Marion Zimmer Bradley Sexually Molested Me, Daughter Accuses

[happyninja42]

I'm definetly against child abuse of any kind and I'm sorry for Moira Grayland's suffering.
On the other hand, during wiki-surfing the people involved, I've found out that NAMBLA is a real thing, not just something made up for an episode of South Park. Americans, why you so crazy?

*rolls eyes* Yes because crazy is USA exclusive

This is the time of the internet! Where insanity is outsourced worldwide!


OT: I recall the books, having worked in a book store for a few years, but never really got into them. And I don't really know any huge fans of them either. Some people had read them yeah, but I don't recall ever sitting down with friends and debating them until the wee hours of the morning like other book series.


Sorry for her daughter though, and I can't express how angry that statement she made makes me though. The "I didn't want to upset her fans with my trauma" thing. That's the kind of mindset that keeps people from getting help. Don't worry about the fans of someone who has harmed you, I'd rather know that she was a rapist and have her daughter get help ASAP, instead of thinking the lady was a nice person, and praise her work while her child suffers.


Anyone reading this that might be in a similar situation to the daughter, don't worry about protecting someone else's feelings about the person who hurt you, get help, and report them, ASAP.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snip*

In addition to what Thaluikhain said, it seems pretty likely that her story is true just based on the situation. Her father was a member of NAMBLA and was imprisoned for molesting many people she named as victims to the police. As well, her mother has been dead for 15 years, it's hard to think of some ulterior motive she could have for outing her now. If she wanted to ruin her mother's life or reputation she'd have had far more success doing that while she was still alive. There just doesn't seem to be anything to gain by making a false accusation here aside from the ire of her devoted fans.

I can't begin to understand what it'd be like to grow up in her situation though, being abused like that by both parents? One thing that confuses me is that first poem is dated 2000, why didn't someone draw this conclusion earlier?

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Where on Earth have you been?

In fairness, even in the US it's played for laughs. Not to mention, NAMBLA sounds too comically stupid to really exist: a pro-pederasty group in this day and age? Combine those two, and you'd think it was an urban legend or a joke comedians had been stealing for years.

Yeah okay, I'll give you that. It's an odd world we live :/

In a way I hate hearing stories like this not because I don't like them but rather when the victims are adults it's often too late.

 

[Hagi]

Firstly, "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused means "liar until proven otherwise" for the accuser[footnote]Or, for adults, where the defense is that the victim consented, all victims consented until proven otherwise in a court of law[/footnote]

What? No, that's not how it works...

The accused being assumed innocent until proven otherwise isn't the same as the accuser being assumed a liar until proven otherwise.

There exists a state in between where a thing called an investigation happens. The accuser is assumed to be honest and his/her accusations taken seriously while at the same time the accused is assumed innocent and not immediately imprisoned.

There's absolutely no issue with not knowing things. With not knowing the facts and thus assuming both parties honest and treating them personally as such. It's perfectly possible to offer someone your sympathies and support while at the same time treating the person they're accusing with all due respect and friendliness until the facts are actually known.

Not every situations warrants judgment. You don't always have to take a side.

 

[McKinsey]

Otherwise GRRM is a serial killer waiting to happen, mind you he'd be slow and you'd see him coming but he'd keep trying.

That was magnificent!!

The number of false rape allegations is tiny

Even one is too many. And blaming a dead person who can't fight back - that's just weak, while also pointless.

If the justice system lets that sort of thing drop, they punish innocent people. I am not the justice system, nor is anyone here.

We're still intelligent beings capable of critical thinking. I suppose you've never witnessed a truly wretched and insidious liar. I did, and boy, that gives you some perspective. One can never, ever, ever believe somebody just because "they say so," especially with accusations of such magnitude.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firstly, "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused means "liar until proven otherwise" for the accuser[footnote]Or, for adults, where the defense is that the victim consented, all victims consented until proven otherwise in a court of law[/footnote]

What? No, that's not how it works...

The accused being assumed innocent until proven otherwise isn't the same as the accuser being assumed a liar until proven otherwise.

There exists a state in between where a thing called an investigation happens. The accuser is assumed to be honest and his/her accusations taken seriously while at the same time the accused is assumed innocent and not immediately imprisoned.

There's absolutely no issue with not knowing things. With not knowing the facts and thus assuming both parties honest and treating them personally as such. It's perfectly possible to offer someone your sympathies and support while at the same time treating the person they're accusing with all due respect and friendliness until the facts are actually known.

Not every situations warrants judgment. You don't always have to take a side.

The whole point of a court case is to judge people. That's why it's presided over by a judge, with a jury to listen to both sides and pick one.

(I'd also point out that the accuser being assumed to be honest, and their accusations being taken seriously during the investigation is how things are supposed to happen, things very often fall far short of that. In any case, the investigators have to judge whether or not it's worth bringing to trial, which is very similar to judging the people involved.)

We're still intelligent beings capable of critical thinking. I suppose you've never witnessed a truly wretched and insidious liar. I did, and boy, that gives you some perspective. One can never, ever, ever believe somebody just because "they say so," especially with accusations of such magnitude.

What magnitude? Again, I am not the justice system. It does not matter what I believe.

Now, appoint me the judge, or a juror, or a police officer, and then I will have to be much more careful and look into things in much greater detail. But I'm just another internet random. I can content myself with her probably telling the truth, I've no reason to doubt her.

 

[Hagi]

Firstly, "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused means "liar until proven otherwise" for the accuser[footnote]Or, for adults, where the defense is that the victim consented, all victims consented until proven otherwise in a court of law[/footnote]

What? No, that's not how it works...

The accused being assumed innocent until proven otherwise isn't the same as the accuser being assumed a liar until proven otherwise.

There exists a state in between where a thing called an investigation happens. The accuser is assumed to be honest and his/her accusations taken seriously while at the same time the accused is assumed innocent and not immediately imprisoned.

There's absolutely no issue with not knowing things. With not knowing the facts and thus assuming both parties honest and treating them personally as such. It's perfectly possible to offer someone your sympathies and support while at the same time treating the person they're accusing with all due respect and friendliness until the facts are actually known.

Not every situations warrants judgment. You don't always have to take a side.

The whole point of a court case is to judge people. That's why it's presided over by a judge, with a jury to listen to both sides and pick one.

(I'd also point out that the accuser being assumed to be honest, and their accusations being taken seriously during the investigation is how things are supposed to happen, things very often fall far short of that. In any case, the investigators have to judge whether or not it's worth bringing to trial, which is very similar to judging the people involved.)

The court's job yes.

Not your job. You don't have to say:

For us here, 'well the supposed victim told us it happened' is good enough, IMHO.

You don't have to make any judgment at all. Nothing has to be good enough because it isn't your job to judge.

And yes, I'm talking about how things are supposed to happen. I'm well aware that they often don't. But that does not justify your other extreme of having an accusation being good enough.

It's good enough to offer the accuser your full sympathies but it's never good enough in any interaction towards the accused.

 

[Albino Boo]

In fairness, even in the US it's played for laughs. Not to mention, NAMBLA sounds too comically stupid to really exist: a pro-pederasty group in this day and age? Combine those two, and you'd think it was an urban legend or a joke comedians had been stealing for years.

NAMBLA is not a joke but really exists. Allen Ginsberg was its most prominent member and Moira Greyland father, Walter Breen, was also a member. Walter Breen was convicted of 13 counts of forcing a boy under 14 to perform oral sex on him. I also refer you to this

Spoiler: Andrea Dworkin's memoir

During the the early 70s until the early 80's the gay rights movement and its leftwing supporters did include pedophile organizations, not only in the USA but in the UK as well. NAMBLA and its UK counterpart, the Pedophile information network, used the lefts naivety to promote its cause. The used the hard lefts then prevalent mindset where support for anything that looked evenly traditional would lead to accusations of being a bourgeoisie and being insufficiently revolutionary. The same kind of explosion of rage that you would see if someone says that that DRM is good thing here. It wasn't until the mid 80s when much of the sound and fury died out of the movement where they ejected from the wider gay rights movement.

 

[Megalodon]

snip

.

Don't object to the general theme of your post, and while I disagree with some of your opinions, I'm not going to call you wrong for holding them. However, there are a couple of (somewhat off topic) points you brought up that I do question.

There is a staggeringly high number of rapes, and a tiny number of convictions,

What do you define as staggering? I looked it up and wasn't particularly staggered (for the record I looked by reported cases, I'm highly sceptical about claims over the amount of unreported crime of any kind, due to the fundamentally dubious nature of data acquisition).

As for convictions, rape appears to actually be comparable/better to more generalised crime, at least in the UK. With 13/14% of reported rapes ending in conviction, whereas only around 15% of reports of general criminal cases result in charges, let alone conviction.

Then you have the conviction rate (the proportion of cases which go to trial resulting in convictions) for rape at 58%. The rate for general reportable crimes is apparently 57%.

So if anything, what data there is suggests rape victims have as good or better chances of justice than any other crime victim. Which isn't the usual activist line.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/21/open-door-fair-fact-rape

The number of false rape allegations is tiny, but is constantly blown out of proportion,

Really? Because a quick google and wiki check suggests otherwise. With a number of countries, including the US and UK, putting the figure at 8-10%, the highest I could find being Finland at 20%.

While stats of this nature are somewhat nightmarish, with differing data collection criteria etc. these aren't insignificant percentages.

You also don't get anywhere this paranoia with most other crimes.

Which I don't find particularly surprising. It's a serious sexual crime, that all to easily can come down to merely 'he said, she said' instead of useful evidence (or at least, that's the common perception). This is then combined with the fact that women are often viewed more sympathetically than men, creating the idea of 'the jury will believe the crying woman over me' (not saying this is true, but I get the thought process behind it). Plus there's the whole accusation=guilty thing in the wider culture and media (my objection to which being the point of my initial post). For a recent high profile (again, in the UK) example, look at the trial of William Roache, with its accompanying trial by media. Summarised here:

http://www.cmcstir.org/jou9x2/the-guilty-portrayal-of-an-innocent-man/

 

[Megalodon]

You don't have to make any judgment at all. Nothing has to be good enough because it isn't your job to judge.

And yes, I'm talking about how things are supposed to happen. I'm well aware that they often don't. But that does not justify your other extreme of having an accusation being good enough.

It's good enough to offer the accuser your full sympathies but it's never good enough in any interaction towards the accused.

Well said. I wish I could have summarised my views this succinctly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's good enough to offer the accuser your full sympathies but it's never good enough in any interaction towards the accused.

If the accused, who has been dead for 15 years, turns out to be innocent and has been reading what I've written in this thread, then I'll apologise to them.

You don't have to make any judgment at all. Nothing has to be good enough because it isn't your job to judge.

Neither am I under any obligation only to believe things that have been decided in a court of law.

for the record I looked by reported cases, I'm highly sceptical about claims over the amount of unreported crime of any kind, due to the fundamentally dubious nature of data acquisition

Well, if you are only going by reported cases, then yes. I have serious problems with this approach. The number of unreported rapes can only be estimated, but dismissing them because of this is a very bad idea.

As for convictions, rape appears to actually be comparable/better to more generalised crime, at least in the UK. With 13/14% of reported rapes ending in conviction, whereas only around 15% of reports of general criminal cases result in charges, let alone conviction.

Then you have the conviction rate (the proportion of cases which go to trial resulting in convictions) for rape at 58%. The rate for general reportable crimes is apparently 57%.

So if anything, what data there is suggests rape victims have as good or better chances of justice than any other crime victim. Which isn't the usual activist line.

I'd argue that it comparing rape with all crimes that involve a court case is a bit misleading though. I wasn't away the conviction rate once it got to court was that high, though.

Which I don't find particularly surprising. It's a serious sexual crime, that all to easily can come down to merely 'he said, she said' instead of useful evidence (or at least, that's the common perception). This is then combined with the fact that women are often viewed more sympathetically than men, creating the idea of 'the jury will believe the crying woman over me' (not saying this is true, but I get the thought process behind it). Plus there's the whole accusation=guilty thing in the wider culture and media (my objection to which being the point of my initial post). For a recent high profile (again, in the UK) example, look at the trial of William Roache, with its accompanying trial by media. Summarised here:

http://www.cmcstir.org/jou9x2/the-guilty-portrayal-of-an-innocent-man/

Not surprising, but disheartening. I'd also say that the fact that men are never going to be the victim of a male on female rape, no matter how common they are, but could be of a false accusation, no matter how uncommon those are, might have something to do with how many men, consciously or not, see the issue.

 

[Hagi]

It's good enough to offer the accuser your full sympathies but it's never good enough in any interaction towards the accused.

If the accused, who has been dead for 15 years, turns out to be innocent and has been reading what I've written in this thread, then I'll apologise to them.

You don't have to make any judgment at all. Nothing has to be good enough because it isn't your job to judge.

Neither am I under any obligation only to believe things that have been decided in a court of law.

It's not about obligations. It's about decency.

About all the little things you don't have to do, but doing them makes you a better person.

Like offering sympathy and support to a reported victim without immediately rushing to judgment.

You don't have to offer sympathy and support. But it's the decent thing to do.
You don't have to refrain from rushing to judge. But it's the decent thing to do.

 

[Megalodon]

for the record I looked by reported cases, I'm highly sceptical about claims over the amount of unreported crime of any kind, due to the fundamentally dubious nature of data acquisition

Well, if you are only going by reported cases, then yes. I have serious problems with this approach. The number of unreported rapes can only be estimated, but dismissing them because of this is a very bad idea.

And I often find the ulterior motives of the people who estimate unreported rape to be rather suspect. I don't want to base my opinions on a subject on 'evidence' that is actually propaganda with an agenda. In such a situation, with only bad data available, I feel it is better to not make judgements one way or the other.

As for convictions, rape appears to actually be comparable/better to more generalised crime, at least in the UK. With 13/14% of reported rapes ending in conviction, whereas only around 15% of reports of general criminal cases result in charges, let alone conviction.

Then you have the conviction rate (the proportion of cases which go to trial resulting in convictions) for rape at 58%. The rate for general reportable crimes is apparently 57%.

So if anything, what data there is suggests rape victims have as good or better chances of justice than any other crime victim. Which isn't the usual activist line.

I'd argue that it comparing rape with all crimes that involve a court case is a bit misleading though. I wasn't away the conviction rate once it got to court was that high, though.

Eh, that was the comparisons I found. A more detailed breakdown would be nice, but I think the similarity to overall average is a useful comparison for challenging the 'low conviction rate for rape claim'.

Which I don't find particularly surprising. It's a serious sexual crime, that all to easily can come down to merely 'he said, she said' instead of useful evidence (or at least, that's the common perception). This is then combined with the fact that women are often viewed more sympathetically than men, creating the idea of 'the jury will believe the crying woman over me' (not saying this is true, but I get the thought process behind it). Plus there's the whole accusation=guilty thing in the wider culture and media (my objection to which being the point of my initial post). For a recent high profile (again, in the UK) example, look at the trial of William Roache, with its accompanying trial by media. Summarised here:

http://www.cmcstir.org/jou9x2/the-guilty-portrayal-of-an-innocent-man/

Not surprising, but disheartening. I'd also say that the fact that men are never going to be the victim of a male on female rape, no matter how common they are, but could be of a false accusation, no matter how uncommon those are, might have something to do with how many men, consciously or not, see the issue.

No argument here. Whenever rape gets brought up like this, I get the feeling it's not even a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser; but rather a negative sum game, whatever happens, nobody wins.

 

[Verlander]

In my ignorance, I didn't know NAMBLA was a real thing either

Captcha: modern love. Hmm.

 

[Saetha]

Wha.... what????
That author was kind of an idol for me when I was a kid. This is like discovering that Walt Disney movies contain nazi propaganda or something.

Are we... sure it's real? Are we sure the girl's not fishing for attention, or more likely she's blaming the abuses of the father to the mother?

I mean, Bradley? Seriously??

Oh wow, you popped open a can of worms here. Quick tip, Zira, there are two things you never do when you see someone accuses someone of rape:

1: Say they just made it up for attention

2: Say they wanted/deserved it.

The torches and pitchforks will be due any minute now, I suspect. Good luck with that.

But seriously, I do think this is the issue with rape accusations and such. The problem with the whole mess is not so much that people disbelieve rape victims, but that they disbelieve rape victims who accuse a high-profile figure such as an author or a sport star. Anyone many people love or admire, because they don't want to believe that such a person was capable of that act. Really, this happens any time a celebrity is accused of some serious wrong doing. Look at the OJ Simpson case, or the more recent drama with Bieber's drunk driving. People either refused to believe it happened, or someone how tried to explain it away as not that bad. It's a sad, unfortunate product of America's celebrity obsession.

 

[Grahav]

Not surprising, but disheartening. I'd also say that the fact that men are never going to be the victim of a male on female rape, no matter how common they are, but could be of a false accusation, no matter how uncommon those are, might have something to do with how many men, consciously or not, see the issue.

Moira Greyland just said that not all of her mother victims were girls.

 

[Lightknight]

Wha.... what????
That author was kind of an idol for me when I was a kid. This is like discovering that Walt Disney movies contain nazi propaganda or something.

Are we... sure it's real? Are we sure the girl's not fishing for attention, or more likely she's blaming the abuses of the father to the mother?

I mean, Bradley? Seriously??

Oh, there we go. 32nd posts, thought it'd be a bit earlier, TBH.

Oh no! Someone is asking if a person's crimes are certain or not. What a travesty that someone would want more facts or details before assuming one person is telling the truth. Let's shame/ridicule someone for the silly notion of trying to find out more about the facts.

I'm not familiar with this author or anything but it's important to review the facts before rounding up a lynch mob. Yeah, this person is likely guilty with all things considered but I think we need a bit more information/evidence, right? For all we know the girl got cut off financially or something and this is her response (though even doing it for a reason doesn't necessarily make it false). Or it is simply time for her to come out with it, we don't know.

But asking for the degree of certainty isn't attacking a victim. It's asking for data. That should always be encouraged and never ridiculed. I get that it's one of the worst things to accuse a victim of sexual acts of lying but combating that shouldn't flood over into grouping people asking for more details in the same category. I personally think this will likely be true given the history of the situation and that this is a child of the suspect.