doubt

I would be stunned to hear this guy, or anyone in his situtation, say that it seemed like a good idea at the time. It is very sad for everyone involved, including brother pratt. I understand he has a wife and three children. Tragic.

What is hard to understand is the risks he was willing to take for momentary pleasure. My heart goes out to the teenage girl who will have some very hard days ahead of her. Also, his wife, who is surely suffering greatly as well. It is hard to watch someone take the trust that others have in them so lightly. When you cross certain lines, such as he has done, I don’t think trust can every be restored fully in this life. I really hope that the families that have been so devastated by this will be able to work through their pain and find the support and help they need. I also hope that Brother Pratt gets the help he needs and will sincerely recognize what he has done and try his best to repair what damage he can.

A couple of things. First, this looks like a case of the seven year itch, middle aged male infatuation. My first job in Texas, my boss warned me about it, given the number of guys he knew who had ended up having affairs with their secretaries. I’ve seen a lot of people, male and female, develop infatuations. Those that did not take J. Reuben Clark, Jr.’s approach often indulged in them.

Second, I have to agree with J.Ro that we should all pray for the child involved.

But it is always so sad when people allow themselves to be driven by their emotions, which they have not controlled, whether it is in turning against God or following an infatuation. It is the sort of thing that devastates families, individuals and communities.

Dan – it was just a take off of the movie, Doubt. I was going to use “dissonance” as the title, which would have been a more accurate description, but I had already used that in a title of a post.

It’s very hard to understand why adults do this. Especially women sex offenders getting extrememly light penalties for messing around with boys. Not only are those boys probably never going to trust women, they will probably turn into rapists themselves. So why light penalties for female sex offenders?

I think it is very possible that Brother Pratt was all the things you thought he was up to a few months ago. And then for whatever reason he slipped. Unfortunately stories like this are as old as history. King David was a king and a prophet and he fell in the same way.

A few comments:

I don’t like the term complicit used with the 16 year old VICTIM.

I don’t like how many of you seem to characterize this as two consenting adults “slipping.” Predator Pratt is to blame and I hope he pays an appropriately long penalty behind bars. My sympathies go out to the 16 year old victim.

“However, when hypotheses about Pratt’s “issues” start rolling around within days of the alleged crimes and before the trial they seem to send out a vibe of justification for his actions or make him appear to be less responsible somehow, which is harmful, in my opinion.”

On the contrary, he is very responsible for whatever brought him to the point of choosing to behave the way he did. When people make those types of choices they have to be thinking about them prior to actually doing them. We may all have issues, but that doesn’t mean we are considering doing the things he was considering doing. He is responsible for what he was thinking about before he ever decided to go through with what he did. We do know for sure that he was texting the girl sexually explicit texts and that is the perfect pre-cursor to doing what he chose to do.

#15–”We all make mistakes.” Not this big, not with these long-lasting ramifications for so many. However, you don’t go from a great seminary teacher to a statutory rapist of someone under your church authority without having made many other horrendously bad mistakes along the way.

#6 – I don’t really think it’s appropriate to equate “turning away from god,” which is a matter of belief or philosophy, with a married man “following an infatuation” with a child, which is a deliberate action, and a criminal one at that. There are scores of agnostics and atheists who do not and would not do what this man did. This is a simple matter of right and wrong and has nothing to do with religion or god. I think the point is particularly appropriate since this man was and, I assume, remains, a true believer. Let’s judge people for their actions and not their beliefs.

Gosh, Jen. Your post in 27 was exceptionally well written. Very impressive. It’s almost like you modeled it after a brilliant writer, but just switched some words around.

As far as the point of your post, I agree completely that some people see it that way and I understand the different sides of it. Like I said, that’s just the vibe I get when people go into someone’s issues. But I respect that intelligent people can feel differently.

“What if the offender happened to be the prophet instead of just a seminary teacher? In many people’s minds, both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed more serious sins than this seminary teacher did. Were they good people? In a lot of ways they were. Did they go terribly wrong on multiple occasions? Yes, they did.

We all make mistakes. Maybe we should be a little more forgiving when people fall and a little less adoring when they don’t.”

I think the spin I would prefer to put on it is that perhaps our strong emotions connected to contemporary example ought to serve as an indicator of how unforgiving we should be towards Joseph Smith and company. I see a easy willingness to blow of his conduct, as a religious leader in a position of trust, as just a simple human error. Perhaps these modern examples can help serve as an example of just how serious these offenses are, including an understanding of just how complicated the situation can become.

Are you all assuming it is a young woman and not a young man or has that information been released? Just curious, as I have not heard any confirmation in the news story. I think it would make a difference.

Is it clear to everyone that it was a girl? If anyone is wondering, that fact has been established. This is the initial article on the matter that was in the paper over the weekend. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316062/LDS-seminary-principal-arrested.html

It’s in the SLTrib and the D News. there’s been something every day for the last 3-4 days.

I’m generally among the crowd that will gladly be first to call foul when it is percieved that the Church is somehow at fault on an issue. Even so,I don’t think the Church could ever be blamed for the sexual conduct of closeted gay men who “act out” based upon feelings of repression that arise from conflicting interests. The Church is entitled to establish a moral code, which they define, for those wishing membership to adhere to. Even if this type of conduct was an outgrowth of a personal struggle to maintain balance between desires and a particular societies expectations, it is the individual who bears the responsibility of defining their own identity. Acting out in response to the unenforcable policies of a Church is striclty a personal matter, or personal problem. The Church represents ideas and a culture largely, and incompatability issues are not a reasonable defense for illegal actions that bring harm to others. If a person truly felt that their emotions “would” require that they engage in homosexual behavior, they could do so legally and with some social approval, if they seek out adult aged partners. The line rhetoric that would blame the Church for repressive beliefs fails to acknowledge the actual level of freedom we each have, as well as it strips all religion of teeth, ie the ability to take moral stands.

For the record, I do not hold issue against the Church for it’s internal policies regarding homosexuals, as said policies relate to membership eligibility. I do take issue the type and level of political activism employed recently by the Church, to enforce religious will.

Its really hard to understand why people seem to be perceiving this situation as an affair. Or as a “mistake” on Pratt’s part. This is a case of sexual abuse (alleged). There is no such thing as an affair between an 37 year old and a 16 year old. Further, such actions have nothing to do with the perps. marriage or other aspects of his life. It should not be shocking at all that this man is also inspiring and well like. Being a sociopath may come with the territory.

cwc,

“A closeted gay man may be more prone to marry a woman and molest a teenage boy if his sexuality was actively condemned by his church.”

Not to put too fine of a point on it but this is a wonderful bit of long standing misinformed, homophobic, nonsense. Being a pedophile has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

“We all make mistakes. Maybe we should be a little more forgiving when people fall and a little less adoring when they don’t.”

This misses the point, our emphasis should be on protecting children and teens from sexual predators. It has nothing to do with “mistakes” or being forgiving etc. Its about protecting our kids. After that, its about doing what is necessary to make sure perps. don’t repeat offend. This can mean a lot of different things.

The only ways that forgiveness matters is 1)In relation to the teen or child that has been abused. At some point in the healing process forgiveness will be necessary. But no one can dictate when or how or what form that forgiveness should take. Its a unique aspect of that individuals experience. The survivor must also forgive themselves. Most survivors hold themselves to be responsible to one degree or another for what happened. So they need to let go of that claim of responsibility, which is an act that has several dimensions including forgiving oneself. 2) The parents and families of the person who was abused, can they forgive themselves for not seeing it, or not following up on the feeling that something was wrong? 3) The family of the perps often have guilt associated with that person’s behavior and feel like they should have known, or could have done something. Well, maybe they could have, maybe they couldn’t but in the end they can not cling to responsibility.

#45 – This comment has absolutely no basis in fact. Is it likely that there were events, thoughts or desires that precipitated these acts? Yes. But nether you, nor anyone else is in any poition to know what was going on with this man before this whole escapade began. It is not impossible to imagine someone living a good and relatily righteous life, and in that moment of temptation, simply failing to make the right choice. This does not mitigate his actions in the slightest. He is responsle for what he did. However, it is pointless to sit here and speculate about all the other wrongs he must have done prior to this one. My opinion is that engaging in such speculation is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard – an easy way to distinguish ourselves from him, telling ourselves that it couldn’t happen to us because he was CLEARLY doing other wrongs that prepared him for this. The lesson to be learned here is not that this man was a worse person than anyone else,but that if we’re not vigilant, any one of us could find ourselves in a similarly precarious situation.

Dexter:

Your point would be served to note that according to the recent press on this matter, police are not currently aware of how long or what exactly led to this outcome. So it is very difficult to employ the scriptures at this point, as a way of explaining how one thing led to another.

Going along with what brjones said in #49, the reports from the police seem to indicate that the acts were consensual:

From http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316062/LDS-seminary-principal-is-arrested-in-sexual-abuse.html

“Police are in the process of obtaining a warrant to gather the exact content of the messages, said Utah County Sheriff’s Sgt. Matt Higley of the Utah Valley Special Victims Task Force.

Higley said the acts were consensual. Pratt, who is married and has children, has no prior criminal record, Higley said. There is also no indication of other victims.”

Since the accuser was 16, this makes the case an issue of statutory rape rather than child molestation.

I think 16 might be that age in Utah. You are right though Dexter, we can use the scriptures to support about any case we want to make. I believe this what the scriptures call, “wresting the Scriptures to your understanding”.

GBSmith – I don’t live in Utah, so I haven’t read the Des or Trib. I only assumed a boy because AdamF deliberately used the gender-neutral term “student” and the title of the post refers to a movie/broadway play where the accusation was based on a priest with teenage boys.

I would agree that there is slight difference between statutory rape and pedophilia. But the guy has major problems. He’s married with kids, and she’s half his age.

Listen, there’s no question he has problems. I was really just pointing out that our culture finds the underlying desires of a pedophile repulsive and sick. There’s nothing inherently repulsive about a 37 year-old being attracted to a 16 year old. The repulsive aspect is his behavior.

I can’t help but giggle at cwc being called out for homophobia. Anyone familiar with her history with us peculiar people would laugh at the irony.

Although she is more than capable of defending herself, let me just clarify that she was in no way arguing that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles.

More like, if this particular case involved a 16 year old boy, it puts things in a different light. Reprehensible, yes. But still different. If an individual closeted gay man, married with children and a high-profile religious job, facing swift condemnation of his feelings from his community and struggling to control those temptations, happened to meet a boy who was comfortable engaging those feelings, the temptation would be severe and different than just a flirty teen girl. It would be inappropriate and wrong, but far different than pedophilia.

#61 – do you have a problem with my comment, Douglas?

#64 – Thank you, Adam. Many 16 year olds are impossible to discern from 18 year olds and some look even older. The repulsve aspect is getting ivolved sexually with someone he knows is not mature enough to understand or manage those feelings. It’s predatory and disgusting, but the attraction is not unnatural.

I was under the impression that it was a fairly well accepted fact that Fanny Mae Alger was 14 years old and also Joseph Smith’s wife.

My intention is not to bash JS, but only to point out the double standard being employed by some. And, for the sake of argument, Adam, I’ll accept your argument about differing cultures. That still only speaks to cultural norms, not whether such attraction is natural. I maintain that it was then and is today.

AdamF-

“I have always felt that had I lived in Nauvoo, I would have told him off and moved to Texas had he propositioned my wife or daughter, or asked me to take a second wife”

Why Texas?

“Even God would have to do some mighty good explaining for me to be convinced on that one”

Would an angel appearing with a sword be convincing enough? haha JK

This is one thing and that one thing is tragic. Lives have been altered forever. Those who have been taught by Bro. Pratt like AdamF are left with many questions. Those of us who are casual bystanders really have no skin in this except to bring all of our “expertise” to the matter.

At the end of the day if you have a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ we are bound to forgive regardless how long it takes. The fact is that if Bro. Pratt truly repents (and he can) the Lord is there to forgive (immediately). Our problem is that we are caught up in our culture and there are too many who will never be able to forgive even when we are not directly effected. All of the sudden his former burdens become our stumbling block.

Not to long ago I attended a youth fireside where our CES coordinator spoke and related the stories of individuals who made mistakes through history and no matter what good they had done in their lives previously the only thing we remember them for now is the mistake they made. He then went on to talk about how when we as members commit serious sins and errors it is the same that no matter how much good we have done previously and in spite of repenting that it does not matter because unfortunately we are damaged goods.

Unfortunately this is true in Mormon culture but it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ultimately if Bro. Pratt truly repents he will have to be forgiven by those he has injured. If they are unable to do that then their progression is in jeopardy. So AdamF seek the Lords guidance. Seek to understand how you can forgive and leave the judging to those who have been called to do so. Pray for his family and pray the Bro. Pratt will someday be able to return in full fellowship. I know I will be.

Hey Hawk this only goes to support my sweeping generalization on a former post correct?

I suppose I wouldn’t mind a call for prayers for Pratt if they were subsequent to requests to pray for the victim and her family.

If this prayer gathering involves steak nachos, then you can count me in. When and where?

#78-

I think it is important for people to forgive when children/minors are hurt or abused, but they don’t ever have to trust them again. For some, forgiveness can feel the same as saying that what the person did was ok. This can be a difficult obstacle to overcome, especially when it involves minors. Forgiveness is quite a process in situations like this, but I do agree that we are required to forgive all, so it is best to get started now rather than later.

Heck, maybe I’d even tell the truth on a couch.

I would consider waiving the license requirement as well, but not the steak nachos.

Can I just say I haven’t read any of the posts about voting and niblets and all of that stuff. Why is it so big a topic?

What amazes me is the ineptness of both papers. Can one journalist out there realize that perhaps the age of consent is something a reader might want to know about when reading the alleged facts? Pathetic.

Wow. Doug, you make a great point about the Deseret News. The first article the Deseret News printed on this, which I posted a link to in comment 38, begins with the following:

“Police arrested an LDS seminary principal Thursday after they say he spent several months grooming a 16-year-old student for a sexual relationship.”

That is the first sentence of the first article on the matter. If you read that sentence alone, it sounds like all he did was lay the groundwork for a sexual relationship but didn’t actually do it. This is the opening line of an article. Many people only read the first line of an article to decide whether to read on. This is weak and biased journalism if you ask me. It distorts the truth. It is downright misleading. Pathetic.

#99 and #102 – I think this is a little bit of a reach. The term “grooming”is fairly common and has pretty clear negative connotations. Additionally, the term “forcible,” as used in that context, is a legal term of art applied when a minor is involved, because the law does not recognize her ability to consent. It does not mean he forced her to do anything against her will. Once again – NOT A JUSTIFICATION. Simply a clarification in response to the above referenced comments.

Dex: If I ever pass through I would be more than happy to buy you the nachos.

Jen: I did not mean to slight Sister Pratt and the children (and I know that is not what you meant in your post). They may of course never recover emotionally.

AdamF: I am with you my friend. It would be akin to my Mission Presidents doing something on par. I would be devastated. We do put to much stock in our fellowman particularly the charismatic ones.

Let me add some personal perspective. I have a relative that molested his daughters and evidently one of my cousins growing up. He still acts like nothing happened and things should just be hunky dory. I forgave him years ago but I have nothing to do with him. I would do anything for his kids and that goes without saying. To say they were not damaged is an understatement. They have made some poor choices in life but are moving forward and trying to find sanity.

Last week my mother told me he was interested in communicating via newsletter. I let her know I am not interested in a subscription. By the way he really has not done anything to change. I am sure he thinks time has healed everything.

The trib article starts with:

” An LDS seminary principal connected to Highland’s Lone Peak High School was arrested Thursday afternoon after an alleged two-month sexual relationship with a student.

Police say Michael Jay Pratt began exchanging text messages with a 16-year-old girl on May 1. Pratt would check her out of school and take her to various locations around the Utah valley for sexual acts, according to Sgt. Matt Higley with the Utah County Sex Crimes Task Force.

The locations included Provo Canyon, Alpine, Highland, Goshen and Eureka, Higley said. Pratt also took the girl into at least one unoccupied home, he said.

Higley said the encounters involved a range of different acts — “basically everything but full intercourse.” The victim told police about the alleged crimes earlier this week, Higley said.

“She gave us some great information concerning the extent and nature of their relationship,” he said. “We made contact with [Pratt], he came down and met us at our office, and he was taken into custody at that time.”

Investigators are still determining how many times Pratt allegedly rendezvoused with the girl. Higley said it was unclear whether she was one of his seminary students or if Pratt only oversaw her in an administrative role as the principal.”

The Deseret News makes him seem much more of a predator than this does.

Perhaps this isn’t the place for this question, as it is a thread jack, and may seem like it is condoning Mr. Pratt’s actions (which I’m NOT, but perhaps for a different reason, as follows). But, what is magical about the ‘age of consent’? Are 18 year olds suddenly able to understand enough about their bodies, mental development, social interactions to make good sexual decisions? How about a 17, 16, or 15 year old? I think that perhaps we don’t give teenagers enough credit for being mature, or perhaps we don’t expect them to be that way, and so many of them aren’t pushed to be mature.

Having said that, my main problem with Mr. Pratt is not the age of the victim, but the abuse of his ‘leadership’ role as Seminary teacher. That in my mind is worse than the victim’s age, as it will hurt her relationships with future ‘leaders’, people who could play a huge role in helping her heal her heart and mind. Pratt probably has destroyed much of her ability to trust anyone, including close family and friends, including future Church leaders. I shudder at the thought of living my life without some people that I can trust absolutely. To me, this adds another dimension of the grief and sadness in this story.

And that loss of trust in people extends over to others, like Adam, who are familiar with those involved directly. Perhaps we begin to see the reason for including hope as a major Christian virtue — those of us who are burned by the Pratts must have Hope that others will not be like that if we are to continue to build relationships. My prayers will be for you Adam, for the victim, and for Pratt in my hope that he can see his faults, be willing to accept the consequences of his actions, and develop a desire to change.

Brjones,

“I think this is a little bit of a reach. The term “grooming”is fairly common and has pretty clear negative connotations. Additionally, the term “forcible,” as used in that context, is a legal term of art applied when a minor is involved, because the law does not recognize her ability to consent. It does not mean he forced her to do anything against her will. Once again – NOT A JUSTIFICATION. Simply a clarification in response to the above referenced comments.”

You and I usually are on the same page my friend, but in this case you are horribly misinformed. Forcible is not uniformly applied for victims over the age of 15 years. There are charges for having sex with a minor under the age of 18 when the adult is more than four years older, but they are not first degree felonies. I would suggest you go the state of Utah’s website and look up the charges specified and what constitutes forcible sodomy, and forcible sexual abuse on sixteen year old minors. The girl had to tell police that he forced her to do things against her will for those types of first degree felonies to be filed.

“forcible sodomy, and forcible sexual abuse on sixteen year old minors. The girl had to tell police that he forced her to do things against her will for those types of first degree felonies to be filed.”

For 2 months? Hmmm.

GBsmith,

“forcible sodomy, and forcible sexual abuse on sixteen year old minors. The girl had to tell police that he forced her to do things against her will for those types of first degree felonies to be filed.”
For 2 months? Hmmm.

How about five years? Last how long my children were molested by a church leader and I suppose you’re going to tell me that was consensual too?

Look why don’t we just wait and see what this guy gets convicted of?

Doug G,

I don’t know what your situation was and am sorry for what you and you family have gone through and I agree that we’ll just have to wait and see what happens to him. But I’ve had too many 16 year old patients that I’ve talked with about STDs, birth control, unwanted pregnancies and just being sexually active with their 16+ year old boy friends to see them as incapable of consent.

Jeff, I agree there is a difference and in this case the power was likely the aura of an inspiring religious teacher who could do no wrong. Teenagers have an astounding ability to ignore consequences in spite of the times they’re admonished as to “choice and accountability”. It just that making Pratt out to be a drooling, shifty eyed, greasy haired pedophile just doesn’t quite fit.

As I have served on a jury where the trial was of a similar nature to this one, I was curious as to the actual definitions of the counts being discussed. This might help us to all be on the same page, rather than “guessing” as to the meaning of these things. I looked up the following definitions in terms of how Utah law describes them. All of this is from http://law.justia.com/utah/

76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old.
(1) For purposes of this section “minor” means a person who is 16 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, at the time the sexual conduct described in this section occurred.
(2) A person commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if, under circumstances not amounting to rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402, object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2, forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403, or aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405, the actor who is ten or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct:
(a) has sexual intercourse with the minor;
(b) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant; or
(c) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body, with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, regardless of the sex of any participant.
(3) A violation of Subsection (2) is a third degree felony.

76-5-404. Forcible sexual abuse.
(1) A person commits forcible sexual abuse if the victim is 14 years of age or older and, under circumstances not amounting to rape, object rape, sodomy, or attempted rape or sodomy, the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or any part of the genitals of another, or touches the breast of a female, or otherwise takes indecent liberties with another, or causes another to take indecent liberties with the actor or another, with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, without the consent of the other, regardless of the sex of any participant.
(2) Forcible sexual abuse is a felony of the second degree.

76-5-403. Sodomy — Forcible sodomy.
(1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant.
(2) A person commits forcible sodomy when the actor commits sodomy upon another without the other’s consent.
(3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor. Forcible sodomy is a felony of the first degree.

76-5-402.2. Object rape.
A person who, without the victim’s consent, causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of another person who is 14 years of age or older, by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, not including a part of the human body, with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to the victim or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, commits an offense which is punishable as a felony of the first degree.

Here is a description of “aggravated” in terms of sexual abuse, from the same website:

(4) A person commits aggravated sexual abuse of a child when in conjunction with the offense described in Subsection (2) any of the following circumstances have been charged and admitted or found true in the action for the offense:
(a) the offense was committed by the use of a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601, or by force, duress, violence, intimidation, coercion, menace, or threat of harm, or was committed during the course of a kidnaping;
(b) the accused caused bodily injury or severe psychological injury to the victim during or as a result of the offense;
(c) the accused was a stranger to the victim or made friends with the victim for the purpose of committing the offense;
(d) the accused used, showed, or displayed pornography or caused the victim to be photographed in a lewd condition during the course of the offense;
(e) the accused, prior to sentencing for this offense, was previously convicted of any felony, or of a misdemeanor involving a sexual offense;
(f) the accused committed the same or similar sexual act upon two or more victims at the same time or during the same course of conduct;
(g) the accused committed, in Utah or elsewhere, more than five separate acts, which if committed in Utah would constitute an offense described in this chapter, and were committed at the same time, or during the same course of conduct, or before or after the instant offense;
(h) the offense was committed by a person who occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim; “position of special trust” means that position occupied by a person in a position of authority, who, by reason of that position is able to exercise undue influence over the victim, and includes, but is not limited to, a youth leader or recreational leader who is an adult, adult athletic manager, adult coach, teacher, counselor, religious leader, doctor, employer, foster parent, baby-sitter, adult scout leader, natural parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or adult cohabitant of a parent;
(i) the accused encouraged, aided, allowed, or benefited from acts of prostitution or sexual acts by the victim with any other person, or sexual performance by the victim before any other person; or
(j) the accused caused the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the child by any part or parts of the human body other than the genitals or mouth.

(Emphases are my own)

Basically, from what I am reading here, the police are piling on any count that might “stick,” since some of the lesser charges are negated by conviction of higher charges. Also, it would appear that the position of authority that Br. Pratt had with relation to the individual was sufficient to make the counts “aggravated”. This is NOT to imply that other force as not used – merely to indicate that a charge of “aggravated” does not necessarily = a gun or other physical threat when you are dealing with a teacher, principal, etc.

Note that I am not saying that this is what happened, or implying that such things mitigate the circumstances. Rather, I thought it might be good to have some definitions to work from.

- Kate

Jane Austen’s book Emma, the 21 year old Emma marries her 38 year old brother-in-law Mr. Knightley

I was just reading Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (at least the simplified version) to my 7 year old daughter and was somewhat appalled at the strong friendship of a man in his late twenties with a 13 year old girl that included unsupervised sleigh rides with her and her same age friend. It progressed to more romantic overtones as she moved into her late teens, and I guess the conclusion is left to a sequel.

BTW, I think Mr. Pratt should have taken a Larry Craig lesson on looking shocked and disgusted when his mug shot was taken.

As a practical matter, can a 16 year old say yes? Sure. Sadly, I believe there are plenty of vulnerable young men and women that would (and do) say yes to many foolish things. That age is a time of great insecurity and great instability for many. Many turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, or anything else they are offered. Some want to do it. Some may even flirt with adults hoping a sexual encounter occurs. To this I say, SO WHAT??????

That age is too young. Even if she begged Pratt for sex and appeared to be totally in her right mind and proved to be a mature, responsible young woman who appeared to be capable of making all sorts of grown up decisions, I would still happily convict him if I was on the jury. The responsibility is on the adult to not do these things. Anyone who disagrees, please, speak up.

I know that this is going to get some comments, but as I have thought about this case with Brother Pratt, I would be very surprised if he isn’t involved in pornography. I read this article this morning: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7167792 (I don’t know how to link it in, I asked but no one told me how to do it) and found it very interesting, well, more disturbing than anything, but interesting.

Viewing pornography over and over again makes people do stupid things. The “high” they are able to reach viewing certain types of pornography isn’t enough over time, so they turn to more perverse and degenerate pornography, such as child pornography or beastality. Eventually the risks of acting out don’t matter and they take ridiculous risks, like losing their job, their family, their church membership, and going to jail. I realize this doesn’t happen to some people and there will be arguments against it, but I have heard them all and the reality is that what I am saying is true. If Brother Pratt was not involved in pornography to some degree I will be very surprised.

Alright, I’ve said what I need to say. I already know Dex will have a comment or two on this one.

Jen,

You said, “Viewing pornography over and over again makes people do stupid things.”

Do you really think this. If you want to say viewing pornography CAN LEAD to other things, in some cases, I might accept that. But viewing pornography CAUSES people to lost control and DO stupid things? I would disagree.

Viewing pornography over and over again *makes* people stupid……not make

Maybe mormon matters make people stupid.

“Pornography didn’t make him do it. He stupidly chose to do it” Your right pornography itself didn’t make him do it, but choosing to view pornography did. It becomes a drug and people will view it at any cost and eventually want to act out what they watch. If married or in a relationship, they will most likely be asking or expecting their wives or partner to be doing things they don’t want to be doing sexually.

“But you can’t explain the million people who viewed pornography and then DIDN’T get fired, or didn’t molest someone, or didn’t do anything stupid or criminal”

How do you know what people do in the privacy of their own home? Just because someone doesn’t get fired, you don’t know if they have molested someone, or expected things from their wife that are hurtful or uncomfortable, etc. You can’t see the damage it may be doing within their personal relationships, or the financial struggles it may be causing. In other words, just because we can’t see negative effects, doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

My feelings are that you can’t view pornography and maintain a healthy outlook on women (or men)’ or relationships in general. Women (or men) become objects to people who view pornography. The reality is what you watch effects what you think and feel, especially when it involves sexual feelings.

Sometime marijuana is a gateway drug to heavier stuff where lives are ruined. Some people smoke pot and only pot. Some people smoke pot and never smoke pot or do any other drug ever again. Same situation.

I don’t think you can compare sexual addiction to drug addiction. Not the same.

Dex-

“Maybe mormon matters makes people stupid”

Nah…just argumentative.

Viewing pornography makes people do stupid things like admitting they viewed pornography.

AdamF-

“At the same time, most people who look at porn now and then DO NOT become child rapists, molesters, adulterers, etc”

I agree, but how many people just look at porn now and then? Again, you can’t see the damage that may be caused in cases where people view it moderately. It skews people’s thinking. You can’t view women (or men) as objects and body parts, or view others having sex, doing things that seem enjoyable (and most likely aren’t) and expect it not to affect your perception of men, women and children. It doesn’t matter how often you do it, it matters that you are willing to view people as objects rather than as a whole person.

Again, if Brother Pratt wasn’t involved in pornography I will be highly surprised.

Jen, I think there is something to what you are saying, but you are being far too liberal with the principle of causation. There is simply no way to determine whether pornography is the cause of such compulsive behavior. It is equally possible,if not moreso, that such a person has an innate problem and that pornography is simply the vessel through which it expresses itself. I think this is particularly true of the child pornography issue. Studies have demonstrated pretty conclusively that men who are sexually attracted to children have a natural proclivity to it, and that it is innate and irrevrsible. Again, I think it is possible that viewing pornography may in some way “unlock” such feelings in some men, but I think it is just unjustified to say that porn causes such behaviors. The fact is, most men, to some degree, have an involvement with pornography, and it is a very small percentage of men who are engaged in child porn or who are child predators, or even who would look at porn on a work compuuter.

Jen, I’ll use your own words – how do you know what’s going on in all those millions of other homes? How many people just view porn once in a while? That’s the point. You have no idea. You’re taking all the extreme cases you’ve seen and heard about and calling them the rule. The fact is, if there are millons of men out there causually viewing porn and never acting out in a harmful way you’ll never hear about it. You view the dearth of those stories as proof they don’t exist. You’re using a negative to prove a positive. It’s unfouded.

Dex

#155-

“You assume that every house in which pornography was viewed has a dark problem of finances or cheating or a bad relationship.”

I never said every house. I said that you can’t see many of the problems it may be causing because I am sure many people don’t want to talk about it, it’s embarrassing. Also, it can get people in a lot of trouble if they do talk about it. That is why so many people keep it a secret.

You are just making too many assumptions. And it is impossible to debate this if you are convinced that everyone who looks at porn has a serious problem, and the ones you don’t hear about on the news are just suffering in silence and keeping their dark filthy secret.

That’s what I think about everyone who doesn’t watch the show “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” Their lives are empty and hollow. They have no happiness. They don’t see the world, nay, can’t see the world that way I do. My life is rich and full of color because I watch it. Theirs is dirty. And they all want to watch it, but some don’t. And those who choose not to are so ashamed. They wouldn’t admit it to my face, but inside they hurt and cry and know that they should watch it. But they are scared to change. Sigh. If only they could see the light.

Now, if you told me I was nuts I would just say, they are so ashamed they don’t share their fear and pain, but its there. You could not disprove this. We would be at an impasse.

#162

brjones-

I have had enough conversations with women who are being hurt deeply by their husbands because of things they are asking them to do in bed that they aren’t comfortable with, to know that it is going on much more than we realize. Many men will watch something pornographic and then want their partner to perform the same thing. If you were to start talking to women who are having to deal with husbands viewing pornography, it will open your eyes quite a bit. Women don’t talk openly about it because it is embarrassing. They feel they are not enough for their husbands because of the fact that they are viewing other women (and men) and being sexually aroused by them. I can see your view, believing that damage isn’t occurring, because you are a man and see things differently than a woman. You are also able to compartmentalize and women don’t do that. Many women are deeply hurt when a man views pornography, and yes there are always the exceptions, but most of the time women feel it negatively.

Of course it affects people’s thinking and how they view others. But so does everything else. You have definitely softened your stance, which I appreciate very much.

Jen, hold on here. I never said it hasn’t deeply hurt many people. I am well aware of many. Many of my best friends have told me that their husbands’ use of pornography hurt them very deeply, some to divorce. I have not made light of it. My only disagreement with you is when you make blanket statements about how it caused this and that and that it has hurt EVERYONE. I agree it is a dangerous thing that has caused tons of pain. I sympathize with those whose lives have been adversely affected by using it or by a loved one using it. I simply don’t agree that in all cases it leads to doom and destruction. Like I said before, some people who try marijuana go down an awful path to worse things. But some don’t. That is all I’m trying to say.

I understand what you are saying in relation to all cases leading to doom and destruction. What I am trying to say though is I see no positive benefit to it whatsoever. One day, when you have a daughter (if you don’t already) think about whether or not you would want her going out with a man who views pornography vs. one who doesn’t. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, but to me there is nothing of any worth to be gained by viewing pornography. To me, it only diminishes the worth of a person by making them into something they are not…an object. Would it be ok for your daughter to be a porn star? Would you mind having men view her in that way? What about your mother or your sister? My point is all the people that men and women are viewing belong to someone and they are of worth, not some piece of meat to be viewed for sexual arousal. So, even though all cases may not lead to doom and destruction, they definately are not leading to anywhere good.

Jen, of course not. But I wouldn’t want my daughter to smoke pot, either, because it can lead to problems. We all agree that pornography can lead to problems. I never said otherwise. We agree. I am glad you see it my way.

#178-

Arthur-

I am loving the way that everyone is assuming that I am saying everyone who views pornography will be a child molestor. How about reading what I am actually writing? That would be a great start.

Kate-

“I’m not touching the current topic with a 10-ft pole”

Why not?

AdamF-

That’s true. I think that it is time for me to walk away from it myself.

I bet this post will drag on for sometime as new information comes forward about Brother Pratt. Hey, maybe you’ll even get to 1000 comments!

Have a great day.

AdamF-

It makes me wonder where I stand?! Scary thought.

#185

Kate-

There is nothing logical about pornography so I don’t see why you have to bring logic into this.

Anyway, thanks for explaining.

AdamF-

I don’t feel like what I am saying makes any difference AND I actually need to get something productive done before the day is shot.

Sorry to leave you alone with those two, but I trust you can handle it.

Got the email. Thanks!

Jen,I have no desire to defend or glorify pornography. Generally I agree with the way you have categorized it. I think it’s unfair, though, for you to criticize others for misrepresenting your comments as overgeneralizations when that’s not what you meant. Perhaps you should re-read your original comments, which were spectacularly broad. You essentially said that men who view pornography over and over WILL, not may, eventually lose the ability to control themselves and will move on to worse and worse things such as child porn and beastiality.

“Viewing pornography over and over again makes people do stupid things. The “high” they are able to reach viewing certain types of pornography isn’t enough over time, so they turn to more perverse and degenerate pornography, such as child pornography or beastality. Eventually the risks of acting out don’t matter and they take ridiculous risks, like losing their job, their family, their church membership, and going to jail. I realize this doesn’t happen to some people and there will be arguments against it, but I have heard them all and the reality is that what I am saying is true.”

It’s clear from your comment that “I realize this doesn’t happen to some” that you believe it happens to most. I still maintain that these comments are unsupportable.

It’s cool. I know you were joking the first time too.

I don’t know how I came to be in the position of defenfing men who look at porn. I have no desire to do that. In fact I agree that porn use by married men causes much pain and mistrust, both in and out of the church, and women have the right to feel betrayed in that situation. My point was never whether porn is objectively good or bad. It was whether porn users inevitably become sexual deviants who can’t control themselves. Jen argued that this was the case, at least most of the time, and I disagree.

I hope there are no hard feelings,Jen. Whatever our philosophical differences, I respect that you try to help people in pain, regardless of the cause. And it’s so rare that I ever get to feel the joy of one of your smiling emoticons anyway.

I’m sorry to go back 100 posts but I am calling out the following people for their posts.

AdamF 105

So forcing an adult to have sex is worse than manipulating a child into having sex? I disagree.

AndreJDavis 110

You asked, what is magical about the age of the consent? I think you are missing the point. Whether 18 possesses some magic potion to where the child suddenly understands is not the issue. The issue is, whether 18 is old enough or not, the legislature has determined that under 18 is NOT old enough and EVERYONE, including Pratt, was on notice that you DO NOT TOUCH BELOW 18 because there is a huge likelihood that they are not old enough to consent and not old enough to deal healthily with trouble that comes their way. I find it shocking that you are more concerned with Pratt using his position of trust than the age of the child. They are one and the same. The position of trust is a much more powerful position because she is so young.

GBSmith 110

Your comment was very offensive and disgusting in my opinion. She could not consent. I don’t care if they did this for ten years, SHE IS NOT TO BLAME.

Ditto for 120 GBSmith.

129 Kate

So, because when you were 17 you felt you were old enough to decide? I don’t see how that is relevant at all. 6 year olds think they should decide what they do. But they shouldn’t or they’d eat candy all day and watch sponge bob for 20 hours a day. It doesn’t matter what the 16 year old thinks.

If Pratt did what he has been accused of, I don’t care if she was 17 and 364 days. His actions were extremely reprehensible, and she could not consent, and it therefore was forcible sodomy, etc.

In fact, I disagree with anyone asserting that 16 is old enough to alleviate any of the wrong done here by Pratt, allegedly. I agree that the younger the child, the worse it would be. If the girl were 11 it would be worse than 16. BUT, 16 is not 18. Several posters alluded to the fact that 16 is old enough or is close enough to being old enough that what Pratt did was not that bad, or that because it went on for 2 months somehow the victim should have told the cops sooner, etc., etc. To all of you, I say you are extremely naive on this issue, you are extremely

Dexter (214) –

Perhaps you missed my bold “The above scenario is in NO WAY indicative of what is going on with Br. Pratt’s situation. Its merely an overall commentary on how we pick the magical ‘age of consent’.”

I clearly did not intend my comment on the magical consensual age to be applied to Br. Pratt’s situation, or to “lessen” his culpability.

*called out*

You always keep us on our toes!

I don’t know about “worse” which I didn’t say, but it is not the same thing. Bad either way, I think we agree.

I’m just saying having sex with a child IS by force. Period. The child cannot consent, not just in the eyes of the law, in my opinion, the child truly cannot consent to it in any way. So it is force.

Dexter -

I agree with you from a legal perspective, as well as from the perspective of protecting the accuser. I also agree that when we are talking about an issue of abuse, its important to err on the side of protection – no matter the age.

All I was doing was trying to make an important distinction between “statuatory rape” and “pedophelia”. This is particularly important where you have instances of premarital sex between, say, a 20-year-old and an otherwise independent 17-year-old, and the parents of the minor (not the minor themselves) charge for statuatory rape. From my brief reading of the Utah law, it would appear that they account for such things anyway. However, it should be noted that I am not a student of law.

I’ll say this again, in case there is any confusion – this is not to be applied to the situation with Br. Pratt.

What an active day it’s been here at dextermatters.org

#212

brjones-

“My point was never whether porn is objectively good or bad. It was whether porn users inevitably become sexual deviants who can’t control themselves. Jen argued that this was the case, at least most of the time, and I disagree”

Well, I don’t feel that I was arguing that porn users inevitably become sexual deviants who can’t control themselves. Because I don’t have all the studies here in front of me (I read most of them in books), I cannot quote them right now. I will say though that compulsive porn viewing (or viewing porn over and over as I mentioned) leads to more perverse and degenerate porn and this has been found in studies done on compulsive porn users. Also, when viewing porn, a funnel like thinking takes over and the porn viewer is not able to clearly think of how this may be affecting their job, their wife and kids, etc. until they are out of the funnel. In other words, they take risks and do things that can greatly affect their relationships, work, etc. I would love to get all the studies together, but right now I don’t have the time (too many kids to keep track of). Maybe I will work on it over time and see what I can get together.

The reality for me is I see nothing good about pornography. To me, it has no reedeming value. I don’t see it as an enhancer to relationships, but an intrusion. For me, if you want to work on your sexual relationship with your spouse, focus on them, not someone else having sex. It only allows thoughts of other people to intrude upon your mind rather than the person you are trying to connect with amd it makes no sense to me whatsoever (note to me, I realize many don’t feel this way and I am not trying to start an argument!)

There are no hard feelings brjones. I realize this topic incites great emotion. I am probably not the best person to talk to about it because I will fight against it til the day I die. I will never see how watching people promise young girls money to get in their van and have sex while they video tape them, and then after video taping them, dumping them off, not paying them and leaving them wherever they land is a good, positive thing. This is just one of the more popular porn sites out there. Disgusting, despicable and not worthy of ANYONE’s attention.

Anyway, I don’t want to get started again on this topic so I will stop while I am behind. If I get the studies together I will try to post them if the post is an appropriate thread to do so.

And just so you know there are no hard feelings, well….

First, Dexter does indeed matter.

Second, you admitted to being a proud owner of a Dexter doll. Heck, you brought it up!

Third, we all know what happened with the Jen Doll Debacle of 2008. Please don’t make me revisit that.

I didn’t want to go here but you have left me no choice. The 2009 Jen Doll? Please. You and I both know the Jen Doll was proposed to be given for free to sick dogs as a chew toy, because selling it to anyone was just a real laugher. The dogs were mostly blind and had only gums left, and so their aching jaws and diseased gums could have really benefited from something to chew on. But even they avoided the test product so heavily they decided to pull the plug.

Nice comeback but I think it is clear that King Dexter is the King of Smack as well.

I guess you haven’t seen the studies about soaps, they MAKE everyone who watches them turn lame. But you know that from experience. OH SNAP!!!!

djnn-

Oh you mean like this? http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7167792

“If the victim is 14, 15, 16 or 17, then there is no consent IF the actor is more than 3 years older than the victim and the actor “entices or coerces the victim to submit or participate.””

What does being an actor have to do with it?

236

Take it up with the Utah Legislature.

But I will take a guess. It’s always the actors fault! Stupid Hollywood.

#237-

Excuse me? Show me where I said I was talking to some relief society pals.

That’s not how it works Dex. You get lost and the Queen takes over, so don’t be flattered…..get lost.

Neither…Jen was in college when Dexter was in second grade.

Jen, I’m not sure age difference is the best defense considering the story that brought about this initial post. Let’s just move on to another topic, shall we?

Whoa, hang on. That last reference djinn relates the religiosity of the victim, not the perpetrator, if I read the abstract right.
” Persons sexually abused by a relative were more likely to be affiliated with fundamental Protestant religions.”

This seems to be unrelated to the question of the perpetrator’s religiosity.

#249 – BGSmith, I would love to help you out here, as I think Dexter’s condemnation of your comments was a little harsh, but you’re making it really difficult with this last comment. I understand the general point you’re making about consent, but are you seriously going to argue that “who started it” is a mitigating factor? If it is, what in the world is the point of having statutory rape statutes at all? It is completely irrelevant who started it, why it continued or why it ended. You are right that condemnation should be saved until he is proven guilty, but unless someone stole his phone and sent hundreds of illicit texts, he is certainly guilty of at least some of the allegations. I fear that your comments are moving ever closer to advocating that the girl, a child, was equal or almost equally culpable in this sordid affair. If that is not the case, please make that clear. If it is, then I would share Dexter’s disgust. If this man had a sexual relationship with a student who is 21 years his junior, his actions are that of a pig, and he will deserve everything that is coming to him, and I would be shocked to hear anyone seriously argue otherwise.

I should also point out that your comment about the age of accountability is relatively useless in this conversation. It assumes that everyone accepts the age of 8 as an objective age of accountability, which is obviously not the case, and it is certainly not the case with the authorities. Unless you are mormon, that point is meaningless, and even if you are, I’m not sure it means that she is responsible for everything that happened in this situation. I would be interested to know from those here who are believing LDS whether they interpret the age of accountability in this situation as requiring accountability from this girl, as you seem to be suggesting, GBSmith. Again, I would be surprised if that was the consensus opinion.

Actually, most of the Utah criminal law code regarding sexual crimes stipulates the term “minor” for persons aged 14-16, “child” for those < 14, and has a whole other category for those aged 16-17. So, the legal definition of child is < 14, at least per Utah.

Not taking sides here, just noting the specifications of the law.

Not that P*rn is good, but when it is seen as extra bad it turns out to be extra, uh, fun for the person involved. Po*n + guilt = a positive feedback loop, ‘vuz that’s the way se* works. The more forbidden, the more attractive, and around the carousel goes. So, relax, and watch the problem dissipate.

When did this turn into crime 101?

Are you saying if this 16 year old has responsibility the girl in the Pratt situation should? Or is this an independent question?

There are key differences. If a 16 year old (or a 14 year old for that metter) kills someone, there are a whole bunch of issues that are irrelevant to a 16 year old who is in a sexual relationship with an adult. No matter how brainwashed or manipulated a 16 year old who kills someone may be, society needs to try and protect itself from someone capable of killing others. A brainwashed 16 year old who kills someone could do it again. A brainwashed 16 year old who has sex with a 40 year old could do it again too. But no lives would be ended if that happened.

But Jen, how would porn change the likelihood of someone reporting rape?

If only 10% of rapes are reported, wouldn’t that number stay the same before and after porn’s legalization?

Here is an interesting look at a man who has worked significantly with sex addicts. For those interested check it out:

http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm

#269 – Jen, This makes no sense. You can still measure the # of reported rapes, and if that # goes down, it is safe to assume that the overall # of rapes has decreased. The only alternate explanation would be that for some reason less women were reporting rape. There is no reason to assume that when you’re looking at years of statistics. By that rationale, we can never know if rapes are increasing or decreasing. Your point makes the statistics meaningless.

#274-

“You can still measure the # of reported rapes, and if that # goes down, it is safe to assume that the overall # of rapes has decreased. The only alternate explanation would be that for some reason less women were reporting rape.”

That is a big factor though brjones. If different women (and men) are getting raped each year, there are a lot of factors that contribute to whether or not they will report it. I wouldn’t say that the statistics are meaningless, but, for example, how many men report being raped each year? Also, if a husband rapes a wife, it is highly likely that she will not report it due to fear of being harmed more extensively by him or concern for their children, etc.

While the statistics are useful to some degree, they leave out important pieces of the whole puzzle IMO.

272

Come on Adam, I don’t think that is a fair statement. You act like all correlations should be thrown out the window. Sure, some have nothing to do with anything. But plenty are related and help scientists and anyone else determine causation, which is gold.

Re #142- I was thinking the same thing. Several months ago I was watching the news and was shocked when a friend of a friend (not someone I knew but someone I had heard friends speak of often) was arrested for child porn. He was a firefighter and had been spoken of highly by our common friend.

I don’t care if some people can view porn and not have a problem, it seems like such a victimless crime but can and often does lead to much more serious crimes.

I’m sure when the firefighter started looking at porn he’d never have imagined that it would lead to child porn, and arrest, and the loss of his job. Not to mention what it did to his wife and children.

I understand there are a million stupid correlations. Temperature has been increasing in AZ for 30 straight days. Violence has decreased in Iran for 30 straight days. THEREFORE, AZ heat wave brings peace to the middle east!!!!!!

BUT, when the issue is extremely related, it can have a lot of meaning. Darren Williams retires to Montana. Jazz season ticket sales drop. Clearly, this would be correlation that you can safely say leads to a safe conclusion that Darren Williams’ retirement CAUSED a drop in Jazz season ticket sales.

Here, I haven’t read the study, and I am not claiming it is true. But if you take a society where rape rates decline heavily at the same time that pornography became legal and available, it’s not a terrible conclusion to say it had some effect. Sure, there could be another reason or they could be unrelated but it should not simply be throw out like the AZ temperature example. Further, the “but not all rapes are reported” argument really wouldn’t make a lot of sense. Because they would go unreported before porn and they would go unreported after porn. But there are other variables that could cast doubt on the conclusion.

Well, Adam, I learned hyperbole from the king himself. Bill Walton. Here are 2 of my favorite quotes of his:

Kobe Bryant just hit a literally impossible shot!

Robert Horry is a champion of basketball….and of the human spirit.

Jen, please.

It could be that Jazz season ticket sales fell, at the same time as Darren William departure, because the ball going through the hoop was suddenly understood to be a metaphor for sex, and violent sex at times with all the slam dunks. But I doubt it.

Anyone can come up with some theories but frankly, yours in 285 is more of a stretch then the one I just made about the Jazz season tickets.

I mean, really? Porn goes up, rape goes down. And you say this is due to an attitudinal shift that happened overnight where women suddenly think they have to give it up all the time and it’s not rape?

I’m going to comment on the “rape down, porn up” essay.

First, it should be noted that the paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was one of a series of research papers done by lawyers at Northwestern Law.

Second, if you read the actual article being cited, the author does not try to imply causality – he clearly states that the results are correlations only. He does say that he personally thinks there might be causality, but does not prove it. He also gives a few reasons for why porn increasing might decrease rape incidence, but does not test them.

Third, the paper makes no attempt at eliminating confounders, which would go a long way to answering the causality/correlation issue. Essentially, he takes two statistics, relates them, and calls it a day. I think drawing any further conclusions from the paper would be unwise.

Sorry if I got a little carried away there. But that is offensive to me.

In 286 I could have made it more clear that when I said “Porn goes up, rape goes down” it was in reference to the hypothetical proposition, to show that Jen’s hypothetical explanation for it made no sense. I think this is clear if you have read all my posts. But if someone were to read 286 alone, without reading my other posts, that could have been confusing.

My posts speak for themselves. I invite anyone to read them all. Not that anyone would want to. Sure I exaggerated about the relief society pals comment, but that is not the same as accusing someone of being for a policy that would lead to an increase in the prevalence of child pornography. This accusation was baseless and I would like an apology.

And you read all my other posts so your misinterpretation of 286 is not my fault. My posts made it clear I did not believe that. I said I never read the study and did not know if it was true. I was making a point that if that is the hypothesis, your arguments attempting to defeat it, did not make sense.

Ooops, 294 should say, “Sure I exaggerated about the relief society pals comment, and for that I apologize, but that is not the same as accusing someone of being for a policy that would lead to an increase in the prevalence of child pornography. This accusation was baseless and I would like an apology.”

AdamF-

I don’t know if you are familiar with this man or this book but it is an interesting read. It talks about the process that leads people to more and more perverse pornography in order to attain the same euphoric feeling.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Mark%20B%20Kastleman&page=1

Are you serious Jen? How many times do I have to say I don’t believe that if porn goes up, rape goes down? I clarified that a thousand times. And you are still saying that I believe that. Hilarious.

AdamF-

I have read Confronting Pornography, it is a good read. There is another very good book entitled “A War We Must Win” by John Harmer. I highly recommend it, it is very eye opening into the money making behind pornography.

Kate-

You can go to http://www.ksl.com/ to check in on new info regarding Pratt. That is a good resource for Utah based news.

Oh, and another thing I don’t find persuasive is the belief that Pratt must of, or probably was, into pornography. What does that mean? That he would not have done this if he weren’t on pornography? Whether he was or wasn’t seems irrelevant to me. And I would think this would have happened whether or not he was into pornography. Perhaps he was into porn, and perhaps he would not have taken these risks if not for the porn, but, even if that is true, what does that mean?

And Jen, you never answered my question. What is your goal in all of this? Are you for informing people of the dangers of porn or are you for making it illegal or what would you like to see happen?

Dexter 208:

I think this is where to you nailed. It is a futile argument to suggest that porn use will does not necessarily lead to more porn use, both in terms of quantity and content. The more engrossed you become in a subject, the more fluent you will become in it’s culture. Jen’s strongest point, and the one she should have started with is that, regardless of whether porn use leads to direct sexual abuses by by it’s consumers, the porn industry, particularly in foreign markets, is based on sexual violence. I think it would be helpful for everybody to understand that the porn market is international, and while the consenting adult argument might work in most cases of american produced porn, across borders the porn market is directly tied to the sex slave trade. So in essence, the poor women portrayed in that media, may actually be there against their will. So again, for correlation to sex crimes, this is Jens strongest point.

The above notwithstanding, it should be remembered Jen, that this coversation began with your unqualified opinion that Mr Pratt was likely involved in pornography prior to this incident. Now whether you have said this specifically or not, you are implying that therefore, pornography use led to his alleged illegal and abusive behavior. Not only do we know whether this is true, we also could not say with certainty if it is true, that this was even a contributing factor. The Utah statistics, but even national porn use trends would suggest that it is too pervasive to draw parallels to sex offenders. What are the social implications and harms, they have likely been fairly represented by Jen and AdamF’s comments. Yes, porn use is destructive to healthy family relationships, and can adversley healthy attitudes towards sexuality. So a blanket generalization that “porn is bad” will likely go unchallenged, but that is not the underlying premise of this discussion, rather that porn will ultimately lead to sexual violence, and or abuse, ie the Seminary teacher who prompted this discussion.

Just as a quick observation, one of the experiences that directly influenced my perspectives on porn occured almost as passing observation while on my mission. My companion and I were in a drug store getting a prescription filled for my companion. While standing in line observing the stores customers I observed a woman, probably in her forties, who fit the description of just a typical stay at home mom (in truth I have now way of knowing what her circumstances were, but that was my impression) standing in the magazine isle casually flipping through a porn magazine. Up until that point in time I had sort of been conditioned into believing that pornography was almost strictly a product for men. Recently I have heard statistics that porn consumption amongst women is on a dramatic rise. I point this out Jen, because though I agree with you on the implications of porn in relationships, I am not certain how realistic the dichotomy you draw between men and women really is.

Dex-

“Oh, and another thing I don’t find persuasive is the belief that Pratt must of, or probably was, into pornography. What does that mean? That he would not have done this if he weren’t on pornography? Whether he was or wasn’t seems irrelevant to me. And I would think this would have happened whether or not he was into pornography. Perhaps he was into porn, and perhaps he would not have taken these risks if not for the porn, but, even if that is true, what does that mean?”

What that means is that porn can really mess up a person’s thinking, to the point of doing very irrational, stupid things. It is relevant because it helps others to understand that viewing pornography may not be worth the risk if it has affected others in this manner. If you read the article I linked written by Victor Cline, he talks about all the offenders he has treated and with several exceptions, all of them were involved in porn. Although it may not affect everyone in the same manner, those that it does affect can go on to hurt others.

What it means to me, is that the risk of involving oneself in porn is not worth the possible negative outcomes it can bring. That is my personal thought on it though and I know others don’t agree.

Cowboy-

“The above notwithstanding, it should be remembered Jen, that this coversation began with your unqualified opinion that Mr Pratt was likely involved in pornography prior to this incident”

To be honest I would be surprised if he were not involved in it, but I did not come out and say “I know for a fact that he is.” BTW, how do you know my opinion is so unqualified?

I’m sure they were your own words, Jen. Sorry if I sounded like I was accusing you of swiping them (I wasn’t).

I know Jen because of your acknowledgement of that fact in even your response to me (#314). I understand that you have mentioned your mental health training in previous posts, but for the sake of making a case as an expert on this matter, I think you should clarify your credentials. Even so, when I referred to your opinion as being unqualified, I am suggesting that you have no direct relationship to this case, correct me if I am mistaken but your conversation suggests this, therefore you are making an assumption based strictly upon your basis of reasoning. But I would add, that though your statement originated with the alleged sex abuse, and digressed to assumptions on pornography, your implication was that pornography served as the catalyst to this event. In other words, had Pratt not been consuming pornography, he would not have committed the alleged crime(s). I cannot speak with certainty as to what the ratio is of men who view pornography, but I would venture that somewhere between the 60-90% that AdamF mentioned is probably correct. The statistics do not bear out that proportionately the same, or even close to the same number of men commit violent sex crimes, or have inclinations to do so. So while pornography certainly is a destructive element to society, that does not mean we can just overgeneralize that fact by assuming it is responsible for every social ill we would like to attribute it to.

I would not take issue here if you were to argue that viewing pornography is wrong, unhealthy, or spiritually damning. But if you are going to make an argument that it (may have) lead to the behavior of a specific crime, you are not entitled to maintain credibility without being able to aptly justify your position. You have not done this. Again, you would also need to be able to account for the litany of men and women who consume pornography on a regular basis, and yet do so without ever delving into child pornography or beastiality, etc. More particularly, you will have to account for how the overwhelming majority do so without ever committing a sex crime. You will also have to do so with more than the questionable assumptions, such as the one Dexter challenged you on about the attitudinal effects pornography caused by objectifying women en masse to a point of insecurity and unwillingness to report an escalation in sexual abuse(and you did imply a short period of time here).

I think when it comes to hot topics like these (wow no pun intended, lol), we all need to be VERY careful with what we say and how we say it. I for one found it very difficult to write a semi-scholarly paper on this issue (the part that I quoted earlier) — much more difficult, in fact, than a more neutral topic. It is SO easy to let biases creep in and let them take over understanding each other.

Cowboy-

“therefore you are making an assumption based strictly upon your basis of reasoning”

Isn’t that what we all do? I would bet my farm (if I were a betting woman AND had a farm) that there are plenty of people who have thought it, but just didn’t write it in a blog.

“So while pornography certainly is a destructive element to society, that does not mean we can just overgeneralize that fact by assuming it is responsible for every social ill we would like to attribute it to”

But for those who do choose to act out in sexually harmful ways, we can wonder why they did that and try and make sense of it. Just so everyone knows this, I don’t think that everyone who views pornography is going to act out sexually in harmful ways. Now that I have said that, know that those who do act out in sexually harmful ways are much more likely to be viewing pornography. Not always, but most of the time. If you read my link to Victor Cline’s article you will see where he has written about this.

“But if you are going to make an argument that it (may have) lead to the behavior of a specific crime, you are not entitled to maintain credibility without being able to aptly justify your position. You have not done this”

So are you saying that sexual crime comes before pornography essentially? And you want me to prove that pornography can lead to sexual crime? Have you read the link I provided to Victor Cline’s article? I am curious to see what you think of it. He has credentials and experience in this area.

As far as my credentials, I have a background in psychology as well as child development (bachelor’s degree). I don’t have a graduate degree if that is what you are wondering (not yet anyway). I don’t believe that we always have to have a degree in order to be well-educated about something either. I have spent a lot of time educating myself on this topic, through reading, talking with those going through it, and attending conferences about it. I am sure that is not enough to satisfy all the people that like to heckle me, but that is ok.

As a disclaimer, as I write these posts, I am also caring for half a dozen or more children at a time (depending if friends are here or not). My writings may not be articulate because the reality is I don’t have the time to stop, reread and fine tune what I write. When I respond to a comment I am also making sure everyone else is taken care of here. I can do this because I have a laptop and I can move around. My point is, I think if I had the time to organize my thoughts and then write them, there wouldn’t be so many issues being taken up with me. Also, you are able to articulate yourself well Cowboy, and others just don’t have that gift without writing several drafts first, so when you say things like this: “Jen’s strongest point, and the one she should have started with”, recognize that I am at a disadvantage at this time in my life.

“Again, you would also need to be able to account for the litany of men and women who consume pornography on a regular basis, and yet do so without ever delving into child pornography or beastiality, etc”

And how do you know that people are not looking at child porn? Who in their right mind would EVER admit to delving into child pornography? It isn’t even realistic to think that someone is going to tell people they have done that. To do so is to admit there is something seriously wrong with you and who wants to do that? Not to mention child porn is against the law.

My question to you is how can you prove that a litany of men and women consume pornography on a regular basis and don’t ever delve into child porn or beastiality? As if they would tell you if they did.

Jen:

Let me start with your last question first. You have made a case that pornography consumption (almost invariably) is progressive. I am well aware of research which supports this, however your analysis does stop there. You also suggest the direction it progresses towards, ie, child pornography, bestiality, and sex crimes. You are responsible for proving this. Your counter position – that I am unable to prove that people are not delving into these baser forms of pornography – also by it’s very nature concedes your ignorance in the matter. Hence, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. In other words, you cannot take a default position that this is the natural course, so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Regarding your personal challenges at home (caring for all of the kids), that is admirable, and frankly though we all participate here, nobody should routinely make there participation on these blogs the primary beneficiary of their time. In other words, I understand.

Regarding your credentials, I have absolutely no desire to denigrate your education, formal or informal. However you should understand that the social benchmark for being an indirect witness, ie, “expert witness”, is generally a Masters Level or higher. I would think that in order to function as an “expert” in clinical psychology, most circumstances would require a PH.D. So unfortunately, I will stand by my position that your claim was unqaulified.

“So are you saying that sexual crime comes before pornography essentially? And you want me to prove that pornography can lead to sexual crime?”

I have no problem with the notion that if sexual compulsions, ie pornography, were related to violent behaviors, that the compulsion would precede the crime. Of course that is logical. I refuse to accept however that the crime is indicative of a specific compulsion, or more appropriately that a compulsion towards pornography bespeaks a tendency towards sexually violent behavior.

You continue to draw correlation without determining causation in the third paragraph of your reply. There are a multitude of factors which can explain the correlation, such as the possibility that those with a predisposition/determination to commit sex crimes would also be attracted to pornography, perhaps even the extreme calibur. This would not require that pornography be the cause of these tendencies. In order for your assesment to stand you will have to disqualify all other potential factors.

As for your first comment:

“Isn’t that what we all do? I would bet my farm (if I were a betting woman AND had a farm) that there are plenty of people who have thought it, but just didn’t write it in a blog.”

This is probably based upon an excercise of prudence on the part of those people, particularly if they realize this is not a case they could make with certainty. It is very clear that you have a particularly strong bias against pornography, and perhaps with good reason – you have alluded to experiences with the children in your care on other posts. You should note that no one here has been advocating pornography as being either harmless, or wholesome in any respect. You however, took an unwarranted liberty in implying it’s role in the case of this seminary teacher. For the sake of clarification, your statements bear no quality of wonderment, rather, you specifically charge this man Pratt with Pornography use couched with the obligatory disclaimer “I’d be very surprised…”

Cowboy-

I am curious, have you read the link in #325?

“I refuse to accept however that the crime is indicative of a specific compulsion, or more appropriately that a compulsion towards pornography bespeaks a tendency towards sexually violent behavior”

Well, if you have been willing to read the link I posted than you will get many answers from a man who has worked with over 350 sex addicts and knows what he is talking about. In other words, he’s got all the credentials that will satisfy you.

Cowboy-

Let’s get this straight. I NEVER said “I know that Brother Pratt is involved in pornography” Is that clear? I said “It wouldn’t surprise me if he was.” There is a difference between those two things. A railing accusation would be saying I know he is without any evidence. And BTW, To say that claims against church leaders aren’t tolerated on here is laughable to me.

“I have now read your article, what would you like to know. Out of all of the articles that have ever been written, other than this one somewhat agrees with your overall position on the links between pornography and violent behavior, what about this one discounts all others?”

It doesn’t discount all others, but since credentials are important to you and he has an extensive amount of experience working with sex addicts, I assumed you would be interested in his writings. What did you think of what he had to say? Are there others writings that you are wanting me to read?

One thing that does make me wonder about the porn issue is Pratt’s family sending his computer out of state right when all this started coming down… we’ll have to wait and see I guess…

Ha!

I didn’t think of the IM issue… What I was wondering (HUGE SPECULATION) was if Pratt’s family believed he was innocent, but he had a porn issue going on separately that they did not want to become public.

Gosh, we really need an update to this case.

#330 – Jen, for someone who draws the “you should go back and read my earlier comments” card so regularly, maybe you should do the same. You did not say “it wouldn’t surprise me if he was” involved in pornography, you said “I would be very surprised if he isn’t.” That is a huge difference. Your entire line of reasoning in this thread was started by the assumption (I think it’s fair to call it a strong assumption, since you said you’d be VERY suprised) that he was, in fact, involved in pornography, and further, that this outcome was a perfectly natural progression. You know nothing else about this man, and yet you are confident that he is involved in pornography. I think it’s fair to point out that this is not the first time you have thrown that comment out on this blog in relation to a man who was involved in some kind of trouble. This is clearly an issue you feel strongly about, and I think everyone here would agree that is perfectly fine. In fact, I don’t think anyone here is trying to tell you that your opinion is wrong. However, it is frustrating for you to continually and persistently proceed as if objective data consistently and strongly bears out your position. Without question, some of it does, but by no means is the matter close to as settled as you seem to believe it is, or at the very least you have not demonstrated that to be the case by any objective standard. Additionally, whenever you don’t have any facts to back up your argument, you attempt to prove your point by falling back on the tried and true “well you can’t prove it ISN’T true” standard. That’s always a winner because, not surprisingly, there isn’t really any way to respond to that kind of “logic.” Of all the people arguing different positions in this thread, you are the one that seems least willing to give an inch or concede a single point, even to say that even though you can’t prove it, something may just be your personal opinion. I mean seriously, are you going to stand behind the statement “you can’t prove they’re NOT looking at child porn”?

Wow, I go to work and this thing grows exponentially. I just have a few thoughts…

First, I’m extremely sensitive to the needs of the victims in cases like this one and I will always error on the side of the abused and assume that they were manipulated, groomed, and totally without fault. I do that because I understand the hell they are potentially going through and the pain of being put in situation where they literally believed they had no other choice. Having said that, if at the end of the day, this case turns out to be a joint venture between a very mature sexually active sixteen year old and a 37 year old man with poor self control, then I’ll concede some small amount of responsibility on the part of the girl even if the law doesn’t recognize it. Therefore Adam, you may have point and I shouldn’t have reacted so harshly to you.

Now, let me try and explain why I believe in this case that the girl truly is a victim and totally without blame.

1. She reported the crimes to the police. I don’t know what got her to the authorities, but when she went it’s very apparent that she cooperated fully with lots of details of the abuse she was subjected too. Had she been a willing partner, she would most likely have denied any physical contact with Mr. Pratt and worked very hard to protect him.

2. There are charges of Aggravated Kidnapping. This infers that when he took her from school or from her home she told the police she didn’t want to go, but was afraid to tell him no or too embarrassed to let the school secretary know that she didn’t want to leave. For victims that have been groomed by a skilled abuser, they really do lose their ability to say no. People in special positions of trust have the easiest time getting victims to this point of no return. Abuse can continue on for years once the abuser has taken over their ability to choose. Once they’ve taken the victim beyond this point, the abuser can take far more liberties then a masked gunman with a ski mask could ever hope to accomplish. Therefore, grooming a student for sex is even more violent then holding a gun to their head.

3. The church fired Mr. Pratt without even investigating. If there was a chance of Mr. Pratt being innocent, the most they would have done would be to suspend him until he was either acquitted or convicted. Obviously, the discussion between him and his supervisor left little doubt of his innocents.

4. The large number of charges filed including several first and second degree felonies. Contrary to what someone said here earlier, the police do not just throw charges at the accused hoping some will stick. The arrest warrant must have good justification for each charge and Mr. Pratt has the right to a preliminary hearing to establish if just cause is present to proceed with a trial for each count of the indictment. The piling on of charges is actually a county/district attorney’s best leverage in getting a guilty plea. The defense will agree to plead guilty to two or three of the charges in exchange for the authorities dropping all the rest.

5. Lastly, the type of charges filed indicates a certain amount sexual experience not common in 16 year old girls. They may be obsessed with being in love and have all the giddy infatuation that boys and girls of that age have that sometimes leads to intercourse, but not usually practiced at all the “other” types of sexual gratification. The fact that most of the charges are about sodomy, makes me think she was being manipulated.

Cowboy-

See my comment #337. I appreciate that you took the time to read the article by Dr. Cline. I found it very interesting, especially considering all the experience he has working with sexual offenders.

FWIW, the statement that I made in relation to Brother Pratt was based on all of the comments made about him (there are a lot of them on newspaper websites) in the positive, the family sending the computer out of state, and the choices he made that were so risky and clearly had devastating consequences if he was discovered. Maybe a part of it is wanting to be able to find a reason why someone who inspired so many, was considered so wonderful and was in a position of authority and trust would do something so devastating. I think it is hard for people to just believe that he could have an underlying illness or sickness that no one saw or picked up on until now. I think many people just want to understand what in the world just happened to him.

So, anyway, if you read my post on #337, I am dropping out of this one, mostly because I can’t meet the requirements of proving my position without a lot more time (which I don’t have). Thanks for the discussion.

Jen:

Quick FYI, to be honest I have interpreted the computer issue with Mr. Pratt the same way as Br.Jones or Dexter (can’t remember and I’m not going to go back), that he was trying to erase his email or IM communications with this young lady. However, I agree with you that looking at it from another light, that does lend empirically to a greater possibility that pornography use may be at play here.

As for wanting to understand, I can completely understand that. I think we are all experiencing that to some degree. Despite the many differences of opinion here regarding the Church, I think we all share the common expectation that Teachers in general, but particularly Seminary Teachers hold themselves to higher ethical standards, and safeguard the trust of guardianship given to them from parents, by virtue of their position and it’s inherent promises.

Why not stop speculating about the people and their circumstances (and your “opinions” of the people) and leave them to their privacy (that some here claim to be praying for). It sounds like a bunch of old ladies sitting on the front porch gossiping. It sounds like a manifestation of an LDS mis-behavior we are taught to avoid but don’t.

I think Michael Jackson died due to overdose of pornographic pictures of Farah Fawcett. I mean, c’mon, how could it be any other way.

Jen, maybe I missed the outcome. Has he been convicted?

I don’t know the circumstances so I’m not going to comment on the particular case. This is why we have courts… at least theoretically. Hopefully they’ll go through everything and come out with the truth – I’d certainly then be more comfortable dealing with the outcomes. In the mean time, it is all hearsay and speculation. Did somebody really see him skinny dipping? Did YOU see him? Witnesses have certainly lied, people have agendas. Maybe there’s enough proof to convict him. Maybe, just maybe, he’s innocent (or somewhere in-between). I doubt any of us were there at any of the events. Some people think there is enough evidence to prove the moon landing didn’t happen (and in fairness I believe there is enough evidence to prove it did).

I guess I want “Innocent until proven guilty” to be important and real.

In short, I don’t think we can “understand what happened” or deal with it until we KNOW what happened.

No dissonance or anxiety necessary if he’s found innocent – I guess unless it’s based on why people would lie and why it came up etc.

Myself, there’s no dissonance or anxiety whether he’s guilty or not. Good people can do bad things – we have more than a few scriptural references. That said, and in all fairness, I didn’t know him; but I’ve certainly know people whom I admired that did bad things.

What I’m talking about is doing things like speculating “why he did it” (or mental state etc.) when we don’t even know that he did (or exactly what he did).

However, I am guilty of jumping into a conversation I ran across accidentally doing an unrelated internet search (I’m not even sure who I’m talking to since I haven’t even check out mormonmatters.org homepage – just this thread). I should really bow out at this point.

JCP-

“Did YOU see him?”

YES I DID! And just so you know, he looks much better clothed than naked.

I understand witnesses can lie, so if this person is lying hopefully it will be discovered.

I agree with the innocent until proven guilty as well. The reality is we may not ever KNOW everything that happened, yet I still have to talk to my teens who are aware of the situation right now and try and help them not lose trust in people that seem to be doing so much good. This man has a lot of people that he has influenced, so it is affecting many.

What do you think? Do you think he would have been fired from his job if there wasn’t something to it? I can see the church suspending him until the investigation was complete, but to outright fire him seems too much if he is possibly innocent.

AdamF-

I don’t know, you tell me…you’re the therapist!

JCP:

Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with whether people chat about this situation at the dinner table, or on the internet, or anywhere else. It is a legal standard for the legal system.

And if you are coming in here to teach us about how mormons shouldn’t gossip it seems a little strange to me because your tone has appeared to me to be pretty judgmental and rude.

But maybe that’s just my interpretation. Anyway, no reason to run off already.

Jen, I don’t put any stock in the church firing him. I don’t think that means anything.

Dexter,

In the spirit of Ray, blessed be his name, your sarcasm is getting in the way of rational and civil discourse, IMHO. Remember nastiness never was happiness.

Jen, do you really care about actual small human beings (i.e., kids) or is all your energy spent in reinforcing some set impossible to change world view? I’m guessing the latter. Think about the children. On further thought, I suspect that your base belief is that the world revolves around you, and who cares about who is hurt by your beliefs. Cause, you know, world, you, etc. And so forth. Also.

Djinn:

While I clearly raised objection to Jens assumption that the abuses inflicted by Mr. Pratt upon a seminary student was the end result of an addiction to pornography, your off the cuff stat’s on the correlation between pornography and sex crimes in other nations leaves some stones unturned. Does your study take into account pornography production? In other words, where do the women come from? Were they willing volunteers/participants? If these factors have not been considered then your figures are meaningless. Some actual examples of which countries experienced this de-escalation would be helpful.

There is a very small subset of p*rn that is sex positive, that does take into account that there is something f’d up with people achieving sexual gratification at the expense of actors who are, in the majority, victims of sexual abuse. Annie Sprinkle, Betty Dodson, Susie Bright et al. It’s a start. I know this is veering widely away from the original topic but I wanted to differentiate mainstream, misogynistic p*rn and it’s opposite, as long as it’s being discussed.
Djinn, I love you like mad but you are getting a little crazypants on this one.
For the record, I am a big fan of sex positive erotica and my life hasn’t degenerated, my credit is ok and so far so good on avoiding disease laden prostitutes in back alleys…

For those interested, here is some research on pornography and its impact on marriage and family:

http://www.heritage.org/research/family/tst111405a.cfm

Included in this link is a link to the full research record as well

Cowboy-

Thanks for reading the article and for your input. I appreciate it.

Here is an article that I came across on the Deseret News website:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705319185,00.html?pg=1