Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[drumdude]

PDFs:
Work Feedback https://anonymousfiles.io/gkqb54GX/
Earliest Facebook Chats https://anonymousfiles.io/de1sAt76/
Facebook Chats Summer 2011 https://anonymousfiles.io/ZHysJUNI/
Invitation to conference: https://anonymousfiles.io/L1bFTfTi/
Book club details: https://anonymousfiles.io/BIYUpnY5/
Open Stories Foundation Financials: https://anonymousfiles.io/7QBzvOmi/
June 2011 conference: https://anonymousfiles.io/JAKu1bQo/

Website backup with PDFs: https://anonymousfiles.io/0CmAgYK9/

The rest of the misc. PDFs: https://anonymousfiles.io/mq3EifDi/

[drumdude]

Started a Wiki, each document will have a page for discussion.


http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

[consiglieri]

Looks like Rosebud has yet to release her text messages from 8-9-12.

Instead she wants to argue about their contents based on communications from the following day.

It would seem easiest and most straightforward for Rosebud to publish the texts from 8-9-12 so we can see whether they track what JD provided.

Her failure to do so makes me tend to think they are identical for all intents and purposes.

[pistolero]

Started a Wiki, each document will have a page for discussion.


http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

What an amazing effort to solve this once and for all. I wonder if such a case has ever been tried over editable webpages?

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

The whole idea of retroactively revoking consent is highly problematic from a legal standpoint.

For instance, a suspect may consent to search of her residence by police if police do not have a warrant. And even if police have insufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant.

But should the suspect not like the fact police found incriminating evidence in the course of the search, it is unavailing to argue for a retroactive withdrawal of consent so as to make the search unlawful.

How could police function in a landscape where consent can be revoked after the fact?

How could society function, based as it is so much on contracts and agreements?

And more to the point, how can anyone rely on consent to have sexual contact with another when that consent can be retroactively revoked after the act itself is completed?

Is this really the kind of world we want to live in?

Where civil and criminal liability can attach, not on what was reasonably related at the time of the event, but whether a consenting party has second thoughts thereafter?

Really, consiglieri? Really?? That's a total strawman. Nobody is arguing that anyone ought to be prosecuted for "retroactively revoked consent." It would hardly matter anyway. Rapists are rarely even brought up on charges, let alone convicted and, in those one-off cases, (like Brock Turner, caught in the act of literally damned an unconscious body), they don't get sentences.

Women long ago gave up on law enforcement or the courts to effectively resolve issues of consent. And maybe it's not even possible (the law is a blunt instrument), but I suspect if men were the predominant victims of this, there would be volumes of ponderous legal treatises parsing the finer details of sexual consent.

Nobody's even arguing that "retroactively revoking consent" is a real thing. Are you seriously suggesting that a woman might not realize until afterwards that, say, the date who keeps pushing her and groping her and ignoring her verbal "No, I don't want to," until she finally gives up and just lets him get it over with was, in fact, sexually assaulting her?

That's not "retroactively revoking consent." It's realizing in a more clear-headed moment that simply getting in the car with her date did NOT constitute consent, which she wouldn't have been so confused about if the entire goddamn culture wasn't constantly shoving it down her throat that virtually anything we do (things that I, personally, simply regard as going about my life) are tacit consent to any man who happens to be around, because "we weren't making safe decisions."

Translation: It's all on you, girls, to prevent him from licking your cupcake.

I mean this sincerely, if you (or anyone) aren't understanding what I'm saying here, I'm willing to provide further explanation. For now, I'll give just one example, and I promise it will relate in the end to this nonsense about "retroactively revoking consent."

I enjoy traveling alone, without my male partner. Every. Single. Time., without exception, I hear things like, "It's not safe for you to come here alone! Now, don't go over there to that place, or over to that other place, and don't go visit that site! Here, take someone along with you!" (Frequently my proposed guardian is a man I've never met before...but, sure, that really sounds like a super safety plan!)

In one instance, while traveling with a group, the group attempted to set rules that the women (only the women) had to check in and out of camp with our location and let the entire group know via public whiteboard if we brought any men back to our sleeping quarters. All "for our own protection," natch. Never mind that I am long past the age of legal majority. I don't require and did not request a chaperone. I am well within my rights to refuse to publicize my sex life to a bunch of strangers. And I don't feel I should have to circumscribe my movements and activities because, if I don't and I happen to get raped....well....hey, I wasn't being safe, right?

Logic this one out here, just for a moment. If I were warned to limit my activities (or to bring a chaperone or whatever), and I did not do so, and I happen to be sexually assaulted (the chances of which are vanishingly small; any number of other problems are far more likely to befall me, but no one ever mentions them), but let's say it happens. If ANY portion of blame for that can be assigned to me, even the teeny tiniest little bit, that means my mere presence in that location in a female body constituted consent to ANY AND EVERY MAN who happened to be around.

I always get confused looks when I first explain this, but it's really quite simple and it's an unavoidable conclusion. If I skip the chaperone and go tooling off into the national park all by myself, and that means, let's say, 3% of the blame for any subsequent a-rapin' can be assigned to such reckless behavior on my part as having hobbies, then that means I consented to all and sundry just by virtue of bringing my vagina along with me.

There is literally no other possible way that that 3% of blame could possibly be assigned to me. See how that works? I mean, what else did I do to get that 3% of the blame?

Now to bring it back around as I promised, this relates because it's the direct cause of why women all too often do not realize that sexual assault is what's happening to them until after the fact. We are blamed at every single solitary turn for every goddamn thing we do. So of course we internalize some of that blame. Some of the loudest advocates for the "bring a chaperone" crap are other women. We've learned to accept that blame. Of course, if I did bring along that man I just met, and he happened to rape me, then I'd be blamed for wandering off with a complete stranger. So there's no possible way to win here.

And it's constant. The places that we "cannot safely go" is infinite. Everywhere but our homes pretty much, which is, ironically, the place a woman is most likely to be sexually assaulted.

So, yeah, sorry, but, when you “F” with our heads that much, don't be surprised when we get a little bit confused sometimes about the implications of exactly what's happening in the moment. That's not "retroactively revoking consent." It is truly insulting, consiglieri, to suggest that women are claiming such nonsense even exists.

I have a ton of respect for you. I love your podcast. I appreciate that you did J-D a real solid, because he does not deserve what's happening to him right now. I trust that, while maybe you've never thought of it quite this way before, you'll understand what I'm saying.

I only ask that you please not come back with how, while that may all be true, it won't work in a legal setting. Sexual violence goes through the legal process so incredibly rarely that it's irrelevant. If we even tried to call the cops for every unwanted and unsolicited grope and grab....well, there would be no point, and the results would be far more distressing than it's even worth.

Mostly, I'm just asking you to please listen and hear what I just said, with the awareness that our life experiences are very, very different.

[consiglieri]

That is a very long and impassioned response to an argument I did not make.

I am arguing that consent clearly and reasonably given in the moment should not be permitted to be withdrawn after the fact.

And unfortunately this sort of thing does happen.

I am not arguing that coercive tactics that are successful in accomplishing their goal should serve as a substitute for consent.

I hope that makes my position more clear.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Consig,

Have you or your podcast partner reached out to Rosebud for a show? It'd be kind of awesome.

- Doc

[consiglieri]

Consig,

Have you or your podcast partner reached out to Rosebud for a show? It'd be kind of awesome.

- Doc

Awesome?

In an amorphous, unsubstantiated sort of way!

LOL!!!

Maybe we should ask James Patterson to bring back her response?

Except we are still waiting on Mr. Patterson to inform us what Rosebud says JD can say or do to put this whole affair behind her...

Baby steps down the street.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

That's a pretty compelling argument, consiglieri, although I will note that these days most are understandably inclined to take a woman's word when she has claimed that she revoked consent at some point

Oh, my God! You men are the dizzy limit!

No, Kish....no, I'm afraid that's a bit of a PC smokescreen. The truth is, most of the time, we just don't tell you guys when it happens. And in these sorts of discussions, sure, I might get an obligatory pat-on-the-head. But truly inclined to listen to and believe our experiences of sexual violence without either eyes glazing over or acting like we're being harpy bitches about it? Nope. Still extraordinarily rare, I'm afraid.

I'm always astounded at the extent to which men underestimate rates of sexual violence (i.e., the spectrum from that dude at work who pretends to fellate objects while smirking, to the quotidian gropes and grabs, to penetrative rape).

This stuff has happened to every woman you know. And to most of the girls. The first two types I listed above are so commonplace they're hardly even worth remarking on. Get on a bus and grab the overhead handle? Some guy grabs your tit. Out dancing with girlfriends? Some guy comes up and starts humping your butt.

This, right here in this moment, is what "Believe Women" is actually all about. It doesn't mean believe every single thing every single woman says no matter how preposterous or unsupported by evidence.

It means realize you don't see this stuff because you are largely shielded from it. Listen to our experiences. Adjust your baseline assumptions accordingly. And if you really want to go the extra mile, talk to other men you know about it.

[consiglieri]

Let me add to my above response to SV that I do understand it is a dangerous world out there, and more so for women than for men.

It should not be that way but it is.

I do not believe that a woman’s clothing or location or who she is or is not with serve as a substitute for consent.

Only her consent freely and knowing given serves as consent. Nothing else.

I know a retired male former prosecutor who refuses to allow a situation where he is alone with a strange woman, including babysitters, so as to avoid the potential for unfounded claims of misconduct against him.