Some forms of abuse are more acceptable than the others?

[_asbestosman]

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.

I don't think that is necessarily blaming the victim. I agree that it's a poor statement nonetheless. Blaming the victim would be unequivacably stating that a victim is partly responsible for being abused. But isn't that what this statement says? I think the statement is ambiguous and therefore can be taken that way (hence why I dislike that statement). Here is how I'd read it though:

Persons who invite sexual relations are responsible for that invitation and for the fact that sexual relations occurr (so far everything is legal, but possibly sinful if it isn't with one's spouse). On the other hand, people who are forced into things they did not clearly and explicitly invite (provacative clothing/words aren't enough--it must be a direct, clear invitation) are not guilty of any sexual sin. Those who invited sexual relations but not further behavior are guilty of sexual sin for that which they invited but are victims of that which they did not clearly and explicitly invite.

What I think the FP was trying to do is to say that being a rape victim isn't a get-out-of-responsibility-free card although one is not responsible for being raped. That which one would be reponsible for without rape is that which one is responsible for with a rape. Thus sin may be involved if the situation could have conceivably played out without a rape occurring but with invited sexual transgressions nonetheless occurring.

[_The Nehor]

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. ;)

No, it generally creates disdain for both. However I have seen both men and women vacate emotionally abusive relationships. The women get more sympathy.

[Guest]

. . . 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?

Well, no. But why all the attempts to prove that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his wives? Why not just admit it's possible and be done with it? charity is the notable exception here, of course.

Book of Mormon, sorry about indulging your addiction again:) I don't think it's just men who do that, though. Women, too, most definitely.

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??

Maybe because there aren't any adequate child abuse prevention programs to donate to. How many people are going to attend parenting classes, even if they are free? You have to threaten them with removing their child to get them to go to therapy. And I think spanking is abuse that should be illegal. I find it amazing that there are people who are actually trying really hard to prove that it's not harmful. There are alternative methods of discipline that do not carry the risk of you hitting too hard, and many people say "it's only to humiliate the child". WTH? What are they hoping to accomplish with this humiliation? Emotional abuse is definitely harder to detect, which is why it usually goes unpunished.

As for the dog, I would be upset about it, too. Non-human animals deserve to live and not suffer just as much as people do. It seems a waste to spend money on animal causes when there are still abused children, but it's purely a matter of priorities. I guess that guy is just not a speciesist.

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

What's that supposed to mean? First of all, Beck claims to have had the flashbacks first without hypnotherapy. It's her family that allege otherwise. Perhaps you should read the book and not just the statement or reviews on FARMS website. Second, and most important, of all, I'm not talking about whether or not she was sexually abused. The physical abuse memories should have been shared by her other siblings without any hypnotherapy; she writes about discussing it with them, even, and them alleging that perhaps she imagined the sexual abuse because her father used to beat her unconscious.

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.

I don't think it's always the case with children. In fact, I think it's often not the case.

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).

I don't think so. They only talk about Martha being abused, but, allegedly, she was not the only one getting beaten up. And it was her brother whose bone got broken, if memory serves.

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.

I think it does matter to his family. I didn't even know who Nibley was until I read the book and looked up Marha Beck's father (she never mentions his name in the book). Of course, it has nothing to do with his apologetics, but that's not really the issue here. Although it does cast a biiig shadow on him as this open-minded mentor of youth, which some people tend to consider him.

I don't think that is necessarily blaming the victim. I agree that it's a poor statement nonetheless. Blaming the victim would be unequivacably stating that a victim is partly responsible for being abused. But isn't that what this statement says? I think the statement is ambiguous and therefore can be taken that way (hence why I dislike that statement). Here is how I'd read it though:

Persons who invite sexual relations are responsible for that invitation and for the fact that sexual relations occurr (so far everything is legal, but possibly sinful if it isn't with one's spouse). On the other hand, people who are forced into things they did not clearly and explicitly invite (provacative clothing/words aren't enough--it must be a direct, clear invitation) are not guilty of any sexual sin. Those who invited sexual relations but not further behavior are guilty of sexual sin for that which they invited but are victims of that which they did not clearly and explicitly invite.

What I think the FP was trying to do is to say that being a rape victim isn't a get-out-of-responsibility-free card although one is not responsible for being raped. That which one would be reponsible for without rape is that which one is responsible for with a rape. Thus sin may be involved if the situation could have conceivably played out without a rape occurring but with invited sexual transgressions nonetheless occurring.

I think you're reading too much into it. I think it means exactly what it sounds like. It goes well along with Elder Scott's assertion that "the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse", or the statement from that same letter in its entirety:

Victims of rape or sexual abuse frequently experience serious trauma and unnecessary feelings of guilt. Church officers should handle such cases with sensitivity and concern, reassuring such victims that they, as victims of the evil acts of others, are not guilty of sin, helping them to overcome feelings of guilt and to regain their self-esteem and their confidence in personal relationships.

Of course, a mature person who willingly consents to sexual relations must share responsibility for the act, even though the other participant was the aggressor. 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.

So if you participate in any sexual relations, or "consciously invite sexual advances", and the other person rapes you after that, which you obviously do not want to happen (that's what "the aggressor" is referring to, isn't it? I would hardly use this word outside of the context of some kind of abuse), you are responsible for being abused.

Deconstructor's site has lots of great quotes on the subject.

[Guest]

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. ;)

No, it generally creates disdain for both. However I have seen both men and women vacate emotionally abusive relationships. The women get more sympathy.

I agree that women usually get more sympathy in these relationships. Yet, in most forms of abuse within a marriage there is shame for either party regardless of their gender.

No doubt it is more difficult for men to admit to being physically assualted by their spouse. Yet, most men I've ever known (absent my husbands ;) ) talk about women being naggers.

The term "pussy whipped" usually refers to a man that caters to his wife. Or acquiesces to her will in some fashion. This term is usually tossed about when men stop acting like bachelors and instead act like they're married.

[_barrelomonkeys]

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.

I don't think that is necessarily blaming the victim. I agree that it's a poor statement nonetheless. Blaming the victim would be unequivacably stating that a victim is partly responsible for being abused. But isn't that what this statement says? I think the statement is ambiguous and therefore can be taken that way (hence why I dislike that statement). Here is how I'd read it though:

Persons who invite sexual relations are responsible for that invitation and for the fact that sexual relations occurr (so far everything is legal, but possibly sinful if it isn't with one's spouse). On the other hand, people who are forced into things they did not clearly and explicitly invite (provacative clothing/words aren't enough--it must be a direct, clear invitation) are not guilty of any sexual sin. Those who invited sexual relations but not further behavior are guilty of sexual sin for that which they invited but are victims of that which they did not clearly and explicitly invite.

What I think the FP was trying to do is to say that being a rape victim isn't a get-out-of-responsibility-free card although one is not responsible for being raped. That which one would be reponsible for without rape is that which one is responsible for with a rape. Thus sin may be involved if the situation could have conceivably played out without a rape occurring but with invited sexual transgressions nonetheless occurring.

Who determines when another human invites a sexual relation? Mixed messages occur all the time. It appears to me that the problem with the statement is that someone outside the victim can determine if there is actually an invitation to sexual advances. Also, if there is an invitation there should always be, at any point, the ability for anyone to ask for any actions to stop.

Perhaps, I read more sinister meaning into the words than what were meant. I sort of doubt it, though.

[_moksha]

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

What about self-abuse?

[Guest]

first: from first kiss of the night to orgasim anyone can say stop at any time. My view is that the partner has to be willing at all times. NO ONE DESERVES TO BE ATTACKED AT ANY TIME IN THEIR LIFE.

with regards to child abuse: in my craziest days I was a crazy social worker with a crazy case load in a crazy area with crazy people and worked with crazy coworkers. Some would reek of alcohol at the office. They would have a Masters degree but were on a binge too. One thing: you bruise you lose - any part of the body. I investigated a case and had to get the police involved because of the amount of bruising just on the buttocks - this guy was a parolee and did another ten months for hitting his two toddlers too many times and too hard with a hair brush- intent doesn't matter when it comes to child abuse - if you grab a belt and the kid takes off running and slips and hits their eye on the corner of a coffee table then you are in trouble. As to sex abuse - there is a rumor that there is a lot of cases of sex abuse in the church. I worked some cases with LDS members but it was physical abuse and the familes were samoan or korean. One big issue of sex abuse is that the offender has no boundaries and seeks power. My two cents is that it may come from a church that really has the appearance of not having good boudaries - telling a man and wife that they are sinning when engaging in oral sex, telling nineteen year olds where they need to be between nineteen and twenty-one etc, asking personal things about a persons life in interviews etc shows poor boundaries. It is wrong. Violating boundaries or having poor boundaries is practiced and preached in the name of good in the church. When some lady asked me when I was going on a mission, I should have, when I was a teenager, asked her how many times she gets laid each week. If you could explain to a non-member psychologist what every active young member or adult needs to submit to during ages 12 to 21 they would be speechless. If you said the Church had poor boundaries the psychologist would say - No kidding - (in a sarcastic tone)

[_asbestosman]

Of course, a mature person who willingly consents to sexual relations must share responsibility for the act, even though the other participant was the aggressor. 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.

So if you participate in any sexual relations, or "consciously invite sexual advances", and the other person rapes you after that, which you obviously do not want to happen (that's what "the aggressor" is referring to, isn't it? I would hardly use this word outside of the context of some kind of abuse),

I see "the act" as referring to "sexual relations". I think that "the agressor" referrs to the person who asks for or instigates sex. So I read it as saying that one person (a.k.a. "the agressor") asks for sexual relations. The other person consents to some degree of sexual relations. However, the person consenting does not consent to everything and the one person "the agressor" forcibly does that for which he recieved no consent. The consentor must share responsibility for that to which she consented.


Here's another question. Say I go down to Compton LA and state that I think whites are superior to blacks. If I get maimed for life, am I a blameless victim, or do I share some responsibility for what happened to me? Do I have less blame if I do the same in rural Utah and don't get a scratch?

If a woman jogs alone in a dangerous part of town and gets raped, did she do something wrong? Note I did not ask if she deserved to be raped or whether she is to be blamed for being raped. Of course she doesn't deserve it and it isn't her fault for being raped. I'm asking if she did something foolish which she should have known better than to do and should therefore take responsibility for that foolishness.

in my opinion, people who do foolish things are to be blamed for their foolishness regardless of the outcome of their foolishness. However, the consequences of those foolish actions are not always just. Still, the injustice of those consequences does not absolve one of any guilt for doing something foolish they should have known better than to do. A woman who wears provocative clothing and is raped is guilty of immodest dress. In my book that's not a very serious sin as far as sins go. It is, however, often very foolish. Does that mean she is responsible for what others do to her? No, but she is responsible for acting foolishly if she knows how others are likely to act, but does it anyhow. Again, she is not responsible for their actions, only for being a fool (and aren't we all foolish at times?).

[_harmony]

... she writes about discussing it with them, even, and them alleging that perhaps she imagined the sexual abuse because her father used to beat her unconscious.

ACK! That goes a long ways past the "spare the rod and spoil the child," that was so prevelant in Nibley's generation.

[_asbestosman]

Who determines when another human invites a sexual relation?

The one making the invitation.

Mixed messages occur all the time.

Which is why I said it has to be a clear message. Granted it is hard to communicate.

It appears to me that the problem with the statement is that someone outside the victim can determine if there is actually an invitation to sexual advances.

I'm certainly not trying to imply that.

Also, if there is an invitation there should always be, at any point, the ability for anyone to ask for any actions to stop.

Which is something I didn't speak of, but it seems obvious to me.

Perhaps, I read more sinister meaning into the words than what were meant. I sort of doubt it, though.

My words, or the First Presidency's?