Some forms of abuse are more acceptable than the others?

[_Zoidberg]

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?).

I understand what you are saying, and there might be some sense in it. But I would like to add that instead of concentrating on how potential victims can prevent a harmful situation, we should really concentrate more on preventing behaviors that cause those harmful situations. However, I really don't think that First Presidency meant what you think they meant. Where do you think Scott got his "the Lord may prompt the victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse" from? Not "responsibility for unwise behavior", or "responsibility for consensual petting", but "responsibility for abuse". Perhaps he doesn't know what abuse is? If so, why the heck is he giving a talk about healing from it? Does he imagine that there could be consensual abuse? So when people are into BDSM, that's abuse? IMHO, he thinks that once you consent to some form of sexual activity, you have implicitly consented to other forms of sexual activity, which is BS. And this assessment of mine is based on the phrase "increasing consent" which can be found in his talk.

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)

I definitely agree that prying into someone's life like that is a clear violation of a person's boundaries. And the really scary thing is that some member psychologists think it's perfectly okay. I read an article written by one of them, which advises mothers to go as far as snooping around their daughters' dressers for sexy lingerie. After all, having sexy lingerie may tempt them to show it off to someone, etc.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Who determines when another human invites a sexual relation?

The one making the invitation.

Precisely. So how can someone else determine whether or not the victim invited the sexual advances or relations? The original statement suggests that those that invite are responsible for whatever actions happen after. Why? Here's the original quote:

Persons who consciously invite sexual advances also have a share of responsibility for the behavior that follows.

This is really too vague for me. Perhaps, I'm reading much more into this than I should. It just appears to me that the invitation of sexual relations could be defined differently by pretty much any person. One man may think kissing, fondling, etc... means that the woman wants more to occur. Another man may see a woman with her panties fallen down in an avatar and assume that the woman desires sexual relations. Uh! *barf* My point is that only the victim and the other party involved really know what happened. It comes down to communication and what the above speaker meant when he said, "invites a sexual relation."

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?

Not yours.

[_Gadianton]

I told myself I'd stay off this thread...

On the topic of date rape, clearly there is a broad spectrum of cases. There are the obvious ones that are legitimately rape cases. But where to draw the line? If the gal is all for going to second base, and the guy sneaks in a quick third, and then the gal accuses him of a violation, then what? In these encounters it's not like you can sit down first and outline on a paper every little move and act that will be performed (although now that I think about it, that does sound kind of fun..) and judging where the lines are drawn isn't always easy.

Now there's this other question of how a victim's actions share in the blame. In one way they do, and in another they don't. A few years ago I accidently left my garage door open and I had a few things stolen. I'm in no way guilty of theft, an accessory to a crime, nor would the theives be any less guilty. The only sense the word "blame" can sneak in is that we should be smart and understanding human behavior, avoid tempting fate. If I walked up to a hard-core street gang and in polite language challenged them, made remarks about their lack of taste in dressing and music interests, and then got the living hell beat out of me, plenty of people would be saying I deserved what I got. It's only in this sense, and it needs to be qualified, that women should use common sense in their advances.

I'm sure this is not what the brethren meant though. And the reason why is due to religious teachings that make consequences normative. "If you play with fire, you're going to get burned" for the religious will make "playing with fire" sinful. "You reap what you sow". These sayings have a grain of truth to them but religious outlooks bend them so that consequences rather than being merely good or bad outputs that result from certain inputs become the things that we deserved. And because of this propensity in religion, it's very difficult to believe the brethren could NOT blame victims.

Edit to observe how Mormons take this to such an extreme that they have to read in punishments and rewards even into skin color and mental health. Blacks born in impoverished areas of the world must have done something to deserve it - I know, they were fence-sitters in the preexistence! Even patriarchal blessing pull these. It's common, or at least was common at a time, for patriarchs to tell a mentally handicapped child that he or she was extra valiant and so on Satan's s-list that this would be the only way to spare them from the unfair vendetta of temptation satan would otherwise launch against them.

[_Zoidberg]

I told myself I'd stay off this thread...

On the topic of date rape, clearly there is a broad spectrum of cases. There are the obvious ones that are legitimately rape cases. But where to draw the line? If the gal is all for going to second base, and the guy sneaks in a quick third, and then the gal accuses him of a violation, then what? In these encounters it's not like you can sit down first and outline on a paper every little move and act that will be performed (although now that I think about it, that does sound kind of fun..) and judging where the lines are drawn isn't always easy.

In order to convict someone in this case, it would be necessary to determine that they knew the other party did not consent. So, in this case, I imagine that abuse would only be occurring if the guy kept going for third base after being told, or made aware in some other way, that the gal considers it a violation.

I'm sure this is not what the brethren meant though. And the reason why is due to religious teachings that make consequences normative. "If you play with fire, you're going to get burned" for the religious will make "playing with fire" sinful. "You reap what you sow". These sayings have a grain of truth to them but religious outlooks bend them so that consequences rather than being merely good or bad outputs that result from certain inputs become the things that we deserved. And because of this propensity in religion, it's very difficult to believe the brethren could NOT blame victims.

Edit to observe how Mormons take this to such an extreme that they have to read in punishments and rewards even into skin color and mental health. Blacks born in impoverished areas of the world must have done something to deserve it - I know, they were fence-sitters in the preexistence! Even patriarchal blessing pull these. It's common, or at least was common at a time, for patriarchs to tell a mentally handicapped child that he or she was extra valiant and so on Satan's s-list that this would be the only way to spare them from the unfair vendetta of temptation satan would otherwise launch against them.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. There just has to be a causal relationship everywhere. Another thing religious people often appeal to is high prevalence of suicide among gay people, for instance. "By their fruits", etc. Of course, the reason that suicide is more likely to occur there is largely because of bigotry, to which said religious people are huge contributors. So, in effect, they are saying "the fact that we like to bash gay people is evidence of homosexuality being a sinful and harmful practice".

[_asbestosman]

I'm sure this is not what the brethren meant though. And the reason why is due to religious teachings that make consequences normative. "If you play with fire, you're going to get burned" for the religious will make "playing with fire" sinful. "You reap what you sow". These sayings have a grain of truth to them but religious outlooks bend them so that consequences rather than being merely good or bad outputs that result from certain inputs become the things that we deserved. And because of this propensity in religion, it's very difficult to believe the brethren could NOT blame victims.

If I asked the brethren the following question, how do you think they would answer?

Suppose two women dress provocatively and each go to the same party. One is raped, the other is not. Have they committed the same sin?

I think they would answer logically. The logical answer is yes--they are equally sinful. The particular results of their actions is irrelavent (and more or less chance). It is their intents and hearts that matter. Last I checked, immodesty was not equivalent nor even close to adultery, fornication, and especially rape or abuse. Heck, I don't think it's even treated like self-abuse.

[_Sethbag]

The further away I get from the TBM mindset, the harder time I'm having thinking that dressing "provocatively" is a sin at all.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I told myself I'd stay off this thread...

On the topic of date rape, clearly there is a broad spectrum of cases. There are the obvious ones that are legitimately rape cases. But where to draw the line? If the gal is all for going to second base, and the guy sneaks in a quick third, and then the gal accuses him of a violation, then what? In these encounters it's not like you can sit down first and outline on a paper every little move and act that will be performed (although now that I think about it, that does sound kind of fun..) and judging where the lines are drawn isn't always easy.

Geez, it's been so long since I've made out I have no idea what 2nd and 3rd base even is? Man! I would think home base would be rape? I'm thinking that... I would think that anything of the above wouldn't even truly be a legal issue, that I could see? I would doubt this would even be considered date rape at all. Appears to me though that if they're on 3rd base (whatever that is??) and the guy goes for home without consent and the female communicates that she's not consenting that is clearly rape. Yet, in our society most blame the woman for even allowing it to go to 3rd. She's a slut or a cock tease, right?

Now there's this other question of how a victim's actions share in the blame. In one way they do, and in another they don't. A few years ago I accidently left my garage door open and I had a few things stolen. I'm in no way guilty of theft, an accessory to a crime, nor would the theives be any less guilty. The only sense the word "blame" can sneak in is that we should be smart and understanding human behavior, avoid tempting fate. If I walked up to a hard-core street gang and in polite language challenged them, made remarks about their lack of taste in dressing and music interests, and then got the living hell beat out of me, plenty of people would be saying I deserved what I got. It's only in this sense, and it needs to be qualified, that women should use common sense in their advances.

I think it's fairly well known that strippers and prostitutes are attacked on a pretty regular basis. I think it's an easy way out to blame them for some action that another person took to strip their autonomy from them by violating them without their consent. Sure, women, girls, young men, anyone should use common sense. Yet, we all know that society is full of people that just don't use this common sense. It appears to me that as long as there are people that are easy prey we must still try to reign in the predators. In courts, still, they bring up what the woman was wearing as a defense. My father worked on a case not too long ago (he still does contractual work for the federal government) where 2 marines were accused of raping a stripper. Her line of work, as well as what she was wearing (next to nothing) was brought in by the defense. This, essentially, was their entire defense. And it worked! I find that problematic.

[_barrelomonkeys]

The further away I get from the TBM mindset, the harder time I'm having thinking that dressing "provocatively" is a sin at all.

The LDS equate provocative dress with sin? Really? This baffles me. Why? It invites men to view women and their bodies as some form of sexual titillation?

The female form is beautiful. It's the blame of a man if he can't control his own behaviors, or deeds when confronted with another human that he finds sexually enticing. Why blame the woman for the behavior of a man? She's some seductress that pulls men from their rightful pure thoughts? How very odd to consider this. Appears to me that this is blaming women when men are confronted with the normal response that they experience when they view the female form.

There should be no blame when a man is aroused by a woman. That's the way men are supposed to respond. Why make something so natural appear to be repugnant or shameful? Then to divert blame (since someone has to blamed for 'impure' thoughts) the blame rests on the woman when men react to her in the way nature intended? That's just silly.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Let me just add this about date rape. I used to be involved in a movement that dealt with "No means No" where the message needed to go out that women needed to speak up and communicate more fully what they desired with men in sexual relations.

Often women aren't very good at speaking up in situations and so much is lost through subtle gestures of communication. Date rape is tricky to blame anyone, as being a victim or a victimizer, if neither party was communicating outside of body gestures. Then there are times when a woman is incapacitated in some sense where she can't give consent. What if the male was incapacitated as well? Was he raped when they had intercourse? Or a woman acquiesces to constant proddings for sex -- is that rape? Some people do define that as date rape if she felt forced in any sense. What a mess!

[_asbestosman]

The further away I get from the TBM mindset, the harder time I'm having thinking that dressing "provocatively" is a sin at all.

Well, it isn't a sin when my wife is provoking me!

Anyhow, I think that immodest dress is at least as much of a sin as, say, drinking coffee, tea, or a beer. Just sayin'.