In before any become the arch-villain in Hero Team.
2014-9-10 "Final Closure"? -
- Thread starter schiessen
- Start date
Yeah, I'm not taking that bet.
And in the depths of the CWCki, the watchers of his downfall will tent their fingers and whisper:
"Just as planned."
GK reminds me of me until about age 16. No, not the kids part but rather the inability to try and see something through someone else's eyes. There was always a reason for me to justify why I was right and everyone else was wrong. Then one day I started to listen to others and think for a moment about how maybe just maybe my opinion of myself is slightly biased. Then that lead to by big awakening about consequences and how I should accept them for my actions.
Perhaps if Jay had said something along the lines of "these crazy kids were trying to tickle me lol" and that was it nobody would care. But he wrote pages and pages of detail, even prefixing it with "some people may not like this but I assure you nothing funny happened" (paraphrased) and since he publicly admits he has a thing for tickling and feet that was just chillingly creepy. Despite that journal, if he would have just said "you guys are right, I can see why that could look bad and even if I didn't mean anything it's best to avoid the appearance of impropriety so I won't let that happen again in the future."
It's amazing how some people never grow up. Hey GK, here's a thought.... if you want to appear favorably in the eyes of the world today stop defending your past image and instead improve today's one. The reason you will never be "epic" is because you already think you are. Everything in life you want has to be earned and until you realize that you have to start earning it you never will.
Perhaps if Jay had said something along the lines of "these crazy kids were trying to tickle me lol" and that was it nobody would care. But he wrote pages and pages of detail, even prefixing it with "some people may not like this but I assure you nothing funny happened" (paraphrased) and since he publicly admits he has a thing for tickling and feet that was just chillingly creepy. Despite that journal, if he would have just said "you guys are right, I can see why that could look bad and even if I didn't mean anything it's best to avoid the appearance of impropriety so I won't let that happen again in the future."
It's amazing how some people never grow up. Hey GK, here's a thought.... if you want to appear favorably in the eyes of the world today stop defending your past image and instead improve today's one. The reason you will never be "epic" is because you already think you are. Everything in life you want has to be earned and until you realize that you have to start earning it you never will.
To him things are only "resolved" when people stop saying bad things about him and let him get back to thinking he's awesome.
So, if I'm getting this straight, all we have to do is keep bringing up the Christmas Journal as proof he's a pedo to set him off at this point?
Clearly we must make an army...of squirrels dressed in little Santa Claus outfits. And then airdrop them on his house.
Clearly we must make an army...of squirrels dressed in little Santa Claus outfits. And then airdrop them on his house.
wuhdafuckdidijustread? I did not realize how totally messed up this guy is.
QueenMegan
kiwifarms.net
This sounds really familiar...
It would have been better if he'd just shut up about it. He wouldn't need to defend it if it wasn't something wrong.
And the harder you try to make it forget, the internet remembers it twice as hard.
Its fascinating that he goes to his mom to discuss things of this nature. Reminds me of Chris' "My mother says I'm handsome.".
How did the conversation go?
GK: Mom, some people on the internet are saying I'm a pedo because I played with a little kid once. : (
GK's Mom: No, honey! You're not like that! You were just playing with them!
GK: Thanks mom, I know I shouldn't let it get to me. I'll keep being awesome. : ) *Completely leaves out the details of skin contact and getting aroused by this and feet.*
GK's mom: You go kiddo! *Goes back to drinking her xanax martini*
How did the conversation go?
GK: Mom, some people on the internet are saying I'm a pedo because I played with a little kid once. : (
GK's Mom: No, honey! You're not like that! You were just playing with them!
GK: Thanks mom, I know I shouldn't let it get to me. I'll keep being awesome. : ) *Completely leaves out the details of skin contact and getting aroused by this and feet.*
GK's mom: You go kiddo! *Goes back to drinking her xanax martini*
Someone going by "PowerPuffGreg" has taken an interesting tack. He's dropped a long, detailed salvo of fact-bombs on Jay, deconstructing the "inner child" nonsense and urging Jay to act like an adult. Jay's response? Effectively "lalalalala not listening I'll block you if you say any more".
PowerPuffGreg 37 minutes ago New member
Dear Jay,
First of all I want to thank you for opening up dialogue with your public response to the controversy regarding the contents of a journal entry posted on your DeviantArt page last year. I value the sincerity of your opinions and the willingness to address serious accusations and your ability to admit that your past actions were inappropriate. It is important that we as humanity are always open to criticism and willing to accept changing any of our opinions based on deeper reflection or reasoned arguments.
However, although I respect your willingness to learn from your mistakes and move on (which demonstrates a level of introspection), I disagree with a number of points you previously discussed in your journal entry "Final Closure" . As I have taken the time to carefully read and write a response to this journal entry, I politely request that you read my response and consider in some form the opinions I have expressed in this response.
Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your chosen decision to dismiss any more conversation about the issue. Whilst I understand that you are willing to accept your mistakes and move on in your life, I am of the opinion that we should continue to be open minded about any of the opinions or beliefs that we hold to be true, including beliefs we have developed through making significant mistakes. As John Locke observed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, our molecular structure is changing at such a rate that in 7 years time the molecular structure of our bodies will be completely different to the molecular structure of our bodies now. I am of the belief that our opinions function in a similar way; through constant change and restructuring, our opinions will be completely different and far more structured in 7 years time as they are now. If we forbid ourselves to challenge any of our previously held conceptions, we forbid our ability to grow. If you are truly willing to arrive at a purely rational, mature opinion I hope you will consider continuing to accept further criticism and discussion.
Secondly, I am concerned about the tone of the piece given the severity of the subject matter. The first sentence of your journal is a succinct example of my disagreement with the tone the piece is written:
"Hold on to your feathers, friends and foes, because I imagine they will be getting ruffled."
The idiom "ruffle feathers" is defined by The Free Dictionary as "[to figuratively] irritate or annoy someone". Given that the journal's subject matter is related to accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with children, it is difficult not to infer that you perceive childhood sexual abuse as nothing more than an irritation or an annoyance. It is in fact an extremely serious issue that deeply affects those affected, to the case where research has found a strong link between those who are victims of abuse involving touching and suicide (if you wish to research this more, then I suggest reading The relationship between child maltreatment, sexual abuse and subsequent suicide attempts written by Fiona Colquhoun, which is freely available on the website of the charity NSPCC). If you are truly willing to identify the significance of your previous actions, I ask that when next writing about the subject you address it in an empathetic, respectful way as opposed to the informal and flippant style present within your journal.
Now I wish to address the details of the event which you have shared publicly. I understand that this is still a very sensitive subject for you, so I will try to address you as fairly and reasonably as I can. However please bear in mind that this does not mean that I necessarily agree with your view of events.
Firstly, I wish to contend your belief that age is irrelevant in this circumstance. Unlike adults, children are critically unaware of the events which are unfolding upon them. They have no base of reference to make decisions from, they are establishing the foundations which will influence their adult years. In this sense whilst an action may not appear morally ambiguous on the surface, in this case your lack of sexual intention did not make this a sexual act, is unfortunately not true.
Jonice Webb who wrote the book Running on Empty (which is a fantastic book, even if the contents are not explicitly relevant to you) defined a concept which he titled Emotional Neglect. Her theory is the absence of something in childhood can be just as damaging as direct abuse, leading to confusion and an inability to correctly regulate emotions in adulthood. There are many ways that emotional neglect can come about, most ways are by good, loving people completely unaware of the implications of their actions. The reason why this is relevant is that by tickling a child which you were not directly responsible for, you failed to meet the emotional needs of that child.
Children aren't always right. In fact, they are mostly wrong due to their lack of life experience. This means that they are unable to correctly identify what is good and bad for them ;for example a child would not think twice about eating nothing but sugared confectionery, despite it's lack of nutritional value which eaten frequently enough will become detrimental to the child's health. The role of a responsible adult is to identify a child's emotion, explain it and give guidance for progress.
In this specific situation, there is no softer way of me saying that you neglected the child's emotional needs. By tickling the child, it is very possible the child has now learnt that she will be rewarded when she offers her body to others to touch for their pleasure. Whilst the child may not show any signs with that being a problem now, in 20 years time the story may be very different. She may find it uncomfortable to have any sexual relationships due to the association with touch and disrespecting personal boundaries. She may find it difficult to trust people with the assumption they will take advantage of her, yet she feel's guilty as she has no painful memory to associate that emotion with. By touching her for your personal enjoyment, regardless if the intent was sexual, you taught the lesson that it is okay to offer your body for someone else's pleasure.
That is unacceptable. As an adult, a more appropriate response would be to either encourage play with other children of a similar age, not become a child yourself. Children want adults to be stable, mature and set boundaries. One of those boundaries is not to invade personal space. You neglected the child's emotional need for adults to behave differently to themselves, thus leaving a possible void they may not understand until it causes significant trauma and damage. Therefore whilst in your journal you say "no harm was done", whilst it is not surface damage, actually yes. Damage was done, on a much more subtle level.
However my biggest grievance is this section of your journal:
"You touched her."
She touched me first (And I don't hear anyone complaining that *I* was violated; try that on for size: little girl violates grown man). I think when a person tackles your leg unprovoked, that's a way of saying, "Play with me." So there was touching, big whoop!
Firstly it is not possible to say that you were violated because you made a conscious decision to participate. As an adult, you are aware and able to comprehend the concept of consent; a child does not. Therefore it is not logically possible to say that you were violated given that you have expressed in no way any distress or lack of consent in the engagement of the child. Secondly, you have again failed to recognise or validate the emotions of the child. As I explained previously, a child's lack of knowledge to base their decisions on means that every action they take it essentially a question on how to respond to situations. Your action was telling the child how to behave by accepting your touching. Rather than questioning, identifying and assessing how she felt or taking into consideration aspects of the question she wouldn't consider (why it is inappropriate for adults to engage in behaviour similar to children), you are telling her how to feel. You are saying she shouldn't feel bad about you touching her, but she should feel bad for touching you. What message is that sending a child? Seems contradictory, right? This is why behaviour such as this is so damaging and why people are still sending responses to your actions.
I wish to conclude that if you wish to accept a change of your behaviour, that you are willing to take these points into account and research into childhood development. I do not expect you to agree with everything that I say, however what I do ask of you is to accept that this is my opinion and that my opinion is in every sense valid.
Thank you for taking the time to read and think about the points I have raised. I am hopeful you will take into account this post and use this knowledge to better yourself as a person.
One love.
Reply
The-Golden-Knight 12 minutes ago Professional Filmographer
I understand and appreciate your constructive feedback, which is unexpected given the subject matter. I have sworn many times that I am done talking about it, but since you seem nice, I'll just warn you: no more, or I'll have to block you. I hope you understand, this is a very sensitive topic that I have closed for the nth time and want nothing to do with.
PowerPuffGreg 37 minutes ago New member
Dear Jay,
First of all I want to thank you for opening up dialogue with your public response to the controversy regarding the contents of a journal entry posted on your DeviantArt page last year. I value the sincerity of your opinions and the willingness to address serious accusations and your ability to admit that your past actions were inappropriate. It is important that we as humanity are always open to criticism and willing to accept changing any of our opinions based on deeper reflection or reasoned arguments.
However, although I respect your willingness to learn from your mistakes and move on (which demonstrates a level of introspection), I disagree with a number of points you previously discussed in your journal entry "Final Closure" . As I have taken the time to carefully read and write a response to this journal entry, I politely request that you read my response and consider in some form the opinions I have expressed in this response.
Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your chosen decision to dismiss any more conversation about the issue. Whilst I understand that you are willing to accept your mistakes and move on in your life, I am of the opinion that we should continue to be open minded about any of the opinions or beliefs that we hold to be true, including beliefs we have developed through making significant mistakes. As John Locke observed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, our molecular structure is changing at such a rate that in 7 years time the molecular structure of our bodies will be completely different to the molecular structure of our bodies now. I am of the belief that our opinions function in a similar way; through constant change and restructuring, our opinions will be completely different and far more structured in 7 years time as they are now. If we forbid ourselves to challenge any of our previously held conceptions, we forbid our ability to grow. If you are truly willing to arrive at a purely rational, mature opinion I hope you will consider continuing to accept further criticism and discussion.
Secondly, I am concerned about the tone of the piece given the severity of the subject matter. The first sentence of your journal is a succinct example of my disagreement with the tone the piece is written:
"Hold on to your feathers, friends and foes, because I imagine they will be getting ruffled."
The idiom "ruffle feathers" is defined by The Free Dictionary as "[to figuratively] irritate or annoy someone". Given that the journal's subject matter is related to accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with children, it is difficult not to infer that you perceive childhood sexual abuse as nothing more than an irritation or an annoyance. It is in fact an extremely serious issue that deeply affects those affected, to the case where research has found a strong link between those who are victims of abuse involving touching and suicide (if you wish to research this more, then I suggest reading The relationship between child maltreatment, sexual abuse and subsequent suicide attempts written by Fiona Colquhoun, which is freely available on the website of the charity NSPCC). If you are truly willing to identify the significance of your previous actions, I ask that when next writing about the subject you address it in an empathetic, respectful way as opposed to the informal and flippant style present within your journal.
Now I wish to address the details of the event which you have shared publicly. I understand that this is still a very sensitive subject for you, so I will try to address you as fairly and reasonably as I can. However please bear in mind that this does not mean that I necessarily agree with your view of events.
Firstly, I wish to contend your belief that age is irrelevant in this circumstance. Unlike adults, children are critically unaware of the events which are unfolding upon them. They have no base of reference to make decisions from, they are establishing the foundations which will influence their adult years. In this sense whilst an action may not appear morally ambiguous on the surface, in this case your lack of sexual intention did not make this a sexual act, is unfortunately not true.
Jonice Webb who wrote the book Running on Empty (which is a fantastic book, even if the contents are not explicitly relevant to you) defined a concept which he titled Emotional Neglect. Her theory is the absence of something in childhood can be just as damaging as direct abuse, leading to confusion and an inability to correctly regulate emotions in adulthood. There are many ways that emotional neglect can come about, most ways are by good, loving people completely unaware of the implications of their actions. The reason why this is relevant is that by tickling a child which you were not directly responsible for, you failed to meet the emotional needs of that child.
Children aren't always right. In fact, they are mostly wrong due to their lack of life experience. This means that they are unable to correctly identify what is good and bad for them ;for example a child would not think twice about eating nothing but sugared confectionery, despite it's lack of nutritional value which eaten frequently enough will become detrimental to the child's health. The role of a responsible adult is to identify a child's emotion, explain it and give guidance for progress.
In this specific situation, there is no softer way of me saying that you neglected the child's emotional needs. By tickling the child, it is very possible the child has now learnt that she will be rewarded when she offers her body to others to touch for their pleasure. Whilst the child may not show any signs with that being a problem now, in 20 years time the story may be very different. She may find it uncomfortable to have any sexual relationships due to the association with touch and disrespecting personal boundaries. She may find it difficult to trust people with the assumption they will take advantage of her, yet she feel's guilty as she has no painful memory to associate that emotion with. By touching her for your personal enjoyment, regardless if the intent was sexual, you taught the lesson that it is okay to offer your body for someone else's pleasure.
That is unacceptable. As an adult, a more appropriate response would be to either encourage play with other children of a similar age, not become a child yourself. Children want adults to be stable, mature and set boundaries. One of those boundaries is not to invade personal space. You neglected the child's emotional need for adults to behave differently to themselves, thus leaving a possible void they may not understand until it causes significant trauma and damage. Therefore whilst in your journal you say "no harm was done", whilst it is not surface damage, actually yes. Damage was done, on a much more subtle level.
However my biggest grievance is this section of your journal:
"You touched her."
She touched me first (And I don't hear anyone complaining that *I* was violated; try that on for size: little girl violates grown man). I think when a person tackles your leg unprovoked, that's a way of saying, "Play with me." So there was touching, big whoop!
Firstly it is not possible to say that you were violated because you made a conscious decision to participate. As an adult, you are aware and able to comprehend the concept of consent; a child does not. Therefore it is not logically possible to say that you were violated given that you have expressed in no way any distress or lack of consent in the engagement of the child. Secondly, you have again failed to recognise or validate the emotions of the child. As I explained previously, a child's lack of knowledge to base their decisions on means that every action they take it essentially a question on how to respond to situations. Your action was telling the child how to behave by accepting your touching. Rather than questioning, identifying and assessing how she felt or taking into consideration aspects of the question she wouldn't consider (why it is inappropriate for adults to engage in behaviour similar to children), you are telling her how to feel. You are saying she shouldn't feel bad about you touching her, but she should feel bad for touching you. What message is that sending a child? Seems contradictory, right? This is why behaviour such as this is so damaging and why people are still sending responses to your actions.
I wish to conclude that if you wish to accept a change of your behaviour, that you are willing to take these points into account and research into childhood development. I do not expect you to agree with everything that I say, however what I do ask of you is to accept that this is my opinion and that my opinion is in every sense valid.
Thank you for taking the time to read and think about the points I have raised. I am hopeful you will take into account this post and use this knowledge to better yourself as a person.
One love.
Reply
The-Golden-Knight 12 minutes ago Professional Filmographer
I understand and appreciate your constructive feedback, which is unexpected given the subject matter. I have sworn many times that I am done talking about it, but since you seem nice, I'll just warn you: no more, or I'll have to block you. I hope you understand, this is a very sensitive topic that I have closed for the nth time and want nothing to do with.
"Your letter has been read fully, and your thoughts have been inputed and accepted for better improvement. Thank you for your time and efforts."Someone going by "PowerPuffGreg" has taken an interesting tack. He's dropped a long, detailed salvo of fact-bombs on Jay, deconstructing the "inner child" nonsense and urging Jay to act like an adult. Jay's response? Effectively "lalalalala not listening I'll block you if you say any more".
PowerPuffGreg 37 minutes ago New member
Dear Jay,
First of all I want to thank you for opening up dialogue with your public response to the controversy regarding the contents of a journal entry posted on your DeviantArt page last year. I value the sincerity of your opinions and the willingness to address serious accusations and your ability to admit that your past actions were inappropriate. It is important that we as humanity are always open to criticism and willing to accept changing any of our opinions based on deeper reflection or reasoned arguments.
However, although I respect your willingness to learn from your mistakes and move on (which demonstrates a level of introspection), I disagree with a number of points you previously discussed in your journal entry "Final Closure" . As I have taken the time to carefully read and write a response to this journal entry, I politely request that you read my response and consider in some form the opinions I have expressed in this response.
Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your chosen decision to dismiss any more conversation about the issue. Whilst I understand that you are willing to accept your mistakes and move on in your life, I am of the opinion that we should continue to be open minded about any of the opinions or beliefs that we hold to be true, including beliefs we have developed through making significant mistakes. As John Locke observed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, our molecular structure is changing at such a rate that in 7 years time the molecular structure of our bodies will be completely different to the molecular structure of our bodies now. I am of the belief that our opinions function in a similar way; through constant change and restructuring, our opinions will be completely different and far more structured in 7 years time as they are now. If we forbid ourselves to challenge any of our previously held conceptions, we forbid our ability to grow. If you are truly willing to arrive at a purely rational, mature opinion I hope you will consider continuing to accept further criticism and discussion.
Secondly, I am concerned about the tone of the piece given the severity of the subject matter. The first sentence of your journal is a succinct example of my disagreement with the tone the piece is written:
"Hold on to your feathers, friends and foes, because I imagine they will be getting ruffled."
The idiom "ruffle feathers" is defined by The Free Dictionary as "[to figuratively] irritate or annoy someone". Given that the journal's subject matter is related to accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with children, it is difficult not to infer that you perceive childhood sexual abuse as nothing more than an irritation or an annoyance. It is in fact an extremely serious issue that deeply affects those affected, to the case where research has found a strong link between those who are victims of abuse involving touching and suicide (if you wish to research this more, then I suggest reading The relationship between child maltreatment, sexual abuse and subsequent suicide attempts written by Fiona Colquhoun, which is freely available on the website of the charity NSPCC). If you are truly willing to identify the significance of your previous actions, I ask that when next writing about the subject you address it in an empathetic, respectful way as opposed to the informal and flippant style present within your journal.
Now I wish to address the details of the event which you have shared publicly. I understand that this is still a very sensitive subject for you, so I will try to address you as fairly and reasonably as I can. However please bear in mind that this does not mean that I necessarily agree with your view of events.
Firstly, I wish to contend your belief that age is irrelevant in this circumstance. Unlike adults, children are critically unaware of the events which are unfolding upon them. They have no base of reference to make decisions from, they are establishing the foundations which will influence their adult years. In this sense whilst an action may not appear morally ambiguous on the surface, in this case your lack of sexual intention did not make this a sexual act, is unfortunately not true.
Jonice Webb who wrote the book Running on Empty (which is a fantastic book, even if the contents are not explicitly relevant to you) defined a concept which he titled Emotional Neglect. Her theory is the absence of something in childhood can be just as damaging as direct abuse, leading to confusion and an inability to correctly regulate emotions in adulthood. There are many ways that emotional neglect can come about, most ways are by good, loving people completely unaware of the implications of their actions. The reason why this is relevant is that by tickling a child which you were not directly responsible for, you failed to meet the emotional needs of that child.
Children aren't always right. In fact, they are mostly wrong due to their lack of life experience. This means that they are unable to correctly identify what is good and bad for them ;for example a child would not think twice about eating nothing but sugared confectionery, despite it's lack of nutritional value which eaten frequently enough will become detrimental to the child's health. The role of a responsible adult is to identify a child's emotion, explain it and give guidance for progress.
In this specific situation, there is no softer way of me saying that you neglected the child's emotional needs. By tickling the child, it is very possible the child has now learnt that she will be rewarded when she offers her body to others to touch for their pleasure. Whilst the child may not show any signs with that being a problem now, in 20 years time the story may be very different. She may find it uncomfortable to have any sexual relationships due to the association with touch and disrespecting personal boundaries. She may find it difficult to trust people with the assumption they will take advantage of her, yet she feel's guilty as she has no painful memory to associate that emotion with. By touching her for your personal enjoyment, regardless if the intent was sexual, you taught the lesson that it is okay to offer your body for someone else's pleasure.
That is unacceptable. As an adult, a more appropriate response would be to either encourage play with other children of a similar age, not become a child yourself. Children want adults to be stable, mature and set boundaries. One of those boundaries is not to invade personal space. You neglected the child's emotional need for adults to behave differently to themselves, thus leaving a possible void they may not understand until it causes significant trauma and damage. Therefore whilst in your journal you say "no harm was done", whilst it is not surface damage, actually yes. Damage was done, on a much more subtle level.
However my biggest grievance is this section of your journal:
"You touched her."
She touched me first (And I don't hear anyone complaining that *I* was violated; try that on for size: little girl violates grown man). I think when a person tackles your leg unprovoked, that's a way of saying, "Play with me." So there was touching, big whoop!
Firstly it is not possible to say that you were violated because you made a conscious decision to participate. As an adult, you are aware and able to comprehend the concept of consent; a child does not. Therefore it is not logically possible to say that you were violated given that you have expressed in no way any distress or lack of consent in the engagement of the child. Secondly, you have again failed to recognise or validate the emotions of the child. As I explained previously, a child's lack of knowledge to base their decisions on means that every action they take it essentially a question on how to respond to situations. Your action was telling the child how to behave by accepting your touching. Rather than questioning, identifying and assessing how she felt or taking into consideration aspects of the question she wouldn't consider (why it is inappropriate for adults to engage in behaviour similar to children), you are telling her how to feel. You are saying she shouldn't feel bad about you touching her, but she should feel bad for touching you. What message is that sending a child? Seems contradictory, right? This is why behaviour such as this is so damaging and why people are still sending responses to your actions.
I wish to conclude that if you wish to accept a change of your behaviour, that you are willing to take these points into account and research into childhood development. I do not expect you to agree with everything that I say, however what I do ask of you is to accept that this is my opinion and that my opinion is in every sense valid.
Thank you for taking the time to read and think about the points I have raised. I am hopeful you will take into account this post and use this knowledge to better yourself as a person.
One love.
Reply
The-Golden-Knight 12 minutes ago Professional Filmographer
I understand and appreciate your constructive feedback, which is unexpected given the subject matter. I have sworn many times that I am done talking about it, but since you seem nice, I'll just warn you: no more, or I'll have to block you. I hope you understand, this is a very sensitive topic that I have closed for the nth time and want nothing to do with.
Someone going by "PowerPuffGreg" has taken an interesting tack. He's dropped a long, detailed salvo of fact-bombs on Jay, deconstructing the "inner child" nonsense and urging Jay to act like an adult. Jay's response? Effectively "lalalalala not listening I'll block you if you say any more".
PowerPuffGreg 37 minutes ago New member
Dear Jay,
First of all I want to thank you for opening up dialogue with your public response to the controversy regarding the contents of a journal entry posted on your DeviantArt page last year. I value the sincerity of your opinions and the willingness to address serious accusations and your ability to admit that your past actions were inappropriate. It is important that we as humanity are always open to criticism and willing to accept changing any of our opinions based on deeper reflection or reasoned arguments.
However, although I respect your willingness to learn from your mistakes and move on (which demonstrates a level of introspection), I disagree with a number of points you previously discussed in your journal entry "Final Closure" . As I have taken the time to carefully read and write a response to this journal entry, I politely request that you read my response and consider in some form the opinions I have expressed in this response.
Firstly, I respectfully disagree with your chosen decision to dismiss any more conversation about the issue. Whilst I understand that you are willing to accept your mistakes and move on in your life, I am of the opinion that we should continue to be open minded about any of the opinions or beliefs that we hold to be true, including beliefs we have developed through making significant mistakes. As John Locke observed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, our molecular structure is changing at such a rate that in 7 years time the molecular structure of our bodies will be completely different to the molecular structure of our bodies now. I am of the belief that our opinions function in a similar way; through constant change and restructuring, our opinions will be completely different and far more structured in 7 years time as they are now. If we forbid ourselves to challenge any of our previously held conceptions, we forbid our ability to grow. If you are truly willing to arrive at a purely rational, mature opinion I hope you will consider continuing to accept further criticism and discussion.
Secondly, I am concerned about the tone of the piece given the severity of the subject matter. The first sentence of your journal is a succinct example of my disagreement with the tone the piece is written:
"Hold on to your feathers, friends and foes, because I imagine they will be getting ruffled."
The idiom "ruffle feathers" is defined by The Free Dictionary as "[to figuratively] irritate or annoy someone". Given that the journal's subject matter is related to accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with children, it is difficult not to infer that you perceive childhood sexual abuse as nothing more than an irritation or an annoyance. It is in fact an extremely serious issue that deeply affects those affected, to the case where research has found a strong link between those who are victims of abuse involving touching and suicide (if you wish to research this more, then I suggest reading The relationship between child maltreatment, sexual abuse and subsequent suicide attempts written by Fiona Colquhoun, which is freely available on the website of the charity NSPCC). If you are truly willing to identify the significance of your previous actions, I ask that when next writing about the subject you address it in an empathetic, respectful way as opposed to the informal and flippant style present within your journal.
Now I wish to address the details of the event which you have shared publicly. I understand that this is still a very sensitive subject for you, so I will try to address you as fairly and reasonably as I can. However please bear in mind that this does not mean that I necessarily agree with your view of events.
Firstly, I wish to contend your belief that age is irrelevant in this circumstance. Unlike adults, children are critically unaware of the events which are unfolding upon them. They have no base of reference to make decisions from, they are establishing the foundations which will influence their adult years. In this sense whilst an action may not appear morally ambiguous on the surface, in this case your lack of sexual intention did not make this a sexual act, is unfortunately not true.
Jonice Webb who wrote the book Running on Empty (which is a fantastic book, even if the contents are not explicitly relevant to you) defined a concept which he titled Emotional Neglect. Her theory is the absence of something in childhood can be just as damaging as direct abuse, leading to confusion and an inability to correctly regulate emotions in adulthood. There are many ways that emotional neglect can come about, most ways are by good, loving people completely unaware of the implications of their actions. The reason why this is relevant is that by tickling a child which you were not directly responsible for, you failed to meet the emotional needs of that child.
Children aren't always right. In fact, they are mostly wrong due to their lack of life experience. This means that they are unable to correctly identify what is good and bad for them ;for example a child would not think twice about eating nothing but sugared confectionery, despite it's lack of nutritional value which eaten frequently enough will become detrimental to the child's health. The role of a responsible adult is to identify a child's emotion, explain it and give guidance for progress.
In this specific situation, there is no softer way of me saying that you neglected the child's emotional needs. By tickling the child, it is very possible the child has now learnt that she will be rewarded when she offers her body to others to touch for their pleasure. Whilst the child may not show any signs with that being a problem now, in 20 years time the story may be very different. She may find it uncomfortable to have any sexual relationships due to the association with touch and disrespecting personal boundaries. She may find it difficult to trust people with the assumption they will take advantage of her, yet she feel's guilty as she has no painful memory to associate that emotion with. By touching her for your personal enjoyment, regardless if the intent was sexual, you taught the lesson that it is okay to offer your body for someone else's pleasure.
That is unacceptable. As an adult, a more appropriate response would be to either encourage play with other children of a similar age, not become a child yourself. Children want adults to be stable, mature and set boundaries. One of those boundaries is not to invade personal space. You neglected the child's emotional need for adults to behave differently to themselves, thus leaving a possible void they may not understand until it causes significant trauma and damage. Therefore whilst in your journal you say "no harm was done", whilst it is not surface damage, actually yes. Damage was done, on a much more subtle level.
However my biggest grievance is this section of your journal:
"You touched her."
She touched me first (And I don't hear anyone complaining that *I* was violated; try that on for size: little girl violates grown man). I think when a person tackles your leg unprovoked, that's a way of saying, "Play with me." So there was touching, big whoop!
Firstly it is not possible to say that you were violated because you made a conscious decision to participate. As an adult, you are aware and able to comprehend the concept of consent; a child does not. Therefore it is not logically possible to say that you were violated given that you have expressed in no way any distress or lack of consent in the engagement of the child. Secondly, you have again failed to recognise or validate the emotions of the child. As I explained previously, a child's lack of knowledge to base their decisions on means that every action they take it essentially a question on how to respond to situations. Your action was telling the child how to behave by accepting your touching. Rather than questioning, identifying and assessing how she felt or taking into consideration aspects of the question she wouldn't consider (why it is inappropriate for adults to engage in behaviour similar to children), you are telling her how to feel. You are saying she shouldn't feel bad about you touching her, but she should feel bad for touching you. What message is that sending a child? Seems contradictory, right? This is why behaviour such as this is so damaging and why people are still sending responses to your actions.
I wish to conclude that if you wish to accept a change of your behaviour, that you are willing to take these points into account and research into childhood development. I do not expect you to agree with everything that I say, however what I do ask of you is to accept that this is my opinion and that my opinion is in every sense valid.
Thank you for taking the time to read and think about the points I have raised. I am hopeful you will take into account this post and use this knowledge to better yourself as a person.
One love.
Reply
The-Golden-Knight 12 minutes ago Professional Filmographer
I understand and appreciate your constructive feedback, which is unexpected given the subject matter. I have sworn many times that I am done talking about it, but since you seem nice, I'll just warn you: no more, or I'll have to block you. I hope you understand, this is a very sensitive topic that I have closed for the nth time and want nothing to do with.
Jay stopped reading at the first mention of a book with a lot of capitalized words in its title.
Jay really does not get it.
You could write him a sentence that perfectly explains why he's wrong, or an entire book. Either way, he will not read it, not try to understand it, and only warn you like the disobediant little kid you are that he'll ban you if you dare say anything against him.
I cannot understand how such a despicable human being goes through great grandeur to say they are the epitome of knighthood. Knights are humble, they do not back down from anything that scares them, they NEVER harm women or weaker beings, and they go through great lengths to be kind, gentle, and helpful to anyone they meet. Some would almost think Jay was a troll because of the mountain of hypocrisy he's built from it.
Jay would be kicked out of King Arthur's castle before he could even catch a glimpse of the round table.
You could write him a sentence that perfectly explains why he's wrong, or an entire book. Either way, he will not read it, not try to understand it, and only warn you like the disobediant little kid you are that he'll ban you if you dare say anything against him.
I cannot understand how such a despicable human being goes through great grandeur to say they are the epitome of knighthood. Knights are humble, they do not back down from anything that scares them, they NEVER harm women or weaker beings, and they go through great lengths to be kind, gentle, and helpful to anyone they meet. Some would almost think Jay was a troll because of the mountain of hypocrisy he's built from it.
Jay would be kicked out of King Arthur's castle before he could even catch a glimpse of the round table.
I could picture him bitching at King Arthur for being the center of attention, and then demanding Excalibur.
Probably why we haven't seen him come back in some shape or form, since even if the original account is banned (which IIRC it is) he'd try to probably go the "paintingatree" route of poorly diguised alt. accounts.
It's the armor of his dreams that he's more concerned about. Since he can't have the armor, he'll take what the armor is supposedly already a guarantee of.
Jay would die within five seconds of going back in time to that time period. Probably because saying he's a "jedi" when asked if he's a man of the church will be met with more might of the Inquisition for heresy than if he ended up in the WH40K universe and told a Space Marine the God Emperor was a fucking pussy in his gold armor.
I just see his constant hardon for being the 'hero' and 'superior knight that saves the town' so odd despite his horrible personality and impulses. Although it makes sense in that he wants to be the guy everyone worships and loves. Jay doesn't want to work for that admiration, he just believes he deserves it anyway. The armor would draw attention and make him look 'epic.' He'd feel like now he can be different despite being different in all the wrong ways.
If there was a group of knights on some forum who did activities to help other members or give to charities or be a good influence on the wild west web, Jay would be disqualified before he could even ask to join the group. If Jay could see the comparison between him and actual people acting like REAL heroes/knights, it would be pretty amusing to see his tiny little brain go through mental gymnastics to try and defend himself and say how he's the only genuine one.
If there was a group of knights on some forum who did activities to help other members or give to charities or be a good influence on the wild west web, Jay would be disqualified before he could even ask to join the group. If Jay could see the comparison between him and actual people acting like REAL heroes/knights, it would be pretty amusing to see his tiny little brain go through mental gymnastics to try and defend himself and say how he's the only genuine one.
Similar threads
