The problem is, that this kid DID act on it. And, Frizzelle is living these dark thoughts vicariously through the kid. I want to be horrified and offended, especially for the good of the gay community. But, I can't help but be amused at the story.
What the kid did was wrong, and stupid, and downright sucky. But, it is fodder for the likes of a Last Days or something. The main difference is Schmader sympathizes (in writing) with the victim, while Frizzelle sympathizes (in writing) with the criminal. And, that, I believe, is what people are reacting to.
79
@77 Perhaps, but one can be amused by the story without saying literally the guy is like some sort of social awareness hero or judicious righter of wrongs to gays.
80
So... because he may or may not have been picked on by his class mates, he has the right to sexually assault them? This was not teasing or even hazing, this was blackmail and molestation. Has there even been proof of whether or not this kid was a victim of bullying? And even if he was... if you're bullied don't shoot up the school but feel free to get some sick justification out of raping your classmates
81
maybe you could have said i wish he would have turned the tables without going way too far. wouldn't it have been nice to just embarrass the boys legally or something?
but viewing the good in a rapist is a little difficult. sure, there might be some there, but the act is heinous -- enough so to remove the desire to try and see any good in it.
for those who have thoughts of murdering (or raping), NOT acting out on them makes a huge difference. when someone does act out on them, that person is broken. you do not relate to them if you did not act out.
that you would read this story and be a little happy at all, or come away thinking that just maybe those abused were willing victims, those reactions are cause for self-examination.
but viewing the good in a rapist is a little difficult. sure, there might be some there, but the act is heinous -- enough so to remove the desire to try and see any good in it.
for those who have thoughts of murdering (or raping), NOT acting out on them makes a huge difference. when someone does act out on them, that person is broken. you do not relate to them if you did not act out.
that you would read this story and be a little happy at all, or come away thinking that just maybe those abused were willing victims, those reactions are cause for self-examination.
82
@10 No, Chris, it isn't refreshing for anyone to deal with any kind of humiliation. The fact that you're so fucking bitter and can defend this predator in any way proves that you need to get some help before you start blackmailing high school jocks. Grow up, move on, be happy with your life as it is now.
83
@79 I saw the social awareness hero angle as tongue-in-cheek. And, as righter of wrongs to gays, there isn't much to that. It does ask if anybody secretly cheers this as a way of a gay oppressing the straights. Which does make it an ironic turn.
This post showed the POV from the oppressed. It reminds me of the way people write about Palestinian attacks in Israel (well, they ARE oppressed), or the attacks of the Tiger Tikal in India. Its a different perspective, supporting the oppression of the oppressors.
...
Also, I don't see where, in this post, there is any journalism whatsoever. This is all opinion. And, opinion based on nothing more than generic truths about podunk America. There was no research outside of reading the NYTimes article. Any sane person can see that.
As for what Savage does, he's an overly opinionated jerk. Savage and ECB go together in that they can't really discern fact from opinion. Check out when ECB took over the reader's letters section for her unresearched piece of venom about bike taxes (Dec 9, 2008 "You Bikers Get Off My Roads!"). Or, well, anything Savage writes. But, they both are printed in a paper. This is in a blog. Not a newspaper. Obviously Slog isn't just for journalism. Unless you think that Wm Stephan Humphrey or Charles Mudede are journalists (especially with the latter's obsession of sexuality).
This post showed the POV from the oppressed. It reminds me of the way people write about Palestinian attacks in Israel (well, they ARE oppressed), or the attacks of the Tiger Tikal in India. Its a different perspective, supporting the oppression of the oppressors.
...
Also, I don't see where, in this post, there is any journalism whatsoever. This is all opinion. And, opinion based on nothing more than generic truths about podunk America. There was no research outside of reading the NYTimes article. Any sane person can see that.
As for what Savage does, he's an overly opinionated jerk. Savage and ECB go together in that they can't really discern fact from opinion. Check out when ECB took over the reader's letters section for her unresearched piece of venom about bike taxes (Dec 9, 2008 "You Bikers Get Off My Roads!"). Or, well, anything Savage writes. But, they both are printed in a paper. This is in a blog. Not a newspaper. Obviously Slog isn't just for journalism. Unless you think that Wm Stephan Humphrey or Charles Mudede are journalists (especially with the latter's obsession of sexuality).
84
Seems like a lot of someone's oxen are being gored here. This enterprising kid deserves no more severe punishment than all of those fancy financiers who've escaped with undeserved and unearned millions. Perspective and priorities, please, Percival and Penelope.
86
@83 it may remind you of how people write about the palestinian attacks, but there the situations are very different. defending any rapist might remind you of writing that defends the palestinian attacks. but were these seven israels aggressors as well? was this palestine a even victim?
you have to pretend his a victim, pretend the abused were jocks and aggressors, pretend they are closeted homos, and pretend this guy didn't clearly have other issues before you can get away with a comparison like that.
what it reminds me of is how people write about the columbine shootings. some people then wrote that is was "nice" to have the tables turned, and maybe some jocks would give bullying a second thought.
you have to pretend his a victim, pretend the abused were jocks and aggressors, pretend they are closeted homos, and pretend this guy didn't clearly have other issues before you can get away with a comparison like that.
what it reminds me of is how people write about the columbine shootings. some people then wrote that is was "nice" to have the tables turned, and maybe some jocks would give bullying a second thought.
87
It's this fantasy-based belief that gay guys like Christopher have, where they believe that straight guys - especially jocks - would enjoy sex with guys if they would just TRY it. Then they would see that it's harmless fun. There's tons and tons of jock/straight guyish porn built on this premise.
That's why this story obviously doesn't really register with Christopher as truly sick or abusive. The thought process goes like this..........
Worst case, the victims got a blow job and really... how bad is that? In fact I bet they probably enjoyed it... They're just some horny high school kids... And wait, some of them did it more than once? See there you go... that just shows it was consensual... and man, this guy is a GENIUS for figuring out a way to show the straight guys that gay sex isn't so bad after all... no "real" harm done!
That's my theory. You are watching too much straight jock seduction porn, Christopher!! You don't recognize this as a clear case of sexual abuse because you have a strange deep-rooted attraction vs. resentment of all those hot high school jocks yourself.
That's why this story obviously doesn't really register with Christopher as truly sick or abusive. The thought process goes like this..........
Worst case, the victims got a blow job and really... how bad is that? In fact I bet they probably enjoyed it... They're just some horny high school kids... And wait, some of them did it more than once? See there you go... that just shows it was consensual... and man, this guy is a GENIUS for figuring out a way to show the straight guys that gay sex isn't so bad after all... no "real" harm done!
That's my theory. You are watching too much straight jock seduction porn, Christopher!! You don't recognize this as a clear case of sexual abuse because you have a strange deep-rooted attraction vs. resentment of all those hot high school jocks yourself.
89
@86 "pretend the abused were jocks and aggressors, pretend they are closeted homos,"
So, you're saying that the Israeli are really Palestinian? I was with you until then... Also, Palestine did have issues before Israel was even created. That was one of the reasons Israel was created.
Also, are you saying that, if this guy was first a victim of his victims, you would support his acts? And, as such, would you say that the Columbine kids were justified in their acts because they were oppressing their oppressors (attacked the ones who attacked them first)? What marks the difference in where revenge can draw its line? Is it bombing hotels of those who are oppressing you societally. Shooting people who oppress you? Sexually manipulating the ones who made fun of you? Where, for you, is the line? Is it scale related? Because there was only one criminal, its easier to demonize than a whole society. Distance related? Maybe Wisconsin is too close to home. Where is the line?
So, you're saying that the Israeli are really Palestinian? I was with you until then... Also, Palestine did have issues before Israel was even created. That was one of the reasons Israel was created.
Also, are you saying that, if this guy was first a victim of his victims, you would support his acts? And, as such, would you say that the Columbine kids were justified in their acts because they were oppressing their oppressors (attacked the ones who attacked them first)? What marks the difference in where revenge can draw its line? Is it bombing hotels of those who are oppressing you societally. Shooting people who oppress you? Sexually manipulating the ones who made fun of you? Where, for you, is the line? Is it scale related? Because there was only one criminal, its easier to demonize than a whole society. Distance related? Maybe Wisconsin is too close to home. Where is the line?
91
Wow. You people who are so upset about this need to relax and re-read his entire post, without reading so much into it. To take the most obvious point: This is a teenager trying to trick other teenagers into having sex with him. Why is this so unbearably evil? Sure, he's an ashole and should be reprimanded (as CF said), but there's a world of difference between him and anyone with a true position of authority over someone else.
I also can't help but wonder how many people pissed about this have not had sex in over a year.
I also can't help but wonder how many people pissed about this have not had sex in over a year.
92
"But did any other gay guys ... read the story and secretly, privately, give the kid props for managing to embarrass the straight jocks for once? He's twisted, surely, but he's also kind of a genius, no?"
Christopher Frizzelle that is one very unfortunate sentence that will haunt you for a long long time.
Why not just apologize and admit you got this really really wrong? If nothing else your popularity on Slog would sky-rocket. Which is probably why Dan is advising you not to back down. Don't listen to him!!
Christopher Frizzelle that is one very unfortunate sentence that will haunt you for a long long time.
Why not just apologize and admit you got this really really wrong? If nothing else your popularity on Slog would sky-rocket. Which is probably why Dan is advising you not to back down. Don't listen to him!!
94
@77 Agreed. Also - if you all hate slog and or the stranger so much why do you take the time to read it? Who really takes slog as 100% journalism? It's mostly opinion/editorial.
95
@92: "And want to apologize most to the children ..."
Oh yes, think of the children!
Would these be the same "children" that emailed nude photos of themselves? What did you think they were looking for?
Again, as Chris said in his post (even in the title), the guy was an asshole and should be punished. But really, people ...
Oh yes, think of the children!
Would these be the same "children" that emailed nude photos of themselves? What did you think they were looking for?
Again, as Chris said in his post (even in the title), the guy was an asshole and should be punished. But really, people ...
96
"But did any other gay guys who grew up in quiet, sports-loving, old-fashioned, three-car-garage heavy towns read the story and secretly, privately, give the kid props for managing to embarrass the straight jocks for once?"
I grew up in Alabaster Alabama. I now live in Mobile. And no, I don't see the need for "props".
And as for this riffing vs. journalism business, that's handy I suppose. Next time I accidentally kill a patient I'll let their family know I was just playin' around and not actually practicing medicine at the time of death.
Please resign.
I grew up in Alabaster Alabama. I now live in Mobile. And no, I don't see the need for "props".
And as for this riffing vs. journalism business, that's handy I suppose. Next time I accidentally kill a patient I'll let their family know I was just playin' around and not actually practicing medicine at the time of death.
Please resign.
97
@95 But really, those high school guys were expecting to meet a pretty girl.
But really, instead they got blackmailed and raped by a man.
But really, I'm glad you agree he should be punished.
I think multiple rapes and child porn guarantee at least 30 years. We all know from reading SLOG that 18 means you are an adult. And the guys he blackmailed in raped? At least one was only 15.
But really my ass. Maybe you and Frizelle should start a child rapists defense fund.
But really, instead they got blackmailed and raped by a man.
But really, I'm glad you agree he should be punished.
I think multiple rapes and child porn guarantee at least 30 years. We all know from reading SLOG that 18 means you are an adult. And the guys he blackmailed in raped? At least one was only 15.
But really my ass. Maybe you and Frizelle should start a child rapists defense fund.
98
Wow, wow, wow. People really need to reread some posts before they comment on them. Some of these comments are ridiculous, jump right past anything that was actually said in the post, and have missed the point entirely. Fortunately, some sane voices have started participating lately, but wow.
Chris didn't say, nor did he imply or otherwise intimate, that this kid should get away with anything. He especially condemned the blackmail for sexual favors. This is what most of you are arguing for, of course he already said it.
Functionally, Chris is arguing for a type of schadenfreude here - it's not an exact analogy, but he's just suggesting that this kid lived out a fantasy that a lot oppressed gay people may have. It wasn't right that he lived it out, it wasn't right that he went through with it, but at some level there are a lot of people who will place themselves into the situation, think about the jocks who fucked them around in high school, and will smile a little bit. Doesn't mean they're condoning the behavior, just that they understand the impulse that, at its most deviant, could drive a kid to do something like this.
And, those of you complaining about "journalism" need to shut the fuck up - your intellectual cluelessness on this issue matches any problem you may have had with the original post. This wasn't a piece of journalism - it wasn't really even close. There was no reporting here, no investigation, nothing other than Chris sharing his response to someone else's journalism. If you're seriously coming to a blog, particularly the Slog, and looking for actual journalism, then you deserve the aneurysm you've given yourself reacting to this post.
Not to mention, if you're uncomfortable with this kind of post, why the fuck are you coming to read the Slog anyway? This is hardly groundbreaking stuff around here - controversial stuff of all types has always been and always will be common around here.
I don't agree with Chris, I don't have the same reaction to the article, and I don't necessarily think he may have written it as clearly as he could have - at least given the responses, but at the same time he is none of the things that you people are accusing him of. He may, in fact, have issues that need resolving (as he admits himself), but if you seriously look at this post for what it is, instead of jumping to conclusions, then you should get the point and back off a bit.
Hey - Chris. For the next couple of days, you might do well just to share these sorts of thoughts (and pictures of wrestling) for around the office. Evidently the Slog readers aren't prepared to deal with anything that requires a bit more thought and is outside of their comfort zone.
More...
Chris didn't say, nor did he imply or otherwise intimate, that this kid should get away with anything. He especially condemned the blackmail for sexual favors. This is what most of you are arguing for, of course he already said it.
Functionally, Chris is arguing for a type of schadenfreude here - it's not an exact analogy, but he's just suggesting that this kid lived out a fantasy that a lot oppressed gay people may have. It wasn't right that he lived it out, it wasn't right that he went through with it, but at some level there are a lot of people who will place themselves into the situation, think about the jocks who fucked them around in high school, and will smile a little bit. Doesn't mean they're condoning the behavior, just that they understand the impulse that, at its most deviant, could drive a kid to do something like this.
And, those of you complaining about "journalism" need to shut the fuck up - your intellectual cluelessness on this issue matches any problem you may have had with the original post. This wasn't a piece of journalism - it wasn't really even close. There was no reporting here, no investigation, nothing other than Chris sharing his response to someone else's journalism. If you're seriously coming to a blog, particularly the Slog, and looking for actual journalism, then you deserve the aneurysm you've given yourself reacting to this post.
Not to mention, if you're uncomfortable with this kind of post, why the fuck are you coming to read the Slog anyway? This is hardly groundbreaking stuff around here - controversial stuff of all types has always been and always will be common around here.
I don't agree with Chris, I don't have the same reaction to the article, and I don't necessarily think he may have written it as clearly as he could have - at least given the responses, but at the same time he is none of the things that you people are accusing him of. He may, in fact, have issues that need resolving (as he admits himself), but if you seriously look at this post for what it is, instead of jumping to conclusions, then you should get the point and back off a bit.
Hey - Chris. For the next couple of days, you might do well just to share these sorts of thoughts (and pictures of wrestling) for around the office. Evidently the Slog readers aren't prepared to deal with anything that requires a bit more thought and is outside of their comfort zone.
100
All right, @97, I agree with you! You've changed my mind completely.
So the next time you find out about an 18-year-old guy who pressured his 17-year-old girlfriend into having sex, I expect you'll be the first one on the phone to the authorities to give that child rapist 30 years behind bars, no?
The same if he got caught with nude photos of his girlfriend.
I assume that because of your blanket statement about rapes and child porn, you must mean all cases of 18-year-olds with 17-years olds. Or is it just rape and child pornography if it's done through the internet? Or if it's done under an assumed identity?
Should I also assume that you never did anything of dubious judgement when you were a teenager?
So the next time you find out about an 18-year-old guy who pressured his 17-year-old girlfriend into having sex, I expect you'll be the first one on the phone to the authorities to give that child rapist 30 years behind bars, no?
The same if he got caught with nude photos of his girlfriend.
I assume that because of your blanket statement about rapes and child porn, you must mean all cases of 18-year-olds with 17-years olds. Or is it just rape and child pornography if it's done through the internet? Or if it's done under an assumed identity?
Should I also assume that you never did anything of dubious judgement when you were a teenager?
101
Peeps are completely overreacting. Christopher was expressing his opinion and it was transparently satirical.
He did not in any way justify the suspect, and brought up some valid points regarding statutory regulations.
I doubt this story would have warranted this amount of public outrage if it the crime had been committed by a popular male student. Obviously this is speculation, but it should be said.
Women, minorities and social outcasts have been receiving this kind of treatment for years on end. There is a bit of irony given that these individuals found themselves in a compromising situation on their own accord.
He did not in any way justify the suspect, and brought up some valid points regarding statutory regulations.
I doubt this story would have warranted this amount of public outrage if it the crime had been committed by a popular male student. Obviously this is speculation, but it should be said.
Women, minorities and social outcasts have been receiving this kind of treatment for years on end. There is a bit of irony given that these individuals found themselves in a compromising situation on their own accord.
103
Awesome job trolling for page views.
For what's it worth though, I think Frizzelle kind of has a point. I'm not saying anything this kid did was okay, it's obviously illegal and wrong, but his actions are a reaction to a fucked up system where he's (almost definitely) been systematically abused and marginalized.
But let's not let our orthodoxy and knee-jerk reactions get in the way of our empathy and our ability to understand how sometimes a victim might become a victimizer.
For what's it worth though, I think Frizzelle kind of has a point. I'm not saying anything this kid did was okay, it's obviously illegal and wrong, but his actions are a reaction to a fucked up system where he's (almost definitely) been systematically abused and marginalized.
But let's not let our orthodoxy and knee-jerk reactions get in the way of our empathy and our ability to understand how sometimes a victim might become a victimizer.
104
Remember readers every story on SLOG has to be within at least 6 degrees of separation from the subject of someone getting head?
105
To all of those are saying we should empathize because there is a possibilty he was victimized, this predator has created more victims. So does that give them the right to go out and victimize others? Or because they're the "straight oppressors" should they just take it as a lesson? It kind of creates a nasty circle... or double standard depending on how you see it.
108
I grew up gay in the town you describe in the last paragraph, and the answer is no. you are either a drama queen or sociopath.
110
no defense, riffing, or whatever. you should be ashamed, but you won't feel that. you'll forget about it, and eventually one of the victims will read this and you'll probably break and ankle that day. that is when you should feel ashamed.
poorly thought out and clearly rebuked by 99/108 comments.
sicko.
poorly thought out and clearly rebuked by 99/108 comments.
sicko.
112
Chris, I thought your piece was really smart.
People are missing the point: journalism is loaded with heteronormative bias in the labels it uses ("predator"), the insinuations it makes ("sexual acts"), the technicalities ("child porn") it applies without nuance. In this story, they all work in the service of confirming people's worst fears about queer kids.
I really liked Chris' attempt to imagine and SPECULATE (he never claims otherwise) another side to the story. Especially since, as so many commenters here are demonstrating, so few people are even willing to entertain these possibilities that there will probably never be any effort made towards fact-digging in those directions.
Reminds me of the Shawn Hornbeck story. Remember him? He was the kid who was kidnapped for four years. It never completely made sense why he didn't escape, and I suspect it's because he's probably gay and now the family doesn't want it known. THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE KIDNAPPING. But it is another example of how homophobia often shapes media accounts about kids.
People are missing the point: journalism is loaded with heteronormative bias in the labels it uses ("predator"), the insinuations it makes ("sexual acts"), the technicalities ("child porn") it applies without nuance. In this story, they all work in the service of confirming people's worst fears about queer kids.
I really liked Chris' attempt to imagine and SPECULATE (he never claims otherwise) another side to the story. Especially since, as so many commenters here are demonstrating, so few people are even willing to entertain these possibilities that there will probably never be any effort made towards fact-digging in those directions.
Reminds me of the Shawn Hornbeck story. Remember him? He was the kid who was kidnapped for four years. It never completely made sense why he didn't escape, and I suspect it's because he's probably gay and now the family doesn't want it known. THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE KIDNAPPING. But it is another example of how homophobia often shapes media accounts about kids.
113
This guy was a total fucking PREDATOR. Hell yes, the word fits. I get the semiotics argument, Christopher, I just don't FUCKING BUY IT.
All you apologists are speculating characteristics (jocks, popular kids, whatever) to rationalize the horrible KNOWN facts. They only even caught the lovely individual because he made fucking bomb threats!
All you apologists are speculating characteristics (jocks, popular kids, whatever) to rationalize the horrible KNOWN facts. They only even caught the lovely individual because he made fucking bomb threats!
114
wtf is up with the Stranger this week. i almost wish Savage were posting more.
you guys get a big FAIL for the last several day's worth of posts.
you guys get a big FAIL for the last several day's worth of posts.
115
Really Chris? Will you go so far to defend one of your own that you will say that those guys would have gone to the authorities if the actions were truly non-consensual? Just like all those female rape victims always go to the cops right? It's not like they're ashamed and embarrassed, wrongfully so but still they don't go to the cops.
Let me put this straight, this was a straightup rape of many students. You conveniently neglected to say just *how much younger* than him they were. And this was an 18year old in high school, among the older kids there. Make no excuses, call out the rapists where they are.
Let me put this straight, this was a straightup rape of many students. You conveniently neglected to say just *how much younger* than him they were. And this was an 18year old in high school, among the older kids there. Make no excuses, call out the rapists where they are.
119
She was asking for it. She probably enjoyed it. If she didn't want to be raped, why didn't she go to the police? She deserved it.
Sound familiar Christopher? It's the standard argument people use when defending rapists. And it's bullshit, even when you change the "she" to a "he". Couching your argument in a qualifier doesn't make you any less of a douchbag. You're still defending a rapist.
Sound familiar Christopher? It's the standard argument people use when defending rapists. And it's bullshit, even when you change the "she" to a "he". Couching your argument in a qualifier doesn't make you any less of a douchbag. You're still defending a rapist.
120
Just out of curiosity, since when is receiving an *unwanted* blowjob considered rape? (Is any received blowjob ever unwanted? go ahead, flame away.)
At the worst, molestation could work as a label. I don't think it rises (haha, get it?) to the level of rape.
At the worst, molestation could work as a label. I don't think it rises (haha, get it?) to the level of rape.
121
Welcome to Slog.
When you're defending a gay mayor's lies, sometimes an 18 is an adult man in an adult relationship.
But sometimes 18 is just a high school kid facing "disingenous" charges because "they're all in high school together."
Disingenuous charges for blackmailing fifteen year old boys into having gay sex? You "begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were." ???
Christopher - disgusting. Defending sexual abuse should be avoided in any circumstance. I really do think an apology is in order.
When you're defending a gay mayor's lies, sometimes an 18 is an adult man in an adult relationship.
But sometimes 18 is just a high school kid facing "disingenous" charges because "they're all in high school together."
Disingenuous charges for blackmailing fifteen year old boys into having gay sex? You "begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were." ???
Christopher - disgusting. Defending sexual abuse should be avoided in any circumstance. I really do think an apology is in order.
122
This is a fucked up story but it's not fucking rape.... Blackmail and rape are very different. The victims got into a bad situation on their own. And if you send a nude pic of yourself on the internet to a stranger, more then one person might see it......
123
Thanks to @98.
I think that the IDEA of this guy's story is kind of interesting--a victimized minority suddenly having power; but the FACT of how he got it and what he did with it is over the top. This plays out like a adult-rated Twilight Zone of the 21st century.
I'm also thinking that a bunch of the responses were written by a single person during a break from a NARN organizing meeting.
I think that the IDEA of this guy's story is kind of interesting--a victimized minority suddenly having power; but the FACT of how he got it and what he did with it is over the top. This plays out like a adult-rated Twilight Zone of the 21st century.
I'm also thinking that a bunch of the responses were written by a single person during a break from a NARN organizing meeting.
124
Individuals expressing distaste of Chris being a fanboy of blackmail sexual assault compared to the NARN debate is completely incongruous and disingenuous, 123 / avatar.
127
My points were twofold @ 124. First, Chris wasn't being a fanboy; second, the shrill, abusive and instantaneous responses, similar in tone to those in the NARN threads, smack of one repeat writer who is more intent on thinking up clever rewrites of a poster's name than on a discourse about a baffling and bad situation.
128
What discourse does it merrit, Avatar? Projecting and imagining how these victims actually wanted to perform oral sex on somebody who deceived them? You know, they sent their pictures to someone they thought was a WOMAN.
But, ya know, let's create a narrative in which we champion this "genius" sexual predator, "no"?.
Avatar, I implore you to negotiate a context or discourse in which anything about this is not criminal.
Go on.
Go for it.
But, ya know, let's create a narrative in which we champion this "genius" sexual predator, "no"?.
Avatar, I implore you to negotiate a context or discourse in which anything about this is not criminal.
Go on.
Go for it.
129
Jesus Christ- I have never seen so much hate on slog before. Fantastic work looking like assholes everyone. Read the post again, morons until this sinks in: Frizelle says over and over that he doesn't think what this kid did was right, and that the blackmail part was exceptionally abhorrent. He's not defending this kids actions. What he's doing is pointing out the parts of this story that are nothing more than pathetic sensationalism. The media doesn't even NEED this hilarious "possession of child porn" angle, and it frankly makes everything else that is legitimately wrong seem suspect. The kid was fucking 18. Most of the idiots sending naked pictures of themselves were only one or two years younger than him. THAT part I agree with Frizelle about: not only were those kids fucking idiots, who should also be reprimanded for doing something so incredibly stupid, the media needs to concentrate on the actual problems- blackmail and cohersion.
You people really need to calm the fuck down about his post. He's not defending what was actually horribly wrong about what this fucked up kid did. He's just pointing out the ridiculousness of one of the accusations.
You people really need to calm the fuck down about his post. He's not defending what was actually horribly wrong about what this fucked up kid did. He's just pointing out the ridiculousness of one of the accusations.
130
Isn't it nice that the people who were bad to me in high school are now the victims of rape and blackmail?
Oh yeah, totally.
Oh yeah, totally.
131
129, the child porn part was such a minuscule part of the post. How did you miss the revenge fantasy twice?
132
@129 you are an idiot.
Yeah he says it's wrong but then proceeds to call the charges disingenuous, the kid sort of genius, thinks the kid deserves props, and worst of all speculates the victims were willing participants and it wasn't abuse at all - it was consensual!
Some of those guys (three years younger than him - and 15 is not too mature) are probably sexually traumatized and will be dealing with issues for many years to come. YEAH, PROPS!! GENIUS!!
I am so glad Christopher Frizzelle feels schadenfreude from sexual abuse. Tells us everything we need to know about him. Sick.
Yeah he says it's wrong but then proceeds to call the charges disingenuous, the kid sort of genius, thinks the kid deserves props, and worst of all speculates the victims were willing participants and it wasn't abuse at all - it was consensual!
Some of those guys (three years younger than him - and 15 is not too mature) are probably sexually traumatized and will be dealing with issues for many years to come. YEAH, PROPS!! GENIUS!!
I am so glad Christopher Frizzelle feels schadenfreude from sexual abuse. Tells us everything we need to know about him. Sick.
133
But Christopher, it's only deserving of props if he hadn't been caught, right?
I mean now all "the faggot in math class" has done is guarantee an entire midwest suburb continues to hate and fear gays for years to come.
So in your truly idealized version of "embarrassing the jocks for once," the guy would have gotten away with it.
And then there would only be 30 homophobic fucked up abuse victims quietly perpetuating abuse on their next generation of victims.
The way it should be, right Christopher? In your "secret, private" fantasy against the jocks?
But Christopher, it's only deserving of props if he hadn't been caught, right?
I mean now all "the faggot in math class" has done is guarantee an entire midwest suburb continues to hate and fear gays for years to come.
So in your truly idealized version of "embarrassing the jocks for once," the guy would have gotten away with it.
And then there would only be 30 homophobic fucked up abuse victims quietly perpetuating abuse on their next generation of victims.
The way it should be, right Christopher? In your "secret, private" fantasy against the jocks?
134
@133 You always have to have the criminal be punished. Otherwise, it is not as satisfying to the American Public.
For examples, see (in reverse chronological order):
Very Bad Things
Cruel Intentions/Dangerous Liasons
8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
The Cable Guy
The Killing
Titus Andronicus
This gives the audience some reason not to commit the acts, and feel better for enjoying themselves (and maybe even living vicariously).
For examples, see (in reverse chronological order):
Very Bad Things
Cruel Intentions/Dangerous Liasons
8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
The Cable Guy
The Killing
Titus Andronicus
This gives the audience some reason not to commit the acts, and feel better for enjoying themselves (and maybe even living vicariously).
135
All this says to me is that maybe Christopher had some shit happen to him in high school, but that he was DEFINITELY never sexually abused.
If you've ever been sexual abused you would not be capable of writing that.
Until it happens to you, you have no idea what it is like. To see Christopher write such a careless debate on the real harm of straight 15 year olds having gay oral sex with an 18 year old who has been threatening them is sickening to my stomach.
It just proves Christopher's high school experience was nowhere nearly as bad as some.
If you've ever been sexual abused you would not be capable of writing that.
Until it happens to you, you have no idea what it is like. To see Christopher write such a careless debate on the real harm of straight 15 year olds having gay oral sex with an 18 year old who has been threatening them is sickening to my stomach.
It just proves Christopher's high school experience was nowhere nearly as bad as some.
136
I used to live in this town as a teenager and all that bull in the NYT article about how it's a small town with old-fashioned values is a load of bull. It's a milwaukee suburb of mid to upper middle class people, mostly white. It sucks that this happened and that kid is seriously screwed up, but it is not a place full of angelic children. The teenagers there are just as selfish and stupid as anywhere else.
137
"You begin to wonder how non-consensual those blow jobs were (if they were blow jobs), especially because none of those seven victims ever complained to authorities. "
What, did you just arrive from the 1940s? Fuck you.
What, did you just arrive from the 1940s? Fuck you.
138
Thanks for putting thigns in bold for me. I couldn't read your pathetic article without the non-verbal cues.
139
Blackmailing someone into having sex with you IS rape. Oral sex IS sex (just ask Dan), and coercing someone into sex (even if it is "just" receiving oral sex) IS rape.
There is so much stupid sexist bullshit going on here. People think that men always want sex, or are always "ready" for it, and that getting your dick sucked can't possibly be a bad thing. Going down on a woman who doesn't want it is rape. Going down on a man who doesn't want it is also rape, but for some reason there are people honestly saying that they can't conceive of any man not wanting a blowjob.
Why didn't the victims come forward? Maybe because they were worried about their peers concluding, like Christopher and his defenders, that they must have really wanted it. This is why rape against men is so underreported, and it pisses me off.
This kind of victim-blaming would never be tolerated on Slog if it were directed at women. It's such a ridiculous double standard. Men, you all need to get together and make it clear to the world that just because you have dicks doesn't mean that you can't be raped. I (and, hopefully, most of my fellow feminists) will be right behind you.
There is so much stupid sexist bullshit going on here. People think that men always want sex, or are always "ready" for it, and that getting your dick sucked can't possibly be a bad thing. Going down on a woman who doesn't want it is rape. Going down on a man who doesn't want it is also rape, but for some reason there are people honestly saying that they can't conceive of any man not wanting a blowjob.
Why didn't the victims come forward? Maybe because they were worried about their peers concluding, like Christopher and his defenders, that they must have really wanted it. This is why rape against men is so underreported, and it pisses me off.
This kind of victim-blaming would never be tolerated on Slog if it were directed at women. It's such a ridiculous double standard. Men, you all need to get together and make it clear to the world that just because you have dicks doesn't mean that you can't be raped. I (and, hopefully, most of my fellow feminists) will be right behind you.
140
@89 perhaps i wasn't clear -- it seems you've missed my point. i said there was not a comparison to the palestinian sympathies. your confusion in trying to make sense of it is a prime example. there is no comparison. and just for the record, i'm not for either side killing, bombing or kidnapping members of the other side, in the same way that i'm not for either homo or heterosexuals raping, blackmailing or otherwise treating the "other" cruelly.
nor do i agree with what happened at columbine -- i just think it's a more apt comparison than palestine. palestine is a mess with blame easily found on both sides. not so much in this situation, not so much with columbine. your, and CF's, defense of this teenager remind me of the defense of the columbine shooters: misguided even if there is a little part of us that was abused ourselves and wanted a revenge on "those" who perpetrated it.
nor do i agree with what happened at columbine -- i just think it's a more apt comparison than palestine. palestine is a mess with blame easily found on both sides. not so much in this situation, not so much with columbine. your, and CF's, defense of this teenager remind me of the defense of the columbine shooters: misguided even if there is a little part of us that was abused ourselves and wanted a revenge on "those" who perpetrated it.
141
Not a peep from ECB, Dan Savage, nobody on staff. It's either a glaring case of "look-the-other-way or a you-are-on-your-own sorta deal.
Either way, it is a code of silence. How shameful.
Either way, it is a code of silence. How shameful.
142
Christopher, this is a really weaselly post. For all the phrases where you condemn his acts, you spend much of the post praising or equivocating them. And yes, suggesting that the victims might have enjoyed being exploited because they didn't go to the cops is a deeply despicable thing to say. This is a really horrible post and since you aren't, allow me to be ashamed on your behalf. I believe you when you say you just tossed this off over lunch; the sad thing is that means you unintentionally exposed much more of your loathsome worldview than you would have had this been an actual article.
144
@140 My defense of this teenager? Where did you read that? Are you high? Or, just dense. Go re-read what I wrote. Most of it is condemnation of the people who are bitching about Frizzelle's article.
First of all, you wrote this: "you have to pretend his a victim, pretend the abused were jocks and aggressors, pretend they are closeted homos, and pretend this guy didn't clearly have other issues before you can get away with a comparison [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]."
To put this story into parallels, you are putting him in the place of Palestine, and the victims in the place of Israel. But, its that latter portion that you can't get away with. You obviously think that the Israelis are closeted Arabs, and that Palestine doesn't have any other issues whatsoever.
It is an apt window into your thought process on that conflict.
...
The writing of the empathy with the criminal is, indeed, comparable to writing of Palestine. It hypothesizes that the gay kid was oppressed (like Palestine), and that this was his outlet for revenge and escaping the oppressors (much like suicide bombers). Its really the same type of conflict, only on a much, much, smaller scale...in theory.
...
In fact, I'm not justifying anything. I could be pro-Palestine, but I could also be pro-Israel. You don't know. I'm saying that the writing is comparable.
What I am saying, is at what point does horrific revenge become unjust, and why? Would you react as strongly to somebody justifying, or saying they empathized with, a Palestinian suicide bomber who ruined many many more lives than this kid?
First of all, you wrote this: "you have to pretend his a victim, pretend the abused were jocks and aggressors, pretend they are closeted homos, and pretend this guy didn't clearly have other issues before you can get away with a comparison [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]."
To put this story into parallels, you are putting him in the place of Palestine, and the victims in the place of Israel. But, its that latter portion that you can't get away with. You obviously think that the Israelis are closeted Arabs, and that Palestine doesn't have any other issues whatsoever.
It is an apt window into your thought process on that conflict.
...
The writing of the empathy with the criminal is, indeed, comparable to writing of Palestine. It hypothesizes that the gay kid was oppressed (like Palestine), and that this was his outlet for revenge and escaping the oppressors (much like suicide bombers). Its really the same type of conflict, only on a much, much, smaller scale...in theory.
...
In fact, I'm not justifying anything. I could be pro-Palestine, but I could also be pro-Israel. You don't know. I'm saying that the writing is comparable.
What I am saying, is at what point does horrific revenge become unjust, and why? Would you react as strongly to somebody justifying, or saying they empathized with, a Palestinian suicide bomber who ruined many many more lives than this kid?
146
Hate levels rising on Slog, even before this post. But why? The weather's beautiful again. San Francisco without the fog and with mountains.
147
We've all agreed that using collective statements like "we've all agreed" only works when we've actually ALL AGREED. The Frizz was wrong.
Period, end of clause, end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of page, end of chapter, end of section, end of book, end of series.
Period, end of clause, end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of page, end of chapter, end of section, end of book, end of series.
150
Hi, Christopher...
I got WAY too involved in a recent unpleasant comment thread elsewhere, and so I've decided that arguing with strangers who have already made up their mind about something is a huge waste of my time.
However, there's so much hate for you in this thread that I did just feel the need to give you a bit of support. I don't find your post offensive at all. In fact, I pretty much agree with all of it. The word "genius" is a step too far, I think (he's just crafty and weasel-y, along with the crazy), but otherwise, I'd sign off on your piece. And I don't think you're a terrible person with ohmygod no morals, etc. etc.
I got WAY too involved in a recent unpleasant comment thread elsewhere, and so I've decided that arguing with strangers who have already made up their mind about something is a huge waste of my time.
However, there's so much hate for you in this thread that I did just feel the need to give you a bit of support. I don't find your post offensive at all. In fact, I pretty much agree with all of it. The word "genius" is a step too far, I think (he's just crafty and weasel-y, along with the crazy), but otherwise, I'd sign off on your piece. And I don't think you're a terrible person with ohmygod no morals, etc. etc.
151
#40: EVERYONE has been blackmailed/coerced/guilted into doing shit they don't want to do...frequently by our mothers and significant others.
#43: Huh?
#46: Rape is a word that has been perverted and misused to the point that it has lost all meaning, which is a disservice to the people who have actually had to endure the agony of an actual rape. Sorry, but I think it's a travesty to lump those who have been physically, mentally and emotionally abused and assaulted with someone who cries rape after being coerced or talked into having sex they don't want to have. And yes, it's crummy at best and often criminal at worst for people to coerce others into sexual situations but to compare it to someone who's been beaten and battered physically and/or emotionally is ludicrous...like comparing a slap in the face with getting hit in the head with a machete.
#49: Sued for what? Stating an opinion?
What a maroon...
(However, quite a few commentators on here seem to have forgotten that in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty...and Mr Stancl could sue some of YOU for libel.)
Lastly, why is it that turning 18 magically turns you into an adult? And being 17 years and 364 days old makes you a child? (unless of course you've been put on trial for murder and even more so if you're a minority...let's say one of Mr Stancl's 15 yr old alleged child victims goes out and kills a couple of people...bet you a dollar that the 15 year old child gets charged as an adult.)
#43: Huh?
#46: Rape is a word that has been perverted and misused to the point that it has lost all meaning, which is a disservice to the people who have actually had to endure the agony of an actual rape. Sorry, but I think it's a travesty to lump those who have been physically, mentally and emotionally abused and assaulted with someone who cries rape after being coerced or talked into having sex they don't want to have. And yes, it's crummy at best and often criminal at worst for people to coerce others into sexual situations but to compare it to someone who's been beaten and battered physically and/or emotionally is ludicrous...like comparing a slap in the face with getting hit in the head with a machete.
#49: Sued for what? Stating an opinion?
What a maroon...
(However, quite a few commentators on here seem to have forgotten that in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty...and Mr Stancl could sue some of YOU for libel.)
Lastly, why is it that turning 18 magically turns you into an adult? And being 17 years and 364 days old makes you a child? (unless of course you've been put on trial for murder and even more so if you're a minority...let's say one of Mr Stancl's 15 yr old alleged child victims goes out and kills a couple of people...bet you a dollar that the 15 year old child gets charged as an adult.)
153
@140. i was polite to your view, and your response is rude. i'm not fond of continuing an "internet" conversation with you at this point, so please keep that in mind. personal insults are not necessary, especially when i am attempting to engage your ideas in a civil manner.
you wrote, It reminds me of the way people write about Palestinian attacks in Israel (well, they ARE oppressed), or the attacks of the Tiger Tikal in India. Its a different perspective, supporting the oppression of the oppressors.
i'm not here to talk about palestine. the analogy does not work. once again, you criticize the analogy for not making sense whenit was your comparison, not mine, and i'm the one who said it is not apt. i view a comparison that poorly fits as a distraction tactic away from the source. there is certainly more sympathy for palestine on this board than for anthony. you write of me that i must think israelis are closeted arabs... what? that's so far off topic i refuse to try make the analogy fit. it's not about who is whom, but rather writing sympathetically about an action that is generally frowned upon. but if you must have clarification, i had anthony as the oppressor of the oppressors, just as you did.
my point is this: you ask at what point does horrific revenge become unjust? well, we haven't even established that this was revenge yet. without that piece, the discussion is amputated at best.
at this time, all we know that is was a horrific (your word) action. and what your wrote that i take offense to, was, But, I can't help but be amused at the story.
finally, i am not dense. your defense of the kid began when you said, This is going to get hated on, continued with To not acknowledge your amusement of this story is to not acknowledge subconscious.
your *Snicker* is in the face of a horrific action. while you might not be defending the action, you are defending the thoughts behind it, and the motivation. that is the defense to which i refer.
the difference -- as i said earlier -- wasn't solely that he acted on it. it's that the thought of someone acting on it is bad. even if, as you say, we all have thoughts of murder (though i might contest to what degree), the part of us that makes us rational being dissuades us from acting. even in our minds, we dismiss the thought of acting. hopefully, we do this for the right reasons, but even the wrong motivation -- fear of being caught -- is better than nothing.
More...
you wrote, It reminds me of the way people write about Palestinian attacks in Israel (well, they ARE oppressed), or the attacks of the Tiger Tikal in India. Its a different perspective, supporting the oppression of the oppressors.
i'm not here to talk about palestine. the analogy does not work. once again, you criticize the analogy for not making sense whenit was your comparison, not mine, and i'm the one who said it is not apt. i view a comparison that poorly fits as a distraction tactic away from the source. there is certainly more sympathy for palestine on this board than for anthony. you write of me that i must think israelis are closeted arabs... what? that's so far off topic i refuse to try make the analogy fit. it's not about who is whom, but rather writing sympathetically about an action that is generally frowned upon. but if you must have clarification, i had anthony as the oppressor of the oppressors, just as you did.
my point is this: you ask at what point does horrific revenge become unjust? well, we haven't even established that this was revenge yet. without that piece, the discussion is amputated at best.
at this time, all we know that is was a horrific (your word) action. and what your wrote that i take offense to, was, But, I can't help but be amused at the story.
finally, i am not dense. your defense of the kid began when you said, This is going to get hated on, continued with To not acknowledge your amusement of this story is to not acknowledge subconscious.
your *Snicker* is in the face of a horrific action. while you might not be defending the action, you are defending the thoughts behind it, and the motivation. that is the defense to which i refer.
the difference -- as i said earlier -- wasn't solely that he acted on it. it's that the thought of someone acting on it is bad. even if, as you say, we all have thoughts of murder (though i might contest to what degree), the part of us that makes us rational being dissuades us from acting. even in our minds, we dismiss the thought of acting. hopefully, we do this for the right reasons, but even the wrong motivation -- fear of being caught -- is better than nothing.
154
@151
blackmail
i would argue this is a different kind of blackmail. there are certainly degrees of blackmail, but this rises to the top, whereas emotional blackmail from your parents is a world away at the bottom
rape
it would certainly explain the differences in reaction here, but i think some people do consider this rape (sexual assault) to be of the worst flavor.i can understand how someone else might view this slightly differently, but these boys were not, as you put it, just talked into having sex they [didn't] want to have as if the only regretted it later. no; each boy had as much as a knife held to their throat.
the magic age of 18
well, i think some are just pointing out the irony of sam adams teenager being defended as completely adult by the stranger, whereas anthony was just a kid trying to get laid by other kids. i mean, surely you see the humor in that? especially after the stranger made fun of fox news for the same thing.
blackmail
i would argue this is a different kind of blackmail. there are certainly degrees of blackmail, but this rises to the top, whereas emotional blackmail from your parents is a world away at the bottom
rape
it would certainly explain the differences in reaction here, but i think some people do consider this rape (sexual assault) to be of the worst flavor.i can understand how someone else might view this slightly differently, but these boys were not, as you put it, just talked into having sex they [didn't] want to have as if the only regretted it later. no; each boy had as much as a knife held to their throat.
the magic age of 18
well, i think some are just pointing out the irony of sam adams teenager being defended as completely adult by the stranger, whereas anthony was just a kid trying to get laid by other kids. i mean, surely you see the humor in that? especially after the stranger made fun of fox news for the same thing.
155
@155 If you didn't like how rude I was last time, you're going to hate me this time.
Let's start with your last paragraph. First you say that you think that anybody even HAVING these thoughts, or THINKING about acting on them is criminal. Then, you say that, if everybody has them from time to time, that we do stop ourselves. Well, pick which one you want to state. Because the former is very 1984, while the latter is at least acknowledgment of humanity. Holding them both is hypocrisy.
Before that, you went back to try to JUSTIFY your writing that I said the kid was justified with faulty logic and flimsy examples that could, at best, put me in the audience (such as at a bull fight or as the Romans watching lion feedings). Puh-leeze. Get a grip. You may be offended, but at least have the fucking balls to admit when you're wrong.
Which is the perfect lead in to the first part of this comment. Yes, I was the one to bring in the Palestine comparison, but you have not been able to disprove the parallels. In fact you write in such backwards circles, I don't even know if you read what I read. I suspect that you didn't because I asked if you were dense and high. Maybe your emotions are short-circuiting right now because I said you were ball-less in the last paragraph...or a hypocrite in the second sentence. :-)
The thing is, I'm not criticizing the analogy. I think its a good analogy. I'm criticizing your analysis of the analogy, which is erroneous. Because, really, its kind of fucked. But, you can't seem to get over that I'm actually criticizing your pseudo-logic, and think that I'm criticizing my own analogy. Which is dumb.
...
Getting back to the subject at hand:
being offended that somebody might be amused by a horrific story, without acknowledging that many people actually do have these thoughts is amazing.
Being offended that people are justifying the kid with a revenge story, but not being offended by the people who justify the Arab attackers, is pure hypocrisy. And, no, we don't know the full story of the kid, and the revenge is pure speculation. But, nonetheless, that is what a good portion of Frizzelle's article is about...and also what many people are reacting to.
More...
Let's start with your last paragraph. First you say that you think that anybody even HAVING these thoughts, or THINKING about acting on them is criminal. Then, you say that, if everybody has them from time to time, that we do stop ourselves. Well, pick which one you want to state. Because the former is very 1984, while the latter is at least acknowledgment of humanity. Holding them both is hypocrisy.
Before that, you went back to try to JUSTIFY your writing that I said the kid was justified with faulty logic and flimsy examples that could, at best, put me in the audience (such as at a bull fight or as the Romans watching lion feedings). Puh-leeze. Get a grip. You may be offended, but at least have the fucking balls to admit when you're wrong.
Which is the perfect lead in to the first part of this comment. Yes, I was the one to bring in the Palestine comparison, but you have not been able to disprove the parallels. In fact you write in such backwards circles, I don't even know if you read what I read. I suspect that you didn't because I asked if you were dense and high. Maybe your emotions are short-circuiting right now because I said you were ball-less in the last paragraph...or a hypocrite in the second sentence. :-)
The thing is, I'm not criticizing the analogy. I think its a good analogy. I'm criticizing your analysis of the analogy, which is erroneous. Because, really, its kind of fucked. But, you can't seem to get over that I'm actually criticizing your pseudo-logic, and think that I'm criticizing my own analogy. Which is dumb.
...
Getting back to the subject at hand:
being offended that somebody might be amused by a horrific story, without acknowledging that many people actually do have these thoughts is amazing.
Being offended that people are justifying the kid with a revenge story, but not being offended by the people who justify the Arab attackers, is pure hypocrisy. And, no, we don't know the full story of the kid, and the revenge is pure speculation. But, nonetheless, that is what a good portion of Frizzelle's article is about...and also what many people are reacting to.
156
P.S. That was supposed to be @153, not @155. *grumble*
Though, it is amusing in that meta sort of way.
Though, it is amusing in that meta sort of way.
157
You just don't get it, TheMisanthrope.
Just because *some* people have these thoughts does not merrit Christopher Frizzelle, as the editor of a high profile city paper, to articulate/"riff" off of them.
Lots of people don't like black people.
Lots of people don't like gay people.
Lots of people might think its funny to make fun of the disabled.
This doesn't give license to musing about how --if you just THINK about it-- how awesome doing such might be.
Just because *some* people have these thoughts does not merrit Christopher Frizzelle, as the editor of a high profile city paper, to articulate/"riff" off of them.
Lots of people don't like black people.
Lots of people don't like gay people.
Lots of people might think its funny to make fun of the disabled.
This doesn't give license to musing about how --if you just THINK about it-- how awesome doing such might be.
158
First and foremost, wow, what a story!
But I'm a little confused. First we hear "blackmail!" and then it turns out that the fictitious female on FaceSpace OFFERED the guys who sent pics some fun with ANOTHER GUY (not with her, of course). And 7 accepted! (hmmm, 7 divided by 31...sounds about right...) Now, were the other 24 being blackmailed into doing it? I don't see any details of any blackmail, like the amount of any protection money. Christopher is quite correct in pointing out grey areas in this story, including to what degree the sex was non-consensual. (And I will confess that Christopher's last paragraph made me laugh a lot.)
On the other hand, yeah, this kid has issues and this should be prosecuted. Some EXTREMELY sympathetic gay souls might excuse the kid as just a horny gay teen who figured out a way to get LOTS of sex, and there is some validity to that. But what this kid did was also about CONTROL. If it was just him needing to satsfy his needs, there HAD to be at least a park in his town where that sort of thing went on. He didn't have to go to these elaborate lengths to satsfy his needs.
This story both breaks my heart, and scares me, too. Breaks my heart because this is an illustration of how messed up a gay kid can get growing up in an environment like this (sorry, gay-friendly straight folks, but this is something you still don't get). And scared, not just because of the Columbine-like implications, but what's this kid gonna be like when he grows up? Another Andrew Cunanan?
But I'm a little confused. First we hear "blackmail!" and then it turns out that the fictitious female on FaceSpace OFFERED the guys who sent pics some fun with ANOTHER GUY (not with her, of course). And 7 accepted! (hmmm, 7 divided by 31...sounds about right...) Now, were the other 24 being blackmailed into doing it? I don't see any details of any blackmail, like the amount of any protection money. Christopher is quite correct in pointing out grey areas in this story, including to what degree the sex was non-consensual. (And I will confess that Christopher's last paragraph made me laugh a lot.)
On the other hand, yeah, this kid has issues and this should be prosecuted. Some EXTREMELY sympathetic gay souls might excuse the kid as just a horny gay teen who figured out a way to get LOTS of sex, and there is some validity to that. But what this kid did was also about CONTROL. If it was just him needing to satsfy his needs, there HAD to be at least a park in his town where that sort of thing went on. He didn't have to go to these elaborate lengths to satsfy his needs.
This story both breaks my heart, and scares me, too. Breaks my heart because this is an illustration of how messed up a gay kid can get growing up in an environment like this (sorry, gay-friendly straight folks, but this is something you still don't get). And scared, not just because of the Columbine-like implications, but what's this kid gonna be like when he grows up? Another Andrew Cunanan?
159
Really Infrequent? How do you know those kids had "a knife held to their throat"? It doesn't say so in the Times article.
And, let me put this to you, (and others in general, esp the men, gay and straight).When you were 15 or 16 what would you have done if someone you had sent nude pictures of yourself to, attempted to blackmail you? I don't know your gender or sexuality Infrequent, but for the sake of arguement lets say you are male and heterosexual. If some gay dude threatened you with exposure unless you had sex with him, 99.9999 out of a 100 straight male teens would either punch the fag, threaten to expose HIM, or just ignore him. But if you're a queer kid who's attracted to his own peer group, you're going to be very excited; "ohmigod, i'm going to have gay sex". I'm guessing that's why none of the 7 who had sex with Stancl came forward, (but we don't know this for a fact, of course)...and of course, one or more of those kids might have been a bit backward and only went along out of fear, but you know what, even a dimwit could figure out a way to NOT have sex with this guy...(and yes, I acknowledge maybe one or more of these might actually be mentally challenged or have cognitive disabilities, which WOULD throw Stancl in a more negative light. AND, we don't know yet, how Stancl convinced them; what was the degree and method of coercion? There's a world of difference between Stancl saying, "Hey dude I'm telling everyone I know you're a fag unless we trade blow jobs" and Cody Doe replying, "Uh, sure, you got any lube?" from Stancl threatening them at length and with great severity. And considering this is a case involving minors, we might never know...)
AND, I also want to point out this quote from the Times article:
Some residents declined to discuss the charges. But Susan Selvick, mother of twin seniors at Eisenhower, pointed to the naïveté that can accompany New Berlin’s kind of comfort.
“It was beyond what the kids could imagine, you know?” Ms. Selvick said. “They see a lot of things, they go to the theater and everything else, but this is so shocking.”
“Our student body,” said Michael Fesenmaier, the principal, “is very trusting. The reason this hurts people so much is because they are so trusting.”
OH BROTHER! What fucking planet is Ms Selvick living on? Apparently her innocent little kids aren't that innocent since they seem to be sending each other nude pictures of themselves and putting quite a bit of effort into getting laid, or at least, getting their rocks off...The whole "Oh, what about the Children" thing is getting out of hand. Post pubescent kids AREN'T children; (and they're not adults, which is why we're in this discussion) but they ARE sexually functioning humans with immature minds and not much sense and yeah, they're horny and they want to explore sex. Does that mean that adults need to take advantage of that? Of course not; probably the best tactic to take is, that teens should only be having consensual sexual encounters with other post pubescent teens until age 16 or 18 with some sort of grace period for young adults up to age 21, (in other words, not criminalizing sex for 19, 20, 21 year olds who want to hook up with 16, 17, and 18 year olds; in other word, their peers). But in our hyper paranoid and sexually hysterical society, that's unlikely to happen.
Oh, and I feel the need to point out (to those that are sure I must be a closet tween chaser, because if you're defending the actions of this guy, I must be a perv!) that I wasn't attracted to teenagers when I WAS a teenager; then and now, my prefence was for dark haired, swarthy men on the order of Jon Hamm, Matthew Fox or Pierce Brosnan. (And, if Sam Adams had been after ME when I was 17/18 I, like many gay teens, would have been delighted and excited but completely freaked out if had been Beau Breedlove, a faggy contemporary and peer...)
More...
And, let me put this to you, (and others in general, esp the men, gay and straight).When you were 15 or 16 what would you have done if someone you had sent nude pictures of yourself to, attempted to blackmail you? I don't know your gender or sexuality Infrequent, but for the sake of arguement lets say you are male and heterosexual. If some gay dude threatened you with exposure unless you had sex with him, 99.9999 out of a 100 straight male teens would either punch the fag, threaten to expose HIM, or just ignore him. But if you're a queer kid who's attracted to his own peer group, you're going to be very excited; "ohmigod, i'm going to have gay sex". I'm guessing that's why none of the 7 who had sex with Stancl came forward, (but we don't know this for a fact, of course)...and of course, one or more of those kids might have been a bit backward and only went along out of fear, but you know what, even a dimwit could figure out a way to NOT have sex with this guy...(and yes, I acknowledge maybe one or more of these might actually be mentally challenged or have cognitive disabilities, which WOULD throw Stancl in a more negative light. AND, we don't know yet, how Stancl convinced them; what was the degree and method of coercion? There's a world of difference between Stancl saying, "Hey dude I'm telling everyone I know you're a fag unless we trade blow jobs" and Cody Doe replying, "Uh, sure, you got any lube?" from Stancl threatening them at length and with great severity. And considering this is a case involving minors, we might never know...)
AND, I also want to point out this quote from the Times article:
Some residents declined to discuss the charges. But Susan Selvick, mother of twin seniors at Eisenhower, pointed to the naïveté that can accompany New Berlin’s kind of comfort.
“It was beyond what the kids could imagine, you know?” Ms. Selvick said. “They see a lot of things, they go to the theater and everything else, but this is so shocking.”
“Our student body,” said Michael Fesenmaier, the principal, “is very trusting. The reason this hurts people so much is because they are so trusting.”
OH BROTHER! What fucking planet is Ms Selvick living on? Apparently her innocent little kids aren't that innocent since they seem to be sending each other nude pictures of themselves and putting quite a bit of effort into getting laid, or at least, getting their rocks off...The whole "Oh, what about the Children" thing is getting out of hand. Post pubescent kids AREN'T children; (and they're not adults, which is why we're in this discussion) but they ARE sexually functioning humans with immature minds and not much sense and yeah, they're horny and they want to explore sex. Does that mean that adults need to take advantage of that? Of course not; probably the best tactic to take is, that teens should only be having consensual sexual encounters with other post pubescent teens until age 16 or 18 with some sort of grace period for young adults up to age 21, (in other words, not criminalizing sex for 19, 20, 21 year olds who want to hook up with 16, 17, and 18 year olds; in other word, their peers). But in our hyper paranoid and sexually hysterical society, that's unlikely to happen.
Oh, and I feel the need to point out (to those that are sure I must be a closet tween chaser, because if you're defending the actions of this guy, I must be a perv!) that I wasn't attracted to teenagers when I WAS a teenager; then and now, my prefence was for dark haired, swarthy men on the order of Jon Hamm, Matthew Fox or Pierce Brosnan. (And, if Sam Adams had been after ME when I was 17/18 I, like many gay teens, would have been delighted and excited but completely freaked out if had been Beau Breedlove, a faggy contemporary and peer...)
160
And labeling this kid a "sexual predator" and a "child molestor" is utterly ludicrous. The accused is 18, the guys he took advantage of were 17. I noticed that many commenters used "guy" when referring to the accused, and "kid" or "boy" when referring to the alleged victims. C'mon, people, don't play semantic tricks like this...
161
@157 Sure it does. Much humor is laughing at the misery of others. Many people appreciate Drop Dead Gorgeous, and find the scene with the retarded guy who gets his suspenders trapped in the truck door hilarious.
Or, how about Rush Limbaugh articulating his hatred of all things Democratic? Or, Bush and Cheney all things not Bush and Cheney? I'm sure you, Lake, have laughed yourself silly at the public ridicule of these folks. I'm sure you laughed at the irony of Rush's drug problem...or at least derived some sick sort of icky pleasure from it. And, I'm sure you've complimented satirists for mocking them.
You just don't get it. THE WORLD IS DARK. Live it up!
Or, how about Rush Limbaugh articulating his hatred of all things Democratic? Or, Bush and Cheney all things not Bush and Cheney? I'm sure you, Lake, have laughed yourself silly at the public ridicule of these folks. I'm sure you laughed at the irony of Rush's drug problem...or at least derived some sick sort of icky pleasure from it. And, I'm sure you've complimented satirists for mocking them.
You just don't get it. THE WORLD IS DARK. Live it up!
162
"the fictitious female on FaceSpace OFFERED the guys who sent pics some fun with ANOTHER GUY (not with her, of course). And 7 accepted!"
It was a step/the bait he (or she, as the victims would believe) dangled infront of their faces that needed to be completed in order to get to what they really wanted: her!!!
Do SLOG readers really lack as many critical thinking skills as they exhibit?
It's flabbergasting, really.
It was a step/the bait he (or she, as the victims would believe) dangled infront of their faces that needed to be completed in order to get to what they really wanted: her!!!
Do SLOG readers really lack as many critical thinking skills as they exhibit?
It's flabbergasting, really.
163
I can't muck my way through all these comments to come up with something original so I'll just say: Christopher, you know I would send you naked pictures sans the ruse.
164
Sure, 161 -- but that is THEM. It is not US.
We are better than that. We need to be better than that.
And I say that without any cynicism or malice. It's a plea more than a demand.
We are better than that. We need to be better than that.
And I say that without any cynicism or malice. It's a plea more than a demand.
166
@141, totally.
ECB viciously attacks columnists from other newspapers whenever she can.
Remembers the recent slam on Nicole Brodeur for not understanding hypersensitivities on rape?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
But when it comes to Christopher Frizzelle questioning whether 15 year olds enjoyed the gay sex forced upon them by an 18 year old blackmailer...
well on that day ECB is too busy posting about transit.
ECB and Dan's silence is completely hypocritical.
Next time either one whines about a rape case remember they have zero credibility.
ECB viciously attacks columnists from other newspapers whenever she can.
Remembers the recent slam on Nicole Brodeur for not understanding hypersensitivities on rape?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
But when it comes to Christopher Frizzelle questioning whether 15 year olds enjoyed the gay sex forced upon them by an 18 year old blackmailer...
well on that day ECB is too busy posting about transit.
ECB and Dan's silence is completely hypocritical.
Next time either one whines about a rape case remember they have zero credibility.
169
Really Infrequent? How do you know those kids had "a knife held to their throat"? It doesn't say so in the Times article.
"knife to their throat" was a metaphor. i was demonstrating that rape doesn't require an actual knife or actual beating for it to qualify for actual rape -- as opposed to whatever sort of non-rape you want to compare this to. the story does not say this plainly, no, but it implies there was no consent, that it was forced via blackmail.
your theory -- which i might add was also not stated in the times article -- is that these abused kids were actually into it. that is classic victim blaming, and something i want no part in. we've been working so hard at telling people we will believe them if they come forward, that it's not their fault, and you are willing to cast it all aside in this case.
and why? for some assumptions that i do not think are widely shared. just as the man who says the woman deserved to get raped or wanted it, you are now implying these boys either deserved or wanted to get raped.
i didn't say anything along the lines or the old "think of the children" argument. but i will add that some of these seven boys are going to be scarred for life.
"knife to their throat" was a metaphor. i was demonstrating that rape doesn't require an actual knife or actual beating for it to qualify for actual rape -- as opposed to whatever sort of non-rape you want to compare this to. the story does not say this plainly, no, but it implies there was no consent, that it was forced via blackmail.
your theory -- which i might add was also not stated in the times article -- is that these abused kids were actually into it. that is classic victim blaming, and something i want no part in. we've been working so hard at telling people we will believe them if they come forward, that it's not their fault, and you are willing to cast it all aside in this case.
and why? for some assumptions that i do not think are widely shared. just as the man who says the woman deserved to get raped or wanted it, you are now implying these boys either deserved or wanted to get raped.
i didn't say anything along the lines or the old "think of the children" argument. but i will add that some of these seven boys are going to be scarred for life.
170
@169 Some of them will definitely be scarred. That is why Christopher thinks this is a cool story. Christopher "secretly, privately" thinks the molester deserves "props" for messing the kids up. I don't see who anyone can read or rationalize this any other way.
171
Let's start with your last paragraph. First you say that you think that anybody even HAVING these thoughts, or THINKING about acting on them is criminal.
i certainly did not say it was criminal. i cannot tell for certain, but it seems like you are misrepresenting what i wrote, and it is making this discussion difficult.
Because the former is very 1984, while the latter is at least acknowledgment of humanity.
i didn't even say just thinking "these" thoughts is wrong -- unless you clarify what "these" thoughts were. there is a point at which the thoughts go from okay to unacceptable. 1984 is an example of taking law enforcement based on an exaggeration of that principle to the extreme. i would never be in favor of that. but the other extreme would be to say that a murderer never had any wrong thoughts, that *only* the actions were wrong. well, that's not true either: some thoughts are at some point, wrong.
Holding them both is hypocrisy.
thinking you are mad enough to kill someone is probably something that happens on a fairly regular basis. actually making the plans in your head? thinking about where you would stab them first? thinking about enjoying their last gasp of breath? i still never said criminal, but i will insist that at some point these thoughts become unhealthy at best, wrong at worst.
to parse this is difficult -- it is very easy for you to just say i'm contradicting myself. but there is a difference even in the types of thoughts people have.
but at least have the fucking balls to admit when you're wrong.
what was i wrong about, again?
Which is the perfect lead in to the first part of this comment. Yes, I was the one to bring in the Palestine comparison, but you have not been able to disprove the parallels.
if you really want to talk about palestine, fine. provide your analogy, and i will show you why it's flawed. i would rather you do that. still, if you must that i go first: my initial reaction is that there currently is *much* debate on the israeli palestinian conflict; that people sympathize with both sides. with anthony, however, there is not nearly as much debate, few sympathize with him even on this forum. that is my critique. the former is an issue with people split on both sides. a defense of either side is isn't like a defense of the latter, because with anthony, it appears rather one-sided.
The thing is, I'm not criticizing the analogy. I think its a good analogy. I'm criticizing your analysis of the analogy, which is erroneous. Because, really, its kind of fucked. But, you can't seem to get over that I'm actually criticizing your pseudo-logic, and think that I'm criticizing my own analogy. Which is dumb.
i did not think you were criticizing your own analogy. i was using your logic against your argument. this is a common tactic, to point out contradictions.
being offended that somebody might be amused by a horrific story, without acknowledging that many people actually do have these thoughts is amazing.
do many people have these thoughts? i don't think so. but perhaps we've reached our exact point of contention (which was stated at the beginning of this mail).
it's okay to everyone has these thoughts when you are talking about hypothetical situations that are very specific. imagine a jock torturing a young guy day after day. the jock is actually gay, though. some sort of revenge.
not so bad. "these" thoughts: okay
now imagine an actual case. seven abused kids, ranging in age from 15 to 17. these were not all guys who were gay, or who harassed the antagonist. other people snickering and deriving a little bit of satisfaction from it.
bad. "these" thoughts: not okay.
sure, sometimes people laugh at rape, incest, retarded people. at least they can admit it's wrong or laugh because it's a MOVIE, not reality. at least they don't want those things to happen reality. is that thought i have a problem with.
ps- and i am a little offended by some people's defense of arab bombers. and of some of the defense of israeli actions. it depends on what you are defending and why; my same contentions here.
More...
i certainly did not say it was criminal. i cannot tell for certain, but it seems like you are misrepresenting what i wrote, and it is making this discussion difficult.
Because the former is very 1984, while the latter is at least acknowledgment of humanity.
i didn't even say just thinking "these" thoughts is wrong -- unless you clarify what "these" thoughts were. there is a point at which the thoughts go from okay to unacceptable. 1984 is an example of taking law enforcement based on an exaggeration of that principle to the extreme. i would never be in favor of that. but the other extreme would be to say that a murderer never had any wrong thoughts, that *only* the actions were wrong. well, that's not true either: some thoughts are at some point, wrong.
Holding them both is hypocrisy.
thinking you are mad enough to kill someone is probably something that happens on a fairly regular basis. actually making the plans in your head? thinking about where you would stab them first? thinking about enjoying their last gasp of breath? i still never said criminal, but i will insist that at some point these thoughts become unhealthy at best, wrong at worst.
to parse this is difficult -- it is very easy for you to just say i'm contradicting myself. but there is a difference even in the types of thoughts people have.
but at least have the fucking balls to admit when you're wrong.
what was i wrong about, again?
Which is the perfect lead in to the first part of this comment. Yes, I was the one to bring in the Palestine comparison, but you have not been able to disprove the parallels.
if you really want to talk about palestine, fine. provide your analogy, and i will show you why it's flawed. i would rather you do that. still, if you must that i go first: my initial reaction is that there currently is *much* debate on the israeli palestinian conflict; that people sympathize with both sides. with anthony, however, there is not nearly as much debate, few sympathize with him even on this forum. that is my critique. the former is an issue with people split on both sides. a defense of either side is isn't like a defense of the latter, because with anthony, it appears rather one-sided.
The thing is, I'm not criticizing the analogy. I think its a good analogy. I'm criticizing your analysis of the analogy, which is erroneous. Because, really, its kind of fucked. But, you can't seem to get over that I'm actually criticizing your pseudo-logic, and think that I'm criticizing my own analogy. Which is dumb.
i did not think you were criticizing your own analogy. i was using your logic against your argument. this is a common tactic, to point out contradictions.
being offended that somebody might be amused by a horrific story, without acknowledging that many people actually do have these thoughts is amazing.
do many people have these thoughts? i don't think so. but perhaps we've reached our exact point of contention (which was stated at the beginning of this mail).
it's okay to everyone has these thoughts when you are talking about hypothetical situations that are very specific. imagine a jock torturing a young guy day after day. the jock is actually gay, though. some sort of revenge.
not so bad. "these" thoughts: okay
now imagine an actual case. seven abused kids, ranging in age from 15 to 17. these were not all guys who were gay, or who harassed the antagonist. other people snickering and deriving a little bit of satisfaction from it.
bad. "these" thoughts: not okay.
sure, sometimes people laugh at rape, incest, retarded people. at least they can admit it's wrong or laugh because it's a MOVIE, not reality. at least they don't want those things to happen reality. is that thought i have a problem with.
ps- and i am a little offended by some people's defense of arab bombers. and of some of the defense of israeli actions. it depends on what you are defending and why; my same contentions here.
172
nobody reads the long comments. you're wasting time.
christopher, if you enjoyed reading this story you need help.
see? like that.
christopher, if you enjoyed reading this story you need help.
see? like that.
173
172 good point. (but this was addressed to one particular poster, whom i'm guessing just might read it ... and all of it at that.)
175
ECB is too busy slogging today about neighborhood density. Seriously. If you ever doubted that ECB is a completely vacuous hypocrite, you can't possibly wonder now.
176
@170 -- "Some of them will definitely be scarred. That is why Christopher thinks this is a cool story." Where are you getting that? You can put horrible thoughts like that here if you want to, but don't attribute them to me. As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts? Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post, taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc, and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it? I'm genuinely curious. There are probably all kinds of reasons people don't comment under their real names.
@36 -- You said it much better than I did. Want to be my new editor?
@36 -- You said it much better than I did. Want to be my new editor?
177
@171 i certainly did not say it was criminal.
First you said that doing this actions are OK. But, then you said that thinking about them was wrong. "the difference -- as i said earlier -- wasn't solely that he acted on it. it's that the thought of someone acting on it is bad." You may not have said criminal, but you did say bad. And, judging somebody on their thoughts is bad.
what was i wrong about, again?
You were wrong in that I was obviously not defending the kid, so much as criticizing the "appalled" crowd. Being amused by something as part of a spectacle - also known as putting blame in the viewer - is a conceit in the edumacational realm, which I have frequently went toe to toe on. Somebody reading the paper and chuckling, or writing about chuckling, or even writing about their own neuroses and how they made the story seem positive, is not evil incarnate. Nor does it implicate the writer in the crime.
my initial reaction is that there currently is *much* debate on the israeli palestinian conflict; that people sympathize with both sides
You're putting quantity on it. Its not that PEOPLE sympathize, its that ANYbody does. What is at debate, in my opinion, is that a lot of people will justify the bombers for many of the same reasons that Frizzelle hypothesizes the victimizing the aggressor in the article. But, because he is in the minority, people think he's wrong.
The parallel is that in both (Frizzelle's rape-revenge hypothesis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict justifications) there is somebody oppressed, who fucks over a bunch of people. That's a basic analogy.
at least they don't want those things to happen reality. is that thought i have a problem with.
That's where you're wrong. But, the world is a dark and icky place. as I've said.
More...
First you said that doing this actions are OK. But, then you said that thinking about them was wrong. "the difference -- as i said earlier -- wasn't solely that he acted on it. it's that the thought of someone acting on it is bad." You may not have said criminal, but you did say bad. And, judging somebody on their thoughts is bad.
what was i wrong about, again?
You were wrong in that I was obviously not defending the kid, so much as criticizing the "appalled" crowd. Being amused by something as part of a spectacle - also known as putting blame in the viewer - is a conceit in the edumacational realm, which I have frequently went toe to toe on. Somebody reading the paper and chuckling, or writing about chuckling, or even writing about their own neuroses and how they made the story seem positive, is not evil incarnate. Nor does it implicate the writer in the crime.
my initial reaction is that there currently is *much* debate on the israeli palestinian conflict; that people sympathize with both sides
You're putting quantity on it. Its not that PEOPLE sympathize, its that ANYbody does. What is at debate, in my opinion, is that a lot of people will justify the bombers for many of the same reasons that Frizzelle hypothesizes the victimizing the aggressor in the article. But, because he is in the minority, people think he's wrong.
The parallel is that in both (Frizzelle's rape-revenge hypothesis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict justifications) there is somebody oppressed, who fucks over a bunch of people. That's a basic analogy.
at least they don't want those things to happen reality. is that thought i have a problem with.
That's where you're wrong. But, the world is a dark and icky place. as I've said.
178
@176 Some of us like our handles to be internet-wide. Or, at least, have some semblance to our handles on other sites. Besides, there is some sort of intellectual wankery purity in not knowing who is on the other end of the words.
179
@176 you think @36 said it better? he said the same thing, that he thinks maybe these kids (victims) weren't really victims. i think that's the thing that is most disturbing. your other thoughts aren't as bothersome as the thinly-veiled justification that is tantamount to victim-blaming.
why critique a thought? because you cannot change people without changing how they think. having our society lose the victim-blaming mentality is important, thus defense of victim-blaming is problematic.
As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts? Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post, taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc, and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it?
putting me in the same category as non is rather unfair. i'm nothing close to a troll, and have not in any way intentionally misread your post of took phrases out of context. in fact, i think i'm trying to engage what about your post made the 100 other posters react so negatively.
and why don't i sign my real name? uh... because it is common practice to use a nick-name on blogs. i've always used the same name, and made absolutely no secret who i was -- especially that time when, you know, when i was a guest writer for slog.
why critique a thought? because you cannot change people without changing how they think. having our society lose the victim-blaming mentality is important, thus defense of victim-blaming is problematic.
As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts? Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post, taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc, and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it?
putting me in the same category as non is rather unfair. i'm nothing close to a troll, and have not in any way intentionally misread your post of took phrases out of context. in fact, i think i'm trying to engage what about your post made the 100 other posters react so negatively.
and why don't i sign my real name? uh... because it is common practice to use a nick-name on blogs. i've always used the same name, and made absolutely no secret who i was -- especially that time when, you know, when i was a guest writer for slog.
180
Only if you blackmail me into it, Christopher...and there would have to be some frottage involved in the form of compensation.
but, that's how we gay guys swing...
but, that's how we gay guys swing...
181
Christopher I don't use my real name because I don't want people I don't know tracking me down. In one comment I said you never would have written this if you'd ever been sexually abused because you don't know what that's really like. I don't need friends coworkers and family finding me making that point either.
Also, you're getting paid to do this. We're not. But it seems the Stranger picks it's own policy right? You could require registration which is sort of a joke but at least that would cut down on some of the new names each time. Or you can require real identities by using something like Facebook Connect.
I still can't believe after all the outrage here you stand by this by pointing to comment 36. An EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD BLACKMAILED SEVEN MINORS INTO PERFORMING SEX ACTS AGAINST THEIR WILL. That is why sex abuser laws exist. Of course this guy should be labeled a sex offender. HE IS A SEX OFFENDER.
Do you have any idea how messed up and difficult life and sexuality will be for some of those seven kids?
Trust me, you do not.
If you did, you would never "secretly, privately" think the guy deserves "props" You would be sick to your stomach reading even the first half of the article.
Also, you're getting paid to do this. We're not. But it seems the Stranger picks it's own policy right? You could require registration which is sort of a joke but at least that would cut down on some of the new names each time. Or you can require real identities by using something like Facebook Connect.
I still can't believe after all the outrage here you stand by this by pointing to comment 36. An EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD BLACKMAILED SEVEN MINORS INTO PERFORMING SEX ACTS AGAINST THEIR WILL. That is why sex abuser laws exist. Of course this guy should be labeled a sex offender. HE IS A SEX OFFENDER.
Do you have any idea how messed up and difficult life and sexuality will be for some of those seven kids?
Trust me, you do not.
If you did, you would never "secretly, privately" think the guy deserves "props" You would be sick to your stomach reading even the first half of the article.
182
As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts? Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post, taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc, and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it?
i don't get this at all, actually.
As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts?
first, i did sign my internet name!
second, is "why don't you sign your real name" a real argument? really?
and third, by seriously argued you mean by two people, verses 100 some posts in agreement?
Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post
no -- i always sign the same name, when i misread posts or not.
taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc,
no. and if i did these things, it was unintentional.
and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it?
people who know who i am on slog actually know me. they've met me. some like me, others probably don't.
but what do you mean by held accountable? i don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
like you are being held accountable? or what did i say that was so crazy that i need to be held accountable? was it that i'm against victim blaming, which is what i think your posts sounds like? and that i think this was rape, a terrible crime?
come on. i'm not sure how you can rationally turn this around on me, as if i were the one who just posted such a contentious idea. i just agreed that, yeah, it's contentious, and then said why i thought it was.
while i'm glad you replied, i'm kind of bummed you didn't address the content of mine (or any other's) complaints. and even if we are all just misunderstanding you, please clarify and tell us why. there are so many -- did we all just make the same mistake?
More...
i don't get this at all, actually.
As for infrequent, Non, etc., why don't you guys sign your real names to your repeated and seriously argued posts?
first, i did sign my internet name!
second, is "why don't you sign your real name" a real argument? really?
and third, by seriously argued you mean by two people, verses 100 some posts in agreement?
Is it because you know that you're willfully misreading the post
no -- i always sign the same name, when i misread posts or not.
taking phrases out of context, putting your own thoughts in my mouth, etc,
no. and if i did these things, it was unintentional.
and you don't want anyone who knows you to hold you accountable for it?
people who know who i am on slog actually know me. they've met me. some like me, others probably don't.
but what do you mean by held accountable? i don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
like you are being held accountable? or what did i say that was so crazy that i need to be held accountable? was it that i'm against victim blaming, which is what i think your posts sounds like? and that i think this was rape, a terrible crime?
come on. i'm not sure how you can rationally turn this around on me, as if i were the one who just posted such a contentious idea. i just agreed that, yeah, it's contentious, and then said why i thought it was.
while i'm glad you replied, i'm kind of bummed you didn't address the content of mine (or any other's) complaints. and even if we are all just misunderstanding you, please clarify and tell us why. there are so many -- did we all just make the same mistake?
183
@176 - Jesus, Christopher - Comment @36 is even worse than your original post!!
"In fact, the blackmail part of it is more heinous than the sex part."
Only a very fucked up gay guy with no morality and no understanding of heterosexual fifteen year old boys could write either that sentence, or the entire comment.
The only comment worse than @36 is from the person @60, who thinks it is "a hot fucking story."
"In fact, the blackmail part of it is more heinous than the sex part."
Only a very fucked up gay guy with no morality and no understanding of heterosexual fifteen year old boys could write either that sentence, or the entire comment.
The only comment worse than @36 is from the person @60, who thinks it is "a hot fucking story."
185
@184 I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. Christopher must be so pleased to find that out too.
187
No, but at least I don't hop on and off the thread using a dozen different screen names...
Finally, All I'm gonna say is that I think that all of you who are having a fucking conniption because Christopher, myself and other people expressed our opinion that this kid may or may not be getting railroaded because of idiotic perceptions of sexuality need to step back and remind yourselves that you're guilty of assuming that this kid is guilty of the crimes of which he has been charged before any trial or any release of information about the particular circumstances of what happened, as well as assuming you know the state of mind of the victims, (and like I said before, since this case involves minors, we may never know the particulars).You weren't there, we don't have any facts or information and I don't care if you or your sister or your grandpa were the victim of any kind of sexual attack or offense; the tragic experience you or a loved one had doesn't make you an expert on the experiences of ALL victims of sex crimes. People need to stop being so idiotically judgemental and realize that NOTHING in the world should be looked at in black/white or either/or terms.
Finally, All I'm gonna say is that I think that all of you who are having a fucking conniption because Christopher, myself and other people expressed our opinion that this kid may or may not be getting railroaded because of idiotic perceptions of sexuality need to step back and remind yourselves that you're guilty of assuming that this kid is guilty of the crimes of which he has been charged before any trial or any release of information about the particular circumstances of what happened, as well as assuming you know the state of mind of the victims, (and like I said before, since this case involves minors, we may never know the particulars).You weren't there, we don't have any facts or information and I don't care if you or your sister or your grandpa were the victim of any kind of sexual attack or offense; the tragic experience you or a loved one had doesn't make you an expert on the experiences of ALL victims of sex crimes. People need to stop being so idiotically judgemental and realize that NOTHING in the world should be looked at in black/white or either/or terms.
188
@187 OMG you are pathetic.
Yes, I see now your comment @36 was all about waiting to find out the facts before rushing to judgment:
"In fact, the blackmail part of it is more heinous than the sex part...the 7 kids who agreed to have sex with him DIDN'T have to go through with it...unless the kids were mentally impaired or there's evidence to suggest that Stancl threatened them with violence, then it seems like they weren't that unwilling."
And out of all the comments here, that's the one Christopher personally chose in his defense.
Yes, I see now your comment @36 was all about waiting to find out the facts before rushing to judgment:
"In fact, the blackmail part of it is more heinous than the sex part...the 7 kids who agreed to have sex with him DIDN'T have to go through with it...unless the kids were mentally impaired or there's evidence to suggest that Stancl threatened them with violence, then it seems like they weren't that unwilling."
And out of all the comments here, that's the one Christopher personally chose in his defense.
189
Christopher you're the freaking editor: no doubt the i.p.'s and chosen email addresses are revealed or available to you.
Besides, if you're not going to allot us space to create identities for ourselves (that is, user registration), how dare you complain if we use multiples?
Besides, it's only contributing to your comment counts and page hits, which bumps up your exposures for the ad portfolio.
But OK dude, whatEVER.
Besides, if you're not going to allot us space to create identities for ourselves (that is, user registration), how dare you complain if we use multiples?
Besides, it's only contributing to your comment counts and page hits, which bumps up your exposures for the ad portfolio.
But OK dude, whatEVER.
190
Boy, it's amazing how just using the magic words "sexual predator" manages to get everyone in a tizzy. It's like the one issue that hardcore Lesbian feminists and sexophobic fundamentalist Christians can all agree on! And the jury will convict Anthony Stancl, he'll be sent to a maximum security prison (where--far from the prim scrutiny of the New York Times, or anyone else who's decrying him as a "predator"---he will learn the real meaning of the word "rape", a word which frankly has nothing to do with his "crimes"), and we can all relax and breathe easy and get back to enjoying tonight's episode of "Law and Order: SVU".
I totally agree with Christopher's post, and welcome it as a breath of fresh air. Why? Because "sex offenders" have now become the punching-bag of last resort in a culture that was always frankly sex-phobic. And it's amazing how the charges that used to be levelled against, say, homosexuals----who are still a despised minority, but one that has managed to attain a certain level of social respect----are now routinely applied to the phantom menace of "sexual predators". Remember when homosexuals were routinely considered "predatory"? ("They can't reproduce, so they have to recruit.") Remember ten years ago, when the attorney for one of Matt Shepherd's murderers thought that "gay panic" was an appropriate defense in the attempt to exonerate his client for the crime of killing a homosexual? Well, if America is going to permit the assimilation of gays into civil society, then by God America is not going to give up its right to find and persecute SOME sort of sexual deviant. And if you define that deviant as predatory, engaged in the business of recruiting (as we all know, most sexual abusers were themselves abused), and barely worthy of life, let alone civil rights, like the right to a fair trial, or freedom from frivolous prosecution and legal harassment.
I don't know Anthony Stancl. I frankly don't like being put in the position of having to defend him here. Is he creepy? Yeah. But at the end of the day, his crime was having duped a small number of teenage boys into GETTING BLOWN. None of whom complained. If it weren't for the sexy addition of cybercrime, his activities would--or should--have been covered by a so-called Romeo & Juliet law, which is designed to prevent 18 year olds from being frivolously prosecuted for statutory rape when they have had consensual sex with someone 2 to 3 years younger.
And please, spare me the pseudo-Feminist horseshit about "if this 18 year old's victims were female, Christopher wouldn't have dared to make any of these claims." If an 18 year old male had "victimized" teenage girls by duping them into allowing him to perform unreciprocated oral sex on them, you're damn right I'd be on the side of that male, and not on the side of the lynch mob. I'm sorry, but where was the victim in this crime? As far as I can tell, the only injury done by Stancl was an injury to all of our cherished stereotypes about "innocent (ie., safely desexualized) children" and "sexual predators"---monsters who are now (gasp!) using the internet, rather than sidling up next to the kiddies at a matinee of the latest Pixar movie, wearing a trenchcoat and fingerless gloves.
And all the people who are leaping to condemn Christopher for what he has to say in this post should go to their local academic library and check out the Duke University Press title "Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child-Molesting", by James Kincaid (a professor of English at UC Santa Barbara). Kincaid's argument is that American culture has developed its own dark gothic fantasia about "sexual predators"---the notion that your unattended child will be abducted by a stranger, that slavering rapists lurk on every suburban block. In reality, a child has a VASTLY greater chance of being abducted, abused (physically or sexually), or murdered by a member of his or her own immediate family than by a stranger. And yet, the notion persists that little kids are always under the constant threat of ending up on the side of a milk carton. (Look up the FBI statistics. Some 30,000+ children are abducted by a family member, usually as part of a custody dispute, every year. How many are abducted by strangers? In 2000, the number was 93. A decline from the 1999 statistic of 134.)
I'm going on about this at length because the simple fact is that the American public (for reasons that Kincaid explores rather intelligently in his book) is, for its own reasons, enamored of the idea that children are especially vulnerable to malevolent sexual forces beyond anyone's control. We NEED the idea of sexual predators, just as surely as mediaeval Christians NEEDED the idea of witches and demons and Hell. And when a sexual predator can't be found, then the cops can go onto the hard drive of some pudgy creepy 18yo fag, and manufacture a predator for the further delight and titillation of all you preachy idiots. And when Christopher steps up to point out some things that any rational person would be willing to acknowledge are the facts of this case, you buffoons are instantly ready to lynch HIM on top of it. It's always hilarious to discover that---despite the assumption that readers of "The Stranger" are going to be the hippest leftiest freethinkers in America's hippest leftiest city---at the end of the day, Seattle isn't immune to all the standard American hypocrisy about sex.
More...
I totally agree with Christopher's post, and welcome it as a breath of fresh air. Why? Because "sex offenders" have now become the punching-bag of last resort in a culture that was always frankly sex-phobic. And it's amazing how the charges that used to be levelled against, say, homosexuals----who are still a despised minority, but one that has managed to attain a certain level of social respect----are now routinely applied to the phantom menace of "sexual predators". Remember when homosexuals were routinely considered "predatory"? ("They can't reproduce, so they have to recruit.") Remember ten years ago, when the attorney for one of Matt Shepherd's murderers thought that "gay panic" was an appropriate defense in the attempt to exonerate his client for the crime of killing a homosexual? Well, if America is going to permit the assimilation of gays into civil society, then by God America is not going to give up its right to find and persecute SOME sort of sexual deviant. And if you define that deviant as predatory, engaged in the business of recruiting (as we all know, most sexual abusers were themselves abused), and barely worthy of life, let alone civil rights, like the right to a fair trial, or freedom from frivolous prosecution and legal harassment.
I don't know Anthony Stancl. I frankly don't like being put in the position of having to defend him here. Is he creepy? Yeah. But at the end of the day, his crime was having duped a small number of teenage boys into GETTING BLOWN. None of whom complained. If it weren't for the sexy addition of cybercrime, his activities would--or should--have been covered by a so-called Romeo & Juliet law, which is designed to prevent 18 year olds from being frivolously prosecuted for statutory rape when they have had consensual sex with someone 2 to 3 years younger.
And please, spare me the pseudo-Feminist horseshit about "if this 18 year old's victims were female, Christopher wouldn't have dared to make any of these claims." If an 18 year old male had "victimized" teenage girls by duping them into allowing him to perform unreciprocated oral sex on them, you're damn right I'd be on the side of that male, and not on the side of the lynch mob. I'm sorry, but where was the victim in this crime? As far as I can tell, the only injury done by Stancl was an injury to all of our cherished stereotypes about "innocent (ie., safely desexualized) children" and "sexual predators"---monsters who are now (gasp!) using the internet, rather than sidling up next to the kiddies at a matinee of the latest Pixar movie, wearing a trenchcoat and fingerless gloves.
And all the people who are leaping to condemn Christopher for what he has to say in this post should go to their local academic library and check out the Duke University Press title "Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child-Molesting", by James Kincaid (a professor of English at UC Santa Barbara). Kincaid's argument is that American culture has developed its own dark gothic fantasia about "sexual predators"---the notion that your unattended child will be abducted by a stranger, that slavering rapists lurk on every suburban block. In reality, a child has a VASTLY greater chance of being abducted, abused (physically or sexually), or murdered by a member of his or her own immediate family than by a stranger. And yet, the notion persists that little kids are always under the constant threat of ending up on the side of a milk carton. (Look up the FBI statistics. Some 30,000+ children are abducted by a family member, usually as part of a custody dispute, every year. How many are abducted by strangers? In 2000, the number was 93. A decline from the 1999 statistic of 134.)
I'm going on about this at length because the simple fact is that the American public (for reasons that Kincaid explores rather intelligently in his book) is, for its own reasons, enamored of the idea that children are especially vulnerable to malevolent sexual forces beyond anyone's control. We NEED the idea of sexual predators, just as surely as mediaeval Christians NEEDED the idea of witches and demons and Hell. And when a sexual predator can't be found, then the cops can go onto the hard drive of some pudgy creepy 18yo fag, and manufacture a predator for the further delight and titillation of all you preachy idiots. And when Christopher steps up to point out some things that any rational person would be willing to acknowledge are the facts of this case, you buffoons are instantly ready to lynch HIM on top of it. It's always hilarious to discover that---despite the assumption that readers of "The Stranger" are going to be the hippest leftiest freethinkers in America's hippest leftiest city---at the end of the day, Seattle isn't immune to all the standard American hypocrisy about sex.
191
Anyway, Christopher, I'm saying it right here that I will stop commenting on all future SLOG posts under this name or my one other.
I'm going the way of Fnarf, elenchos, and the rest.
SLOG was fun at first, but getting to know the personalities of Stranger staffers has completely undermined and damaged my adoration and respect for your publication. I'm no longer willing to contribute to your ad revenue or the discourse.
this might make some happy, this will probably go unnoticed by most, but I'm done. I need to save myself the time.
peace.
I'm going the way of Fnarf, elenchos, and the rest.
SLOG was fun at first, but getting to know the personalities of Stranger staffers has completely undermined and damaged my adoration and respect for your publication. I'm no longer willing to contribute to your ad revenue or the discourse.
this might make some happy, this will probably go unnoticed by most, but I'm done. I need to save myself the time.
peace.
192
#187 Michael Stangeways,
Oh please. Nice try. Christopher was writing about his schadenfreude at jocks tricked into getting blowjobs. He wasn’t upset about any rush to judgment, and neither were you in that despicable comment #36.
You are defending something terrible because deep down you subconsciously believe "horny" straight kids forced into have gay sex isn’t all that bad.
Unless they were at gun point or called the cops, you doubt this was abuse. You overlook the fact 18 is an adult. You forgive the age discrepencies, (18-on-15). You doubt straight kids didn’t enjoy a good blow job unless they were at gunpoint or mentally retarded.
Instead, you would rather ascribe the whole thing to “idiotic perceptions of sexuality.”
Appalling! And completely and thoroughly rebuked by 99% of the people here. It's a good thing you admit you have no ethics, because any ethical person would be deeply ashamed and embarassed to use their real name and make this grossly offensive argument.
Oh please. Nice try. Christopher was writing about his schadenfreude at jocks tricked into getting blowjobs. He wasn’t upset about any rush to judgment, and neither were you in that despicable comment #36.
You are defending something terrible because deep down you subconsciously believe "horny" straight kids forced into have gay sex isn’t all that bad.
Unless they were at gun point or called the cops, you doubt this was abuse. You overlook the fact 18 is an adult. You forgive the age discrepencies, (18-on-15). You doubt straight kids didn’t enjoy a good blow job unless they were at gunpoint or mentally retarded.
Instead, you would rather ascribe the whole thing to “idiotic perceptions of sexuality.”
Appalling! And completely and thoroughly rebuked by 99% of the people here. It's a good thing you admit you have no ethics, because any ethical person would be deeply ashamed and embarassed to use their real name and make this grossly offensive argument.
194
hey 192... You wrote: 'You are defending something terrible because deep down you subconsciously believe "horny" straight kids forced into have gay sex isn’t all that bad.'
But honestly, did Stancl "force" anything? The news stories have the vague term "blackmail" but, as Christopher was trying to point out in the post that started this whole mess, it seems pretty much like Stancl's victims allowed Stancl to fellate them because the fictional girl on Facebook said that it would turn her on.
Just trying to understand how this must have gone down (as it were) I'm assuming the fictional girl wrote to the victims saying something like "I'll have sex with you if you let this guy I know suck your dick." Then Stancl showed up, sucked them off, and took pictures with his camera phone to provide proof to the fictional girl.
In that case, I'm hard pressed to understand what was so coercive. The fact that the girl was fictional? Honestly, the whole scenario seems to me more like the usual urban legends about a straight guy picking up a girl in a bar, taking her home, letting her blow him, and then discovering girl is a tranny. And those scenarios usually end with the straight guy finding himself justifiable in murdering that tranny. Don't they? In which case, I can understand Christopher's point about Schadenfreude.
I know we all learn nowadays that rape is rape, and that when somebody cries rape the right thing to do is to treat it respectfully and demand a fair and honest prosecution. But in this case, nobody cried rape apart from the police. How are you so thoroughly certain that this was criminal? Simply because the age difference made it statutory rape? What if Stancl's 15yo victim had sex with a real 18yo girl (rather than being led on by a fictional one)? Would you demand the prosecution of that 18yo woman for statutory rape as wholeheartedly and vociferously as you seem to demand the prosecution of Stancl for the same?
More...
But honestly, did Stancl "force" anything? The news stories have the vague term "blackmail" but, as Christopher was trying to point out in the post that started this whole mess, it seems pretty much like Stancl's victims allowed Stancl to fellate them because the fictional girl on Facebook said that it would turn her on.
Just trying to understand how this must have gone down (as it were) I'm assuming the fictional girl wrote to the victims saying something like "I'll have sex with you if you let this guy I know suck your dick." Then Stancl showed up, sucked them off, and took pictures with his camera phone to provide proof to the fictional girl.
In that case, I'm hard pressed to understand what was so coercive. The fact that the girl was fictional? Honestly, the whole scenario seems to me more like the usual urban legends about a straight guy picking up a girl in a bar, taking her home, letting her blow him, and then discovering girl is a tranny. And those scenarios usually end with the straight guy finding himself justifiable in murdering that tranny. Don't they? In which case, I can understand Christopher's point about Schadenfreude.
I know we all learn nowadays that rape is rape, and that when somebody cries rape the right thing to do is to treat it respectfully and demand a fair and honest prosecution. But in this case, nobody cried rape apart from the police. How are you so thoroughly certain that this was criminal? Simply because the age difference made it statutory rape? What if Stancl's 15yo victim had sex with a real 18yo girl (rather than being led on by a fictional one)? Would you demand the prosecution of that 18yo woman for statutory rape as wholeheartedly and vociferously as you seem to demand the prosecution of Stancl for the same?
196
HEY PEOPLE HERE ARE SOME MORE FACTS:
As police were investigating the bomb threat, one victim came forward, he said.
The boy, who was 15 at the time of the assaults, said he was repeatedly forced into sexual acts with Stancl, according to the complaint. Stancl took pictures of every encounter and was able to coerce the boy into repeated sexual acts by telling him the girl he met on Facebook would release the pictures to the rest of the school if they didn't continue to meet, the complaint says.
The boy went to his parents and then the police after Stancl asked the boy to get nude pictures of his brother, the complaint says. The boy refused to get his brother involved.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/39…
All told, there were approximately 300 photographs of known New Berlin high school students. There were over 600 other movies that were commercially produced child pornography videos that had been downloaded off the internet."
His alleged victims range in age from 13 to 19, and it's believed that additional victims have not yet come forward.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29024981/
Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, west of Milwaukee, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child and making a bomb threat.
A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4884…
And so to sum up:
- One of the victims did go to the cops.
- One of the victims was 13.
- He had 600 non-related child porn videos in addition to recording his own encounters.
- Christopher Frizzelle "secretly, privately" gives guys like this props for embarassing jocks. But he'll soon use this new information to "adjust" his post and save his job and reputation, without actually apologizing to those of use who were offended.
- Antinomian will still be wondering "I'm sorry, but where was the victim in this crime?" and Michael Strangeways will still believe it's all a case of "idiotic perceptions of sexuality."
More...
As police were investigating the bomb threat, one victim came forward, he said.
The boy, who was 15 at the time of the assaults, said he was repeatedly forced into sexual acts with Stancl, according to the complaint. Stancl took pictures of every encounter and was able to coerce the boy into repeated sexual acts by telling him the girl he met on Facebook would release the pictures to the rest of the school if they didn't continue to meet, the complaint says.
The boy went to his parents and then the police after Stancl asked the boy to get nude pictures of his brother, the complaint says. The boy refused to get his brother involved.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/39…
All told, there were approximately 300 photographs of known New Berlin high school students. There were over 600 other movies that were commercially produced child pornography videos that had been downloaded off the internet."
His alleged victims range in age from 13 to 19, and it's believed that additional victims have not yet come forward.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29024981/
Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, west of Milwaukee, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child and making a bomb threat.
A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4884…
And so to sum up:
- One of the victims did go to the cops.
- One of the victims was 13.
- He had 600 non-related child porn videos in addition to recording his own encounters.
- Christopher Frizzelle "secretly, privately" gives guys like this props for embarassing jocks. But he'll soon use this new information to "adjust" his post and save his job and reputation, without actually apologizing to those of use who were offended.
- Antinomian will still be wondering "I'm sorry, but where was the victim in this crime?" and Michael Strangeways will still believe it's all a case of "idiotic perceptions of sexuality."
197
I think all of this angst over this is hilarious. I think this guy impersonating a girl and then going wherever it went is hilarious, too. Kids can't be forced into sex by this kind of stuff. If there were some sort of physical or drug trauma then probably somebody got raped. But tricking someone with photos and internet postings, no way. Let kids play, let kids learn what to avoid and let kids alone.
198
holly fucking shit @ 196
Does anybody hear anything? It should really be the sounds of heads rolling.
Why aren't they?
Still no comment from Dan.
Does anybody hear anything? It should really be the sounds of heads rolling.
Why aren't they?
Still no comment from Dan.
199
I debated saving the Google stuff until after Dan weighed in. He may have been too busy or careless to research much himself before defending - or not? - Christopher.
But either way Dan please give us your initial take, before the new info came up.
Much earlier in the thread there was a "journalism" debate and that is the interesting thing about Slog, combining news and opinions like it does. If Christopher would have bothered to do two minutes of actual research I doubt (I hope) he would have still written it this way.
But either way Dan please give us your initial take, before the new info came up.
Much earlier in the thread there was a "journalism" debate and that is the interesting thing about Slog, combining news and opinions like it does. If Christopher would have bothered to do two minutes of actual research I doubt (I hope) he would have still written it this way.
200
So the guy is innocent until proven guilty - but if the allegations are true, he went way beyond "playing" and into creepy, manipulative sociopath behavior. humiliation is one of the abuser's best tools for maintaining control; it's too bad that some of the other commenters don't recognize this.
I'm also wondering why the fuck anyone would get all uptight about what Erica or Dan think about this. But I look forward to Frizzelle guest-starring on the Law & Order episode "riffing" on this.
Oh and hey - sometimes victims of sex crimes experience pleasure, which just adds to the guilt and shame, etc. Just because someone feels arousal during an assault doesn't mean it wasn't a crime, and they'll probably need a lot of therapy to figure out how to keep that negative association from interfering in their future sex lives. So try not to add to the stigma that rape and other assaults didn't really happen if some physiological response the victim couldn't control was felt, alright?
I'm also wondering why the fuck anyone would get all uptight about what Erica or Dan think about this. But I look forward to Frizzelle guest-starring on the Law & Order episode "riffing" on this.
Oh and hey - sometimes victims of sex crimes experience pleasure, which just adds to the guilt and shame, etc. Just because someone feels arousal during an assault doesn't mean it wasn't a crime, and they'll probably need a lot of therapy to figure out how to keep that negative association from interfering in their future sex lives. So try not to add to the stigma that rape and other assaults didn't really happen if some physiological response the victim couldn't control was felt, alright?
201
Christopher - it's astounding / fascinating that you would take issue with "putting ...thoughts [into your] mouth, etc," -- which, they weren't. I've read everything.
Isn't this the premise of your entire abysmal post? Imagining a narrative? Putting thoughts, if not cocks, into their mouths?
Isn't this the premise of your entire abysmal post? Imagining a narrative? Putting thoughts, if not cocks, into their mouths?
203
Asteria: "Oh and hey - sometimes victims of sex crimes experience pleasure"
-note, off topic, according to the allegations nobody was butt raped in this case-
Male on male rape often results in the victim experiencing an erection - a reflexive physical response to the prostate being stimulated by the rapist's penis.
This is a massive contributing factor to the shame, identity crisis, and generalized confusion / FUCKED-UP-NESS that the victim experiences.
Make no mistake.
-note, off topic, according to the allegations nobody was butt raped in this case-
Male on male rape often results in the victim experiencing an erection - a reflexive physical response to the prostate being stimulated by the rapist's penis.
This is a massive contributing factor to the shame, identity crisis, and generalized confusion / FUCKED-UP-NESS that the victim experiences.
Make no mistake.
204
I agree I would like to hear what Dan thinks of this. But even more, I would LOVE to hear what Washington's own Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili Fualaau think of it. After all, he was a 13 year old straight boy who was statutorily raped.
I bring this up to remind you of the serious cognitive dissonance that surrounds the issues that are raised in the Stancl case, and to wonder if the Stancl case is not the clear-cut occasion for fierce moralizing that so many people on here have taken it for, but rather an indication of a lot of unresolved contradictions in American culture about how we regard sex, and teenagers, and consent.
I bring this up to remind you of the serious cognitive dissonance that surrounds the issues that are raised in the Stancl case, and to wonder if the Stancl case is not the clear-cut occasion for fierce moralizing that so many people on here have taken it for, but rather an indication of a lot of unresolved contradictions in American culture about how we regard sex, and teenagers, and consent.
205
I've been involved in a huge flamefest over on Slog for the last 24 hours. Christopher Frizzelle posted a piece about the 18 year old Wisconsin boy who blackmailed 7 of his male classmates into having sex with him. Christopher pointed out that all the hyperbole may not fit the crime, (the post is titled, "What He Did Was Wrong, Yes-But...") and he was immediately bombarded with a slew of crazy hatred basically insinuating that Frizzelle was supporting a pedophile and insensitive to those poor children/victims, blah, blah, blah. I had to defend Christopher against that dumbass, judgemental, holier than thou shit, and I got the mud slung at me...(in a nutshell, Frizzelle and I being stupid faggots of course wouldn't know any better since if we aren't actually pedophiles, by being gay we're the next best/worst thing). At first it was fun having a good old fashioned discussion/shouting match about something you feel impassioned about, ie, the stupidity of people in general but of course you're never going to change anybody's narrow, rigid little mind so in the long run you just exhaust yourself and end up wasting most of your day. I suppose, as an obligation of one's civic duty, it's good to take part in public discourse, even if it seldom, if ever, changes anyone's mind. But, my blood is still boiling and I'm bad about not having the final word so I'm going to have to force myself to quit responding and continuing to feed the flames of that thread. Plus, I'm going out for a pleasant meal tonite with a good friend and I need to release the anger so I can enjoy my margaritas...
OH, but I do have to say that I was pleased that Christopher sent me an email this morning essentially thanking me for my original post; it's always nice to be acknowledged in a positive way, which he also did publicly later on in the afternoon, on the thread. Attention whore that I am, I felt compelled to respond to him so I emailed him back a response which contained these nuggets of wisdom:
'Obviously, Sex Hysteria and Phobias, New Age/Post Modern Puritanism, the hypocrisy of Old Media and American Society's infatuation with the Blame Game, ("Hey, I'm a fuck up because I was abused/have attention deficit/I'm gay/I'm a woman/I'm a minority/I'm a white man of priviledge/my parents spoiled or ignored me/it's because of the Liberal Media, or the Jews, or the Conservatives or the Liberals or the Coloreds or the Fags or the Arabs") are some of my favorite topics...'
and this:
'and regarding your (Christopher's)critics on that thread:
(1)just remember that all people are kind of stupid, in a variety of degrees, about one thing or another and the majority of people are very stupid about a great many things.
(2)and that very, very few "heterosexualists" and a surprisingly large number of same-sexualists don't really understand the politics of sexuality, hetero, homo or otherwise because sexuality scares the crap out of most people, their own as well as others. Also, very, very few people are able to be honest about their own sexual instincts and desires.
(3)Refer again to #1'
Shaken by the ease in which I doled out awesome advice, I knew something was amiss. I woke to find it was only a dream. But a dream that will wake up the World.
More...
OH, but I do have to say that I was pleased that Christopher sent me an email this morning essentially thanking me for my original post; it's always nice to be acknowledged in a positive way, which he also did publicly later on in the afternoon, on the thread. Attention whore that I am, I felt compelled to respond to him so I emailed him back a response which contained these nuggets of wisdom:
'Obviously, Sex Hysteria and Phobias, New Age/Post Modern Puritanism, the hypocrisy of Old Media and American Society's infatuation with the Blame Game, ("Hey, I'm a fuck up because I was abused/have attention deficit/I'm gay/I'm a woman/I'm a minority/I'm a white man of priviledge/my parents spoiled or ignored me/it's because of the Liberal Media, or the Jews, or the Conservatives or the Liberals or the Coloreds or the Fags or the Arabs") are some of my favorite topics...'
and this:
'and regarding your (Christopher's)critics on that thread:
(1)just remember that all people are kind of stupid, in a variety of degrees, about one thing or another and the majority of people are very stupid about a great many things.
(2)and that very, very few "heterosexualists" and a surprisingly large number of same-sexualists don't really understand the politics of sexuality, hetero, homo or otherwise because sexuality scares the crap out of most people, their own as well as others. Also, very, very few people are able to be honest about their own sexual instincts and desires.
(3)Refer again to #1'
Shaken by the ease in which I doled out awesome advice, I knew something was amiss. I woke to find it was only a dream. But a dream that will wake up the World.
206
Reasonable Reader @203 - I don't think reading comprehension is your strong suit. There was no reference to "butt rape" in my comment; not sure where you got that.
So pleasure is not the best word to use - sometimes when people are assaulted they experience arousal, which is physiological (did you read the rest of that paragraph?) but can be perceived as pleasure, because erections, increased vaginal lubrication, etc. are supposed to be associated with pleasurable consensual sex, not assault/rape. There was a NY Times article recently that mentioned how some women have experienced orgasms during assault/rape, and that's just another level of feeling fucked-up they deal with in therapy.
My point is that some fucktards here are insinuating or downright saying that if someone felt pleasure during an assault/rape, then they must have enjoyed it, so it wasn't really assault/rape, especially if they didn't tell the cops. That attitude, along with the attitude that it's not really rape if there wasn't a gun to the head or knife at the throat is completely bullshit and another stigma victims have to deal with.
So pleasure is not the best word to use - sometimes when people are assaulted they experience arousal, which is physiological (did you read the rest of that paragraph?) but can be perceived as pleasure, because erections, increased vaginal lubrication, etc. are supposed to be associated with pleasurable consensual sex, not assault/rape. There was a NY Times article recently that mentioned how some women have experienced orgasms during assault/rape, and that's just another level of feeling fucked-up they deal with in therapy.
My point is that some fucktards here are insinuating or downright saying that if someone felt pleasure during an assault/rape, then they must have enjoyed it, so it wasn't really assault/rape, especially if they didn't tell the cops. That attitude, along with the attitude that it's not really rape if there wasn't a gun to the head or knife at the throat is completely bullshit and another stigma victims have to deal with.
207
@190: Thanks for the book recommendation. I mean that quite seriously, as that kind of thing fascinates me (and I expect I'll agree with what he has to say). It is out at my university's library currently, but when it gets back (and maybe over spring break when I have time away from required class reading) I will read it. I totally agree that there is a hysteria about child molestation in our culture and measures are taken in response to this fear that are completely disproportional to the actual threat.
However, Christopher's post isn't about the crazy things we do in response to imaginary sexual predators. It was about glorifying the actions of a sexual predator who was able to use a heterosexist system (because I do think it's likely that a fear of being labeled as gay contributed to most of the victims not coming forward) to take advantage of people that he characterizes as the 'usual oppressors.' This is just as sick as when some people who claim to be feminists take delight in sexual violence against men because "usually they rape us." Your comment seemed to ignore or miss the thing that makes this rape, which is the blackmail. Stancl had naked pictures of his victims, which is pretty good leverage.
If this was a case of statutory rape, where some teenagers had consensual sex and the age gap was just too wide, in most cases I would be right behind you (I have a problem with the way statutory rape laws are implemented sometimes, specifically in that they tend to only punish males). But these teenagers were coerced, and that makes it rape. It isn't pseudo-feminist bullshit to point out that there's a double standard here in that, at least on Slog, blaming a female victim of sexual assault would not be tolerated. The gender of the victims here (and the fact that it was "just" oral sex) is making people blind to the fact that they also have a right to only engage in consensual sex and are entitled to the same legal and social protection that a female victim would get. Feminists have made pretty good progress in changing the way female rape victims are treated, both in the legal system and by people they know. Male victims need that kind of advocacy too, which is why I feel the need to speak out against attitudes like the one Chris expressed in his post.
@176: Christopher, I wasn't one of the people you were addressing (my comments are #3 and #139) but I changed my name both times because it seems to be Slog tradition. I usually comment (infrequently) under the name "Sara," so I'll go ahead and say that my full name is Sara Williamson, and I don't think I'm misreading your post.
More...
However, Christopher's post isn't about the crazy things we do in response to imaginary sexual predators. It was about glorifying the actions of a sexual predator who was able to use a heterosexist system (because I do think it's likely that a fear of being labeled as gay contributed to most of the victims not coming forward) to take advantage of people that he characterizes as the 'usual oppressors.' This is just as sick as when some people who claim to be feminists take delight in sexual violence against men because "usually they rape us." Your comment seemed to ignore or miss the thing that makes this rape, which is the blackmail. Stancl had naked pictures of his victims, which is pretty good leverage.
If this was a case of statutory rape, where some teenagers had consensual sex and the age gap was just too wide, in most cases I would be right behind you (I have a problem with the way statutory rape laws are implemented sometimes, specifically in that they tend to only punish males). But these teenagers were coerced, and that makes it rape. It isn't pseudo-feminist bullshit to point out that there's a double standard here in that, at least on Slog, blaming a female victim of sexual assault would not be tolerated. The gender of the victims here (and the fact that it was "just" oral sex) is making people blind to the fact that they also have a right to only engage in consensual sex and are entitled to the same legal and social protection that a female victim would get. Feminists have made pretty good progress in changing the way female rape victims are treated, both in the legal system and by people they know. Male victims need that kind of advocacy too, which is why I feel the need to speak out against attitudes like the one Chris expressed in his post.
@176: Christopher, I wasn't one of the people you were addressing (my comments are #3 and #139) but I changed my name both times because it seems to be Slog tradition. I usually comment (infrequently) under the name "Sara," so I'll go ahead and say that my full name is Sara Williamson, and I don't think I'm misreading your post.
208
Dan Savage isn't going to say shit about this. There's absolutely no way he could navigate a) excusing the logic of the post without b) infuriating a huge swath of readers nor c) embarrass his managing editor by publicly correcting him.
I guarantee you this will be under rug swept.
I guarantee you this will be under rug swept.
209
Jesus fucking Christ, the five people who keep saying the same thing under different names, and everybody else on this thread, SHUT THE FUCK UP, ALREADY! WE GET IT!
I now reverse my position: it is time for registered names
I now reverse my position: it is time for registered names
210
Great story.
Great article.
Great take.
You people need to get out more.
It's a better world when the high and mighty can (occasionally) get victimised just like the down and out.
Get out more, see the world, there's a LOT more heinous shit that goes on than this.
Oh and it IS funny.
Wrong as hell, but funny just the same.
Great article.
Great take.
You people need to get out more.
It's a better world when the high and mighty can (occasionally) get victimised just like the down and out.
Get out more, see the world, there's a LOT more heinous shit that goes on than this.
Oh and it IS funny.
Wrong as hell, but funny just the same.
212
COMMENT DELETED: Spam
We'd rather not moderate your comments, but off-topic, gratuitously inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate remarks may be removed, and repeat offenders may be banned from commenting. We never censor comments based on ideology. Thanks to all who add to the conversation on Slog.
213
@212, delete all you want. My comment was not inflammatory, threatening or inappropriate. Frizzelle lauds this guy, while over on MSNBC they recite the various charges... child pornography, sexual predation, etc. And both Dan and ECB seriously have nothing to say?
214
Christopher, are you aware of this from MSNBC?
"Anthony Stancl, 18, is charged with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second degree sexual assault, two counts of third degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, the repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat."
Kinda puts a bit of a kink in your argument. Do you still stand by it?
"Anthony Stancl, 18, is charged with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second degree sexual assault, two counts of third degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, the repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat."
Kinda puts a bit of a kink in your argument. Do you still stand by it?
215
"In this court's 7 1/2 years on the bench, this is the most horrific complaint the court has ever reviewed"
Waukesha Circuit Court Commissioner Laura Florian Lau
"Props! Genius!"
- Christopher Frizzelle
Victims were as young as 13. 600 kiddie porn movies in addition to the guy taping all his own encounters.
""sexual assault on children and possession of child pornography" charge seems disingenuous."
- Christopher Frizzelle
Dan, The Stranger needs to correct that SLOG entry and issue an apology.
Waukesha Circuit Court Commissioner Laura Florian Lau
"Props! Genius!"
- Christopher Frizzelle
Victims were as young as 13. 600 kiddie porn movies in addition to the guy taping all his own encounters.
""sexual assault on children and possession of child pornography" charge seems disingenuous."
- Christopher Frizzelle
Dan, The Stranger needs to correct that SLOG entry and issue an apology.
216
Comment @205 doesn’t make any sense until you figure out where it’s from.
The guy who wrote one of the most heinous comments on here, Michael Strangeways @36, had posted that to his blog.
so CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELLE ACTUALLY SENT MICHAEL A PERSONAL EMAIL THANKING HIM FOR COMMENT 36 ?!?!?
The guy who wrote one of the most heinous comments on here, Michael Strangeways @36, had posted that to his blog.
so CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELLE ACTUALLY SENT MICHAEL A PERSONAL EMAIL THANKING HIM FOR COMMENT 36 ?!?!?
218
At 4:30 PM yesterday Dan said he would comment on this. He wrote that in the thread about wifi at the airport in Alaska.
Given the MSNBC article and many many others with details on the victims ages (13), the porn (600 child porn movies), the blackmail (videotaping encounters), the sex (forced to give and receive), and the fact that victims DID go to the cops first......
WHY and HOW can the EDITOR of The Stranger, Christopher Frizzelle, post something that is so sloppy and so wrong on so many levels - post this and still have his job?
And then to read the Stranger go on and on about journalists at the other Seattle newspapers losing their jobs... man, what a cruel world.
Given the MSNBC article and many many others with details on the victims ages (13), the porn (600 child porn movies), the blackmail (videotaping encounters), the sex (forced to give and receive), and the fact that victims DID go to the cops first......
WHY and HOW can the EDITOR of The Stranger, Christopher Frizzelle, post something that is so sloppy and so wrong on so many levels - post this and still have his job?
And then to read the Stranger go on and on about journalists at the other Seattle newspapers losing their jobs... man, what a cruel world.
220
@219 Not to me. As much as I can't stand ECB now I really feel sorry for her. At least she does her homework.
Christopher it turns out is a college dropout who got fired from Seattle Weekly for leaking stuff to the Stranger, who eventually made him the Editor.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/art/a…
What a total joke. What kind of EDITOR would publish something like this, even on a "blog"?
And then after the flame war started he sent a personal thank you email to one of the most heinous commentators (216).
Suddenly I am much, much sorrier to see the real newspapers in town falling apart. The Stranger is a much bigger joke than I realized.
Christopher it turns out is a college dropout who got fired from Seattle Weekly for leaking stuff to the Stranger, who eventually made him the Editor.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/art/a…
What a total joke. What kind of EDITOR would publish something like this, even on a "blog"?
And then after the flame war started he sent a personal thank you email to one of the most heinous commentators (216).
Suddenly I am much, much sorrier to see the real newspapers in town falling apart. The Stranger is a much bigger joke than I realized.
221
@219, and Dan is Frizzelle's boss. Frizzelle posted this thing on Wednesday. It's now Friday. Dan has done seven Slog posts since this thing started, yet writes that he "hasn't had time" to comment on all of this.
222
For the record, I agree with comments No. 11, 12, 14,20,28,34,39,46,62,66,80,81,82,105,113,115,119,139,196, and 200.
I haven't commented on this on the front page of Slog, in part, because you commenters are making many of the points I would make, and in part because I've been busy doing my job. However, I would highlight three points in particular that others have made already: 1) We have no idea what the sexual contact consisted of, so deciding it was kids getting blow jobs from this guy is arbitrary and weird (and beside the point anyway--women often lubricate during rape, which DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT RAPE); 2) the assumption that these kids were "jocks" is also speculation; nowhere in any of the stories does it say this. And 3) The fact that they didn't report it to police proves nothing. Most rapes are unreported, and rapes of men even more so. See comment #139, which I think sums it up best.
I haven't commented on this on the front page of Slog, in part, because you commenters are making many of the points I would make, and in part because I've been busy doing my job. However, I would highlight three points in particular that others have made already: 1) We have no idea what the sexual contact consisted of, so deciding it was kids getting blow jobs from this guy is arbitrary and weird (and beside the point anyway--women often lubricate during rape, which DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT RAPE); 2) the assumption that these kids were "jocks" is also speculation; nowhere in any of the stories does it say this. And 3) The fact that they didn't report it to police proves nothing. Most rapes are unreported, and rapes of men even more so. See comment #139, which I think sums it up best.
223
ECB, that's all fine and well, but if Frizzelle's post had come from any other media outlet or blog, I think you would have found the time to make a federal case out of it. You always seem to have the time when you disagree with Brodeur, Westneat and Connelly.
224
The internet is a race, and Dan has chosen to watch from the sidewalk. Or maybe he's searching for another pit bull story to post. I'm sure he'll weigh in soon, in his usual dismissive, sarcastic manner.
225
1)Just to clear up what Christopher wrote me yesterday, he said the EXACT same thing in his post at #176:
@36 -- You said it much better than I did. Want to be my new editor?
2)In none of my posts have I commented on Christopher's "Schaudenfreude" remarks he made in the original post, because I didn't agree with them, wasn't that interested in them and didn't think they added anything to the discussion we were having. If I WAS his editor, I would have encouraged him to NOT make those remarks.
3)No, I don't think "forcing" people to have sex is o.k. and no, I don't delight in "straight" jocks being forced into gay sex. How ridiculous. But there is a world of difference between physical force, emotional force, vocal force and "hey, you'd better blow me or I'm telling everyone you sent me nude pictures." (And why would anyone in this high school CARE that anyone had sent nude pictures? Apparently, a large number of the student body was actively involved in sending one another nude pictures!) Does that excuse what Stancl allegedly did? No, it was still scuzzy at best and depending on the exact actions of what transpired, he could very likely be guilty of some seriously nasty shit. As I said originally, it's pretty obvious this guy has some issues with proper social behavior and he needs therapy and some punishment. Does he need to be locked up for 200 years and labeled a deviant? Don't know; we still don't know all the details and there hasn't been a trial.
4)Yes, I've done some research and some Googling and I'd like to point out a few things that no one else has. All the reports I've read have indicated that the age range of his alleged victims is 13 to 19 so the victims were apparently pubescent NOT prepubescent. (Yes, there is a difference) The reports do remark on additional child porn videos that Stancl had on his computer but I have't seen anything that elaborates on the definition of "child". Did he have pictures and videos of PRE pubescent children (which would make Stancl a pedophile since the definition of a pedophile is someone sexually attracted to PRE-pubescent children)or was the material in question of pubescent children, ie teenagers, ie Stancl's peer group? And I know I'm immediately going to get jumped on here, ("What's the fucking difference, you fucking asshat?"), but there IS a huge difference between someone sexually attracted to pre pubescent children and someone who's not, because what's the moral crime in having sexual desire and attraction for your PEERS? (If you think a 15, or 16, or 17 or 18 year old male OR female, gay or straight, is some sort of monster/sex predator/molester because they enjoy looking at naked pictures/videos of OTHER teenagers, then I think you're pretty stupid. )And, according to the contradictory news reports, Stancl began his Facebook seductions in either spring of 2007 or the spring of 2008 meaning Stancl was probably either 16 or 17 when he began his plan...which means he was legally a minor (depending on what the age of consent is in Wisconsin) when he began his seductions of fellow minors, ie his peers. This whole, "He's an ADULT monster attracted to kids!" is ludicrous. Stancl is apparently a horny teenager attracted to other teenagers...which isn't a crime, or at least, shouldn't be...Now, if it turns out that he does have PREpubescent porn on his computer and/or he was stalking prepubescent kids, that's an entirely different story. And yes, you should be outraged by his actions in using nefarious ways to seduce/molest these young men for his sexual gratification, but the dude isn't a monster for being ATTRACTED to these young men in his peer group. And if you are, you're an idiot and/or a homophobe.
5)oh, jesus...I guess I've learned NOT to be flippant on serious discussions...yes, I have morals and yes I have ethics. You might not like my morals and ethics and I might not like yours but que sera, sera.
6)yes, OBVIOUSLY people are freaked out by issues of sexuality and gender. DUH, you just have to read all 250 comments on this thread. And, it would be interesting to see the breakdown on here when it comes to sexuality. I won't speak for anyone else on here, regardless if I'm aware of their orientation or not, but I'm pretty sure this issue pushes a lot of buttons for gay men who've either BEEN the victim of bias or known someone who HAS been the victim of bias. And when it comes to issues of sexuality and the law and morality and politics, there is ALWAYS a bias. Women are (usually) believed over men; straight over not straight; white over non-white; young over old. And judging by the thoughts and comments on here, I guess the following statements must also be true: the accused is ALWAYS guilty and in the wrong, the victims are ALWAYS innocent and pure and just; the law and the State are never failable; the Media always present the facts in an unbiased manner; there is no middle ground, no ambiguity, no gray areas...Everything is black/white or right/wrong or guilty/innocent. EVERYTHING.
7)Bullshit.
More...
@36 -- You said it much better than I did. Want to be my new editor?
2)In none of my posts have I commented on Christopher's "Schaudenfreude" remarks he made in the original post, because I didn't agree with them, wasn't that interested in them and didn't think they added anything to the discussion we were having. If I WAS his editor, I would have encouraged him to NOT make those remarks.
3)No, I don't think "forcing" people to have sex is o.k. and no, I don't delight in "straight" jocks being forced into gay sex. How ridiculous. But there is a world of difference between physical force, emotional force, vocal force and "hey, you'd better blow me or I'm telling everyone you sent me nude pictures." (And why would anyone in this high school CARE that anyone had sent nude pictures? Apparently, a large number of the student body was actively involved in sending one another nude pictures!) Does that excuse what Stancl allegedly did? No, it was still scuzzy at best and depending on the exact actions of what transpired, he could very likely be guilty of some seriously nasty shit. As I said originally, it's pretty obvious this guy has some issues with proper social behavior and he needs therapy and some punishment. Does he need to be locked up for 200 years and labeled a deviant? Don't know; we still don't know all the details and there hasn't been a trial.
4)Yes, I've done some research and some Googling and I'd like to point out a few things that no one else has. All the reports I've read have indicated that the age range of his alleged victims is 13 to 19 so the victims were apparently pubescent NOT prepubescent. (Yes, there is a difference) The reports do remark on additional child porn videos that Stancl had on his computer but I have't seen anything that elaborates on the definition of "child". Did he have pictures and videos of PRE pubescent children (which would make Stancl a pedophile since the definition of a pedophile is someone sexually attracted to PRE-pubescent children)or was the material in question of pubescent children, ie teenagers, ie Stancl's peer group? And I know I'm immediately going to get jumped on here, ("What's the fucking difference, you fucking asshat?"), but there IS a huge difference between someone sexually attracted to pre pubescent children and someone who's not, because what's the moral crime in having sexual desire and attraction for your PEERS? (If you think a 15, or 16, or 17 or 18 year old male OR female, gay or straight, is some sort of monster/sex predator/molester because they enjoy looking at naked pictures/videos of OTHER teenagers, then I think you're pretty stupid. )And, according to the contradictory news reports, Stancl began his Facebook seductions in either spring of 2007 or the spring of 2008 meaning Stancl was probably either 16 or 17 when he began his plan...which means he was legally a minor (depending on what the age of consent is in Wisconsin) when he began his seductions of fellow minors, ie his peers. This whole, "He's an ADULT monster attracted to kids!" is ludicrous. Stancl is apparently a horny teenager attracted to other teenagers...which isn't a crime, or at least, shouldn't be...Now, if it turns out that he does have PREpubescent porn on his computer and/or he was stalking prepubescent kids, that's an entirely different story. And yes, you should be outraged by his actions in using nefarious ways to seduce/molest these young men for his sexual gratification, but the dude isn't a monster for being ATTRACTED to these young men in his peer group. And if you are, you're an idiot and/or a homophobe.
5)oh, jesus...I guess I've learned NOT to be flippant on serious discussions...yes, I have morals and yes I have ethics. You might not like my morals and ethics and I might not like yours but que sera, sera.
6)yes, OBVIOUSLY people are freaked out by issues of sexuality and gender. DUH, you just have to read all 250 comments on this thread. And, it would be interesting to see the breakdown on here when it comes to sexuality. I won't speak for anyone else on here, regardless if I'm aware of their orientation or not, but I'm pretty sure this issue pushes a lot of buttons for gay men who've either BEEN the victim of bias or known someone who HAS been the victim of bias. And when it comes to issues of sexuality and the law and morality and politics, there is ALWAYS a bias. Women are (usually) believed over men; straight over not straight; white over non-white; young over old. And judging by the thoughts and comments on here, I guess the following statements must also be true: the accused is ALWAYS guilty and in the wrong, the victims are ALWAYS innocent and pure and just; the law and the State are never failable; the Media always present the facts in an unbiased manner; there is no middle ground, no ambiguity, no gray areas...Everything is black/white or right/wrong or guilty/innocent. EVERYTHING.
7)Bullshit.
226
To all those who want this kid (or "guy" if you insist) thrown in the darkest, ugliest, most butt-rapin' prison in the land: if you claim that the homo aspects of this case have no influence on your feelings, you're lying to yourselves. Face it, that "ick" factor is what's contributing to a lot of the hysteria on this thread.
227
@225 Shorter Michael Strangeways:
Porn with minors 13-15 is OK as long as the minors have pubes.
Porn with minors 13-15 is OK as long as the minors have pubes.
229
Hang in there, Michael. Take comfort in the fact that you're on the side of reason here, and that the side of reason is always the correct side, as opposed to the side that's carrying torches & pitchforks, chasing after this supposed teen Frankenstein.
230
@227:
Yes it is. A minor is not always a child, and you Americans have ridiculous laws concerning the age of consent. Here in Germany the age of consent is 14, which is perfectly logical and natural.
Yes it is. A minor is not always a child, and you Americans have ridiculous laws concerning the age of consent. Here in Germany the age of consent is 14, which is perfectly logical and natural.
231
I must say, it's kind of funny to see how sex-phobic so many of you supposedly sophisticated, gay-friendly, free-thinking urbanites in SLOG are. The fact of the matter is, you're all JUST AS SEXUALLY MESSED-UP AS TED HAGGARD!! You smile approvingly at news reports of protests against Prop 8, then, when they show two men or two women kissing at one of these protests, you run out of the room. Keep workin' on it, folks, you might get there someday...
232
@ 228 - Those were Frizelle's words, not mine. I can defend the general gist of his post without agreeing with every word he says.
Have you ever heard the phrase "gray area"? Didn't think so...
Have you ever heard the phrase "gray area"? Didn't think so...
233
@231, Again, you're so perceptive--if we don't think blackmailing underaged kids into sex is "genius," it must be because we're sex-phobic prudes. We should all be as open-minded as you (and the dude from Germany who celebrates his freedom to have sex with 14-year-olds).
234
@231, 229, 225.....
Since when are people who disagree with RAPE (not sex) sexual prudes?
Do you know what RAPE is? Do you know why people do it?
Hint: it's not about the sex.
Since when are people who disagree with RAPE (not sex) sexual prudes?
Do you know what RAPE is? Do you know why people do it?
Hint: it's not about the sex.
236
@233:
I didn't celebrate anything; why should I celebrate common sense? And for the record, I never slept with a minor.
I didn't celebrate anything; why should I celebrate common sense? And for the record, I never slept with a minor.
237
@235:
Yes it is, as long the 15-year was involved in the production and gives his consent, it is perfectly legal.
Yes it is, as long the 15-year was involved in the production and gives his consent, it is perfectly legal.
238
@236 But according to you a minor for you is 14, right? So you never slept with a 13 year old. Congratulations.
For a nice perspective on "natural common sense" I'd encourage everyone to visit the pissing and shitting section of a sex store on your next visit to Germany.
For a nice perspective on "natural common sense" I'd encourage everyone to visit the pissing and shitting section of a sex store on your next visit to Germany.
239
@ 233 - see # 232
Again, I never called Stancl a "genius", I do not think what he did was OK, and I think that he should be prosecuted for at least a few of the charges against him. All I'm doing is pointing out where I think a lot of the hysteria is coming from here. And yes, saying that a kid who "soft-blackmailed" a bunch of other kids into having sex should be sentenced to 300 years in prison definitely IS "hysteria."
Again, I never called Stancl a "genius", I do not think what he did was OK, and I think that he should be prosecuted for at least a few of the charges against him. All I'm doing is pointing out where I think a lot of the hysteria is coming from here. And yes, saying that a kid who "soft-blackmailed" a bunch of other kids into having sex should be sentenced to 300 years in prison definitely IS "hysteria."
240
227: uh, no...What I clearly said was, if another teenager wants/enjoys looking at sexually explicit images of other teenagers, that teenager is not being abnormal. They just want to have sexy thoughts about their own peer group. Does that mean there should be explicit sexual images of "underage" pubescent teenagers for you or I to look at? No.
242
@238:
A "minor" is someone under 18 years old. And in contrast to your misconceptions, scatological porn is not more popular in Germany than in any other country.
A "minor" is someone under 18 years old. And in contrast to your misconceptions, scatological porn is not more popular in Germany than in any other country.
244
The reason we have to have a line drawn on what is legal and what is not legal is because both parties want to push it both ways.
You have disgusting old troll men like Michael Strangeways who say 13 is cool, and you have bible thumpers who say marriage is consent.
There has to be a negotiated, recognized, settled upon, date.
You have disgusting old troll men like Michael Strangeways who say 13 is cool, and you have bible thumpers who say marriage is consent.
There has to be a negotiated, recognized, settled upon, date.
245
@244:
If I were you, I would hire an attorney. I am sure Mr. Strangeways has reasonable grounds to sue you.
If I were you, I would hire an attorney. I am sure Mr. Strangeways has reasonable grounds to sue you.
246
ORLY, 245?
The internet is srs bsns.
people who do the "u better hire a lowyah!" and "oh that's libel!" generally have no grasp of what the latter is.
Go back to your child porn stash, P. Achtelik.
The internet is srs bsns.
people who do the "u better hire a lowyah!" and "oh that's libel!" generally have no grasp of what the latter is.
Go back to your child porn stash, P. Achtelik.
248
@ 234 - You're right, it's about control, I know that. I pointed this out in an earlier comment (I understand if you didn't read it, it's only one of 240!), and I still think that THAT'S where the criminality lies here, not in any other aspect of the case. What frustrates me is a total unwillingness on most everyone's part here to admit that, while this probably did cross the line into "sexual abuse", there is another side here. If we could get away from our collective tight-assed Puritanical roots as a society for a moment, and consider all aspects of a case like this, it could actually teach us something about our world, and ourselves.
249
@246:
It is rude to use my name. I do not own child porn, and since "child porn" is per definition under German law porn with under 14-year-olds, "youth porn" being the legal term for porn with 14-17-year-olds, you just accused me of a serious crime. I really think that this constitutes libel, don't you think?
It is rude to use my name. I do not own child porn, and since "child porn" is per definition under German law porn with under 14-year-olds, "youth porn" being the legal term for porn with 14-17-year-olds, you just accused me of a serious crime. I really think that this constitutes libel, don't you think?
252
I'm the same age as Dan...32.
He is, however, far hotter than I am.
Kiddy porn, or any porn featuring non-consenting, non-legal, or non-human adults is disgusting and debasing.
All done.
He is, however, far hotter than I am.
Kiddy porn, or any porn featuring non-consenting, non-legal, or non-human adults is disgusting and debasing.
All done.
253
Is there a reason everyone is assuming this kid is gay? He sounds like a sexual sadist who enjoyed coercive sex.
254
@ 253 - It's kind of like it was with Jeffrey Dahmer (but with infinitely more benign consequences, of course). Did it really matter one iota that Dahmer's victims were male and that he was gay? At the time, it sure didn't seem to make it any more horrible, or weird, or just plain fucked-up.
255
Look, this is pretty much dividing along the lines of us gay guys vs. everyone else. And that's OK because I know that it's not out of what one might call any "true homophobia". Where it comes from is that all us gay guys have had the growing-up-gay-and-male experience (which I think is probably more difficult than growing up lesbian). We kind of know where the kid's coming from (which is what Chridstopher was expressing in his post, in an unsuccessful attempt at high snark). Now, none of us are sociopaths (except for Mr. Poe), but we DO understand how a gay kid in these circumstances could have so much self-loathing inside of him that he could do things like this. It's just that we all had a better moral compass at the time than this kid seems to have.
256
Or he could be a deeply homophobic kid who knew he could use homophobia to humiliate other males. Rape is not always about sexual satisfaction. The fact that he chose to sexually humiliate other males does not mean he is gay. Plenty of sociopaths who sexually assault others do so without regard to their gender of their victims other than the fact that they enjoy exploiting others' weaknesses.
But this post goes beyond voicing the humiliation of being a queer kid (and it's a bit presumptuous to say "us gay guys feel x.") It gives bullshit rapist apologies like "if they didn't report it they must have liked it" which IS a rape apology AND further ignores the variety of ways homophobia makes men vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
But this post goes beyond voicing the humiliation of being a queer kid (and it's a bit presumptuous to say "us gay guys feel x.") It gives bullshit rapist apologies like "if they didn't report it they must have liked it" which IS a rape apology AND further ignores the variety of ways homophobia makes men vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
258
What I'd like to see come out of this is a big step towards realization on the part of straight society that:
a) there IS such a thing as gay youth, and
b) their status as "the other" in the high school culture can potentially be very damaging at the least, and utterly poisonous at worst, and,
c) not much is being done by straight society to help these kids grow up to be psychologically healthy adults.
It's sad. And stupid, too: why are we consigning these potentially productive members of society to being neurotic adults?
a) there IS such a thing as gay youth, and
b) their status as "the other" in the high school culture can potentially be very damaging at the least, and utterly poisonous at worst, and,
c) not much is being done by straight society to help these kids grow up to be psychologically healthy adults.
It's sad. And stupid, too: why are we consigning these potentially productive members of society to being neurotic adults?
259
Actually, c) is not entirely correct. Many high schools across the country (and not just in cities) have gay-straight alliances. So props to school districts that have OK'ed this.
260
@ 256 - Possible, but less likely, I'd say.
"It gives bullshit rapist apologies like "if they didn't report it they must have liked it""
Where did you get this from what I said? I didn't say ANYTHING like that. I was talking about rape in an earlier comment, but I didn't make that particular reference.
@ 257 - You're welcome, sir.
"It gives bullshit rapist apologies like "if they didn't report it they must have liked it""
Where did you get this from what I said? I didn't say ANYTHING like that. I was talking about rape in an earlier comment, but I didn't make that particular reference.
@ 257 - You're welcome, sir.
261
@ 256 again - I would agree that you can't generalize the growing-up-gay experience for ALL gay guys. Obviously, that's a ludicrous proposition. The truth is less...well..drama-queen-y. I'm sure there are tons and tons of gay guys who experienced little or no overt homophobia as teenagers, but just the experience of being "the other" still had an effect (a negative effect, I think) on who they grew up to be as adults.
262
So I guess what I'm saying here is, what about the (GLBT) children?
No, the irony isn't lost on me...
No, the irony isn't lost on me...
263
Christopher, thank you for saying this!
It's so unfair how people make us guys who get off on rape revenge out to be some kinda weirdos.
It's so unfair how people make us guys who get off on rape revenge out to be some kinda weirdos.
265
@ 264 - Jeez, I thought I was expressing myself pretty clearly. Maybe not. Is it really that incomprehensible that there is another way to look at this story, a POV that doesn't in any way exonerate the alleged perpetrator?
I haven't decided yet whether I would prefer to be labeled as mentally unbalanced, or a pedophile. It's close right now.
I haven't decided yet whether I would prefer to be labeled as mentally unbalanced, or a pedophile. It's close right now.
268
265, you and strangeways keep circle jerking each other. frizzelle has issued his mea culpa, making you look like a douche for continuing to stand up for this lame post.
Still no word from Savage (coward).
And ECB, if you have forfeited the right to EVER post ANYTHING about Brodeur, Westneat or Connelly again. You have lost ALL credibility.
Still no word from Savage (coward).
And ECB, if you have forfeited the right to EVER post ANYTHING about Brodeur, Westneat or Connelly again. You have lost ALL credibility.
271
@19-- you're a homophobe. That's effed up. Killed?? No one should be killed simply for hitting on a straight guy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (271) RSS