Monday, October 22, 2018

Charles Manson's Mother

Ada Kathleen Maddox was born January 11, 1918 in Morehead, Rowan County, Kentucky to Charles Milles Maddox and Nancy (Nannie) Lorraine (Ingraham).  Kathleen, as she was known to family and friends, had two older sisters, Glenna and Aileene, and an older brother, Luther.  Aileene died at age 20 in 1933.  Charles Milles Maddox was a conductor for the railroad.


In 1933 the Maddox family minus Kathleen's father, who died in 1931, were living in a home located at 2105 Hilton Avenue in Ashland Kentucky.  The home as it looks today....



Kathleen and her siblings had a typical 1920/30's era Kentucky working class family upbringing complete with her mother's staunch belief in the Nazarene Church.  The religion disapproved of movies, dancing, swearing, drinking alcohol and fooling around with the opposite sex.  You know, the kind of thing that just sends some people directly in the opposite direction.  Kathleen and her brother Luther were two of those people.

Kathleen, as a young teen, began sneaking out across the Ohio River to Ironton OH from her home in Ashland Kentucky.  Ironton had a dance hall and drinking establishment named Ritzy Ray Rainbow Room where she could enjoy all the forbidden activities she craved, away from the wagging tongues of Ashland and her mother's ears.  It was there that Kathleen met Colonel Walker Scott.
(Appalachian Murders and Mysteries compiled and edited by James M. Gifford and Edwina Pendarvis 2016 page 231)

Thus began what was to become one of the most enduring true crime murder stories in our life times.

Ritzy Ray Rainbow Room still stands today but it has been remodeled and turned into a bowling alley and skating rink.

Perhaps if you are ever in that neck of the woods you can go by Spare Time Bowling and Skating and ponder for a few minutes what quite possibly took place in the parking lot 83+ years ago.




The story of Kathleen and her amateurish attempt at motherhood is probably best told by posting the only interview she ever gave regarding her son Charles.  The interview was conducted by Los Angeles Times staff reporter Dave Smith and ran on the front page of the January 26 1971 edition of the newspaper.  The article will be broken up with commentary and documentation.

MOTHER TELLS LIFE OF MANSON AS BOY

Let Others, 'Usually Women,' Do His Work, She Remembers

She looks older than her 53 years and feels 90, she says. Thin and slightly hunched from emphysema that keeps her from working, she still smokes heavily.

Sometimes, when fear keeps her sitting up all night, tiredness the next day knocks her mind off-guard. Then the constant tension catches her in spasms, making her shake so badly she can hardly pick up a tea- cup or light her cigarets.

She is the mother of Charles Manson.

Since his arrest , in November, 1969, for the slayings of actress Sharon Tate and six others, she has heard herself described as the worst kind of tramp and bad mother, whose son went wrong because he was so cruelly deprived.

If anything, it was just the opposite, she knows. But she kept silent and hidden, thinking back over the past and realizing, she says now, that her worst mistake with her infamous son was an overindulgence that became a law of life, even a necessity, to Charles Manson.

Never Worked or Fought

In the Charles Manson who sent his disciples out to kill, she can recognize one strong trait in the little boy she remembers—the charming boy who never worked or fought for what he wanted, but let others, usually women, do it for him.

Married five years to her third husband and mother of a little girl from her second marriage, she lives today virtually in hiding, known only to her husband, a few relatives and one woman friend.

Located by The Times, she consented to an interview—the first she has ever given—with a plea that her name, even the state where she lives, not be identified. We will call her Mrs. Manson.

"They'd pick me to pieces, and I could take that," she says, "but it's for my little girl's sake. She doesn't know any of this, and I've hoped I could keep it quiet until she's older. If I can just have three more years, then it'll be blown over a little, and she'll be 12, more able to understand. Then my husband and I will tell her."

Even then, it will be a tall order for a 12-year-old to absorb. The girl will learn of a half-brother she was too young to remember, but who spoke proudly of "my baby sister" and then went on to notoriety in one of the most pointless, vicious massacres of the century.
She will hear descriptions-here-to-fore unchallenged—of a mother said to have been a teen-age prostitute who didn't know who fathered Charles Manson; an ex-convict sent to prison with her brother for beating and robbing men she hustled in riverfront bars in Cincinnati, an alcoholic who lived with so many different men that even her son, already delinquent himself, moved out in disgust, and an indifferent, abusive mother whose neglect and cruelty planted seeds of violence in a sensitive and deprived boy.

Frank About Her Past

That is the general picture that until now has been drawn of Manson's early years.

But that is not the way it was, according to his mother.

Mrs. Manson speaks frankly about her past, denying some points and admitting others in a thin, weary voice that retains the country accents of her native Ashland, Kentucky.

"Charles was born out of wedlock," she admits, "but it wasn't just any man. I wasn't a prostitute, I've never been a prostitute. I was just 15 years old and a dumb kid.

"But my mother was a very strict woman, very religious, so when me and my sister got a few years on us. I guess we had a tendency to be a little wild, the way kids will."But I didn't go around with men that way, and when Charles came along, that had happened twice in in my life. And I was really in love with Colonel Scott. He was a lot older than me, 24, and he loved me, too."

Accepted Proposal

Her mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from Ashland and while awaiting the baby she accepted the marriage proposal of William Manson, so the baby would have a name. 
                                                                        ✯✯✯✯✯

Kathleen and William Manson married August 21 1934 in Newport Kentucky.  Kathleen lied about her age, saying she was 21 years old when she was just 15 years old.  She would have been about six months pregnant.

The baby was born Nov. 11, 1934, and was listed on the birth certificate as "No Name Moddox." after his mother's maiden name. But that was not out of indifference. Mrs. Manson says, but because she was awaiting the arrival of her own mother in Cincinnati.

"I figured I'd already hurt her pretty had, so I wanted to let her name the baby, you see. So she named him after my father." a few weeks later, she had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson.

✯✯✯✯✯

A couple of birth certificates for Charles Manson were found.  Neither had "No Name Moddox" listed as the child's name.  The first birth certificate simply states "Manson" in the spot for the baby's name. William Manson is listed as the father.  Kathleen's maiden name is misspelled Moddox.  She states she is 18 years old, she was still 15 years old. The box which asks "Legitimate?" states NO.

The second birth certificate which I could only find with a watermark across the front obscuring the name a bit, gives the baby's name as Charles Milles Moddox, Kathleen's maiden name is still misspelled Moddox.  It is dated December 3 1934.

Kathleen, in the LA times interview, says that Charlie's birthday was November 11th but both of these records say his birthday was November 12th.




Her young husband had said he would try to accept the child, she recalls, but it didn't work out. She left Manson, returned to her mother in Ashland and began divorce proceedings.

                                                                       ✯✯✯✯✯

Kathleen and William's co-habitation as a couple lasted just four and a half months.  The two lived with William's mother Nellie Manson in Cincinnati and it was not all sunshine and roses.  On January 5, 1935 Kathleen packed up and moved back to Ashland Kentucky to live with her mother according to divorce documents.

A pdf with all the divorce documents is linked below.  It was not Kathleen who began divorce proceedings, it was William who filed for divorce July 9, 1936, as the plaintiff and Kathleen as the defendant.

These are the juicy bits contained within.

  • Defendant refused to cook any meals.
  • Defendant refused do any housework or to help keep things clean.
  • Defendant persistently refused to perform her marital duties during the fall season of 1934.
  • Defendant is guilty of extreme cruelty for constantly nagging and berating her husband over his lack of earnings, the lack of money for dances, the lack of a home of her own, uttered in the presence of others to humiliate him.



Download the PDF:




In the Ashland 1935/36 city directory Mrs. Kathleen Manson is listed as living in the rear unit of a home on Greenup Avenue, about 3/4 of a mile from her mother's home.
She hoped to marry Scott, she says, but her own mother, disapproving because her divorce from Manson wasn't yet final, stymied that by informing Scott of the birth and her marriage. Scott, too furious to wait for the divorce, married another woman a few days later.

"All that stuff you read about Charles not knowing who his father was, that's not so. Scott used to come and pick up Charles and take him home for weekends with his own child. He just loved him," she says.

Scott died in 1954 of cancer, Mrs. Manson says.
✯✯✯✯✯

It's not known whether or not Charles really did spend time with Colonel Scott.  It seems doubtful though.  Charlie was just shy of two months old when Kathleen left William and moved back to Ashland at the beginning of January 1935.  Colonel Scott married Dorothy Davis on July 21, 1935 in Kentucky. Dorothy was 16 years old. Their first son Colonel Scott Jr. was born January 16, 1936.

According to Jeff Guinn, Kathleen filed a bastardy suit against Colonel Scott two weeks before her divorce from William Manson was final.
Manson: The Life And Times Of Charles Manson (2013) page 18

Records show that William and Kathleen's divorce was finalized April 30, 1937 and the bastardy suit was finalized April 19, 1937.  So, the bastardy suit would have been filed prior, sometime in 1936.  Guinn says that Colonel Scott came to visit the toddler a few times after the court ruled Scott the father.

However, according to the later divorce of Colonel Scott and his wife Dorothy there is absolutely no mention of Charles Manson being the son of Colonel Scott nor does the child support show up as a debt in the finances of the Scott's.  Dorothy was the one who kept the books for her family. It leads me to believe that Dorothy Scott knew nothing about Colonel's bastard child.  Also, Colonel Scott Jr. would have been an infant during the time that Kathleen says Colonel Scott took little Charlie home for weekends with his own child.  I think Dorothy would have noticed another child in the house!

Even though Kathleen had a baby at home to support she still seemed to be able to get out and have a little fun with friends.  On June 5, 1936 Kathleen and another girl were taken into custody for investigation after a car accident in Eaton, Ohio.  They had been hitchhiking in Ohio and the car they were riding in struck a culvert.  Eaton is a whopping 176 miles from Ashland where she lived at the time.  The girls had told the officer who responded to the accident that they were 25 years old.  The officer wisely thought the girls were more like 16 years old.



When Charles was 4, Mrs. Manson left Ashland for McMeehen, W.Va., and the boy's contact with his real father was broken. But always he was surrounded by family—his mother, his grandmother, an aunt and an uncle. 
It was during this time that Mrs. Manson and her older brother went to prison for two years, when Charles was 6. She was 22. She and her brother and an older woman who later married her brother robbed a man, she admits, and she went to prison instead of her future sister-in-law because the woman and her brother persuaded her that the other woman could do more to secure their release if she remained free. Charles was 8 when she got out. 
But throughout those early years, she says, Charles was not only not neglected, he was even pampered by all the women who surrounded him. 
"Maybe it was because my own mother had been so strict, but if Charles wanted anything, I'd give it to him. My mother did, too; she eased up a bit as she got older.
✯✯✯✯✯





As you will read in the original police report the "sand filled" catsup bottle was filled with salt, not sand.  The catsup bottle was used at a restaurant, they all had been to that night, as a salt shaker.  It was taken by Luther in anticipation of knocking out and robbing Martin. The future sister-in-law was not charged and sent to prison because although she had been with the party that night, she was not seen by witnesses as being in the car when Luther hit Frank Martin over the head with the bottle.  Only Kathleen was seen in the car.


Download the PDF:



Didn't Have to Work

"He never had to do a thing to earn what he wanted. Those stories about him earning his own living selling newspapers when he was 7 or 8. Those aren't true. He didn't even have to do things around the house, like rake leaves or mow lawns."

Charles had a wonderful personality. Mrs. Manson recalls, and always charmed people at first meeting. " He always had a way with people. Even later, when he was in prison, he was able to get special treatment, so I don't believe any of that stuff about his hypnotizing those girls in his family. I think it was just his personality, and the effects of dope they all took.

"But he always had charm. He was real musical and had a real nice voice, so I gave him singing lessons. But then he got so conceited about his music that I made him stop the lessons, but he still sang special solos in church, and people always talked about how good he sang.

"I think that made him over-confident. He never had to take a fall, not till he was a grown man. Everything just was handed to him, I admit."

When Charles was 10, Mrs. Manson marred Jack Thomas — not his real name — to whom she stayed married for 21 depressing years. She describes Thomas as "a drunk."

Separated Often

She and Thomas separated frequently over the years, once for 12 years, but she was always vulnerable to his promises to reform- until their divorce about six years ago.

Meanwhile, she admits, Thomas was an unstable man for Charles to model himself after, even though they got along well.

By the time Charles was 10, he had already begun running away from home. Mrs. Manson doesn't know why, but he did it repeatedly, when he was living with her, when he was with his aunt and uncle, and, later, from correctional institutions.

                                                                       ✯✯✯✯✯

The man that Kathleen married was named Lewis Cavender.  She did not lie about her age but she did lie about her marital status, she said she had never been married.  She gave her father's name as, get this, Charles Manson!  Neat trick, Charlie was his mother's father.  It's possible that Kathleen did not know she was legally divorced from William Manson, since she did not file for the divorce, so fudged a bit on the marriage application to Cavender.



Kathleen's assertion that Charlie never had to do a lick of work as a child and that he kept running away but she didn't know why seems to fall flat.  At least for a period of time, when Charlie was 14 years old. he did work at odd jobs and paid rent for a room in downtown Indianapolis IN away from his mother and her then boyfriend.

There were articles in two Indianapolis newspapers saying that Ada Cavender and Lloyd Deer were arrested for adultery in the first week of January 1949.  Ada being Kathleen's given first name.  Kathleen was released on her own recognizance with assurances from a businessman that she would show up for her court date in February.  Deer was also released.  When the February court date rolled around neither Kathleen nor Deer were to be found.  She had decamped after her arrest and left town without Charlie, leaving him to fend for himself.



The reason Kathleen was arrested in the first place was because Charlie had been up to a bit of mischief, stealing, and when police went to Kathleen's looking for Charlie she told them where he could be found.  Much to her surprise she was arrested on the adultery charge.  An article in the Indianapolis News written March 7 1949 recounts the story.


Of course, we know that Charlie blew that opportunity, he escaped or fled Boys Town within the week and embarked on a series of crimes beginning with the robbery of $1,700. from a Peoria IL market for which he was arrested March 25 1949.  Over the next few years Charlie was sentenced to various juvenile facilities, escaping from them and committing crimes.
By the time Charles was 21, he had served in several reformatories and finally, a prison term for car theft. Paroled, he came home, where he took menial jobs that he always lost through lateness, absence or general neglect, and his mother, or grandmother, or aunt always came through with the money he needed.

In January, 1955, Charles married a waitress from McMechen. Rosalie Jean Willis. By the end of that year, he was back in custody, this time in Terminal Island Federal Prison in San Pedro, for transporting stolen cars across state lines.

Rosalie, in California to be near Charles, bore their son, Charles Jr., while Manson was in prison, and before he got out. In 1958, she had divorced him, married another man and moved back east.

Mrs. Manson, who also came to California to help Rosalie and Charles eke out a living, stayed on, sharing an apartment with him in Culver City.

"I think the business with Rosalie really hurt Charles," she says. "I think Rose was the only woman he ever really loved, and from then on, he never respected women."

And it was during this time, she says, that she began to feel he needed psychiatric treatment, though it was far beyond their means.

Not long after, they went their separate ways, Mrs. Manson leaving Los Angeles, Charles drifting on to his bizarre future. For a few years, Mrs. Manson was in touch, even after Charles went back to prison on bad check charges.

And still she gave him everything he asked for, anything within her means, and as fast as possible.

"I'm' awfully upset," she said Monday, after the guilty verdict was read. "I still believe that if those jurors would just talk to Charles for 15 minutes, they could see he's mentally ill. He needs treatment, has for years. I don't know what, to do now. Just start worrying again, I guess"
                                                                     ✯✯✯✯✯

Kathleen continued her on again off again relationship with Lewis Cavender moving around the US.  Cavender may have been a drunk, I don't know, but he did work for the railroad long enough to get a pension from them.  They spent some time in Los Angeles before moving up to Spokane WA.  In 1961 Kathleen gave birth to Charlie's half-sister, Lewis Cavender was her father.

Divorce records for the two could not be found but by 1965 both of them remarried.  Kathleen married Gale Bower in Spokane WA, where both were living, on October 21 1965.  Cavender had married his second wife August 4 1965 in Coeur d'Alene ID, although both were residents of Spokane.


Kathleen died not too much longer after she gave this interview.  She passed July 31 1973 at the age of 55, cause of death was a cerebral hemorrhage (stroke).


Gale Bower didn't seem to know much about Kathleen, personal information on the death certificate is either wrong or missing.

It has been said that Gale Bower adopted Kathleen's daughter.  She did go by the last name Bower in school.  There is no way to find if and when the adoption took place because adoption records are sealed.  However, when Lewis Cavender died in 1979, six years after Kathleen, the daughter is named in his obituary with the last name of Cavender.


                                            Charlie's half-sister when she was 16 years old.



Nature or nurture?  It's hard to say why Charlie turned out like he did.  His mother certainly was immature as a parent but she was only 15 years old when she gave birth.  It doesn't sound like she ever put the needs of her child before her own wants though, even when she got older and more mature.

Plenty of kids endure a much more violent childhood than Charlie and most turn out pretty good in the end.  Charlie's childhood seemed to be more about neglect and indifference but in the end, he turned to violence.

80 comments:

Whiterabbit69 said...

Wow. This is one of the best and most informative posts I've seen here. Thanks! It's sad that she never really reached a decent level of maturity or even a remotely motherly bone in her body. There's something about boys in particular that just suffers greatly when it comes to neglect and dysfunction in those early years. I absolutely agree with your closing statement.

starviego said...

Colonel Scott impregnated Kathleen when she was just 15. And then he weds this 'Dorothy' when she was just 16.

Like father, like son? (In the 'being attracted to the young loves' category.)

starviego said...


Kathleen: "He(Charlie) never had to do a thing to earn what he wanted. ... He didn't even have to do things around the house, like rake leaves or mow lawns."

Gee, I wonder where he picked up those poor work habits?

"Defendant refused to cook any meals.
"Defendant refused do any housework or to help keep things clean."

Robert C said...

Thanks DebS for the research. Very interesting point of view from Chuck's mother. In particular her comments about his mental illness. I think she's right and would put Charlie in with Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer and other serial killers within the same family of mental issues. These are the worst kind ... intelligent, clever, and difficult to detect in the general populace yet murderous and explosively so. I don't think we're going to find the answers in Kentucky or Appalachian stereotypes nor his childhood treatment. Compared to those places I've seen far wackier and scary people on the loose in California ;-)

Question I have is is it absolutely certain his father was Colonel Scott ?

AustinAnn74 said...

One wonders if he would've had loving, supportive parents, if things would've turned out differently for him. It's weird. I know a woman that could be described somewhat like Manson's mother. She is the laziest, entitled chick I've ever met. She doesn't cook, keep her house clean whatsoever, only performs her "marital duty" once every few months, if that and is a raging bitch to her husband...yet.....he doesn't have the courage to leave her. Their kids will most likely repeat that same sort of behavior...funny how our childhoods shape us in every which way....

AstroCreep said...

Charlie’s behavior as a youth reminds me a little of my older son- self destructive and intentional. All of the federal crimes he racked up were for a reason, we’re just not sure based on the limited information the intent behind his behavior.

My younger son is completely different. Saves money, runs with a good crowd, works hard, plays sports and enjoys messing around.

Both raised identically- same loving and accepting parents- same resources- etc.

We all have our own journey. We all have our own path. At some point, you become your own person and no matter how bad you had it, the choice is yours to make.

StillGrooving said...

AstroCreep said "We all have our own journey. We all have our own path. At some point, you become your own person and no matter how bad you had it, the choice is yours to make."

I have 5 siblings and we are all vastly different from one another; all have chosen different directions in life. My mother was quite young, 16 years, when my oldest sister (actually half sister) was born, and my sister's father was a drunk and a wife beater. But that sister is probably the most stable person out of the whole lot. Fortunately, my mother filed for divorce from that jerk and married a hardworking, devoted man before the rest of us were brought into the world.

I don't know how much might have changed had one or both of our parents been imprisoned for a violet crime. I can imagine that might really do some psychological damage to a child.

Matt said...

As a young person I overwhelmingly favored nurture over nature. My opinion has changed.

I think that children are born with some personality traits that parents, teachers and others have no control over. For instance, friends of mine who are the nicest people you'll ever meet and who operate their own very successful business have three adopted children. All of them have had the best of everything. Yet, the son has been a bad egg since infancy. As an adult he's constantly in and out of jail. They know who the birth parents are now and they lead a similar existence. The boy had no contact with them since birth. I've seen many other similar scenarios, both good and bad.

I really do believe that experiences, especially those involving fear and pain can be passed down in the chromosomes to our descendants. It's how things like "instinct" are explained, at least to me.


Donna Nelson said...

Very interesting article. I have wondered about Charlie's mother and his half sister. I wonder if the half sister is still alive? She would be the same age as me. I think the nurture vs. nature debate should not be vs. but should be viewed as a combination. I think in rare cases it is vs. I am a licensed psychotherapist and at least that is what I have seen in my experience. Each child is an individual and absorbs the world around them in different ways. I think as well despite a parent's best effort, they do treat the individual child differently. Additionally, I have found that families aren't as perfect as they may appear.

Donna Nelson said...

My opinion about Charlie is mostly nurture.

GreenWhite said...

Nicely researched and written! Even if one of my kids was in Manson's shoes I'd never sit there and put them down. 50 with emphysema and unable to work but still smoking. Trash.

AstroCreep said...

Donna Nelson said:

“I think in rare cases is vs”

“My opinion about Charlie is mostly nurture”

So it should be a combo except rare cases but in Charlie’s case it’s mostly nurture. Can you elaborate why in Charlie’s case it’s mostly nurture?

Dan S said...

Chuck summers is NOT a compartmentalized sex murderer. Criminal, pimp, iconoclast, yes; serial lust killer, no

hippie doll said...

very interesting & informative post. What I can't stop wondering is, if Kathleen's mother would have never told Colonel Scott about Kathleen still being married to William Manson & "the baby", if he would have married Kathleen, and Charlie would of been raised in a 2-parent home, if everything would have turned out differently? Or...?
:o/

hippie doll said...

I guess that's a "should'a, would'a, could'a", huh?
:o|

DebS said...

hippie doll

Colonel Scott was a real SOB according to the divorce documents of he and his first wife. He beat his wife, kept her short of money, only giving her $5 per week for food for the whole family and complaining about that. He drank constantly and worked sporadically. Got in bar fights, once getting his leg broken. He was always behind on the bills and rent.

I don't think life would have been any better for Charlie and maybe it would have been worse.

If anyone wants to read the Scott divorce documents just email me and I'll send them to you. The post was getting way long and the Scott divorce was not directly related so I omitted it.

deb at mansonblog.com

Matt said...

Bundy’s a rumpkin. Bundy’s a poop butt. Bundy’s his mama’s boy. Bundy’s out there trying to prove something to his own manhood — that’s got nothin’ to do with me. I don’t roll around with poop people like that.


Dan S said...

Great article, Deb S. Thank you! I think it's mostly nature. The bad seeds just don't have proper empathy and they feel entitled. The nurture part seems to me to be mostly circumstantial; i.e. how broke a person is and what they ll resort to because they have no means

Dan S said...

Lol. Great analysis for real, Chuck

grimtraveller said...

Donna Nelson said...

I think the nurture vs. nature debate should not be vs. but should be viewed as a combination

Absolutely. I know I tend to go on about fusions and paradoxes in life but that's because that's what I see and experience. There are some things that just appear to come naturally to some people, be they good or bad.
My two kids are 16 and 13 and the way they are today, I noticed about them the day they were born. That had zero to do with my wife and myself. Now, obviously from that day, we {along with a host of others} have input much into their lives and still are and will continue to do so so they are a mixture of nature and nurture. Virtually all human beings are.

I think in rare cases it is vs

I think what nurture does is help shape, tame, bring out, emphasize, frame, enhance, highlight or subdue nature and at that point it becomes subjective on the part of the nurturer. In the post, DebS commented that "The religion disapproved of movies, dancing, swearing, drinking alcohol and fooling around with the opposite sex. You know, the kind of thing that just sends some people directly in the opposite direction. Kathleen and her brother Luther were two of those people" which is a good example of how the subjective viewpoint of the nurturer can operate on the ones being nurtured but their essential nature fights against it.

Each child is an individual and absorbs the world around them in different ways

Even identical twins are very different people. Being brought up in the same house with the same parents doesn't really mean a great deal at the end of the day if the expectation is that all of those brought up in that situation will turn out the same. There's no accounting for how an individual responds to something.

I think as well despite a parent's best effort, they do treat the individual child differently

How can one not ? Each child is their own unique person so each parent has little choice in reality, but to modify how they approach their children. The most ironic thing a child will say is that they're being treated differently ! I wouldn't even treat two hamsters the same !!

Additionally, I have found that families aren't as perfect as they may appear

Woah, raw nerve time. That's the hard one. My friends were often surprised when I'd tell them what used to go on in our household because they saw my parents as uncle and auntie that they respected to the max. I remember back in '96, my sister and I trying to work out which of our friends didn't come from a home that was at least a bit dysfunctional and we couldn't think of any {including our own}. We kind of concluded that dysfunction in the modern day was kind of the norm. I don't think that now, but for me, if the perfect family exists, I've yet to see it. All of the families that I thought were great turned out to be the kind of family I wouldn't want my kids or friends growing up in. And the reality is that we're not even looking for perfection. It is simply not an easy task to maintain a positive environment that is continually able to adapt to the changing demands of emerging human beings.

Donna Nelson said...

Astrocreep...in reference to my opinion that Charlie's issues were mostly nutured (though still in small part nature), he was in some sense "primed" all his life into what he became: Ultra-religious family, his mother as a role model, spoiled at times (I believe this) and abused at times - primarily mentally. All these things taken together paint the ingredients into what Manson ultimately became. Now obviously not everyone with these same ingredients wound up becoming mass murderers, and this is where the nature part comes into play. Perhaps if he had had a better upbringing or life, the nature part may have remained dormant.

Donna Nelson said...

Now people like Ted Bundy...I believe was mostly nature.

Donna Nelson said...

Secondary to nurture. I believe Ted Bundy had compulsions to do evil things, and I doubt even the best upbringing in the world would have made a real difference.

grimtraveller said...

Whiterabbit69 said...

There's something about boys in particular that just suffers greatly when it comes to neglect and dysfunction in those early years

I think because until very recently, it was perceived by many as a man's world, we maybe tended to notice it in boys more, but for me, neglect and dysfunction can be damaging {and not just for the child in question, but many that they come into contact with} regardless. Boys might have a tendency to express their reactions violently in a way that comparatively few girls would, but the net result ain't a good one, whichever way the wind has blown.

starviego said...

Colonel Scott impregnated Kathleen when she was just 15. And then he weds this 'Dorothy' when she was just 16.

Like father, like son? (In the 'being attracted to the young loves' category.)


Well.....
Hmmmm, that's not necessarily exactly unusual amongst males though is it ? Wherever you go on this planet, at almost every recorded era of humanity there's been that so I wouldn't say that Charlie was just following his Dad's seeds.

Kathleen: "He(Charlie) never had to do a thing to earn what he wanted. ... He didn't even have to do things around the house, like rake leaves or mow lawns."

Gee, I wonder where he picked up those poor work habits?

"Defendant refused to cook any meals.
"Defendant refused do any housework or to help keep things clean."


Whereas, I'm with you on that one.
If you have 2 parents in the house and one is a lazy so and so while the other is conscientious and hard working around the house and in their job, and there are children being cared for, don't be surprised if most of those children follow the ways of the lazy one, even if they liked to be involved in doing the chores initially.
Housework rarely comes naturally !

AustinAnn74 said...

One wonders if he would've had loving, supportive parents, if things would've turned out differently for him...funny how our childhoods shape us in every which way....

On the other hand, Tex had that. Pat had that. Clem had that. Bobby had that.
Many people had loving and supportive parents and went the wrong way. There's an interesting interview with Nuel Emmons where he's talking about Charlie and he makes that point regarding himself. He says the difference between the two of them was that Charlie didn't have loving parents around whereas he did ~ and he still messed up.
We're human. We mess up.

AstroCreep said...

We all have our own journey. We all have our own path. At some point, you become your own person and no matter how bad you had it, the choice is yours to make

I agree, with caveats. What can make it difficult is how each person comes out of whatever has happened to them. If one's experience of the world from young is that the world basically doesn't give a shit and people have mistreated/hurt you and gotten away with it, it's understandable when some people think that you have to be proactive to survive and that often takes the form of 'strike before you're struck.' Then it gets deliberate. Purveyors of injustice don't see the damage they do long term. I sometimes wonder if any of the wardens in those reform schools Charlie was in that ill treated their charges ever thought to themselves "maybe we had something to do with creating a monster."
Similarly, from a different viewpoint, I wonder if his Mum did.

grimtraveller said...

GreenWhite said...

Nicely researched

I'll say ! Now I don't have to buy that "Secret loveletters from a disciple" book or whatever it's called. It carried the interview with Kathleen and that was the only reason to have it ~ but not at $100 !

Even if one of my kids was in Manson's shoes I'd never sit there and put them down

She didn't really put him down. She just told the truth about how she'd found him to be. As parents, that's the kind of honesty that's needed. Leslie's mum, when she testified at trial, was courageous enough to question if she had been at fault with Leslie, not an easy thing to do.

Robert C said...

Grim said: " If one's experience of the world from young is that the world basically doesn't give a shit and people have mistreated/hurt you and gotten away with it, it's understandable when some people think that you have to be proactive to survive and that often takes the form of 'strike before you're struck.' Then it gets deliberate. Purveyors of injustice don't see the damage they do long term. I sometimes wonder if any of the wardens in those reform schools Charlie was in that ill treated their charges ever thought to themselves "maybe we had something to do with creating a monster." "

That about nails it. I could take that and run with a lot more depth but basically Charles begins his crime career at an early age, seems to have very low self-esteem, gradually loses any empathy or remorse for his victims, becomes a sociopath eventually leading to a psychopath.

Juvenile detention centers, especially back then, were no picnics. Young people exposed to severe beatings, deprivations, a long list of other stuff and the seeds for anti-society, nobody-loves-you and you're-own-your-own, and not-my-fault are firmly implanted. As he graduates to prisons it only gets worse. If his mother had any influence on him at all it may have been at an early age when he recognized she was white trash and figured he must be too - that may have knocked down his self-esteem a few notches.

Robert C said...

In DebS's post: " In January, 1955, Charles married a waitress from McMechen. Rosalie Jean Willis. By the end of that year, he was back in custody, this time in Terminal Island Federal Prison in San Pedro, for transporting stolen cars across state lines .... In 1958, she had divorced him, married another man and moved back east.

** Manson's mother says: "I think the business with Rosalie really hurt Charles," she says. "I think Rose was the only woman he ever really loved, and from then on, he never respected women." **

This last comment by his mother, if true, I find poignant and the only time I could see Charles taking a turn in his life, sticking with Rosalie and applying his skills to legitimate business. Instead he makes the critical decision to continue to handle stolen cars and naturally eventually gets caught which isn't too bright. This is where I really lose complete sympathy for him even though someone with a long rap sheet like he had may have prevented him from getting any decent jobs at that time.

kraut_iznota_knotsy said...

Well researched post. Thanks.

Nature / nurture etc

I think it's both, and then some.

Without rehashing all the above, I add in the fact that Charlie was "nurtured" and schooled for more than half his life in our reformatories and federal prisons, where the rules for success / survival are quite different from civilized free society.

- "My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system. . . I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you."

Then after becoming (imo) fully institutionalized, ironically he is "kicked out" in early '67, right into the height of the subculture. Add in a pinch of mental illness combined with drugs ...

Charlie's nature, nurture
combined with the timing of his release were essentially the perfect storm for what was to come.

brownrice said...

Grea post, DebS... thanks.

AstroCreep said...

Grim-

I believe at some point, a person has his/her own freewill and categorized themselves into one of two categories: victim/survivor

The victim allows his/her past experiences to provide an excuse for bad behavior.

The survivor embraces the past trauma and refuses to let it steer them down the slippery slope.

Either way, at some point in life, the excuse of ‘I had a bad mommy’ doesn’t justify poor behavior.

We all have trauma of some sort or another. It’s part of what shapes us.

What’s considered trauma for one person might seem like a walk in the park for another- it’s all based on individual perspective.

AustinAnn74 said...

A lot of the other family members did come from two parent households, but there was dysfunction in them. For example, look at Lynette Fromme's childhood. Two parents, yes, but her dad was a raging asshole, and the mother submissive to him being abusive. Pat & Leslie's parents divorced, Bobby I don't know enough about, nor Clem. I do know Bobby was raped when he was a kid. I don't know if that has anything to do with his impulsivity & obnoxious craving of attention, but overall, I don't think any of the family members came from "Leave It To Beaver" households. Tex's mother was a domineering, religious nut who probably ruled the roost, and look what happened to poor, little Dianne Lake. Her parents really fucked up! Overall, I agree that it probably is a combo of nature & nurture.


StillGrooving said...

I believe our experiences in life have more to do with how a person deals with life when they grow up than what happens to be in their genes. I think it is well documented that people who experience neglect and abuse in their childhood will have a much more difficult time adjusting to their adult life than people who grow up in stable, loving homes. However, there are also physiological components to many mental illnesses. So, in my humble opinion, it is both nature AND nurture. If there are serious problems in both the nature and the nurture, then trouble is much more likely to show up.

David said...

Great post Deb. One of my favorites.

A bit short IMO ;-)


Be a little careful with allegations in a divorce petition. This was the era of fault divorce. You had to allege and prove certain things to get a divorce. It doesn't mean the allegations could be proved. For example, Linda Kasabian's first husband claimed she had endangered his mental and physical health. She 'no showed' for trial and he won. It is much easier to win if the other side doesn't show up.

Carlos said...

Excellent article, thanks.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

I believe at some point, a person has his/her own freewill and categorized themselves into one of two categories: victim/survivor

The thing with free will though, is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. We all have it but we all have it within certain confines or structures. So the way each exhibits their free will is dependent on what they are shown from day one.

The victim allows his/her past experiences to provide an excuse for bad behavior

Well, they can do, that's true. But then, some people are victims. And if those people are not supported in a way that is meaningful to them, some of them pick up a certain message and internalize that. And why wouldn't they ?
Back in 1990 this kid that used to come on the playground I worked on used to wear a T shirt that said "Life's a bitch ~ and then you die !" I never liked that T shirt but I couldn't then and still can't get away from the reality that that is how an uncomfortable number of people think about life and there are many of them that possibly have good reason to. If those around them have shown that they don't regard them as being worth much, there is likely to come a point where the vice becomes versa and 'bad' behaviour becomes "relative."

The survivor embraces the past trauma and refuses to let it steer them down the slippery slope

I agree with that in part but even the victim will often see themself as a survivor, doing what they need to do to survive in a world that's already shown itself to be rather hostile.

Either way, at some point in life, the excuse of ‘I had a bad mommy’ doesn’t justify poor behavior

I agree. But for Charles Manson it was a lot more than that. One thing I've observed over the years is that many young people simply do not realize that they are reacting in a particular way because they've been doing it for so long. It's no more unusual to harden one's being than it is to scratch an ear that's itching.
It's rarely just one thing that acts as the springboard into a damaged existence.

We all have trauma of some sort or another. It’s part of what shapes us

True, but there's trauma and there's trauma. A bad mommy is one thing. The two people that are supposed to take care of you not being there for you is another. And one of those people leaving you here and there and eventually giving you away to the state is another thing altogether. I can't minimize the effect on a young psyche of an absent or uncaring parent/carer, I've seen the negative side way too many times and I see it daily. As with a number of things, it's a paradox !

What’s considered trauma for one person might seem like a walk in the park for another- it’s all based on individual perspective

Yeah, that's the thing. It's difficult to apply general thoughts or rules because how the individual absorbs and responds is key and there isn't really a league table of what is an appropriate reaction to "a series of unfortunate events."

Peter said...

If every household that contained a raging asshole and a submissive mother spawned a murderer, we'd all be dead.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

If every household that contained a raging asshole and a submissive mother spawned a murderer, we'd all be dead

All kinds of households have spawned a murderer Pete. The one Charlie came from is just one of many. And much of the time, even if there is a raging arsehole and a submissive Mum, the actual household one came from has nothing to do with whether someone becomes involved in murder.

David said...

Grim said: " And much of the time, even if there is a raging arsehole and a submissive Mum, the actual household one came from has nothing to do with whether someone becomes involved in murder."

I think that was Peter's point.

AustinAnn74 said...

A raging asshole father & submissive mother or a raging asshole mother with a submissive father doesn't necessarily spawn murderers, but it does cause dysfunction in a house. I'm no psychiatrist, but know from experience. . . .

Matt said...

AustinAnn74 said...
...raging asshole mother with a submissive father...


Ed Gein comes to mind...


AstroCreep said...

Matt said:

“AustinAnn74 said...
...raging asshole mother with a submissive father...

Ed Gein comes to mind...”

My ex wife grew up in that scenario- abusive mother and a father who enabled and allowed it to happen- never stepped up for his daughter, ever.

Although I won custody of my kids, she was never abusive towards them, only neglectful. I could see her struggle to TRY and be a good mom but she never managed to become one. And it didn’t turn her into a murderer- and she’s a very hard worker and quite successful. It’s why I don’t think nurture matters one bit with serial killers- they lack something the rest of us normally dysfunctionally functional people have-

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I think that was Peter's point

I know it was but he left the impression that I thought otherwise because I can see it from a variety of angles.
There is no specific formula that makes a person kill, not even lacking any kind of empathy or a disregard for the feelings off another {not every sociopath or psychopath kills}, but equally, there are things that one can see have contributed to where a specific murderer has ended up. Sometimes. It happens in too many cases to discount as coincidence.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

It’s why I don’t think nurture matters one bit with serial killers- they lack something the rest of us normally dysfunctionally functional people have

It's hard to argue with that on the face of it. Yet I do. It's almost as though you're saying that there's a certain inevitability about them killing and there is nothing that is going to prevent that.
Manson wasn't a serial killer. His situation seems to me like the one that would face most of us if push came to shove and I think there are circumstances in which all of us could commit murder. That doesn't mean any of us will, but, sometimes, you just don't know.

Robert C said...

Grim said: " Manson wasn't a serial killer. "

Manson was well on his way as a serial killer and by all accounts he would have continued except he went in the slammer instead and remained there this time. It's like his mother said, Charles was always good at getting others to do his bidding. Why he did it may differ from others but he was still voted most likely in his class to succeed killing more and more until stopped.

Dan S said...

And Sandy was voted most likely to conceive

AstroCreep said...

Grim said:

“Manson wasn't a serial killer. His situation seems to me like the one that would face most of us if push came to shove and I think there are circumstances in which all of us could commit murder. That doesn't mean any of us will, but, sometimes, you just don't know”

My opinion of Manson is that he IS a serial killer- the first of his kind in that he indoctrinated others to do the actual killings-

Murder (not manslaughter etc) and killing in self defense are two separate things. Many would kill in self defense, while almost none would murder.

Most people walk around blind to what they would or wouldn’t do. Others, like Charlie, justify and rationalize murder- Lotsapoppa a prime example. Had he killed Lotsapoppa, it would not have been in self defense- although Charlie would argue that it was. He set the conditions. He planned it prior to and made sure the weapon used was present. And even in that situation, the little coward tried to have someone else commit the actual crime.

Dan S said...

3 murders with a cooling off period between NOT including TLB. If you count Crowe. Getting into quibbles about definitions isn't as important as the personality itself. Killing Shea in such a cold blooded confident way is evidence of the evolution of the gang and likelihood for more of the same.

Dan S said...

Was there evidence of what kind of beat down shorty received from his corpse?

Dan S said...

Wesley Dobbs only had two murderous incidents; thus he's not technically a serial killer, but he's the sickest of them all and certainly is one really.

DebS said...

Dan S Shorty's autopsy report is online and it shows the many stab wounds, because the weapons struck bones. As far as soft tissue wounds go it would be impossible to know because his remains were skeletal.

https://www.scribd.com/document/35709412/Donald-Jerome-Shorty-Shea-Sherrif-s-Investigation-Autopsy-Report

Matt said...

Westley Dodd technically fits the FBI definition for a serial killer:

"Someone who commits at least three murders over more than a month with an emotional cooling off period in between."

He had two murderous incidents but in the first he killed two boys.

Like Manson, he was in police custody and released without much punishment on numerous occasions. Too bad, he was a twisted individual. Lives could have been saved.


Dan S said...

10 4. Thanks for the answers. I think the definition requires three separate murder incidents but talk about quibbling, right? Dodd had a groupie who married him in prison. Unbelievable.
At least he got put down quickly. In Russia you get the death sentence and they take you to the basement and put a bullet in your head.
I've always wondered how he got involved with satan as he asks for Satan's help in his journals to carry out his heinous crimes. I guess it's just a natural connection because he must have known what he was doing was wrong. He brushed off the connection in an interview and he was such an isolated individual that he may have just had the idea himself.
Getting off topic ...

Dan S said...

Thanks! That is very interesting. Stabby stabby stabby . Looks like that llama strikes again

Dan S said...

More on topic.... Did tex have any contact with Jay Sebring at the wig shop?

Dan S said...

Could the remains have not berm shorty s? I guess this the only person grogan would know was there....

DebS said...

Dental x-rays and x-rays taken at the time Shorty was injured in the Air Force were used to identify the remains as Shorty. And yes, it would be quite a coincidence if Grogan were to be able to lead law enforcement to remains that were not Shorty's.

Dan S said...

Thank you, deb. That's pretty definitive

Percival Buttermere said...

Oh dear, here we go again ...

Orwhut said...

Deb,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, thank you for another well researched and informative post.

Peter said...

Mrs. Webers douche.

Matt said...

Peter said...
Mrs. Webers douche.


I just shook with laughter. Nice.

Sorry I was slow on the delete button. No worries everyone, He will never be allowed to comment here. We'll delete him. In the meantime please resist the temptation to feed the troll, funny as it can be sometimes...



Doug Smith said...

I shudder to think of how vapid an existence that guy must live that he has to pump his own tires with such putrid and, utterly unimaginative missives as he feels necessary to spew out of his lonely, vile, per hole of a mouth.

Doug Smith said...

Pee hole

grimtraveller said...

The baby was born Nov. 11, 1934, and was listed on the birth certificate as "No Name Moddox." after his mother's maiden name. But that was not out of indifference. Mrs. Manson says, but because she was awaiting the arrival of her own mother in Cincinnati.
"I figured I'd already hurt her pretty had, so I wanted to let her name the baby, you see. So she named him after my father." A few weeks later, she had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson.


It would be interesting to know the exact percentage of children that have a name before they are born or at the moment they are born or even the day they are born.
The circumstances of Charlie's birth in the 30s may be a story worth telling, but there is absolutely nothing unusual about being born without a name. Neither of mine were born with names, the second didn't have a name for almost a week. My older sister's first kid didn't have a name for almost 3 weeks. Myself and friends used to joke about what the name was.

grimtraveller said...

Percival Buttermere

AKA Marmaduke Hebblethwaite.

Dan S said...

Did tex have any contact with Jay Sebring at the wig shop?

I think Jay dealt with the real thing !

AstroCreep said...

Most people walk around blind to what they would or wouldn’t do

Even if we're not blind, we tend to think there are some things we wouldn't do and on a conscious level, we're all probably right. But life is so unpredictable and what we may consciously think may not always be the way we'd actually act. It's like being married or living with someone or being a parent ~ the situation can be a sufficient hothouse in bringing up aspects of ourselves that we just never knew were there or had had to face before and we might be a little surprised at how we act sometimes. Probably not how we thought we might do.

Robert C said...

like his mother said, Charles was always good at getting others to do his bidding

And it would seem that for a while, she was a good teacher.
But as an aside, is that really drastically different from a number of people we all may know ? Playgrounds and parks have long been places where'll you'll find kids like that. Some of them go on to be sports team leaders, business owners and captains of industry and we praise them for it and call them inspirational !

beauders said...

As an adopted person I was born without a name, I was called Baby Girl Ford, even though Mr. Ford was my biological mothers ex-husband and not my biological father. My birth fathers last name was Evans. They had an affair and I wonder if I was the reason for her divorce which was not common for someone in Portland, Oregon at age 21 in 1964?

Dan S said...

Apropos hair stylists and wig shops, I'd think there was some overlap, especially in show business

Claire Robinson said...

Kathleen was a CHILD when she had Charlie..she was also a child when she got married and her husband took great offense at not being allowed to rape her! Are people forgetting how young she was?

Marital duties my arse...I know things were very different for women and girls back then but I'm sure no one would expect a young girl then to go through that rapey shit! And that newspaper piece about Boys Town is so misogynistic. Blaming his mother for everything and acting like Manson is practically a choirboy. We see with Manson fleeing Boys Town the same week what bull that was.

Kathleen was a child having a child.

Monica said...

Deb, fantastic post! Your research and tenacity are magical. I learned a lot. Katleen sure had a troubled soul.

Percival Buttermere said...

Grim:

As in Donleavy's 'Ginger Man'.

Dan S said...

I thought Charlie was mostly raised by an aunt. I'd like to read her interview. His mom sounds like a sociopathic white washing liar

grimtraveller said...

Claire Robinson said...

Kathleen was a CHILD when she had Charlie..she was also a child when she got married

One of the debating points that rears its head here in the UK every so often is the lowering of the voting age to 16. Loads of people feel that 16 year olds aren't mature enough to vote and I used to be of that number but then, I thought about the kids that I had worked with and at 15 and 16 a number of them could have easily voted, and sensibly too. On top of that, I have known plenty of adults for whom it is/was debatable whether they truly knew what they were doing when they were voting. Some people vote for a particular party simply because their parents always did. Should they not vote ?
If Kathleen was born in January 1918, that would make her 2 months off her 17th birthday when she had Charlie. In England at that age, one can have sex, be in a full time job, learn to drive, ride a motorbike, get married if your parents OK it ~ and during the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, 16 year olds were given the vote and 71% voted in favour of independence, while 29% voted for the status quo. While it's true some at that age are immature and shouldn't be trusted with the washing up, one is hardly a child at 16. Granted, childhood has only recently been left but......
In quite a few parts of the world, for centuries, young people are married at that age. And the guys are having to wrestle lions or crocodiles to prove they are no longer kids !

and her husband took great offense at not being allowed to rape her! Are people forgetting how young she was? Marital duties my arse...I know things were very different for women and girls back then but I'm sure no one would expect a young girl then to go through that rapey shit!

Rape is a bit strong. He was young and horny as many 24 years olds would be. He married a pregnant young lady and obviously had a problem taking on board a child that wasn't his. But expecting sex with your wife is hardly a crime and it doesn't appear he forced himself on her.
That said, it's no wonder she didn't want sex in the fall of 1934. She was pregnant for the first time in her life. And after the fall through the latter part of '34 and early '35, she had just had a baby. William Manson for a 24 year old didn't seem to have had much consideration for his wife or maybe some guys in those days just never considered that being with a baby all day was pretty draining and the last thing you might want to do as your body and mind is slowly coming back to where it was is cook, mop the floor and get in the sack.
Has the world really changed that much ?

Percival Buttermere said...

As in Don Leavy's 'Ginger Man'

Ah.
You know, for 27 years, I've been listening to a song by a guy called Ronnie Drew called "The Mero" {on the LP in question, there's about 4 reprises of the song} in which he references the ginger man and never knew what he was on about. Now, thanks to you, it makes sense !

Claire Robinson said...

Grim, you are obviously an extremely intelligent and empathetic man. But you are still a man with no idea at all what it is to be a young woman with a child!

Women were second class citizens. We still ate ffs!! Women were denied education and work. They were left high and dry with babes in arms.

I stand by rape. If consent is not FREELY given, it is rape.

Percival Buttermere said...

Grim

Not to be a pedant, which I am, but you'll have better luck looking up Ginger Man references if you search not on Don Leavy but [JP] Donleavy. It's a good read, but maybe a little dated - and very misogynist. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ginger_Man.

Apologies, Matt, if this was off topic.

grimtraveller said...

Claire Robinson said...

you are still a man with no idea at all what it is to be a young woman with a child!

I would have thought that was self evident !
That said, I was sticking up for Kathleen in the "no sex" contention. I'll say it again ~ if she didn't feel like sex in the fall of '34 and the early months of '35, that's not surprising. She was pregnant for part of it and recovering for the other part. I had a Mum, I have a wife, I have 2 sisters and several close female friends that have had kids. I've observed "matters" over a 41 year period and had some illuminating conversations.

Women were second class citizens. We still ate ffs!! Women were denied education and work. They were left high and dry with babes in arms

I don't recall disputing any of that. I'm not sure what you are arguing about.
In saying that however, I see nothing anywhere that states that Kathleen was denied a place in school or couldn't get work. Having the cards stacked against a person is no primary excuse for being a less than adequate Mum and giving your child away.

I stand by rape. If consent is not FREELY given, it is rape

It is rape when it happens. Not because it is expected. If a husband expects to make love with his wife, but she isn't up for it, rape isn't even on the radar. If he gets narky about it and isn't considerate, it may make him all kinds of adjectives ~ 'rapist' isn't one of them.

Claire Robinson said...

She was fifteen ffs! And rape just happens? Are you serious?? Rape is when men decide to abuse women! It doesn’t just HAPPEN! Like I said...you don’t have a fucking clue.

Claire Robinson said...

Grim for you to say rape just happens...😭 I used to think you were super smart but nope you aren’t.

Ah well....

grimtraveller said...

Claire Robinson said...

She was fifteen ffs!

What's your point ? That she didn't know enough to be sneaking out to dances and having sex with Colonel Scott ? That she didn't know enough to accept a marriage proposal ? That she showed her immaturity by lying about her age ?

And rape just happens? Are you serious??

Are you ? Has anyone in this thread even implied that rape just happens ?
Claire......
I don't mind if I say something daft and I get called out for it. But if you have to be the heavy, then at least be the heavy on what I've actually said.
Where did I say that rape just happens ? Are you actually a] reading what I actually wrote and b] attempting to understand what my point is ?

Rape is when men decide to abuse women!

So, if a guy decides that in order to not be "backchatted" to by any woman he's going to be physically violent and strike before he thinks he's struck, or be continually verbally abusive because he thinks males are superior to females, that's rape ?
I don't mean to be rude or seem condescending, but your definitions are way off.

It doesn’t just HAPPEN!

If by that you mean that rape in general is the final act in a process that may have begun long before, I have no argument with that. It's nuanced, but I can see the road being travelled. But until the rape actually takes place, you do not have a rapist. A guy who wants sex with his wife/girlfriend, or even expects it or nags for it to take place, but doesn't actually have sex and just complains about it or throw it in as grounds for a divorce, to say he is a rapist because his wife/girlfriend doesn't want to partake {and is therefore not freely giving consent}, is, well, let me be a dumb gent and just say "not right."

Like I said...you don’t have a fucking clue

I don't have a clue.....what you are het up about.

I used to think you were super smart

Well, I never did !

AstroCreep said...

Grim- some can o worms you opened up!

This is not defending either position, just a general statement. I see examples of this in pretty much everything- politics, television, movies, etc.

One can’t apply 2018 logic to an event that took place in 1935. Period.





grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

One can’t apply 2018 logic to an event that took place in 1935

In many instances of different subjects, that's true. But not always. Some things change because the prevailing mindsets or even individual mindsets change. But other things remain fairly constant.

some can o worms you opened up!

I know !
Still, I'd rather open up cans of worms than leopards !!