Juliann, Sophistry, and Rape

[_Yoda]

Hi Scratch! :)

I completely agree with your stance about the victim not being blamed in the case of rape. However, I think that you were pulling Elder Scott's remarks slightly out of context. The overall message of his talk is a good one. In a nutshell, his counsel is that if you are a victim of abuse, you should not continually play the victim throughout life. You should get help, and move on with your life. The only person who you hurt from vacillating in a state of defeat is you.

I honestly believe this. If you spend your time feeling bitter about the other person, or what they did to you, then the abuser really has won.

Here are some earlier excerpts from Elder Scott's same talk:

To be helped, you must understand some things about eternal law. Your abuse results from another’s unrighteous attack on your freedom. Since all of Father in Heaven’s children enjoy agency, there can be some who choose willfully to violate the commandments and harm you. Such acts temporarily restrict your freedom. In justice, and to compensate, the Lord has provided a way for you to overcome the destructive results of others’ acts against your will. That relief comes by applying eternal truths with priesthood assistance.

Know that the wicked choice of others cannot completely destroy your agency unless you permit it. Their acts may cause pain, anguish, even physical harm, but they cannot destroy your eternal possibilities in this brief but crucial life on earth. You must understand that you are free to determine to overcome the harmful results of abuse. Your attitude can control the change for good in your life. It allows you to have the help the Lord intends you to receive. No one can take away your ultimate opportunities when you understand and live eternal law. The laws of your Heavenly Father and the atonement of the Lord have made it possible that you will not be robbed of the opportunities which come to the children of God.

You may feel threatened by one who is in a position of power or control over you. You may feel trapped and see no escape. Please believe that your Heavenly Father does not want you to be held captive by unrighteous influence, by threats of reprisal, or by fear of repercussion to the family member who abuses you. Trust that the Lord will lead you to a solution. Ask in faith, nothing doubting. (See James 1:6; Enos 1:15; Moro. 7:26; D&C 8:10; D&C 18:18.)

I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty. You may be left scarred by abuse, but those scars need not be permanent. In the eternal plan, in the Lord’s timetable, those injuries can be made right as you do your part. Here is what you can do now.

[_maklelan]

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.

But that means that people don't carry any responsibility whatsoever for making a bad decision.

[_maklelan]

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.

I do not fathom how you can feel that only one person at a time can be ascribed responsibility for any given action. In the situation I outlined both people made bad decisions. One was to commit a horrible offense and the other was to put oneself in a situation with hightened risk. In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their decisions, whether that means a little for making an unwise decision or a bunch for making a horrendous and illegal decision. How in heaven or on earth do you interpret my argument to mean men are absolved of responsibility?

[_maklelan]

Yes, because people were upset, and the Brethren swept it under the rug.

Mentioning the story in the Ensign is sweeping it under the rug?

[_maklelan]

I'd like to cycle this argument back to the original point, which was this:

The real truth is that the Brethren do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight. Here is Elder Richard G. Scott:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."
- "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

(emphasis added)

What Elder Scott seems to be implying is that, yes, perhaps the wearing of "short skirts" makes the victim "responsible" to a degree. (An implication which I find reprehensible.) juliann wants to claim that this sort of argument is "nasty," "cheap," and "misogynistic," but the sad fact is that this is precisely what has been taught by Church leaders.

I questioned the honesty in long-jumping from that statement to "the real truth," and "this is precisely what has been taught by the church" in this manner:

Is it precisely that? You go from "seems to be implying" to "this is precisely what has been taught." That's a bit of a leap, and I believe there is quite a bit of eisegesis involved here. 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). He even gives us a scale of responsibility that says nothing about dress, but specifically addresses consent. Earlier he frames the context of the responsibility in terms of resisting or not. I think you're way off the mark here. This quote in no way addresses her objection.

Scratch rebutted by questioning my morals:

You apparently think that women who "go to college parties and get drunk" or "constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior" are "asking for it." What is "that kind of behavior," by the way? You have shot yourself in the foot, my friend. There is no justification for rape, regardless of what the Brethren may have told you.

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

Rather than answer the concern over his connection of Elder Scott's quote to the idea that women are to blame for rape, he insults my integrity and also manages to sneak in another swat at church leadership. In the middle of an argument about the validity of accusing the Brethren of teaching that principle he reasserts his thesis with no additional information just to take another jab at me.

Then, however, another person says almost verbatim the same thign that I did. Here are our quotes:

]You go from "seems to be implying" to "this is precisely what has been taught." That's a bit of a leap.

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'.

The onyl difference is he doesn't like Scott's statement, but the question isn't whether or not Scott's statement is valid, it's whether or not it means that the Brethren "do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight."

How does Scratch answer him?

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.

The commentary he quotes have absolutely nothing at all to do with rape, they have to do with modesty for the sake of being virtuous. Scratch, however, would like us to believe that all of this is catalyzed by his accusation that the Brethren "do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight." What is his only proof text for this accusation? A quote that liz and Fortiqurn don't think expresses that blame.

I'm gonna call Elder Scott's quote "A," and the other talks about earings and "walking pornography" "B." Now, saying that B is in place because the Brethren think of that kind of immodesty as promoting rape requires a proof text. On its own it only expresses exactly the wish that the Brethren state: don't dress immodestly because it offends other people and the spirit. You cannot derive Scratch's thesis from B completely on its own. Scratch finds his proof text in only one place: A. A must be valid if it is to support B, but B is here used to support A, which has been questioned. This is textbook circular reasoning, and it did its job:

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.

So Scott's statement alone doesn't work:

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.

So B is tangential unless it is synchronized with Scratch's thesis of A, but at the same time, A is only true for others when upheld by B.

So A can only reflect Scratch's thesis when upheld by B, and B can only reflect Scratch's thesis if upheld by A. Perfect.

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

What on earth are you taliing about? The Bishop's council wasn't "official," it was personal.

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

The bishop was "most likely right" to tell her she was fat?!?

No, he's most likely right in telling her that losing weight will improve her chances of getting a date. Do you think a fat girl who loses weight will be more likely to score a date, yes or no? Remove your appeals to emotion and please give me a yes or a no.

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?)

So you want me to express a knee-jerk reaction so I can experience this appeal to emotion, but you don't want me to experience it as it really happened, you want me to experience an imaginary situation because it will create a reaction that the real situation won't create. This is a blatant appeal to emotion. You might as well bear your testimony.

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

So you (a man) are going to tell a woman inside the church that she is incorrect in her emic perception of the church's treatment of women because your etic perception as a male is more enlightened? And your only proof text is a quote taken a thousand yards out of context and questioned by your own constituents?

Yes, after I asked you did. Thank you.

No problem.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I do not fathom how you can feel that only one person at a time can be ascribed responsibility for any given action. In the situation I outlined both people made bad decisions. One was to commit a horrible offense and the other was to put oneself in a situation with hightened risk. In my opinion, people should take responsibility for their decisions, whether that means a little for making an unwise decision or a bunch for making a horrendous and illegal decision. How in heaven or on earth do you interpret my argument to mean men are absolved of responsibility?

Because, Mak, your entire argument vis-a-vis risk depends upon this presupposition that men are "hardwired" to rape. And if they are "hardwired" this way, one cannot very well blame them for their behavior, eh? In any case, there seems to be some illogic involved in your assessment of the situation as "risky". I.e., is the situation "risky" in and of itself? Or is it "risky" due to evil behavior on the part of the males? If it is the latter, then it seems to me totally wrongheaded to place any blame on the women whatsoever.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, because people were upset, and the Brethren swept it under the rug.

Mentioning the story in the Ensign is sweeping it under the rug?

Yes, "swept it under the rug" in the sense that they excused the bishop's lack of tact. Once again, it is the girl who is blamed.

[_beastie]

Let's be clear about one thing - any girl who is not dating due to her weight already knows this is a problem and doesn't need someone else pointing it out to her. She sees it in the mirror every day and is likely already filled with self-loathing due to it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Let's be clear about one thing - any girl who is not dating due to her weight already knows this is a problem and doesn't need someone else pointing it out to her. She sees it in the mirror every day and is likely already filled with self-loathing due to it.

Then why did she need to ask the bishop why she couldn't get a date?

[_beastie]

Then why did she need to ask the bishop why she couldn't get a date?

I can only guess, but here it is: either the bishop was obsessed with female weight himself and inaccurately judged her weight to be the sole problem, or she was trying to convince herself that LDS men weren't so shallow they would discount her for that reason alone.

In my experience, LDS men, particularly at BYU, are some of the most shallow you can find. They are obsessed with female weight and a certain type of looks. I think this is due to the fact that they know they will only ever get to have sex with one woman the rest of their lives, so they are determined to get one that really, really is worth it.

I remember a big brouhaha in the BYU paper when I was out there due to some guy writing a letter to the editor sharing some sage advice his dad gave him. His dad told him to marry a pretty woman over a spiritual, but not pretty, woman. Why? You can teach a pretty woman to be spiritual, but you can't teach an ugly woman to be pretty.

Now I don't know if the writer was serious, but it was taken very seriously and debated with much emotion and passion for several days.