Scratch's Sudden Departure

[_Eric]

Apparently we understand the term differently. The context was such that I didn't interprate it as insinuating that Martha would have consented, or asked for it or was somehow at fault.

When I was scrutinizing the Martha Beck reviews, even in the context of Boyd Petersen's resentfulness, I wondered myself if I had misunderstood the denotation of the word "incest."

So, before I said anything, I consulted Google. I posted my findings on the original Martha Beck Reviews thread

Incest could be consensual. I believe that it simply denotes a sexual relationship with two closely related parties.

I wanted to make sure, so I consulted Google:

"sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry."
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=incest

"sexual relations between people who may not legally marry, especially between close relatives."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incest

"Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law."
http://www.ramapo.edu/facultystaff/publ ... y/fbi.html

It seems to me that Petersen chose to use the word "incest" instead of "molestation" in theme with the rest of his response. I find that choice to be beyond distasteful, but pretty consistent with the FARMS attack on Martha.

The fact that none of Martha's siblings support her claims of incest is the result, not of some family code, but of her siblings finding her claims simply unbelievable.

.

Incest connotes inappropriate sexual relationships, not forceable sexual assault. While the definition of the word incest is not limited to the consensual instances, it certainly seems to be used more often when describing such instances.

Clearly it's an inappropriate word to use. It's not the right word to use, and Petersen, being a literary academic, would know that. A careful editor should have known it, too.

Whether it was used as an apologetic slight or not is open for speculation. At the very least, Petersen could have calibrated his words better.

I want to understand your position, Eric.

Are you intending to say that, since Martha has claimed that her father sexually molested her, it would be wise, and the right thing, to accept her claim as true on that basis alone?

I believe that Martha's claims should be accepted as true.

I would be glad to expound on that, but I want to be clear about one other thing: The treatment of Martha in the FARMS Review (and other places) is a seperate issue to me. Regardless of what actually happened (which only she can say), the response from FARMS was not the right thing to do and I would feel this way regardless of who was behind FARMS or what they stood for.

[_asbestosman]

I believe that Martha's claims should be accepted as true.

I would be glad to expound on that

Please do. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want us to accept some silly Mormon apologist's claims against you as true. I need to know on what basis we should reject their claims while accepting Martha's. Is it because you're alive to counter their claims, but Hugh is dead and cannot counter them? I honestly do not understand.

but I want to be clear about one other thing: The treatment of Martha in the FARMS Review (and other places) is a seperate issue to me. Regardless of what actually happened (which only she can say), the response from FARMS was not the right thing to do and I would feel this way regardless of who was behind FARMS or what they stood for.

Got it. I will keep that in mind while you expound.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Clearly it's an inappropriate word to use. It's not the right word to use, and Petersen, being a literary academic, would know that. A careful editor should have known it, too.

This editor didn't, and still doesn't. I see nothing problematic about Dr. Petersen's use of the word incest.

Whether it was used as an apologetic slight or not is open for speculation.

True. I can flatly say that I saw no problem with the word, see no problem with the word, and never, at any time, intended "an apologetic slight" by signing off on its use.

At the very least, Petersen could have calibrated his words better.

Again, I see no problem at all. The word carries plenty of punch, and doesn't entail a presumption of consent. In fact, legally speaking, minors cannot consent.

I want to understand your position, Eric.

Are you intending to say that, since Martha has claimed that her father sexually molested her, it would be wise, and the right thing, to accept her claim as true on that basis alone

I believe that Martha's claims should be accepted as true.

That's what you seemed to be saying, but I wanted you to confirm it.

Again seeking to understand: Do you believe that all allegations of sexual abuse should always be presumed true, or do you hold that the accuser must necessarily be believed only in this particular case?

I would have thought that the presumption of innocence would apply in all such cases ("innocent until proven guilty"). This is a very old and venerable legal principle that goes back at least to the Latin juristic principle ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof rests upon the one who asserts, not upon the one who denies"). I would certainly hate, personally, to live in a society in which there was always a presumption of guilt.

[_Eric]

That's what you seemed to be saying, but I wanted you to confirm it.

Again seeking to understand: Do you believe that all allegations of sexual abuse should always be presumed true, or do you hold that the accuser must necessarily be believed only in this particular case?

We're not talking about every allegation of sexual abuse made since the beginning of time. I'm not interested in indulging that straw man argument.

I'm talking about Martha Beck. There are very good reasons to believe Martha Beck.

Your presumption of innocence until proven guilty only serves your agenda in this situation. A judge's guilty finding in a court of law is not the standard for determining the validity of the Hugh Nibley sexual abuse allegation. Less than 1% of child molesters ever get caught. 60% of rapes and sexual assaults took place in the victim's home or at the home of a friend, relative or neighbor. 96% of the female rape victims younger than 12 years old knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers.

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric,

I'm still not understanding your objection to the use of the word "incest". How (in your view) is what Martha alleges *not* incest?

[_Eric]

Eric,

I'm still not understanding your objection to the use of the word "incest". How (in your view) is what Martha alleges *not* incest?

Jersey Girl,

Instead of repeating myself for the third time, I'd just like to point you to my comments in this thread a few posts back where I explained my problems with the word "incest," again, quite clearly. I've now moved on from my problems with the attacks of Martha to explaining why she should be believed

Thanks.



.

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric,

I read your comments prior to posing my question. Did you think I posed it out of thin air?

Let's take the short road home.

You supplied dictionary definitions of "incest".
Dictionary definitions are not legal definitions and certainly do not supply the legal definitions of "incest" for the state in question.

Having said that...here is the evidence for the act(s) that allegedly took place:

1. Martha reports a retrieved memory of "blood between her thighs".
2. She reports a physicians observation of vaginal scarring consistent with either child birth or early/forced penetration.

Considering her age at the time of the alleged abuse and the fact that whatever act took place produced bleeding and vaginal scarring, that leaves one to conclude that she was penetrated either with an object larger than a finger or a penis.

If her father had been accused while still alive, the charges would likely be:

1. Incest
2. Sexual assault on a minor in a person of a position of trust

In this case, Eric, you need to set aside your haggling over consensual acts and focus on the legal definitions involved. The act(s), if they involved penetration of Martha Beck's vagina by her father's penis would legally constitute both incest and sexual assault.

You aren't seeing the term in context of how it is used. Here's a brief list of comparable terms:

Bestiality (sex with an animal)
Adultery (sex on the part of at least one married person with a person other than their spouse)
Incest (sex between persons who are related)

The term "incest" is simply describing the nature of the relationship between those involved in the act. It is NOT an admission of consensual sex.

[_Eric]

Eric,

You supplied dictionary definitions of "incest".
Dictionary definitions are not legal definitions and certainly do not supply the legal definitions of "incest" for the state in question.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully, and saw only that definitions were posted. The definitions were supplied not as some type of legal argument (I really struggle to see how one would reach that conclusion), but rather to explain the context of why I find the word to be inappropriate. I'll post some of my previous comments again as they seem applicable:

Incest connotes inappropriate sexual relationships, not forceable sexual assault. While the definition of the word incest is not limited to the consensual instances, it certainly seems to be used more often when describing such instances.

.

Having said that...here is the evidence for the act(s) that allegedly took place:

1. Martha reports a retrieved memory of "blood between her thighs".
2. She reports a physicians observation of vaginal scarring consistent with either child birth or early/forced penetration.

This is a horrendous summation of the evidence. I know that you haven't read Leaving the Saints, but surely you know that there is more to it than that. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

Considering her age at the time of the alleged abuse and the fact that whatever act took place produced bleeding and vaginal scarring, that leaves one to conclude that she was penetrated either with an object larger than a finger or a penis.

Perhaps you have concluded that, but by no means do I find it to be a reasonable conclusion or indicative of someone who understands the allegations. I don't agree.

In this case, Eric, you need to set aside your haggling over consensual acts and focus on the legal definitions involved.

Says who? I think you need to understand my reasons for "haggling" better before you make these kinds of suggestions.

You aren't seeing the term in context of how it is used.

Funny. I think you are failing to see the context of the term, as Petersen used it, and the connotation of the word.

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric,

If you think that what I stated in physical terms is "horrendous" and that there is more to it, feel free to describe what you think needs to be included in the description I gave. I'm willing to read whatever you have to say in the matter.

Keep in mind that I gave physical evidence only and that which I feel fits the criteria for incest in physical terms and also relational terms for that is what the charge is based on.

I'll check later to see if you have additional comments here.

[_Jersey Girl]

Woops, I thought of something else I wanted to include here.

Eric,

When you're looking at this, wouldn't the final question be whether or not actionable offenses took place? That's how I'm looking at it.

It could be that you find the terminology offensive because you think it implies consent on the part of the victim?

What it boils down to for me, Eric, is whether or not incest allegedly took place. Given the evidence and the relationship involved, I would have to say that incest and sexual assault on a minor by a person in a position of trust would be the appropriate offense terms to apply to the situation we're looking at.

I think you're looking at this from the perspective of the victim and I'm looking at it in a technical way.

That's probably where the disconnect is in our exchanges here.