Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

There are different ways to reverse this, superior female and employee male, which party wants to end it. I would say as soon as one side wants to end a relationship then the other needs to accept it is over.

I am trying really hard not to see that the alleged superior must do whatever the subordinate wants in the situation, but so far that looks like what the argument boils down to.

[Kishkumen]

What I can’t understand is why widely disparate parties would find this an effective brickbat with which to destroy John Dehlin nine years after the fact.

Well, that's because you are a misogynist, consig. Pure and simple. You don't understand the complexity and nuance of sexual abuse. Once you understand and agree with JP's conviction that John Dehlin is a diabolically evil perpetrator of sexual outrages, then you will stop asking these questions.

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[Kukulkan]

Will there be a stained blue dress at some time in the future? https://images.app.goo.gl/YNjt33MCryQLb82x5

No. They preferred to have "naked sexual interactions". The semen ended up on the sheets or on one or both of them.

Don't forget the 'faux sexting' foreplay!

[consiglieri]

What I can’t understand is why widely disparate parties would find this an effective brickbat with which to destroy John Dehlin nine years after the fact.

Well, that's because you are a misogynist, consig. Pure and simple. You don't understand the complexity and nuance of sexual abuse. Once you understand and agree with JP's conviction that John Dehlin is a diabolically evil perpetrator of sexual outrages, then you will stop asking these questions.

My bad.

[Lem]

This continued emphasis on how the victim behaved, what she thinks, how she responded, followed by multiple psychological interpretations is really getting uncomfortable. Kish, I believe, recently pointed out that such psychological evaluations of Peterson are inappropriate, I believe that assessment holds here as well.

There is arguably a case of sexual harassment here, which the Open Stories Foundation board and John Dehlin handled very, very badly, possibly even illegally. Sadly, it seems there is not much that can be done now, other than to release information. That's been done.

No matter how badly Rosebud and her supporters act, responding to the accusation of sexual harassment by repeatedly and viciously dissecting the behavior, words and actions of the victim when she was responding to said sexual harassment is very, very one-sided. This continued bashing of the victim is why victims don't come forward. I also don't agree with the continued attacks on John Dehlin. He and the board got away with something that really doesn't seem to be fixable now. Letting it go doesn't mean John Dehlin gets off scot-free, his reputation with me, at least, is severely tarnished. But it's time to let it go.

Respectfully, I am not sure that I can go so far as you are in arguing that John Dehlin sexually harassed Rosebud. I will agree that there is arguably a case to be made, and I am happy to see it made. At this point, I am arguing against that case, but I could be convinced otherwise.

Furthermore, if a statute does not apply, it does not apply, whether we feel it should apply or not.

I agree, I posted a similar statement about the penalties of the statute not applying some pages back but this conversation is getting so convoluted!

I disagree that the fact that Open Stories Foundation did not yet have a written policy regarding sexual harassment means that sexual harassment could not have occurred.

....Also, sexual harassment can occur without it being written down. The written part just spells out the penalties, it doesn't magically bring the behavior into or out of existence based on whether penalty for it is in the rules at exactly the moment it happened.

If you want me to agree that John Dehlin is kinda slimy and inclined to exercise poor restraint in his relationships with women who are not his wife, I can definitely get on board with that. It seems to me, however, that we need to decide whether the term sexual harassment is being judged by statute (at X point in time), current mores, or a company policy (at Y point in time). I can't be persuaded to apply whichever standard at any given time (not that you would ask me to). This is why I am, for my own clarity, removing the term sexual harassment from consideration.

I would be grateful if you would tell me which standard you are applying (law, current mores, present Open Stories Foundation policy) so I can be clear what it is we are arguing for here. If you were to say, current mores or present Open Stories Foundation policy, I would say, OK, but what does that mean in terms of the appropriate outcome for something that happened in 2012? I know you have in some ways been painfully clear on this, but I still sense there is a lot of inadvertent sliding around in the conversation, not from you, but in terms of how others may be interpreting you.

I know, I am trying to be as clear as possible but I am also seeing certain words of others getting used as ammunition in the black or white approach, which weakens any point being made.

I would say that my assessment is closer to current mores, with the stipulation that current doesn't mean right, but rather that I am trying to get to an actual assessment of behavior between two parties in a work environment. As an example of what I mean by current, I never watched the show Mad Money, but I get the impression that their "current mores" would certainly excuse this behavior by John Dehlin. In that sense, using the term 'current' doesn't feel inclusive enough.

Honestly, I have spent a lot more time reading John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks and dissecting their words than I have Rosebud's. I generally don't get much from reading Rosebud, and I have not learned a whole lot from what she has said for a decade. The more I read John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks, the thinner the margin in favor of Rosebud's accusation becomes, in my opinion. I have been watching John Dehlin and Rosebud for years now, and I have yet to see evidence that looks unequivocally damning of Rosebud's alleged bad guys. What I see is that John Dehlin is kinda cis-gender hetero and sexist in a garden variety way, and that he lacks good judgment and restraint.

i agree about the thinning margin, but still, 'sexist in a garden variety way' does a lot of damage that I think is worth speaking up against.

Rosebud has made her psychology an issue by talking about it . . . a lot. DCP doesn't really spend a lot of time ruminating on his own psychology, and so people generally go after his psychology because they don't like him. I have no reason to dislike Rosebud or JP. On any other topic on any other day, we would probably get along well. Why they will attack me now is because I oppose their crusade against Dehlin, which I do think is deeply personal, clearly psychological, and obviously very echo/post-Mormon.

No argument there. And I've made my fair share of psychological assessments of Rosebud, particularly when she doxxes herself here, as I posted earlier. My concern at this point is for the victims of sexual harassment in general, who I believe should not be on trial for their (irrelevant)response to specific acts being considered as possible sexual harassment. Rosebud herself, as you rightly pointed out, has made her own psychology an issue numerous times.

[drumdude]

Honest question, at what point does what Rosebud is doing to Dehlin become harassment? Does she have carte-blance to continue this for the rest of their lives?

Wait a few years, release a few more texts. Few more years, few more texts. It kind of has revenge porn vibes with how explicit the texts are.

[Lem]

If Rosebud had ceased and desisted as John Dehlin asked, there is no reason to suspect the board would ever have gotten involved.

Rosebud could still have been working for Open Stories Foundation doing the thing she loved if she had just backed down when asked and cooled her jets.

Sexual harassment can be a two-way street.

I didn't see this from earlier in the thread, until someone quoted it. So if Rosebud had submitted to the requests of her superior to stop bothering him after he decided that their affair had ended, she would have been ok?

The two way street part I assume refers to the idea that 1) a superior can have an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, and 2) when the superior decides it's over the subordinate can "decide" to go along, because she knows if she speaks up she will lose her job?

The presumptions in this statement about how women should 'behave' just sicken me.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a false accusation? Are you saying there is no way a "subordinate" could blackmail a "superior" with a false claim?

Honestly, I think you are reading a whole lot into consig's post that is not there. He is not suggesting that an actual victim of sexual harassment should just keep their mouth shut to keep their job. I think he is saying that, to the contrary, it is possible for a person to play victim in order to blackmail a "superior."

And, yes, I agree with consig that it is possible.

Actually no, I did not AT ALL get from consig's statements that they should be taken as "it is possible for a person to play victim in order to blackmail a "superior."

To me, telling a women she should have "backed down when asked", and to "stop" when her superior tells her stop, all so she can keep her job, are very specific statements that constitute sexual harassment.

If the argument is that a woman who speaks up in defiance of such orders can then be assumed to be blackmailing a superior, I disagree with that also.

[consiglieri]

Honest question, at what point does what Rosebud is doing to Dehlin become harassment? Does she have carte-blance to continue this for the rest of their lives?

Wait a few years, release a few more texts. Few more years, few more texts. It kind of has revenge porn vibes with how explicit the texts are.

Follow up question:

Rosebud has publicly released a “structured interview” claiming John Dehlin couldn’t get it up on one occasion and prematurely ejaculating on another.

Does this qualify as sexual harassment?

Or just tit for splat?

[Kishkumen]

I would say that my assessment is closer to current mores, with the stipulation that current doesn't mean right, but rather that I am trying to get to an actual assessment of behavior between two parties in a work environment. As an example of what I mean by current, I never watched the show Mad Money, but I get the impression that their "current mores" would certainly excuse this behavior by John Dehlin. In that sense, using the term 'current' doesn't feel inclusive enough.

OK. Thanks. That helps. I hated Mad Men. I found it very difficult to watch. Yes, I think that behavior might make John Dehlin's seem trivial by comparison. In other words, I don't see him as having attained that "Mad Men" level of sexism in his affair with Rosebud. I think he was stupid to have an affair with a volunteer and not to think through the consequences of continuing the affair after she became an employee, thereby heading off a really bad situation before it could become potentially catastrophic. Since I do not approve of any of his bad behaviors, including having a consensual affair, I can only think of things in terms of how objectionable they are in various ways. I don't find any of it "OK."

i agree about the thinning margin, but still, 'sexist in a garden variety way' does a lot of damage that I think is worth speaking up against.

Sure. I don't agree with it. It is exceptionable behavior. On the other hand, I don't approve of cynically using the claim as an axe to settle old scores.

My concern at this point is for the victims of sexual harassment in general, who I believe should not be on trial for their (irrelevant) response to specific acts being considered as possible sexual harassment. Rosebud herself, as you rightly pointed out, has made her own psychology an issue numerous times.

I don't see how dubious accusations help victims of sexual harassment. There are very few situations in which I think this is the case, but I have seen instances in which employees have cynically used Title IX and sexual harassment claims to attack coworkers. These things do happen. They harm everyone. My read on this situation is that Rosebud, JP, and KK are harming victims by leveling dubious or marginal accusations. The simple fact that JP, who seems to be the most invested in helping Rosebud out, is also rattling off all of John Dehlin's other bad deeds really undermines his claim that this is all about victims of sexual abuse. This is about revenge. I don't see how it is not about revenge for both of them.

I don't think any of us are putting victims of sexual harassment on trial here. We are putting Rosebud and JP on trial for their cynical exploitation of sexual harassment victims. They are bootstrapping.