Oregon man spiked smoothies for daughter's 12-year-old friends with sedatives, affidavit says

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 280 points –
Oregon man spiked smoothies for daughter's 12-year-old friends with sedatives, affidavit says
nbcnews.com

Michael Meyden is accused of making the smoothies with benzodiazepine, a drug typically prescribed for anxiety, according to a probable cause affidavit.

An Oregon man accused of spiking smoothies with sedatives and giving them to his daughter’s pre-teen friends has been charged with multiple felonies, according to court documents.

Michael Meyden, 57, of Lake Oswego, allegedly drugged three of his daughter’s friends while they slept over on the night of Aug. 25, 2023, according to court documents and a probable cause affidavit filed this week in Clackamas County.

The girls, all 12 years old, were hospitalized and tested positive for benzodiazepine, described in the affidavit as a drug typically prescribed for anxiety, with common prescriptions under the names Valium, Xanax and Klonopin. Benzodiazepines are a depressant that produces sedation, sleepiness and a relaxed mood, the affidavit said.

103

You are viewing a single comment

Weirdly specific. I had an argument about this exact thing on a post a few weeks ago. There was someone who had a friend who lost was divorced by his wife (phrasing issue) and couldn't understand why other parents were wary of him hosting a sleepover for his daughter. He had done so many times as a married man but suddenly couldn't.

So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can't blindly trust every man they meet. There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.

Anyway, banning all sleepovers isn't the solution. Properly chaperoned sleepovers with two parents present should be fine.

[Edit: Yes, I realize that it's technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it's necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don't understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]

[Edit #2: I'm not engaging anyone else on the subject from this point. I have successfully fallen into the same trap of holding dudes' hands who don't understand that strange men do, in fact, pose a risk to women, and now my morning has been wasted.

I already elaborated this point more than enough. If you still feel the need to express how this offends you after you read down this thread, I would urge you to look elsewhere into women's perspectives on the subject before you just handwave it like these guys are trying to do.]

Explain to me how that is not sexist?

Here's the Oxford Dictionary of sexism:

sexism /ˈsɛksɪz(ə)m / ▸ noun [mass noun] prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex: sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way the culture sees women.

To burst your bubble, some of the most famous rapists and child molesters I know of had their wives help them. Women can be monsters too.

99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women

I really don't wish to rehash this. For the sake of simplicity, yes. It fits the technical definition of sexism. However, arguing that women shouldn't be wary of men they don't know because it might hurt someone's feelings is completely ridiculous, especially when the thing at stake is a woman or girl's safety.

I understand, believe me because I had to reassure several people multiple times, that women can also be monsters. That doesn't change the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly men.

This cannot be overstated. Even sexual assault against men is perpetrated 86% of the time by other men. See Page 32

I hesitate to even engage you on this because there's a fine line between logically arriving at the point that it is in fact sexist, and blindly extending the claim to the connotation that discrimination in that sense shouldn't exist at all. If you are going to argue the latter, I'm not going any further than this.

It is a difficult problem because using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders.

Imo it's more important to look at the percentage of crime in general. Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people. If you live your life by your statistics you shouldn't let your kids inside a car. Driving them to a sleepover is far more dangerous than the sleepover.

If you live your life like that

The reality is that women do.

using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders

No, this is a different thing. People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism. There are several other factors that play into that specific statistic, including the population density of black people in areas where crime is already high, and the likelihood of being economically disadvantaged just by being in a black family from generational poverty.

That stat specifically is simplified to a bare number and used as a bludgeon by racists.

Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people

I understand how you misinterpreted the point, given the actual subject of the post, but those statistics are about sexual assault in general. 1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. I'd say that's high enough number to warrant being aware of a situation where you, as a woman, might be vulnerable to that.

To relate to the point you're trying to make about comparing this to justifying racism with black crime stats, would you choose to walk through a neighborhood where the crime rate was high? Regardless of the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, is it morally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that you are not safe in certain areas because the statistical likelihood of being assaulted is higher?

Does the sentence "If I don't walk through this neighborhood then I must be prejudiced against the people here who don't commit crimes" make sense to you?

If the answer to all of those is no, then you can at least recognize the line of logic women have to be conscious of when they are faced with potentially being in a precarious situation around a man who they don't know.

People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism.

Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism. You don't consider the factors that cause men to be sexual predators. Because to you, the cause isn't your problem, being attacked is your problem. You can't have it both ways.

1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime.

100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).

Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism.

I have said several times already that it's sexism. That doesn't make it wrong to be cautious, nor is it justifying the fact.

Sexism in its barest definition exists in benign circumstances all around us. Why do men and women have different bathrooms? Different sports leagues? Different car insurance rates?

Arguing that sexism shouldn't exist for the sake of it in this specific case is selectively pushing equality in the face of women's safety.

100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).

Let's extend your logic on this: is it wrong to wear a seat belt given, statistically, that you will experience a car crash at some point? Because in effect, that's what this line of logic is.

Or are you just being obtuse? Because in order for this point to make sense, you'd have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood. Which is literally what this is about

Because to you, the cause isn't your problem

Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women. Yes, the fact that women are being attacked is the problem. The cause should not preclude women from taking measures to ensure their safety.

As long as I have spent clarifying this point, besides the misguided notion that we should push equality in a situation that is fundamentally unequal, I seriously don't understand how people don't get it.

Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women.

The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.

you’d have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood.

Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people. Saying "yeah it's sexism but it's justified because statistics show men commit more sexual assaults" is no different than saying you are wary of blacks based on the same statistics.

The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.

And because of this, it's not important for women to protect themselves? We should denounce the fact that women protect themselves because society has conditioned men to be violent?

Look, I'm all about addressing the root cause, but just pointing at one injustice in society doesn't make another just disappear.

Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people

You really need to stop saying "well if you're taking precautions based on statistics you must also be racist"

Because that's a really transparent fallacy that essentially just boils down to you asserting "women shouldn't protect themselves because what about black people?"

These are separate points, and putting the words in my mouth that I must be racist is nothing more than deflection to avoid addressing the actual point.

Again if you live your life by those statistics

Additionally, I know very many people who wear seat belts because of the statistical chance of being in a wreck. According to your fallacy, all of those people must also be racist.

women shouldn’t protect themselves because what about black people?”

The fallacy I'm trying to elaborate is mismatched risk. Cars are far more dangerous but you ignore that risk. You could choose to not be sexist just like you currently choose to ignore the statistics to not be racist.

1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact at least once in their lifetime. That's roughly 65 million women in the states.

That's not an insignificant risk. You may choose to ignore it, but you clearly don't have to live with it.

Saying "women should ignore potential danger" on the premise that it's not fair to a man, who is 9 times out of 10 not even effected by the precautions that women tend to take, is basically like saying you shouldn't wear a seat belt so that you don't accidentally offend the other drivers on the road.

You aren't discriminating against those other drivers by being conscious of your own safety.

Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really change the fact that women are taught to go to the bathroom in groups or go to the bar with friends (or really not go anywhere alone that they might not be able to easily call for help) or carry mace or cross the street to avoid a man that's looking at them creepily or any number of avoidant situations.

These are things women do to protect themselves that literally only affect the men who wanted to and would otherwise miss an opportunity to assault them, and things women are taught to do by other women because sexual assault is a thing that happens.

The only context things like this are even brought up as "sexist" at all is when men realize that women have to do it and then get offended on the behalf of all men because it's "not fair". Like in this conversation we're having now.

That sounds much more reasonable, but don't forget these numbers are also skewed by sexism, on many levels. Victims might not even realize they are victims. In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn't even considered rape.

Now, I don't believe the numbers are even close to 50/50 or that women don't have the right thing being wary. But being wary is one thing, simply banning all sleepovers at the house of single male parents is another. I'd still call that sexist.

In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn’t even considered rape

It wasn't defined as rape in the US until 2013. The FBI only considered "penetration" to be rape until the definition was revised, so national statistics didn't represent ANY female-on-male rapes, unless the female used a body part or object on the male victim's anus.

There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.

[Edit: Yes, I realize that it's technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it's necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don't understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]

I appreciate that you even understand that what you're saying is sexist and are self aware enough to realize it is and had to come up with a goalpost moving reason why your statement isn't actually sexist, really.

So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can't blindly trust every man they meet.

If you don't understand why people would be upset that people lost trust in their ability to not be a rapist just because their wife died, I think you need to take a full college course in empathy. This isn't "blindly trusting every man they meet" this is specifically "I no longer trust you because you don't have a woman in the house who would prevent you from being a pedophile", and is 10000% a sexist statement.

Fellas, is it wrong to fear for the safety of your children?

It's quite ironic of you to take that stance, on this post.

Yeah, it's sexist. That doesn't make taking precaution wrong. If you want clarification on that subject, go read the essay I wrote for the other guy. Or maybe ask a lady friend. Most women tend to understand this concept pretty well, given they have to live with it.

Yeah, no. None of my lady friends would tell me they'd stop trusting a dude to watch their kids because his wife died. Because I've seen how they treated a friend who had that happen after he lost his wife young to cancer. They supported the dude and he still got to let his daughter and friends hang out at his house and sleep over. Maybe that's just because they're not secretly sexist? Not everyone is so afraid of their own shadow that they'd abandon a friend like that.

Also, I'm only aware of 1 or 2 ladies in my friend group who haven't told me about being sexually assaulted, so believe it or not, I understand how common this is. But hey, what do I know about it, I'm just some guy whose had to comfort a partner and multiple friends after being assaulted. I haven't had to truly experience it.

Every racist and misogynist thinks their -ism is justified too. It's not that they know it's wrong and do it anyway.

To be clear, the man in question was divorced. Unknown reasons. Not widowed.

Also, I'm not over here saying that no man should ever be trusted in that situation. Just that I won't blame parents who do look at that situation and don't want their girls at that sleepover.

In any case, I'm pretty tired of arguing against the "secretly sexist" accusations. Call it what you want. The concept is out there, and you clearly understand it.

1 more...