Acclaimed violinist says she was sexually assaulted by her renowned teacher at the Curtis Institute

[A432]

I get the impression (pretty much everywhere) that people figure that if they just keep condemning human nature long enough, and loudly enough, they can force it to change.

It's always people who aren't good enough for some (as an abstraction) morally beautiful system (capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, theocracy, monarchy, feudalism) to work as intended.

Idiot computer incompatability erased Chuang Tse quote posted following this.

[A432]

Ts'ui Chu: asked Lao Tan, saying, "If the empire is not to be governed, how are men's hearts to be kept good?"

"Be careful," replied Lao Tan, "not to interfere with the natural goodness of the heart of man. Man's heart may be forced down or stirred up. In each case the issue is fatal. By gentleness, the hardest heart may be softened. But try to cut and polish it, and it will glow like fire or freeze like ice. In the twinkling of an eye it will pass beyond the limits of the Four Seas. In repose, it is profoundly still; in motion, it flies up to the sky. Like an unruly horse, it cannot be held in check. Such is the human heart."

Of old, the Yellow Emperor first interfered with the natural goodness of the heart of man, by means of 'charity' and' duty.' In consequence, Yao and Shun wore the hair off their legs and the flesh off their arms in endeavoring to feed their people's bodies. They tortured the people's internal economy in order to conform to charity and duty. They exhausted the people's energies to live in accordance with the laws and statutes. Even then they did not succeed. Thereupon, Yao (had to) confine Huantou on Mount Ts'ung, exile the chiefs of the Three Miaos and their people into the Three Weis, and banish the Minister of Works to Yutu, which shows he had not succeeded. When it came to the times of the Three Kings, the empire was in a state of foment. Among the bad men were Chieh and Cheh; among the good were Tseng and Shih. By and by, the Confucianists and the Motseanists arose; and then came confusion between joy and anger, fraud between the simple and the cunning, recrimination between the virtuous and the evil-minded, slander between the honest and the liars, and the world order collapsed. Then the great virtue lost its unity, men's lives were frustrated. When there was a general rush for knowledge, the people's desires ever went beyond their possessions. The next thing was then to invent axes and saws, to kill by laws and statutes, to disfigure by chisels and awls. The empire seethed with discontent, the blame for which rests upon those who would interfere with the natural goodness of the heart of man.

In consequence, virtuous men sought refuge in mountain caves, while rulers of great states sat trembling in their ancestral halls. Then, when dead men lay about pillowed on each other's corpses, when cangued prisoners jostled each other in crowds and condemned criminals were seen everywhere, then the Confucianists and the Motseanists bustled about and rolled up their sleeves in the midst of gyves and fetters! Alas, they know not shame, nor what it is to blush!

Until I can say that the wisdom of Sages is not a fastener of cangues, and that charity of heart and duty to one's neighbor are not bolts for gyves, how should I know that Tseng and Shih were not the singing arrows (forerunners) of (the gangsters) Chieh and Cheh? Therefore it is said, "Abandon wisdom and discard knowledge, and the empire will be at peace."

[Blank face]

1 hour ago, A432 said:

It's always people who aren't good enough for some (as an abstraction) morally beautiful system (capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, theocracy, monarchy, feudalism) to work as intended.

As long as one doesn't understand that abuse doesn't happen due to "people who aren't good enough" , but to gender stereotypes and institutional covering of sexual harrassment and rape of less powerful persons as it is described in the linked case, so long this is another embarrasing abuse of hijacked "wisdom" to excuse criminals, in other words most pathetic BS.

[A432]

Human nature would be so much better if you could just force it into conformity with your personal imaginings.

Story of the world.

As Chuang Tse and I both pointed out.

In vain.

[martin swan]

24 minutes ago, A432 said:

Human nature would be so much better if you could just force it into conformity with your personal imaginings.

Story of the world.

As Chuang Tse and I both pointed out.

In vain.

W aren't arguing about human nature. We are arguing about what it can excuse and what it can't. 

We seem to draw the line in quite different places.

[Blank face]

38 minutes ago, A432 said:

Human nature would be so much better if you could just force it into conformity with your personal imaginings.

It's not about alleged "human nature" and what you are imagening about it. It's about institutional structures, in conservatories, churches, sport clubs, schools, firms etc. etc. which were (are) supporting such crimes. As it was described in the report "Don't speak about it. Who would believe three kids against a world reknown artist and teacher?"

These structures are subject of change, like it is tried now at many places, and it's tried to give justice to the victims instead of excusing the "suspicious" with nonsensical speculations about human nature blabla. These excuses are at least most highly offending and discriminating against victims and supporting further abuse.

[AtlVcl]

12 hours ago, Rue said:

You have a better intro?

A "better intro" to what? Something most sentient human beings find self-evident?

I think what we're really discussing is the degree of truthfulness of a "recovered memory" of a woman who's always been comfortable baring her soul (and other things...) in the spotlight. (You might want a refresher on "The Me Decade", by Tom Wolfe.)

In addition, you might consider the likelihood of an elderly man "raping" anyone without prior consent (which, of course, is not rape).

My third reading of the story says there were multiple students claiming him a gentleman beyond reproach.

Let me just say I hope none of you judge me 30 years after my death. Even if found guilty by this kangaroo court, I will still demand a chance to defend myself, which is more than you've allowed Mr. Brodsky.

[A432]

“Statistics show that the nature of English crime is reverting to its oldest habits. In a country where so many desire status and wealth, petty annoyances can spark disproportionately violent behaviour. We become frustrated because we feel powerless, invisible, unheard. We crave celebrity, but that’s not easy to come by, so we settle for notoriety. Envy and bitterness drive a new breed of lawbreakers, replacing the old motives of poverty and the need for escape. But how do you solve crimes which no longer have traditional motives?” ― Christopher Fowler

[A432]

As concerns the statement "you might consider that, in the case an elderly man purportedly 'raping' anyone without prior consent," it's more likely that the worst he could be charged with would be assault with a dead weapon.

[Rue]

AltVcl:  it's not a recovered memory if she reported it when it happened.

For the sake of argument - let's offer up a scenario where a 14-year old girl experiments with her newly evolved "woman powers" and flirts with her professor - who is symbolic of a safe father figure.

I'll assume it's also "self-evident" that pubescent girls do practice on their fathers. 

It's STILL wrong for a mature man to misconstrue this learning stage as mature sexual consent. It's incestuous. 

At what age does it become okay? I dunno. Everyone matures differently. But let's go with 18.

14 is not close to 18.

And, as to the argument that other students had no issues - predators don't prey on the strong, they prey on the weak. 

[A432]

Given the number of growth hormones &c. in the food we eat and water we drink, the onset of puberty has been decreasing for years. My impression is that 11 is the new 18.

Add that the "age of consent," now fixed at 18, is up from 14, which is up from 9.

Multiply by the ruinous effect of sex-fixated mass-media on children's pliable imaginations.

Add compulsory sex "education" in schools.

Adolescent sexual innocence was (and I am not saying there's anything wrong with it) a buttoned-up, tradesman-class ideal -- a joke to both the oligarchy and the lumpenproletariat. Trying to generalize and apply it to everybody would be farcical if it weren't tragic.

[Blank face]

9 minutes ago, A432 said:

My impression is that 11 is the new 18.

Add that the "age of consent," now fixed at 18, is up from 14, which is up from 9.

Multiply by the ruinous effect of sex-fixated mass-media on children's pliable imaginations.

Add compulsory sex "education" in schools.

And still you don't realize what you're talking about, do you? Sounds like another excuse for pedophilia, now blaming sexual education.

[crazy jane]

36 minutes ago, A432 said:

Given the number of growth hormones &c. in the food we eat and water we drink, the onset of puberty has been decreasing for years. My impression is that 11 is the new 18.

Add that the "age of consent," now fixed at 18, is up from 14, which is up from 9.

Multiply by the ruinous effect of sex-fixated mass-media on children's pliable imaginations.

Add compulsory sex "education" in schools.

Adolescent sexual innocence was (and I am not saying there's anything wrong with it) a buttoned-up, tradesman-class ideal -- a joke to both the oligarchy and the lumpenproletariat. Trying to generalize and apply it to everybody would be farcical if it weren't tragic.

If all of this is true--in addition to your previous claims about the undeniable animal nature of men--then why has the rate of teenage sexual activity declined so markedly in the past decade? 

One would assume the opposite would be the case.

[A432]

Statistics again.

The one you quoted seems suspect to me.

PS : by omitting the undeniable animal nature of women you are skewing the picture.

It IS a two-handed game.

[A432]

Blank --

If you can't disengage from your fixation on one alleged incident and view the matter in its overall perspective, all you can do is continue to impose your idee fixe on an issue that exists above and beyond it.

[AtlVcl]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

AltVcl:  it's not a recovered memory if she reported it when it happened.

Thirty years on she "remembers" she reported it. And her "corroborating witnesses" seem to have a severe case of shyness, especially for "artists", who normally want all the press they can get.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

.

For the sake of argument - let's offer up a scenario where a 14-year old girl experiments with her newly evolved "woman powers" and flirts with her professor - who is symbolic of a safe father figure.

 

In fact, I know first-hand of a case where this happened. They were married for 30 years, and she went on to win a prize in the Tchaikovsky competition. Today she's a university professor on the East Coast.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I'll assume it's also "self-evident" that pubescent girls do practice on their fathers. 

I don't know that that's true at all. Probably more likely they "practise" on HS friends, or on the Internet.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

It's STILL wrong for a mature man to misconstrue this learning stage as mature sexual consent. It's incestuous. 

At what age does it become okay? I dunno. Everyone matures differently. But let's go with 18.

14 is not close to 18.

And, as to the argument that other students had no issues - predators don't prey on the strong, they prey on the weak. 

You shouldn't automatically assume that today's "strong" were yesterday's "weak." One on one teaching is of necessity an intimate relationship. If you were a guy, you'd understand why it's so unlikely an elderly man would even be capable of raping anyone. (or you could ask your husband to 'splain it to you...)

[crazy jane]

3 hours ago, A432 said:

Statistics again.

The one you quoted seems suspect to me.

PS : by omitting the undeniable animal nature of women you are skewing the picture.

It IS a two-handed game.

I would choose statistics from the CDC over your "coincidence equals causality" illogic that is based on a faulty assumption (that sexual activity/promiscuity is increasing).         

"During 2005–2015, among 9th grade students, a significant linear decrease in the prevalence of ever having had sexual intercourse was identified overall (34.3% to 24.1%) and among male (39.3% to 27.3%), female (29.3% to 20.7%), black (55.4% to 31.4%), and Hispanic (40.5% to 25.9%) students."https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm665152a1.htm 

 Similar linear declines are noted among other ages. These are not insignificant or anomalous shifts.

[A432]

" I'll assume it's also "self-evident" that pubescent girls do practice on their fathers. "

People can be viewed in isolation, as individuals, but family dynamics loom larger.

Probably the most common daughter-father incest dynamic is in intact families in which the mother is emotionally (and sexually) AWOL, leaving a void in the family constellation which the eldest daughter slips into by default. Since they're partners in everything else, the rest follows as nature takes its course. Double that when, by divorce or death, the daughter becomes, effectively, the woman of the house. 

If of any real interest, see Lloyd DeMause, The Universality of Incest (Journal of Psychohistory, Winter, 1991),  which begins :

Ever since the Greek historians first wrote about the customs of other nations, scholars have compared the habits of different cultures, hoping to discover meaningful regularities in human behavior.

Yet the only universal trait that Contemporary social scientists and historians agree has been found in every known culture is the prohibition of incest. As one standard text puts it, “The taboo on incest within the immediate family is one of the few known cultural universals.”(1) Kroeber stated, “If ten anthropologists were asked to designate one universal institution, nine would likely name the incest prohibition; some have expressly named it as the only universal one.”(2) That “no known tribe has ever permitted incest”(3) has been a truism for cross-cultural studies ever since Durkheim and Westermarck’s early books on the subject.(4)

Furthermore, the same authors go on to state that the universal prohibitions on incest are virtually always effective, so that incest itself is rarely found in any society. Even when societies are found that approve of incest, they only “serve rather to emphasize than to disprove the universality of intra-family incest taboos,” according to George Murdock.(5) Incestuous societies simply cannot exist, since, according to Talcott Parscins, the effective prohibition of incest is “linked with the functioning of every society.”(6) The abolition of incest was accomplished at the beginning of human culture, Leslie White says, since without it “social evolution could have gone no further on the human level than among the anthropoids.”(7) As Levi-Strauss concluded, “the prohibition of incest can be found at the dawn of culture… [It] is culture itself.” (8)

The certainty with which the effective prohibition of incest has been declared leads one to look for the evidence these authors might have for their assertions. Yet such a search soon proves quite fruitless. Most of them cite no evidence at all, or at most refer to a single cross cultural survey by Murdock in his book, Social Structure. Murdock’s study, however, turns out not to be about incest at all, if by incest one means actual sexual relations between family members other than spouses. What Murdock studied was marriage rules. Yet authors continue to assume Murdock proved that a universal prohibition on incest itself exists, not just a prohibition on intra-farnily marriage.(9)

Indeed, rather than examining the actual occurrence of incest in either historical or contemporary groups, the voluminous literature on the subject instead speculates on why incest supposedly doesn’t occur. Many explanations have been proposed: the biological impairments attendant upon inbreeding, the utility of social alliances, the collapse of the family if sexual rivalry is allowed, even boredom with family members. When exceptions have been acknowledged-royal incest in dozens of societies,(10) sibling incest among the general population in others,(11) widespread pederasty in still others,(12) – discussion has continued to focus on why incest is supposedly rare, not on whether it really is.

One begins to realize how odd this is when it is compared, say, with the study of other deviant acts, such as homicide. Although effective laws against murder long preceded laws against incest – and were far more often enforced rather than winked at – no one thinks of writing hundreds of studies on why mankind has a “universal homicide taboo.”(13)

This essay is intended to consider the evidence for the opposite hypothesis: That it is incest itself – and not the absence of incest – that has been universal for most people in most places at most times.

[A432]

re. statistics from the CDC :

The same outfit that, in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary, emphatically declares vaccines to be "safe and effective."

Right ?

Very credible source, that.

[Blank face]

3 hours ago, A432 said:

all you can do is continue to impose your idee fixe on an issue that exists above and beyond it.

My idee fixe is that you are obviously having some serious problems. It's a waste of time to discuss them here furthermore.

[A432]

No, Blank.

The issue of non-"licit" sexual activity exists across the board.

Always has and always will.

You are doggedly wanting to make this one alleged incident representative of all of them.

Which is a poster child illustration of the way an idee fixe plays in practice.

[violinnewb]

20 hours ago, AtlVcl said:

Thirty years on she "remembers" she reported it. And her "corroborating witnesses" seem to have a severe case of shyness, especially for "artists", who normally want all the press they can get.

You shouldn't automatically assume that today's "strong" were yesterday's "weak." 

1. Again, you assume that artists want "all the press they can get," including negative press.  My opinion, based upon reading other cases of this type, and having spoken to a few people, and having experienced similar abuse, is that NO....this is not the kind of press victims usually want.  Some people are afraid of being black-balled in the industry.  This type of sweeping assumption is ill-found.

2. Exactly. "You shouldn't automatically assume..."

[A432]

Not out to disagree with that, but there are two sides to it.

An anecdote repeated so often it's cemented into Hollywood folklore recounts a phone call by some leading man to his agent, in panic over what Hedda Hopper (or some other gossip columnist) had written about him in that morning's paper.

"Relax," the agent told him. "She spelled your name right."

At the end of the day, it's about name recognition.

[violinnewb]

Just now, A432 said:

Not out to disagree with that, but there are two sides to it.

An anecdote repeated so often it's cemented into Hollywood folklore recounts a phone call by some leading man to his agent, in panic over what Hedda Hopper (or some other gossip columnist) had written about him in that morning's paper.

"Relax," the agent told him. "She spelled your name right."

At the end of the day, it's about name recognition.

Yes. Of course there are people out there who want any press, even negative.  I acknowledged that by using words like "usually."  There are always counter arguments and that is the beauty of free speech.  The ugly side effect of free speech is that people tend to say things without thinking them through or using assumptions.  

[martin swan]

The thing that strikes me most is that in the 19th century, similar arguments about essential differences in human nature were used to justify, excuse, or otherwise normalize slavery.

It's reassuring to note that progress can be made, even if it's never absolute or accepted by all.