Juliann, Sophistry, and Rape

[_maklelan]

Notice how he apparently thinks he can read her mind, and how, once again, "it's her own fault" that she is lonely. I think it is an enormous stretch indeed to label this bishop "sweet."

Are you really quoting him about it being "her fault," or are you just reading his mind for him? Instead of it being "her fault," why can't it be an opportunity for her to be proactive about the situation?

For that matter, why can't the young men in the ward be persuaded to be more "Reubenesque" in their taste in women?

That's council that is often given to young idealistic men.

Certainly an individual can be shown how to makes things better without feeling like something is their "fault."

How would you have suggested that the bishop handle the situation?

I don't know the details, and neither do you, so I don't think either of us is in a position to decide what should have been done. If she's a sensitive girl then maybe there would be another way to approach it. Either way, as has already been pointed out, the bishop was most likely right. Is this argument against the accuracy of his statement, the manner in which he shared it, or the reaction of the girl and her family?

Also, I notice that you completely disregarded my earlier response to your post....

I thought I responded to everything that was directed at me.

[_maklelan]

In case you need another example of insensitivity from the Brethren, Mak, here is Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, in one of my all time faves:

Another problem: an overweight girl from Ogden went to see her bishop. In the purity and goodness of charity, trying to help the girl, he counseled her that it might be a good idea to lose a few pounds.

Let's face it: The bishop was probably right! :-)

Shade---tsk tsk tsk! Not very nice!

Is this thread about reason or is it about emotion? I'm repeatedly told that the ability to decouple one's "passional" nature (as James called it) from one's logical nature is the very weight that holds the intellect of Mormonism pinned to the ground. Is it not so in this case?

Anyways, we have no way of knowing what the girls' actual problem was, since Elder Featherstone sets us up to think it was her weight from the outset. It's implied that she was complaining of loneliness, or perhaps male attention, but does that justify a crack about her weight? Methinks not.

But for some reason we do have cause to determine exactly the way in which the situation was mishandled?

[_Fortigurn]

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

No the accident is not partly your fault. The accident is, however, an event which you chose to risk in the full knowledge that circumstances prevailed which significantly heightened that risk.

[_Fortigurn]

I think it's a stretch to go from that grossly unenlightened comment by Scott to 'the Brethren do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight', and 'this is precisely what has been taught by Church leaders'.

I would be inclined to agree with you Fort, except that the bulk of the commentary by the Brethren on this and related subjects would seem to indicate that, yes, this is indeed how they feel on the matter. I am referring to a whole web of teachings that encompasses stuff as seemingly tangential as the "thou shalt wear only one pair of earrings," to Elder Oaks's, "walking pornography" talk, to Elder McConkie's "better dead than unchaste" talk, to BKP's "little factory" talk, etc., etc. Further, the insistence on control over girls and young women in the Church would seem to bear out my reading. Have you not heard of the "chewed up gum" lesson? Or the "licked cupcake" lesson?

Fair comment. On the basis of that additional evidence, I would be inclined towards the view that this is what church leaders taught. But I wouldn't have derived it from Scott's statement on its own.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

This is totally unrelated. First, a reckless driver running a red has nothing to do with rain.

Suppose the driver's recklessness is a result of the wet driving conditions....

Second, you can't just conjure up a situation that has a few loose parallels and insist that the essences of the situations are identical. If it's drizzling and I get hit by a car that spins out of control it's nobody's fault, it's an accident. If my wife tells me not to go driving in a blizzard and I do it anyway because I feel like it I will have to take responsibility for whatever happens.

Good. You have persuaded me. The analogy does not work because nature is more or less implacable, whereas human beings are not. Thus, you can perhaps see why I am troubled by your implication that young men are "hardwired" to rape. (See below.)

In a perfect world we would all be able to do what we want without having to factor in the bad decisions of others, but if I am fully aware that I am entering a situation that is highly risky I am partially responsible for taking that risk, because nobody thinks we live in a perfect world.

Of course, there is a significant difference between attending a frat party versus walking the more violent streets of Baghdad, though, eh? Or would you beg to differ?

I could dream up a million situations that show that making decisions gives you responsibility, just like you could think up a million that do the opposite, but that's not gonna win any arguments.

Fair enough.

I find it enormously troubling, Mak, that you would ever see such behavior as "inevitable."

Which behavior do you mean?

See your post above. Viz:

I've always understood this text to refer to women who put themselves in places and states of mind that make inevitable that kind of behavior (like women who go to college parties and get drunk, or constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior).

(emphasis added)

Am I misreading this? Or are you saying that the "inevitable" consequence of going to a college party and getting drunk is rape? Please clarify this for me, Mak. It sounds as if you are saying that men are "hardwired" to rape. Or am I wrong?

What I am saying is (frat guys) + (college girls) + (alcohol) at some point or another = rape.

Why is this so? And, more importantly, how is this in any way the girl(s) fault? I ask you again: Do you think young men are "hardwired" to rape?

Rather than throw myself into the middle of that equation I can see the risk and decide not to. If I go ahead anyway I have decided that I am willing to take the risk.

Your rebuttal is not very persuasive, imho. This is sort of like saying that the Church knows that it will be seen as being dishonest if it does not open the books, and so it is therefore the Church's own fault if it gets accused of dishonesty. (Which really cuts to the chase vis-a-vis my OP.) Likewise, everyone knows that telling investigators about Joseph Smith's moneydigging will scare them off; therefore, the Church's failure to tell investigators about this is dishonest. (And accusations of this are the Church's own fault.) See what I mean?

[_Mister Scratch]

Notice how he apparently thinks he can read her mind, and how, once again, "it's her own fault" that she is lonely. I think it is an enormous stretch indeed to label this bishop "sweet."

Are you really quoting him about it being "her fault," or are you just reading his mind for him? Instead of it being "her fault," why can't it be an opportunity for her to be proactive about the situation?

For that matter, why can't the young men in the ward be persuaded to be more "Reubenesque" in their taste in women?

That's council that is often given to young idealistic men.

*Official* council? I don't think so. You are going to have to cite a source if you expect me to believe this.

Certainly an individual can be shown how to makes things better without feeling like something is their "fault."

How would you have suggested that the bishop handle the situation?

I don't know the details, and neither do you, so I don't think either of us is in a position to decide what should have been done. If she's a sensitive girl then maybe there would be another way to approach it. Either way, as has already been pointed out, the bishop was most likely right.

The bishop was "most likely right" to tell her she was fat?!? If your overweight daughter went to the bishop and said, "I feel lonely," would you really approve if he said, "Well, that's because you're fat and unattractive"??? (Even if he did not say this exactly, it is implicit in his sentiments as relayed by Elder Featherstone. C'mon, fellas---you would have to be awfully naïve to think that this would pass muster with most women. Have you not heard the question, "Do I look fat in these jeans?" Moreover, do you not know what the answer to that question is?)

Is this argument against the accuracy of his statement, the manner in which he shared it, or the reaction of the girl and her family?

None of the above. The argument is against the Church's insensitivity towards women. And against juliann's hypocrisy.

Also, I notice that you completely disregarded my earlier response to your post....

I thought I responded to everything that was directed at me.

Yes, after I asked you did. Thank you.

[_Mister Scratch]

In case you need another example of insensitivity from the Brethren, Mak, here is Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, in one of my all time faves:

Another problem: an overweight girl from Ogden went to see her bishop. In the purity and goodness of charity, trying to help the girl, he counseled her that it might be a good idea to lose a few pounds.

Let's face it: The bishop was probably right! :-)

Shade---tsk tsk tsk! Not very nice!

Is this thread about reason or is it about emotion? I'm repeatedly told that the ability to decouple one's "passional" nature (as James called it) from one's logical nature is the very weight that holds the intellect of Mormonism pinned to the ground. Is it not so in this case?

Anyways, we have no way of knowing what the girls' actual problem was, since Elder Featherstone sets us up to think it was her weight from the outset. It's implied that she was complaining of loneliness, or perhaps male attention, but does that justify a crack about her weight? Methinks not.

But for some reason we do have cause to determine exactly the way in which the situation was mishandled?

Yes, because people were upset, and the Brethren swept it under the rug. Coupled with the other teachings on this subject which I have already alluded to, I think it is quite clear that the "situation was mishandled."

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

No the accident is not partly your fault. The accident is, however, an event which you chose to risk in the full knowledge that circumstances prevailed which significantly heightened that risk.

I very much like your straightforwardness here, Fort. This is why I have repeatedly been asking Mak: "Are men 'hardwired' to rape?" It seems to me that his argument relies a great deal upon absolving male rapists of any responsibility. Sort of like how the LDS Church operates.

[_Fortigurn]

You've made some telling points Mister Scratch. This is a very worthwhile thread.

[_Runtu]

You've made some telling points Mister Scratch. This is a very worthwhile thread.

Unfortunately, there is an institutionalized disregard (if not sometimes outright contempt) for women in the church. From birth, we were taught that a woman's primary role (her crowing glory, as it were) is to give birth and raise children. Men are to be educated, have careers, provide for the family, and lead the church.

I've always loved this statement from Hartman Rector of the Seventy:

In order to attempt to get the male somewhere near even, Heavenly Father gave him the Priesthood, or directing authority for the Church and home. Without this bequeath, the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence. In fact, [he] would probably be eaten by the female, as is the case with the black widow Spider.

In the examples Scratch gave (and I've heard them all and more), the underlying assumption is that the woman or girl has to walk a fine line between attracting a suitable mate and being the target of rape. Notice how the responsibility is almost always on the girl. Don't let anyone lick your cupcake (that sounds vaguely dirty); you can take the nails out of a board, but the holes remain; a piece of paper stained with ink doesn't come clean easily.

In short, in these stories, the male is always the actor and the female is the one acted upon. But in some strange way, it's the female's fault for putting herself in that position in the first place.