DiscussMormonism.com

It seems to me that as a rule, LDS people and, perhaps, society in general, are inclined to find sexual abuse, especially of children, and which was implemented through the use of physical force, shocking and terrible. But physical or emotional abuse, or date rape, does not bother them nearly as much, it seems.

I might have mentioned that before somewhere, but I find the statement released by the Nibley family in response to Martha Beck's book a perfect example of such attitudes.

When we hear that someone raped his daughter at a very young age, we are inclined to see this person as scum of the Earth, right? My question is, why we would not be inclined to consider someone who beats the crap out of his children, to the point of breaking their bones, just as despicable?

"Her accusation that our family would in any way tolerate a crime as hideous as the sexual abuse of a child is probably just another sad attempt by Martha to claim the limelight and make herself the hero/victim in one of her fanciful stories," said her sister.

What about her accusation that your family would in any way tolerate a crime as hideous as the physical and emotional abuse of a child to the point where the question of terminating Nibley's parental rights should have been raised?

There are several possibilities here:

A. There was physical abuse.
B. There was no physical abuse.

1. The Nibleys were familiar with the contents of the book, including descriptions of beatings (not only of Martha, but of some of them; hence, it would be much easier to rebutt the claims of physical abuse by simply stating it never happened to them).
2. The Nibleys were not familiar with the contents of the book, other than the part that included allegations of sexual abuse.

If A1, then why are they so pissed about marring their father's good name with allegations of sex abuse? It seems that it should be sufficiently marred with the notion that he abused his children in other ways, which I would hesitate to call more acceptable. Because they aren't. In effect, what they are saying is: "Yes, our father beat the crap out of us. That's okay, though. Let's gang up on Martha for being such a drama queen and making up this story of sex abuse; this is what really damages our family's reputation [as if there would be anything left there to damage; I think not]".

If A2 or B2, then, well... they should have read the book before responding to it, don't you think?

If B1, then why would they choose to not adress the allegations of physical abuse? Because they don't view it as a serious enough matter that throws a shadow over the character of their father? Beating your kids is really not that big a deal?

I imagine they did bother to read the book, so their attitudes about physical abuse should be apparent.

The distinction between rape of an unsuspecting victim and rape of a young woman by her boyfriend with whom she, perhaps, engaged in petting on several occasions, has been made by the First Presidency in a letter to the GAs and regional leaders:

Persons who consciously invite sexual advances also have a share of responsibility for the behavior that follows. But persons who are truly forced into sexual relations are victims and are not guilty of any sexual sin.

Blaming the victim at its finest. Let's wait for charity to chime in and say how it's not really blaming the victim at all.

Let's not forget the stumbling block of many apologists - Joseph Smith's sexual relations with his wives. The question of why it bothers them at all has already been raised. Perhaps it's because they are vaguely uncomfortable with the way many of those women were coerced into these relationships that they thought would last for eternity; in many cases it meant eternal separation with their companion of choice - sounds pretty bad to me, even if they didn't have to satisfy Joseph Smith's sexual appetites. But if they weren't forced to have sex with Joseph Smith, no abuse has taken place, right?

Of course, the most logical explanation is that this whole phenomenon is tied to the sex taboo; the focus is not on violating the other person's right to choose, betraying their trust, etc., but on making them "damaged goods". I think we should do something about this mentality. Making physical punishment of children illegal would be a good start, as well as making parents-to-be sign a disclaimer witnessing their awareness of the fact that children are not their property.

Thoughts?

Zoidberg wrote:Let's not forget the stumbling block of many apologists . . .

Apologists have stumbling blocks? I thought it's all been answered a thousand times already.

. . . Joseph Smith's sexual relations with his wives. The question of why it bothers them at all has already been raised.

It bothers them? Have you ever heard any of them admit as much?

Persons who consciously invite sexual advances also have a share of responsibility for the behavior that follows. But persons who are truly forced into sexual relations are victims and are not guilty of any sexual sin.

This just pisses me off! I mean, big time, pisses me off! I decided not to post here anymore, until I saw this zoid. This is blaming the victim. This assumes, first off, that someone else can decide when or how a victim is inviting sexual relations (clothing? flirting? went on a date? accepted a gift? worked in some profession? etc...) and it makes me f*cking PISSED OFF! You're absolutely right in everything you said. Our society still holds on to this mind set which is why prostitutes, strippers, and girls and young men on the street are looked at as if it's their fault if something occurs. They should have been home, they shouldn't be in that profession, they brought it upon themselves!

I heard the tailhook women called "c*nts" by the men that worked for the Naval Investigative Service that were supposed to be investigating their claims of sexual assualt. What were they doing there? They shouldn't have been there. They enjoyed the sexual attention.

I've heard men that investigated rape claims (one of whom is my FATHER) talk about what the woman was wearing. Why does it matter? She wanted to be assualted because she wore a miniskirt?

Zoid, I don't know much about the apologist's claims, or the specifics of which you speak. Yet, you're absolutely correct in asserting that this mind set is prevalent in our society. It is!

Men can't control themselves and then they have to blame someone else for their inability to control their dicks.

Assholes!

barrelomonkeys wrote:Men can't control themselves and then they have to blame someone else for their inability to control their dicks.

Assholes!

Hey now!! Lets not generalize "men" here. The vast majority of "men" are upstanding people who treat women with all the dignity and respect that a woman deserves.

If we're going to generalize genders here, from my observations, most men are so eager to please their un-pleasable wives, that they end up on the receiving end of an emotionally abusive relationship. However, it makes a man "weak" to admit that he is whipped, so most times they don't say anything about it.

Zoid,

I agree with you that physical abuse for a child, for some weird reason, doesn't get the kind of disgust that sexual abuse does. And mental abuse goes pretty much unnoticed altogether.

Sexual abuse is a very hard and firm line. There is no reason ever to sexually touch a child. In the cases of physical and mental abuse, where are the lines? I mean, surely broken bones and bruises should be considered physical abuse, no question. But is spanking? Is using a belt/wooden spoon/wire whisk as a spanking tool abuse? It's a much more slippery slope when you start trying to decide what is abuse and what is just parenting.

I remember a few years ago, somebody had thrown a dog off of an overpass somewhere in Utah. A despicable act, no question. This story made it to the radio and people were calling in left and right to track the motherf***ers down. One guy offed a $1000 reward for any information on where to find this sicko. Why in the world are people so upset about a DOG when there are so many abused children out there? Why isn't that guy donating his $1000 to child abuse prevention??

Does anyone here put a lot of stock in the faddish hypnotherapy of the early 90s?

All forms of abuse ought to be discussed, discouraged, and viewed as disgusting.

Scottie wrote:

barrelomonkeys wrote:Men can't control themselves and then they have to blame someone else for their inability to control their dicks.

Assholes!

Hey now!! Lets not generalize "men" here. The vast majority of "men" are upstanding people who treat women with all the dignity and respect that a woman deserves.

If we're going to generalize genders here, from my observations, most men are so eager to please their un-pleasable wives, that they end up on the receiving end of an emotionally abusive relationship. However, it makes a man "weak" to admit that he is whipped, so most times they don't say anything about it.

Just put 'some' in front of all my rants in the future. That'll do. ;) Yet, even those that do control themselves often have the mindset of 'boys will be boys' and look the other way when these sort of situations occur. I think the men that have no qualms with this mindset are just as culpable for perpetuating the stigma that some victims bring it upon themselves by how they act, dress, or any other circumstance that means they wanted to be victimized. This is a cultural phenomenon and not created merely by those men that act in violent ways.

by the way, isn't the idea that men are "whipped" a stereotype that creates a disdain for certain women? You win the battle and lose the war there Scottie. ;)

Zoidberg wrote:When we hear that someone raped his daughter at a very young age, we are inclined to see this person as scum of the Earth, right? My question is, why we would not be inclined to consider someone who beats the crap out of his children, to the point of breaking their bones, just as despicable?

I don't know why people wouldn't. I consider them both to be more or less equally bad. Rape seems to be different though. Somehow it seems to be a much deeper violation of a person's rights. That said, I despise physical abuse. But why stop at physical and sexual abuse? What about emotional abuse--constant yelling, belittling, etc.?

Broken bones is obviously excessive, but like Scottie said, what about spanking? I was spanked as a kid. I will not spank my own kids, but I don't feel like I was abused. There are other forms of corporeal punishment I endured too which I do consider wrong, but which I don't think are so bad as to have put me in real danger necessitating my removal from home. I mean, I never got any broken bones or even buises from my parents. I probably got hurt more when playing or fighting with my brothers.

So anyhow, I think the difference is that there isn't so much of a gray area when it comes to sexual abuse you more or less know when you've been violated. Physical abuse vs other physical discomfort has a bit more gray area and emotional abuse vs emotional discomfort has an even larger gray area.


As to why the Nibleys didn't address accusations of physical abuse? I think it likely that Nibley was like my parents and believed in corporeal punishment. I also think it likely that people tend to conflate abuse and sexual abuse to some degree. Thus in addressing claims about sexual abuse they also implicitly address claims about outright physical abuse (broken bones).

Anyhow, I really don't see why it matters what Nibley did when he was alive. His apologetics won't be any better or worse whether or not he was a monster.