Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
SaturdaysVoyeur
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 7:24 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by SaturdaysVoyeur »

jpatterson wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 12:17 am
consiglieri wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 9:25 pm
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 John Dehlin can say or do to put this whole affair behind her...
This is an infantile argument and I grew tired of it pages ago.

Nowhere have I suggested that I speak for Rosebud. True, I have attempted to put myself in her shoes within the context of this discussion thread, but I have never presumed to know her every thought and desire, have never appointed myself her spokesperson and have never suggested that I act in any way as her mouthpiece. That's simply a nice trope you and your friends here have built up to tear down the many arguments I have brought here that have, over the course of almost 200 pages, now become adopted by those more eloquent than me.

For example, I was talking about the role consent plays in this controversy a hundred pages ago. I was making the point of power imbalances a week ago. I'm grateful that Lem and Esme and SatrudaysVoeyeur and others have been able to come and make my points in a more salient way than I have (I'll never be able to argue from a point of dispassion about this subject...unlike you I am able to admit as such).

Defending someone's position is not the same as speaking for them. The problem is that I know you know this. And I know that you know it's no one's job to tell John Dehlin what the right thing to do here is. I know that you're not arguing the above point in good faith.

Also, just an aside to say I very much appreciate SaturdaysVoyeur's contributions to the thread over the last few pages and have taken her/his words to heart, especially as it relates to my perceived role in further victimizing and/or taking advantage of Rosebud. I know my intent, and I know my actions and I will just say that there have been a lot of assumptions over the course of this thread (which I have neither the time or energy to rebut) that have now become accepted as fact. I know they are not fact, and my job is not to convince anyone that they are not.
Why, thank you, James. I appreciate the kind words. When I first saw you'd mentioned me, I thought, oh, crap---he does know that I believe the J-D/Rosebud relationship was entirely mutually consensual, doesn't he?

Although I no longer believe, if I ever really did, that she was scheming to blackmail J-D or that this is all rooted in some kind of screwed-up grudge on her part. I've kinda been chewing over a new thought about all that that I haven't even had a chance to post yet.

Anyway, I'm glad we could reach across the aisle and that I said something that resonated with you. I really do have a lot of empathy and compassion for Rosebud. I'm concerned about her (esp with regards to the cutting) and I'm glad she has a friend in you. Everybody needs some friends in their corner. Please be good to her.

I'm also glad you're back, because everybody seems really tired and crabby, so now you can be everybody's bitch for a while, ok? We'll trade off :D
Esme
Sunbeam
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 9:36 pm

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Esme »

Consig’s post about “retroactively revoking consent” bothered me because literally no one here was arguing in favor of that. So I don’t understand why he brought it up?

No one here is arguing that Rosebud should be allowed to freely give her consent at one time and then later retroactively decide to take that consent back.

Some people here are arguing that she MAY have given consent under coercion.

Which Consig agrees is a thing that can happen and is not what he’s talking about.

So Consig, why write a post about something no one here was arguing in the first place?
Esme
Sunbeam
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 9:36 pm

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Esme »

jpatterson wrote:
Sun May 16, 2021 8:01 pm
The Stig wrote:
Sun May 16, 2021 7:57 pm
Then answer the damn question - What is the end game?
To bother you. It's clearly working.
Oh man, you shouldn't have written this, JP.

Looks like Kishkuman has decided to try and get your goat in response. :lol:
User avatar
SaturdaysVoyeur
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 7:24 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by SaturdaysVoyeur »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 3:30 am
SaturdaysVoyeur wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 2:55 am

Have you ever seen those obnoxious "Rape Prevention Tips"? They're often contradictory and virtually impossible to live by. They dramatically restrict women's lives and activities (as if the threat of rape is our problem, so we have to rearrange our entire lives to "prevent" it). And they ignore the actual circumstances of the vast majority sexual assaults (usually perpetrated by a spouse, partner, or friend), so these "tips" don't even work.

Some examples include: Don't go anyplace by yourself (like I want or need a 24/7 babysitter). Don't go outside at night, even in your own yard (tricky during the winter when the sun sets while I'm still at work, plus my dog is going to piss in the house). Don't walk through parking garages. Don't walk near anyplace where someone could be hiding, like near parked cars. Don't talk on your phone, so as to be aware your surroundings. Look confident! (Because no one has ever raped a woman with a power strut!)

And those are the semi-sane ones. Some of them get truly nutty, like the old chestnut of carrying your car keys between your fingers (apparently to poke the would-be rapist into submission). Don't post any identifying information about yourself on social media. (Sorry, Mom, you don't get to see pics of the grandkids, because there might be a rapist stalking me on Facebook!) Never carry a purse, but always hide anything valuable. (I guess I have to hide that phone I'm not supposed to be using in my cleavage.)

I literally could not live my life if I attempted to abide by even some of this garbage. authority on that. I don't think that's too big of an ask.
I thought you were going strong right up to this point.

Is this your version of making an argument? You literally couldn't live your life if you attempted to live by even some of those precautions? You're joking, right?

Grandma can't get kids pics unless they're posted to Facebook? You don't have email or text messages? No Facebook privacy settings or messenger? You've never carried your cell phone in your bra? Ever? Do you walk through parking garages alongside parked cars? Do you have an alarm on your key fob?

You act as though everyone else is responsible for your personal safety except for you. Do you feel the same about defensive driving practices? Do you lock your doors at night?

What, if any, personal safety precautions are you willing to take?
Really? So, you pluck out the most frivolous of the "rape prevention tips" I happened to mention (I found one website with 195 of them!!), and you're using that as though I meant I would physically perish without Facebook? Oh, c'mon...that is SO transparently intellectually dishonest. It's beneath you.

But, ok, I said I would respond to questions, so if you really think this one requires some clarification:

For starters, I don't bother with any "personal safety precautions" that don't work. They have to address the most prevalent hazards involved with actual results. ("Personal safety precautions" is a phrase that you threw in there out of thin air. That's not what these are and you know it, because it was the whole point of my post that you're replying to. They're specifically billed as "rape prevention tips.")

Stranger rape is exceptionally rare. A woman is much more likely, by orders of magnitude, to be sexually assaulted by her spouse or partner. The chances of a rapist jumping out at me from underneath a parked car is approximately zero. Just as I wouldn't attempt to protect myself from extreme temperatures by spraying myself down with insect repellent, I'm not going to attempt to protect myself from violence with silly theatrics.

So, #1: There needs to be a reasonable connection between the safety precautions I'm willing to take and the hazard I'm aiming to prevent.

Second, I'm unwilling to apply a "cure" that would have a far greater net negative effect on my quality of life than the "disease." Of course, you knew perfectly well that I wasn't suggesting I would die without Facebook. (And oddly enough, I don't even use Facebook, so you picked an inapplicable "tip" to try to score that cheap point.) But why should you have to give up social media if you want to use it? Do you really believe that's gonna keeps the rapists at bay?

Seriously, how would you go about your life if you attempted to apply even a handful of the other ones I mentioned? You can't go anyplace where you're going to be alone, or if you are, you must bring someone else with you. Of course, the person you choose to bring with you might be the rapist, but let's not let logic interfere with the idiocy of this.

I remember some years back, somebody was trying to argue these "rape prevention tips" with me, and when I pointed out that the friend you might choose for your Personal Pussy Protector could actually be a violent person. She---and, yes, it was a woman; internalized misogyny is real, y'all!---she replied that it would STILL be my fault, because I should have chosen better friends. Wow.

Moving on. So, you cannot go outside at night, even into your own yard. And how exactly are you going to get to and from your car if you can't go through any parking garages and can't walk alongside parked cars on the street? Oh, and you can't carry any purses or bags. And no talking on your cell phone; it might distract from your awareness of all the rapists!

This crap is bonkers. It circumscribes a woman's activities to a level more closely associated with Pakistan or Yemen. Both of which, incidentally, have very high rates of sexual assault. (See #1: This crap doesn't work.)

Most importantly, I wouldn't even entertain any "safety tips" that are entirely, 100%, somebody else's goddamn responsibility and for which I have no responsibility and no ability to prevent. I mean, tell me, Jersey Girl: How much responsibility should I have for not getting raped?

Like, say, I go outdoors after dark (I am kind of a hussy like that!), is that, like 20% my fault then? If I go outdoors after dark BY MYSELF :o is rape more like 40% my fault? Your math here simply fascinates me....or, horrifies me, really....echoes of "The Handmaid's Tale"....

Now, to answer your LITERAL question (since your Facebook thing was literal to the point of silliness to begin with): I like to do a lot of extreme camping. In that context, I utilize a lot of safety precautions. At least 1.5 gallons of water per day. Several changes of clothing and extra socks. At least one day's extra food. Appropriate footwear, a compass, first aid, rain shield, a headlamp, extra batteries. I give someone back home my expected GPS coordinates, my expected return date, and the telephone number for search and rescue.

Now, I suspect you know perfectly well what the difference is here: All of those safety precautions ARE my responsibility and within my control. "Preventing" someone from raping me is neither my responsibility nor within my control.

I thought at first you were just trolling me, but I'm getting concerned here that you're actually not, and that's messed up. Do I act like whether or not I get raped is the total responsibility of someone other than me? Abso-“F”-ing-lute-ly, I do!

I take responsibility for the things I can and should take responsibility for. Do you seriously think that rape is EVER the responsibility of the victim? Like, if I do walk in a parking garage I'm askin' for it? Or at least I'm kinda to blame because I wasn't being "safe"? Do you honestly not see the difference between locking my door versus drastically restricting my life in order to lock away my vagina?

Here, I'll give you an example that might make this clearer, 'cause you're seriously starting to scare me: You lock your house to deter strangers from coming in, right? So do I.

Sexual assault is more like if you gave your house keys to a trusted friend while you went out of town, and while you were gone, your friend robbed you blind. Would you consider yourself to blame for having trusted your friend to watch your house? Would you (like the woman I talked to years ago) say it's your own fault because you just should have chosen better friends?

I'll turn your question around back to you: To what extent, if any, is rape ever the rapist's fault? And how much are you willing to not live your life to try to "prevent" something that is not your doing and not your responsibility?

Avoiding parking garages and never being alone and never going outside after dark isn't going to protect you from the statistically most likely culprit: Your husband or partner.

I don't quite understand why women are so eager to gulp down blame for sexual violence, except that it does provide a false sense of security. It won't happen to me if I just do everything right, if I just take every precaution.

But it can and does happen, even if you could do everything right and could take every precaution. That still doesn't ever make it your fault in any way, shape, or form. Ever. Period.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7789
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Moksha »

consiglieri wrote:
Mon May 17, 2021 6:22 pm
The whole idea of retroactively revoking consent is highly problematic from a legal standpoint.
What about a revelation from a living Rosebud kicking the consent of the past Rosebud under the bus?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
SaturdaysVoyeur
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 7:24 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by SaturdaysVoyeur »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 3:36 am
Psst....I was on the old board. Just not under this handle. How do I think I know about all this Rosebud crap that's been going on for years and years? I don't know any of the people involved personally. I'm familiar with Consig and J-D via their podcasts. So, no, I don't think I know-know any of you. But I'm familiar with the previous discussions around here. I don't think it's beyond the pale to raise a topic again, considering.

I'm sorry, but I am laughing SO HARD (in a kindly way, I swear!) at the idea that anything was hashed out on the old board, so no need to bring it up again.

Oh, if only that were true! Oh, if only.....how many pages do you think we'll get to rehashing J-D and Rosebud? Over and over and over....when, in the end, not much has really changed.
I was wondering whether you were there. Your handle looked familiar. But, honestly, it is a handle any SLC-area person might choose. Have not seen the show myself.

When I said “hash things out,” I was speaking in terms of our arguments with each other generally, not specifically about reaching some conclusion regarding Rosebud. My sense is that we argue a lot and it takes time to understand each other. I don’t know of anyone I haven’t argued very heatedly with, except maybe Gadianton.

I don’t imagine that anything is ever settled for good. That said, I won’t be able to summarize it well either.
Show? What show? I'm not from SLC.

Oh, godammit! Are you saying my handle is NOT original? I thought I came up with that little gem on my own! Grrrrr.....

Yeah, I had a different handle before and was only sporadically active. When I saw RFM's podcast on this whole mess, I checked back in, found this new board, THOUGHT I had concocted a clever little play on words for a new handle, and....here I am. Unwittingly plagiarism, unapologetic feminism, and all!

I think I've been more active in the last few days than I ever was on the previous board. I do recognize a few people. Vaguely. It's taking me a while to recognize names and connect them with whether they are Team J-D or Team Rosebud (or somewhere in between, which is where I would now put myself).

Par for the course, I guess. I currently know more about J-D's erectile difficulties than I do about the people I'm actually having a conversation with.

That's why this subject makes me feel I've been rinsing my mouth out with toilet bowl cleaner. But I can't look away!!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7789
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Moksha »

drumdude wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 1:17 am
Their whole relationship was dancing around the taboo/shame/guilt of turning their affair into a full-blown one with actual sex.
If only those Gentiles has not made it so difficult for the Principle to exist, Dehlin could have given in to the wiles of Rosebud and this assault on Dehlin would have been unnecessary.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
drumdude
God
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by drumdude »

Their affair was so Mormon, I'm surprised that John didn't try "soaking" in Rosebud. Since that's not really sex, you know!
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9042
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

Esme wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 6:34 am
Consig’s post about “retroactively revoking consent” bothered me because literally no one here was arguing in favor of that. So I don’t understand why he brought it up?

No one here is arguing that Rosebud should be allowed to freely give her consent at one time and then later retroactively decide to take that consent back.

Some people here are arguing that she MAY have given consent under coercion.

Which Consig agrees is a thing that can happen and is not what he’s talking about.

So Consig, why write a post about something no one here was arguing in the first place?
I can’t speak for consiglieri, but I will say that one of our potential readers here is Rosebud. Whether anyone argues that “consent can be revoked retroactively” or not, consiglieri can signal to Rosebud that he is not buying her claim to have revoked consent at the time based on the evidence he has seen. I haven’t seen any such evidence. I have seen her threat of October 17, 2012 in which she promised she would accuse JD of sexual harassment if she did not get her stuff back.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Tue May 18, 2021 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9042
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

drumdude wrote:
Tue May 18, 2021 10:24 am
Their affair was so Mormon, I'm surprised that John didn't try "soaking" in Rosebud. Since that's not really sex, you know!
It really is. The whole thing is so Mormon. I feel I know way too much now about how JD wiggled around his ecclesiastical endorsement interviews at BYU.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Post Reply