Fundie-lite blogs by wives whose husbands are in jail

[fundiefun]

I used to lurk there too. My aunt had a thing for jailbirds, and after she died I started lurking there to try to understand what she saw in those guys, and there were a lot of posters there that were a lot like her... what was more shocking for me though were the women who started relationships with inmates that they didn't know before their inmate went to jail. Why marry a lifer who you met through pen palling? Why marry a death row inmate?

I don't think women should necessarily stop loving/supporting their men because they committed a crime... unless it was a crime against them or their children.

I was just going to mention prison talk because I have lurked over there myself. From what I have have read on that forum i honestly think that there is something mentally off with women who will seek out relationships or "marriages" with men who are convicted of heinous crimes or who are on death row. What many of these women fail to realize is that usually by the time (if they ever) get out is that they will often be tossed aside since most inmate relationships are usually only a means of emotional support and when they are out they don't need them anymore.

[VaSportsMom]

You can't compare viewing a murder victim to viewing child pornography. They are not even remotely related. What the hell is wrong with these women? :angry-banghead:

Edit: for spelling

Any sane person knows that the two aren't comparable but that woman will go to any lengths to explain, justify and whitewash her husband's behavior. In one post she goes on a rant about supply and demand in relation to CP and how decriminalizing the viewing of it would actually cut down on the number of victims. If she is real she is every bit as sick and dangerous as the pervert she married. She is just one more useless "mother" that values defending her man above protecting her children.

[samurai_sarah]

The handbasket-woman infuriates me. Even after a commenter told her what it would be like for her, as a victim, she's still sticking her head in the sand. The whole "oh, he didn't actually do anything"- trope is even more sickening in combination with "but the victimisation has already happened". So, it's okay to continue? It's okay to get off on someone else's trauma? What a "lovely" human being that one is. She's sickening.

[Ex 2x2]

I'm reading between the lines, but she's made reference to people clicking a link, not realizing what it was, or even having something in their cache that they didn't know how it got there. I'm wondering if that's what she believes her husband did and that's why she defends him?

The ONLY sex offenders who I think we don't really have to worry about are the 19 year olds who slept with their 17 year old girlfriend. Those kind of stories make me really upset. In that case, someone who really didn't do anything wrong really does end up with their life ruined.

[VaSportsMom]

/handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-am-i-still-married-to-him.html?m=0

I will agree that getting off on that is a sickness, though I do not believe it should be a crime. Is a prurient interest in murder scenes as bad as committing the murder? Do you know what the nice man next door fantasizes about? If he fantasizes about sex and children without looking at the images, he is not a criminal. As soon as he looks at images, he becomes a criminal. Is there a difference?

There is one of her justification posts. She is a sick individual.

[lilith]

/handbasketnotes.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-am-i-still-married-to-him.html?m=0

There is one of her justification posts. She is a sick individual.

I think it's a male pedophile creating a forum for his justifications.

She has a post about how a neighbour's daughter is perfectly safe sleeping over at her home with her husband there. That set off alarm bells for me.

[Ex 2x2]

That post freaked me out. I feel very, very sorry for her kids, but I would not let my kids sleep over there. She says she explained everything to the child's mom and the mom was fine with it.

[VaSportsMom]

That post freaked me out. I feel very, very sorry for her kids, but I would not let my kids sleep over there. She says she explained everything to the child's mom and the mom was fine with it.

I don't know a single mother that would be fine with that and sadly I know more than one bad mom.

[Ex 2x2]

I don't know a single mother that would be fine with that and sadly I know more than one bad mom.

That is so true. I know some bad moms too, but even they wouldn't be ok with that.

[wild little fox]

I'm gonna puke! Basket is beyond the pale. Enabler!

[Buzzard]

I think it's a male pedophile creating a forum for his justifications.

She has a post about how a neighbour's daughter is perfectly safe sleeping over at her home with her husband there. That set off alarm bells for me.

Child Porn is the "murder" equivalent of a snuff film. Looking at crime scene pictures and getting off on them is "off" but the crime is over and done. I'm also not aware of a correlation between someone who likes to google autopsy pictures for shits and giggles eventually murdering someone so they can get off (although I'm quite sure there is at least ONE in this fucked up world). Kiddie porn, however, is an ongoing crime. The children's likeness is still being used and there IS a likelihood that someone who looks at pictures of little boys touching each other in the bathtub or a little girl exploring herself will eventually touch a child.

I've seen some horrific kiddie porn, stuff that will never be burned from my brain. Its actually the only type of case I will run from because even the "innocent" pics are creepy. Anyone who thinks that looking at those images is totally cool needs some serious help.

[Ex 2x2]

Buzzard, she denies that people who look at it will eventually do it. I didn't know the statistics on that, but I knew it couldn't be right. Of course she also claims that sex offenders have lowest rate of re-offending.

[Vex]

I'm reading between the lines, but she's made reference to people clicking a link, not realizing what it was, or even having something in their cache that they didn't know how it got there. I'm wondering if that's what she believes her husband did and that's why she defends him?

The ONLY sex offenders who I think we don't really have to worry about are the 19 year olds who slept with their 17 year old girlfriend. Those kind of stories make me really upset. In that case, someone who really didn't do anything wrong really does end up with their life ruined.

I agree with that. It's very sad to see a teenager's life ruined because of a two year age gap with a consenting partner. It's wrong, yes, but I do not believe it qualifies them as dangerous people who need to register as a sex offender.

I can't believe this creature thinks CP is a victimless crime. Crime scene photographs can't hurt the victim because they capture the result of the crime, not the crime itself. CP captures abuse as it happens, and if you are downloading pictures of a child being molested or videos or rape you are participating in the continuing abuse of that child. I could take her argument a little more seriously if her husband had been whacking off to wholesome pictures of children that don't compromise or exploit them (like family snaps - horrific and disgusting that they're viewed as porn but they haven't hurt the child in taking the picture itself), but you aren't arrested for having wholesome family snaps of children generally. It must have been actual child pornography.

[VaSportsMom]

I think it's a male pedophile creating a forum for his justifications.

She has a post about how a neighbour's daughter is perfectly safe sleeping over at her home with her husband there. That set off alarm bells for me.

I think you are probably right. That seemed to be the majority opinion when GOMI discussed the blog. If 'she' isn't a male pedophile then I think it is quite possible she shared her husband's addiction or at the very least turned a blind eye to it. Any woman that would try to justify such depravity isn't fit to be a parent.

[duplessis3]

The sex offender registry needs to be better clarified - there are people on it who got arrested for peeing in bushes because the rest stop bathrooms were locked.

And I always heard that pedophiles were the MOST likely to reoffend. After the comment about the other mother knowing the man was arrested for possession of child pornography, and being cool with the kid spending the night - I have to believe the blog is a fake.

[VaSportsMom]

I agree with that. It's very sad to see a teenager's life ruined because of a two year age gap with a consenting partner. It's wrong, yes, but I do not believe it qualifies them as dangerous people who need to register as a sex offender.

I can't believe this creature thinks CP is a victimless crime. Crime scene photographs can't hurt the victim because they capture the result of the crime, not the crime itself. CP captures abuse as it happens, and if you are downloading pictures of a child being molested or videos or rape you are participating in the continuing abuse of that child. I could take her argument a little more seriously if her husband had been whacking off to wholesome pictures of children that don't compromise or exploit them (like family snaps - horrific and disgusting that they're viewed as porn but they haven't hurt the child in taking the picture itself), but you aren't arrested for having wholesome family snaps of children generally. It must have been actual child pornography.

There is a post where she talks about her husband not being defined by the porn and how if she had left him like others insist they would have then she would have missed out on seeing him confront his porn addiction head on & she wouldn't have wanted to miss that for anything.

She has another post where she insists that if viewing CP wasn't illegal then more people would be willing to help identify the victims. Her logic seems to be that the viewers can't report that they recognize one of the victims without admitting that they were engaged in an illegal activity.

[lilith]

There is a post where she talks about her husband not being defined by the porn and how if she had left him like others insist they would have then she would have missed out on seeing him confront his porn addiction head on & she wouldn't have wanted to miss that for anything.

She has another post where she insists that if viewing CP wasn't illegal then more people would be willing to help identify the victims. Her logic seems to be that the viewers can't report that they recognize one of the victims without admitting that they were engaged in an illegal activity.

Bullshit. If they gave a damn they could make an anonymous report.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Eewwwwwwww no way. How can a mother defend her husband for being a pedophile??? She has kids at home and they shouldnt be around him...how can she let other peoples kids stay over as well????

[Jana814]

Eewwwwwwww no way. How can a mother defend her husband for being a pedophile??? She has kids at home and they shouldnt be around him...how can she let other peoples kids stay over as well????

Agree!!

[LucySnowe]

It must have been actual child pornography.

It was pointed out somewhere (probably GOMI, which is where I found this blog) that if the pictures had been on the '17-year-old girl voluntarily posing for her webcam' end of the scale, she would undoubtedly have used that as a defense for her husband, given how many straws she's grasping at to make him seem like not really a bad guy. But she's never, as far as I can see, stated what exactly he was looking at. So reading between the lines, I'd say it was most likely fairly high on the COPINE scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

I think she once stated that 'you could download a really big file of pornography and there might be something CP-related in there and then you'd be seen as guilty even though you never intended to look at it' but I can't remember if she claimed this was why her husband was looking at it.

It's mindblowing, trying to follow all the mental justifications.

[hoipolloi]

She's pregnant now, which is kind of interesting. And, ya, I agreed about the seeming lack of motivation. She complained a LOT, too. I thought it was interesting she wouldn't say what her husband did to get put in jail. It obsessed me for a long time!

Forgot that I'd read this blog too for a time. Using her category "Prison/Incarceration" this turned up:

I did NOT say, “Oh thanks. Lee can’t go because he’s not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.†For some reason, I didn’t feel like sharing that info.

A friend had invited them to a shooting range. Sounds like whatever he did was a felony.

[Savoring Samsara]

I agree with that. It's very sad to see a teenager's life ruined because of a two year age gap with a consenting partner. It's wrong, yes, but I do not believe it qualifies them as dangerous people who need to register as a sex offender.

I'm not sure I would even say 17 and 19 is necessarily wrong - in many US states, mine included, 17-year-olds are above the age of consent. I agree wholeheartedly that law enforcement resources should be focused on prosecuting and supervising truly dangerous offenders instead of teenagers within the same general age range having consensual sex. There are many states that now have "Romeo and Juliet laws" on the books for this reason.

[Morton Fan]

Forgot that I'd read this blog too for a time. Using her category "Prison/Incarceration" this turned up:

A friend had invited them to a shooting range. Sounds like whatever he did was a felony.

He also couldn't see their son for a long time after he was released but on probation, which was interesting too. She made a point to say that he had not committed a crime against the son.

[idonthaveajname]

That Silver and Sapphire blog made me hella sad. She's, what? Like 25? Lawd, she has so many issues. I wish she'd gotten some help instead of, you know, married.

[awmom]

No, you're right. The author of that blog is blinded by denial. I read as much of it as I could stomach when GOMI covered it and I'm blown away that she was allowed to retain custody of her children given her rabid defense of their father.

There has been a lot of speculation that she is really a (male) pedophile and the blog is fake; as sickening as that is it beats the alternative.

To be totally accurate, the recidivism rates for sex offenders are relatively low compared to other crimes (about 5-10%) depending on which study you look at. That being said, sexual abuse/assault is one of the most under-reported of all crimes. Also, most offenders are offending against family members and families that accept sex offenders back into their home (or marry them right out of prison) are likely to put huge amounts of pressure on victims not to report. My experience (as a therapist treating sexually abused kids) is that most Moms who marry an RSO or allow contact between their kids and an RSO relative or family friend are women who were victims of incest themselves and never made sense of it in a healthy way or got good treatment. Also, as I have explained to many Moms who believe in "second chances", RSO's who continue to seek out contact with kids and hook up with women who minimize their offense/enable them are NOT in the "low risk" group. And finally, though he may have a statistically low risk of re-offending, he has a statistically very high risk of being an asshole, so why bother? I always think of that old backstreet boys song "I don't care who you are, where you're from, what you did, as long as you love me..."