Would you go to a church where the preacher has been accused of sexual misconduct?

[suncowiam]

Perfect! He set it up and got busted.

Sorry David, I'm not understanding your comment.

 

[suncowiam]

That's a bit different from a Rabbi in my opinion.

Sexual misconduct accusations are being thrown left right and centre now. The truth is that very few victims actually come forward, especially children. As a victim of CSA, I know about this all too well. Anytime a child accuses an adult of sexual abuse, it is generally true. You don't need multiple sources.

But an adult accusing other adults can often be false. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but it happens. So if it's a Rabbi, he's innocent until he has been proven guilty. The OP wasn't about children specifically. if we're talking about a Rabbi who has been accused of, say, adultery, then it must be proven. Just because several people say a thing happened, it doesn't mean it did. What if, for some reason, this group doesn't like the Rabbi and want him removed? What if it were an isolated incident that was blown all out of proportion by gossip, as so often happens? I wouldn't abandon a Rabbi for something unproven like that.

The difference you propose is age?

It's OK for a child to make an accusation but not an adult? I fail to see why.

 

[Rival]

The difference you propose is age?

It's OK for a child to make an accusation but not an adult? I fail to see why.

Because a child will generally tell the truth. They don't know what sex is and so cannot really lie about it happening.

Adults can carry vendettas and false rape claims etc. are made all the time. This must be looked into.

However, the scenario I envisioned by the OP was adultery. I wouldn't call rape or abuse merely 'misconduct'. I'd call that, well, rape or abuse.

 

[suncowiam]

Because a child will generally tell the truth. They don't know what sex is and so cannot really lie about it happening.

Adults can carry vendettas and false rape claims etc. are made all the time. This must be looked into.

However, the scenario I envisioned by the OP was adultery. I wouldn't call rape or abuse merely 'misconduct'. I'd call that, well, rape or abuse.

The title says sexual misconduct. That's very broad, IMO.

Children lie, because they simply don't know better. Parents can usually figure out if children lie though.

What if it was the parents that are accusing the babysitter of sexual misconduct with their children? Would you let the babysitter take care of your child?

 

[Rival]

The title says sexual misconduct. That's very broad, IMO.

Children lie, because they simply don't know better. Parents can usually figure out if children lie though.

What if it was the parents that are accusing the babysitter of sexual misconduct with their children? Would you let the babysitter take care of your child?

Children don't lie about sex. They don't know what it is. When I was 11 and taken to a police interview regarding the abuse I'd suffered, I had no idea what I was describing. So how could I, or any other innocent child, lie about it? Does a child of 6 know what oral sex is?

The parents would have to get their proof from somewhere. If I found the proof sufficient I would not let that person babysit. If I found the proof inconclusive and baseless, I'd keep the sitter.

 

[suncowiam]

Children don't lie about sex. They don't know what it is. When I was 11 and taken to a police interview regarding the abuse I'd suffered, I had no idea what I was describing. So how could I, or any other innocent child lie about it? Does a child of 6 know what oral sex is?

The parents would have to get their proof from somewhere. If I found the proof sufficient I would not let that person babysit. If I found the proof inconclusive and baseless, I'd keep the sitter.

How about they make up stories that they dont know the severity about?

Possibly, they watched something from TV and claimed it happened. Your notion that the claims of children must generally be true can not be presumed. Every accusation has to be proven.

 

[Rival]

How about they make up stories that they dont know the severity about?

Possibly, they watched something from TV and claimed it happened. Your notion that the claims of children must generally be true can not be presumed. Every accusation has to be proven.

I don't know what your kids are watching, but it certainly wasn't on my T.V. screen.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't know what your kids are watching, but it certainly wasn't on my T.V. screen.

Don't make this personal.

It's not your kids that you're trying gauge the accusations on.

 

[Aštra’el]

"Sexual misconduct", they say. I wonder, if he became intimate with people's wives, or utilized his position to attract a harem, I fail to see the problem. If anything, the man should be commended for his sexual prowess and virility.

 

[Rival]

Don't make this personal.

It's not your kids that you're trying gauge the accusations on.

I wasn't trying to make it personal.

In any case, when I have kids there won't be a T.V. in my house anyway

 

[suncowiam]

I wasn't trying to make it personal.

In any case, when I have kids there won't be a T.V. in my house anyway

That's good, not that I think there's a moral weight on owning a TV.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I recently read about a guy who is an ''evangelist'' and pastor of a church, that he has a long history of recent sexual misconduct allegations, some of which he admitted to, but many he claims are lies about him. Would you attend a church where the preacher was being accused by quite a few women, of sexual misconduct? Why or why not?

"Sexual misconduct" by the standards of Evangelist? That could mean anything. I would need more details and pics; I have to have pics.

 

[Mindmaster]

I recently read about a guy who is an ''evangelist'' and pastor of a church, that he has a long history of recent sexual misconduct allegations, some of which he admitted to, but many he claims are lies about him. Would you attend a church where the preacher was being accused by quite a few women, of sexual misconduct? Why or why not?

What does misconduct mean specifically?

While I never think it OK to abuse women, if you know this guy and know he's a little touchy feel-y and you have a couple of drinks you know what you are getting into, lol. It all depends on the situation, and at this point that could be anything.

 

[dianaiad]

That's a bit different from a Rabbi in my opinion.

Sexual misconduct accusations are being thrown left right and centre now. The truth is that very few victims actually come forward, especially children. As a victim of CSA, I know about this all too well. Anytime a child accuses an adult of sexual abuse, it is generally true. You don't need multiple sources.

I'm sorry, but no. It is not 'generally true.' Hasn't the McMartin case taught anybody anything? A child will generally tell the truth if he has been molested, but children are far too easily influenced, and can...and will...accuse an adult of something heinous if he perceives that doing so will make another adult pleased with him. He might even come to believe that abuse actually happened, when it did not.

Law enforcement has come to understand this, btw, and children are now VERY carefully handled as witnesses because of that. What you cannot EVER do, however, is to take the unsupported word of a child, absent any other evidence at all, as the 'hang 'em!" testimony. Other evidence is almost always around, though, if the charge is not false.

Just don't decide to ruin someone's life because a child points a finger. Think "McMartin." Great Googly Moogly...think Salem!

But an adult accusing other adults can often be false. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but it happens. So if it's a Rabbi, he's innocent until he has been proven guilty. The OP wasn't about children specifically. If we're talking about a Rabbi who has been accused of, say, adultery, then it must be proven. Just because several people say a thing happened, it doesn't mean it did. What if, for some reason, this group doesn't like the Rabbi and want him removed? What if it were an isolated incident that was blown all out of proportion by gossip, as so often happens? I wouldn't abandon a Rabbi for something unproven like that.

I would not abandon a pastor/teacher/priest/rabbi on the word of one child, either. I WOULD make certain that said religious leader was supervised in future encounters with children until the situation is cleared up, but what you said, above, worries me. It's simply not true....and people believing that it IS true, that any time a child accuses an adult of abuse, it's generally true...is what causes things like witch hunts, Salem, the destruction of the McMartin family and, er....the family tragedy of one of my own relatives, whose daughter accused him of sexual abuse on more than one occasion.

Now YOU would automatically believe her, right? She is, after all, a child and children don't lie?

The problem is, on at least two of the occasions she refers to, HE was a: in Australia and literally half a world away, and b: in my home celebrating a holiday with my parents and SHE was literally half a world away. In fact, it turned out that the only time that he and she were in the same city at a time she claims the abuse happened, it was a sleepover and there were seven other kids in the same room with her, and every single one of 'em claimed that she never left the room...nor did any adult enter it. He was, in other words, flat out innocent.

But this DID happen when everybody was convinced that 'children never lie' about stuff like this, or at least are never wrong, and so this man's career was almost ruined, as was his life, even though he could absolutely prove that he not only DID not abuse his daughter when she claimed he did, he COULD not have. However, the authorities were so convinced that 'children tell the truth' about this stuff that they went over all the airline records, examined MY life to see if I were the one lying (and my parents and my children and everybody at the celebration were interrogated).

Turns out that his daughter is still convinced that her father really DID do this to her. Absolutely...because the CPA agent who talked to her about it ended up implanting false memories. It's taken many years and a LOT of therapy to fix that disconnect for her.

So I'm sorry, but you just hit one of my "he didn't really say that, did he?" buttons.

I'm not saying that children always lie: of course they do not. However, they have no idea just how serious such an accusation is, are easily maneuvered into saying what the adult wants them to say, and even when they are telling the truth, they are telling it as THEY see it, not as it necessarily is.

So...take the word of a child seriously. But don't figure that her word is all that is required.

 

[Rival]

I'm sorry, but no. It is not 'generally true.' Hasn't the McMartin case taught anybody anything? A child will generally tell the truth if he has been molested, but children are far too easily influenced, and can...and will...accuse an adult of something heinous if he perceives that doing so will make another adult pleased with him. He might even come to believe that abuse actually happened, when it did not.

Law enforcement has come to understand this, btw, and children are now VERY carefully handled as witnesses because of that. What you cannot EVER do, however, is to take the unsupported word of a child, absent any other evidence at all, as the 'hang 'em!" testimony. Other evidence is almost always around, though, if the charge is not false.

Just don't decide to ruin someone's life because a child points a finger. Think "McMartin." Great Googly Moogly...think Salem!



I would not abandon a pastor/teacher/priest/rabbi on the word of one child, either. I WOULD make certain that said religious leader was supervised in future encounters with children until the situation is cleared up, but what you said, above, worries me. It's simply not true....and people believing that it IS true, that any time a child accuses an adult of abuse, it's generally true...is what causes things like witch hunts, Salem, the destruction of the McMartin family and, er....the family tragedy of one of my own relatives, whose daughter accused him of sexual abuse on more than one occasion.

Now YOU would automatically believe her, right? She is, after all, a child and children don't lie?

The problem is, on at least two of the occasions she refers to, HE was a: in Australia and literally half a world away, and b: in my home celebrating a holiday with my parents and SHE was literally half a world away. In fact, it turned out that the only time that he and she were in the same city at a time she claims the abuse happened, it was a sleepover and there were seven other kids in the same room with her, and every single one of 'em claimed that she never left the room...nor did any adult enter it. He was, in other words, flat out innocent.

But this DID happen when everybody was convinced that 'children never lie' about stuff like this, or at least are never wrong, and so this man's career was almost ruined, as was his life, even though he could absolutely prove that he not only DID not abuse his daughter when she claimed he did, he COULD not have. However, the authorities were so convinced that 'children tell the truth' about this stuff that they went over all the airline records, examined MY life to see if I were the one lying (and my parents and my children and everybody at the celebration were interrogated).

Turns out that his daughter is still convinced that her father really DID do this to her. Absolutely...because the CPA agent who talked to her about it ended up implanting false memories. It's taken many years and a LOT of therapy to fix that disconnect for her.

So I'm sorry, but you just hit one of my "he didn't really say that, did he?" buttons.

I'm not saying that children always lie: of course they do not. However, they have no idea just how serious such an accusation is, are easily maneuvered into saying what the adult wants them to say, and even when they are telling the truth, they are telling it as THEY see it, not as it necessarily is.

So...take the word of a child seriously. But don't figure that her word is all that is required.

What age of child are you talking about? I'm meaning anything below 11.

I'd like to know where a child that age gains sexual knowledge.

Also I'm in bed on a phone and can't research all that right now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What age of child are you talking about? I'm meaning anything below 11.

I'd like to know where a child that age gains sexual knowledge.

Also I'm in bed on a phone and can't research all that right now.

I knew about sex way before 11.

 

[Rival]

I'm sorry, but no. It is not 'generally true.' Hasn't the McMartin case taught anybody anything? A child will generally tell the truth if he has been molested, but children are far too easily influenced, and can...and will...accuse an adult of something heinous if he perceives that doing so will make another adult pleased with him. He might even come to believe that abuse actually happened, when it did not.

Law enforcement has come to understand this, btw, and children are now VERY carefully handled as witnesses because of that. What you cannot EVER do, however, is to take the unsupported word of a child, absent any other evidence at all, as the 'hang 'em!" testimony. Other evidence is almost always around, though, if the charge is not false.

Just don't decide to ruin someone's life because a child points a finger. Think "McMartin." Great Googly Moogly...think Salem!



I would not abandon a pastor/teacher/priest/rabbi on the word of one child, either. I WOULD make certain that said religious leader was supervised in future encounters with children until the situation is cleared up, but what you said, above, worries me. It's simply not true....and people believing that it IS true, that any time a child accuses an adult of abuse, it's generally true...is what causes things like witch hunts, Salem, the destruction of the McMartin family and, er....the family tragedy of one of my own relatives, whose daughter accused him of sexual abuse on more than one occasion.

Now YOU would automatically believe her, right? She is, after all, a child and children don't lie?

The problem is, on at least two of the occasions she refers to, HE was a: in Australia and literally half a world away, and b: in my home celebrating a holiday with my parents and SHE was literally half a world away. In fact, it turned out that the only time that he and she were in the same city at a time she claims the abuse happened, it was a sleepover and there were seven other kids in the same room with her, and every single one of 'em claimed that she never left the room...nor did any adult enter it. He was, in other words, flat out innocent.

But this DID happen when everybody was convinced that 'children never lie' about stuff like this, or at least are never wrong, and so this man's career was almost ruined, as was his life, even though he could absolutely prove that he not only DID not abuse his daughter when she claimed he did, he COULD not have. However, the authorities were so convinced that 'children tell the truth' about this stuff that they went over all the airline records, examined MY life to see if I were the one lying (and my parents and my children and everybody at the celebration were interrogated).

Turns out that his daughter is still convinced that her father really DID do this to her. Absolutely...because the CPA agent who talked to her about it ended up implanting false memories. It's taken many years and a LOT of therapy to fix that disconnect for her.

So I'm sorry, but you just hit one of my "he didn't really say that, did he?" buttons.

I'm not saying that children always lie: of course they do not. However, they have no idea just how serious such an accusation is, are easily maneuvered into saying what the adult wants them to say, and even when they are telling the truth, they are telling it as THEY see it, not as it necessarily is.

So...take the word of a child seriously. But don't figure that her word is all that is required.

Okay, I did what research I could and it sounds like we are talking past each other.

1) I mean that when children come forward without any prior questions. Of course when a police officer asks a child if x happened, the child might feel pressured to say yes; but this is not what I'm talking about.

2) If a three year old came to her mother after school one day and described being sexually abused in a way she clearly had no idea what it was, that seems pretty strong evidence for it being the truth. This is what I'm taking about.

 

[Rival]

So I'm sorry, but you just hit one of my "he didn't really say that, did he?" buttons.

I'm a she.

 

[dianaiad]

What age of child are you talking about? I'm meaning anything below 11.

I'd like to know where a child that age gains sexual knowledge.

Also I'm in bed on a phone and can't research all that right now.

Are you kidding?

In today's world of TV, R-rated movies, and simple innuendo? I'd like to know where there is a child who does NOT have 'sexual knowledge,' albeit skewed and misunderstood, as this child's was.

....and I'm very sorry, but I'm not giving you any more information about this. It's not me being evasive. It's me regretting having brought it up in the first place.

 

[dianaiad]

I knew about sex way before 11.

As did I...and I'm 67 now. I can't remember ever NOT knowing about 'where babies come from,'....the physical realities of it, anyway.