Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, May 23, 2015.

Page 3 of 19
  1. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The only people I know who allowed the sexual molestation of their children to occur, and continue because they either failed to remove the children from the same house as the molester or failed to remove the molester from the home were charged for their crime.

    Which means that in your mind, if a child is molested, if there is no harm, in your opinion, then you do not see it as "abusive behaviour".

    Which means raping someone while they sleep, molesting them while they sleep, incest is not abusive behaviour because you need to see a degree of harm before you deem it to be abusive behaviour.

    And it is perverted. Especially when one realises that you are making this argument about child sexual molestation.

    An older brother, in a household that teaches its daughters that they are secondary, that they have to remain pure and meek, that the men in their lives are in a dominant position above them, that if they are sexually assaulted, molested or raped, then it is ultimately their fault, molests his younger sisters and a babysitter. Sometimes while they slept, other times while they were awake.

    And you do not see that as being physically threatening or even harmful and threatening to those girls?

    So much so that you view my and society's reaction to incest as being "hypersensitive"?

    What proportional response would you have for someone who molested a 5 year old girl? Tell her that she has to forgive him? Because that is what happened to that little girl, and her older sisters when they were molested.

    Are you seriously and actually trying to normalise incest, sexually molesting children and sex abuse again?

    No, Capracus, molesting your sleeping sisters is not "normal" behaviour, no matter how curious they are or how much desire they might have for sexual contact.

    Sexually molesting children and incest is serious. Very serious. His repeated attempts to do it, while they slept and while they were awake screams "serious".

    Yes Capracus, they allowed it.

    When they first learned of it, they did nothing about it in regards to Josh and this is by their own admittance. It was only after he then molested the babysitter that they punished him. When he went on and kept on molesting, he still remained in the house, with his victims, who were made to and told by their patriarchal father to forgive him for his sins. Instead of first addressing it with their son, the parents took it to the victims and placed the onus on them to not be abused. Not on Josh to not abuse.

    That's why it is deemed sexual assault, Capracus.

    And illegal.

    Since you do not see it as sexual assault if incest and child molestation occurs when the child is fully dressed and/or asleep, what "standard" do you have when it comes to sexual assault, incest or child molestation?

    Do you see it as sexual assault if a child is raped while she sleeps and isn't aware of what happened?

    What about an adult? Or what about in a case where the child is molested as a baby before it is aware of what is going on and isn't physically harmed?

    Are you suggesting that domestic violence between two adults in the same as two children arguing and fighting?

    Or are you just normalising and diminishing domestic violence in general?

    And tell me why you don't think having victims brought up in a household like those girls were brought up in, where they were not allowed to complain, report it or even, heaven forbid, not forgive him, is not harmful in and of itself.

    What you fail to realise or take note of is the context. That these girls are brought up in a household that is in itself tantamount to abuse. All the elements of abuse is there. Control, dominance, the expectation that they are secondary and must always comply with the men in their lives. And you wonder why they minimised it?

    They were made to forgive him, right when this started:

    KELLY: Did you feel scared at all that he might resume?

    DILLARD: You know, when this happened, when my dad and mom sat down with us and shared what happened and Josh asked us to forgive him, we had to make that choice that I think everyone has to make and my dad explained to us, he said you know there’s a difference between forgiveness and trust. That’s not the same thing. You know, you forgive someone and then you have boundaries. Forgiveness with boundaries and so trust comes later. You know, Josh destroyed that trust at the beginning, and so he had to rebuild that. And so I think when he came back, that was his — that was his point of, okay — well, actually, when he asked us to forgive him, that was the point of rebuilding.

    KELLY: That was the beginning. What were the safeguards that were put into place just to make sure?

    DILLARD: I was going to say not, you know, being alone. My parents said, okay, we’re not going to do this hide and seek thing where two people go off and hide together — and not baby-sitting the girls.​

    Imagine the pressure on these girls, who were brought up in a strictly patriarchal household, where their father and the men in the house are always dominant, where they are expected to be meek and complaint, having their parents tell them about how they should forgive him.. It was never a choice. To not forgive was not an option. And then the onus was placed on them to not be assaulted.

    And you seem surprised that people find this disturbing? And you keep arguing that it was only minimal sexual molestation? Really?

    Everyone knew that his victims would have reacted that way. It isn't their fault.

    These girls were brought up in a household that gave them zero choices or options. They did not have the choice of confiding in someone about it, they were never given those options that children often have in cases of incest, molestation and abuse. Teachers, friends, school counselors, for example. All of these were out of the question for these girls. Who they spoke to, everything they did was restricted. They were even taught that they were to blame for any sexual assault or abuse that occurred. The onus was always placed on them, as girls, to not be abused.

    Those girls are a tragedy and their parents are absolutely to blame.

    And really, Capracus, you should be ashamed of yourself, crowing with pride and happiness that victims of incest and sexual abuse are sticking to a narrative that benefits the abuser. That's pretty sick, to be honest.

    First you crowed about the parents protecting and lying to hide the molestation, and then you praised a paedophile for hiding and protecting the molester and now you are crowing that the girls are responding exactly like many abused children who are brought up in that sort of environment would respond. It's sad. Not to mention perverted.
     
    Bells, Jun 7, 2015
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa

    Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,893
    Is Pino Really Pino?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ​

    You know, we seem to be running out of alternate explanations; maybe it's just envy.

    I mean, really. That sounds like a cheap line, sure, but even if we hound apparent rape advocates like Capracus and Milkweed, there is always an out by which they might claim they were just making a joke and fuck why is everyone so oversensitive. And, you know, I'm an American, and thus accustomed to people pushing this principle well beyond the breaking point. And in truth it always bugs me that we haven't grasped the obvious question: But why this joke?

    And short of admitting and accepting that these people are performing actual rape advocacy, any explanation for their conduct runs into some variation on that question.

    But it's also like the not-quite joke↑ I did about vested interest. To the one, rape culture in the United States is not especially removed from, say, rape culture in west Africa where the typical policy presupposition is that women are to blame for rape because men get horny. To the other, well, right, it's not exactly the same. (Praise God for small blessings?) In most political disputes, there is an obvious question we skip because it has an obvious answer: Why is this always the answer? Like Republicans with their "now more than ever"↗ argument; they have a limited set of policy prescriptions, and regardless of the questioon, the answer is that we need this or that policy, now, more than ever. And it is always driven by vested interest.

    Is the economy rising? We need to cut taxes, now more than ever! Is the economy faltering? We need to cut taxes, now more than ever! And look at the principle outside the GOP and taxes, border fences, and defense spending. You know those "men's rights" groups that appeal to fatherhood? There's a reason why I stay away from them. Why is it that regardless of the circumstance, the answer is always that we need to complain about how women are disproportionately and unjustly empowered in society?

    Vested interest.

    Here's one. I've used the quote before about the age of consent being ten years in Boston circa 1875. Now, here's the fucked up part: Imagine a bunch of old Puritan men sitting around arguing among themselves whether the age of consent should be ten or eleven ... or maybe nine.

    Just ... I mean ... what are they saying to each other? "If there be hair, then all is fair"?

    Vested interest.

    Birth control? Bodily integrity? Self-governance? The right to say no? Why is the answer always that women need to make one more sacrifice so the men can feel better about themselves?

    And in this case it really does seem more about these individuals. A juxtaposition of concepts: Rape Culture vs. Horatio Alger (a.k.a. Tea and Crumpets Party). The way it works is this: The best explanation Americans can figure for why we so consistently vote against our interests and empower our wealthy as we do is the Horatio Alger myth, that one day that could be me with all that money, and do I want the government taxing me?

    And there was the Deutsch cartoon↱ with the changing punch line. It was a fascinating discussion to watch, the question of whether the excuse focused on future plans or past acts. The revised punch, focusing on past acts―"Because it's impossible that anything I've done was rape!"―seems more appropriate.

    It always comes back to vested interest.

    But what does that mean inasmuch as we might try to figure out what our neighbors are on about?

    Maybe envy? Or ego defense? See, the original Deutsch punch line↱ was, "Because then I might not get to fuck her!" and it's true that even when we come across such attitudes they are never phrased as such. And we usually see it in a recollection, like the godawful story I sometimes recount about a coworker waxing nostalgic about how he got a particular Zippo lighter, and the dawning realization that the actual story is that it was left behind by a sixteen year-old girl that he and one of his friends had spent all night raping once upon a time.

    So, you know, of course she's just a little bitch, a stupid cunt, and, you know, she was really really drunk, too, and why would a sixteen year old girl get drunk like that if she didn't want two adult men bangin' away on her like that, the dumb little slut? If you treat her like a human being, then no, you don't get to fuck her. If you treat her like that? Well, you know. All good. Ah, nostalgia!

    I was raised in this culture. After all, I'm an American male who grew up in the latter twentieth century. This stuff was background noise in my youth. In middle age, I perceive it as a spectre that haunts the human endeavor; we can destroy ourselves by this, and part of me wonders if we actually will, if this is the line we're going to draw and then pitch a breath-holding, purple-faced tantrum.

    Temptation? Cultural encouragement? Yeah, I get it, but that's the thing. To the one, it's straightforward: At some point we have to learn that this isn't the right way to treat people. To the other, ownership culture orbits temptation and cultural encouragement; the whole thing is just a massive sexplay fantasy.

    Puritan pornography, prudish perversity: If you spend enough time deliberately not thinking about sex and sexuality, you are thinking about sex and sexuality. It is the psychological basis for the myth of, "Oh, please, don't. Please, no! Oh, thank you, I'm so naïve. Thank you for showing me what I was missing out on!"

    No, really, here's a piece of Americana for you: Teach the children to sleep with their hands outside the blankets so as not to be tempted to touch themselves. It's a lot less common today; I would hope it nearly obsolete. But as far as I can tell, the question of its persistence being significant during my lifetime is simply a matter of how we qualify significance. Mostly, I use the example because it is so apparent. Focusing on the antithesis in response to the reality is still engaging the reality. This is how they sublimate their temptation.

    More directly: If you sit there rolling through porn websites in order to write editorials about the evils of pornography, you are still sitting there rolling through porn websites.

    Think about a basic difference; your outlook and mine appear to include a common aspect whereby we are unable to describe what any given violation means to the victim, while the alternative presented requires the observer to judge what the event should or should not mean to the victim.

    For all my pessimism about my culture, I admit these are comparatively bold expressions. Most people are already capable of telling the difference. And as with any explanation of our neighbors' behavior, the functional answer is found in the question why. Why is this a gray zone for our neighbors?

    One need be neither psychologist nor egomaniac to wonder about the vested interest. One way or another, self-interest is involved; the answer to how it is involved will answer the why.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Deutsch, Barry. "Rape and Consent". Ampersand. 9 October 2014. LeftyCartoons.com. 7 June 2015. http://bit.ly/1s1oRB9
     
    Tiassa, Jun 7, 2015
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    Can someone explain to me how Capracus is engaging in rape apologism, when Josh Duggar didn't actually rape anyone?
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    So... are you implying that you think sexual assault is okay as long as there's no penetration?
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #44
  8. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It is a general term that is often used to explain the apologies people sometimes give, or diminishing or minising sexual assault. Such as questioning if sexual molestation is really harmful if the victim is asleep or questioning if groping someone while they sleep (without their consent) is really sexual assault or violent sexual assault (arguments he has made in this thread). It falls under the purview of rape culture, where sexual assaults are excused or minimised. And the excuses he has been making skirt along excusing and minimising and normalising incest and child molestation because of his perceived lack of harm.

    By his argument, he seems to be saying that sexual assault is not really "assault" or that bad if there is no harm involved. So in this instance, because the victims were often asleep, he questions if they were even harmed and he thinks the parents did a good job because he doesn't see how the girls were harmed (because they were groped and sexually molested while their clothes were on). Plus he doesn't really see a big deal in what happened (apparently incest isn't that big of a deal...)... And he appears to be arguing that sexual assault is only a big deal because society is "hypersensitive" to it, so we tend to jump when we hear about it. And apparently this is even more so for me. But the gist of his argument seems to be that it isn't really bad or even "assault" or a violent assault, because the girls were asleep when it happened, so it can't have been all that bad.

    I have asked about penetration, and gotten no response. So good luck there.

    Let's hope he clarifies his position a bit clearer.
     
    Bells, Jun 8, 2015
    #45
  9. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    So you can accuse someone of supporting rape culture, even if they aren't even discussing rape? Using a term such as 'rape culture' in such a fashion is a disingenuous way of putting words into your opponent's mouth. Simply because Capracus is questioning the level of culpability and seriousness in a particular case of molestation is in no way indicative of how he feels about forcible sexual penetration.

    I notice that Tiassa made the claim that Capracus was engaging in 'rape apologism', before he had even had a chance to clarify his point of view. I'm surprised you let that slide, given how you are bawling about someone supposedly slandering you in another thread.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #46
  10. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Is there really a world of difference between non-consensual sexual contact with or without actual insert-tab-A-into-slot-B mechanics?
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #47
  11. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    So you feel that an unwanted touch on the ass and having an unwanted penis forcefully shoved into an orifice are equivalent in severity? If that's your opinion, then fine. But don't act surprised if not everyone shares your view.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #48
  12. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    When does it change from being non-acceptable to being acceptable? Is it only if any penetration occurs or is there another line you prefer to use?
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #49
  13. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    Given your lack of response, I can only assume you tacitly agreeing with the fact that it's a logical fallacy to equivocate the act of touching someone's private parts with the act of rape. Therefore we are in agreement that it is inappropriate to state that Capracus engaged in rape apologism.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #50
  14. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I take it you failed to read the whole of the title of this thread?

    This thread is about rape culture and the culture in which sexual assaults are minimised and normalised.. I didn't think this would be so hard to grasp..

    Would you have preferred I broke it down into all of its separate components? I would have, but it wouldn't have fit into the title.

    He's already said he doesn't really see the big deal with incest and he doesn't really see the big deal with sexual assault if she is asleep because he doesn't think that's harmful), sooooo.. What exactly is your point? Or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

    Well what he has clarified has been plenty disturbing. Right now it's more the fact that we are trying to stem the flow of his normalising incest and sexual molestation of children in questioning where the harm is because he doesn't think children who are sexually molested and can't understand what's happened to them are really harmed by it. "Rape apologism" is the least of his concerns at present... Believe me.

    And Joe claimed that I enjoy the thought of people being murdered.

    Do you actually have anything to add in regards to the subject matter of this thread? Because if you do not and all you are doing here is complaining and trying to divert this thread off topic with your complaints, then you can open a thread with your complaint in Site Feedback or Open Government.
     
    Bells, Jun 8, 2015
    #51
  15. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    And what does that have to do with the claim that Capracus is engaging in rape apologism?

    That's a bold-faced lie. Then again, I've come to expect nothing more from you.

    So you can't substantiate the claim that Capracus is engaging in rape apologism. Nice attempt at trying to deflect and shift the goalposts, but you're not fooling anyone other than the choir that's preaching.

    No, he didn't. You, on the other hand, have wrongly accused someone as promoting rape culture . And this isn't the first time, either. I remember when you pulled a similar stunt on Geoff, and you weren't called into account for it.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #52
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Dude, he's saying sexual assault, incest and child molestation isn't that bad if there is no perceived harm. What do you think?

    Do you also believe the same? Would you, like Capracus, have no problem with a 15 year old guy sexually molesting a 5 year old girl because she doesn't understand what is going on? Do you think it shouldn't be a big deal because you cannot see how harm could come of it if she can't understand what has happened to her? The guy even said he wouldn't consider it to be a big deal if his 15 year old molested his 10 year old, unless it was an ongoing issue. And you are asking me what do I have to support the claim that he is engaging in rape apologism?

    You actually have not read this thread, have you?

    That is literally what Capracus has been saying in this thread.

    Look Tali89, I get that your sole purpose here is to complain, but at the very least, read the thread if you wish to be taken seriously.

    I'm moving the goal posts and deflecting?

    Dude, you entered this thread to troll and flame. You have yet to say a single thing about the subject matter of this thread. All you are doing is trolling and a pathetic attempt to flame.

    And you would be wrong.

    Last time, stop trying to take this thread off topic with your trolling and flaming. If you keep going, I'll just ban you from this discussion.

    Oh you mean your interpretation of things that happened years before you ever joined, yet you claim you have gone back to read through posts from years ago? You're either a stalker or you are lying. Either way, you are trolling and flaming.

    You should perhaps put those powers of reading you have and read this thread instead of flapping about something you clearly have no clue about and have clearly not even bothered to read the thread. Last time I am going to warn you. If you have a complaint, then take it to the proper channels, like the appropriate sub-forum or PM an admin. But stop flaming and trolling this thread.
     
    Bells, Jun 8, 2015
    #53
  17. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I've just been looking at tali's posting history on the forum. There's a definite pattern.
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #54
  18. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    If molesting is 1/10th as bad as rape, and you molest a total of ten times... I'd consider that to be as bad as a single rape.
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #55
  19. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    He's not saying that. And again, even if he were saying that, that has nothing to do with his stance on the act of rape, so any claim of rape apologism is unsubstantiated.

    If that is what he has been saying, then you should have no problem quoting him verbatim to support your claim. Indeed, you should be leaping at this opportunity to prove me wrong.

    Yes. Both Tiassa and you have claimed that Capracus is engaging in rape apologism. I asked for evidence of this. You responded by saying he's been attempt to minimise the impact of molestation and incest. I'm sorry Bells, but you can't prove someone is a rape apologist by pointing out that they are (supposedly) molestation or incest apologists. I know you think that's a clever sleight of hand on your part, but I'm not falling for it.

    Bells, you must have threatened me, what, half a dozen times now? Have I ever shown anything other than complete and utter contempt at your attempts to browbeat me? No? Then what makes you think this time will be any different?

    As I've told you countless times in the past, forum posts are a matter of public record. If you don't want objectionable stuff you've written to be quoted back to you at a later date, then don't post objectionable material on a public forum.

    I don't. I'm simply asking you to substantiate a claim you made. Instead you've engaged in deflections, strawmen, and personal attacks. Oh, and then you threatened to censor me. No, I'm not complaining at all. I actually find this whole fiasco rather funny.

    Careful. Apparently looking at posts more than a day old may be considered 'stalking' by some members.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #56
  20. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    He literally is saying that.

    The thread is 3 pages long. Since you have claimed to have the desire and willpower to read threads from years ago before you ever joined here, it's not much for me to expect that you be able to read 3 pages, is it?

    Not only does he compare child sexual molestation and incest to normal contact, he then goes on to say that the girls weren't aware because most of the molestation occurred while they were asleep, so what's the harm?

    Do you agree with him? Yes or no?

    Do you agree with this, yes or no?

    Do you think touching a child's vagina and breasts, even while she sleeps, not really that bad because she's asleep and since sexual violence is really in the eyes of the victim, if she isn't aware of it or understands it, what's the harm.. Do you agree with this?

    Would you have lied to protect your son if he molested your daughters?

    Is this normal? Because I don't know anyone who is not a child molester who would have done so.

    The police officer he is praising is a known child sex offender who is serving over 50 years in prison for child pornography. He also praised his father for hiding and not allowing him to be questioned by police until the statute of limitations expired because had he not done so, it would have affected their TV career. Priorities.

    These are just some from page one. There are more. For example:

    You just find out your son has been molesting his sisters, what would your reaction be? Would you put a lock on the daughter's door, tell her she isn't to be alone with him anymore and she isn't allowed to play hide and seek and leave it there?

    Capracus was carrying on as if it is Josh who is the true victim here. Do you agree?

    Do you agree that sexual molestation and incest isn't that big of a deal if the victim is clothed or asleep? Or was it only bad when she woke up? But then again, she woke up and was too young to understand what was happening to her and as one victim noted, Josh was a sly molester who knew what he was doing.. So is that still okay? Still up to her to not be molested? Because what Capracus leaves out in this whole discussion is the context in which these girls are brought up to believe that they are to blame if they are raped or sexually assaulted. No harm there, right? And the 5 year old? She's too young to know better, so what's the big deal? If that is the case, why even bother prosecuting sexual molestation of children, sexual abuse of children or incest if the child doesn't understand or know what's going on or what is happening to them?

    You might agree with him that molesting children isn't that big of a deal if they don't understand or know what is going on, but you also need to understand the inherent dangers of taking such stances. One, people will assume you are a creep and secondly, you could find yourself having to defend a paedophile's hiding child molestation, like Capracus has done. Proceed with caution.

    I did? Where?

    Considering you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic of this thread, I don't think you are in any position to whine about anyone or anything.

    Dude, you keep responding to my threads and posts and then claim that you have sat down and read my posts from years ago. You're either a stalker or a weirdo. Either way, you are still trolling and flaming, despite repeated requests you stick to the subject.

    And that's fine. Which begs the question, why can't you even read 3 pages if you are able to go back and read through all of my posts from years before you ever appeared here?

    And I suggested you read the last couple of pages of this thread and I have asked you to actually discuss this thread's topic. And you are still incapable of doing so.

    I get that this is funny, but this is a constant theme with you and you are flaming and trolling, which is against this site's rules. Since you have read through years of posts on this site in the short time you have been here, you would know this by now.

    Nah, see, you claim you have gone back and read all of my posts. Why, I do not know. I am not that interesting.

    Now, either discuss this thread's topic and take your whining and complaining to the appropriate forum or don't bother posting in this thread at all.
     
    Bells, Jun 8, 2015
    #57
  21. tali89

    tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    No, he isn't. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make your blatant lie any more true. And yes, it's a lie, because you're cognizant of what 'literally' means.

    And?

    No, he didn't say that anywhere in what you quoted.

    How on earth can I agree with a question?

    Oh, I just read the remainder of your post, and I can tell you are misrepresenting Capracus, and then asking me leading questions. Uh, no thanks, I'd rather not play that game.

    Hmm, you make posts, and I respond. Fancy that. It's almost as if this is a discussion forum. By the way, I suspect you have initiated the majority of discussions between us, so you might not want to imply that I seek you out, because all evidence points to the opposite.

    I've read threads related to the current topic in which you were a participant. I certainly haven't looked through you post history, because I'd rather not subject myself to such banality.

    Hahah, yeah, whatever floats your boat. "Rape apologist, stalker, weirdo, sexist, racist, etc." You shoot off whatever insult you want and then play the perpetual victim, I really don't care.

    And you conclude with another bald faced lie. I'd have to be a dyed in the wool masochist to read even half the tripe you've posted on this forum.
     
    tali89, Jun 8, 2015
    #58
  22. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why are you even here?
     
    Daecon, Jun 8, 2015
    #59
  23. Capracus

    Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Show us the documentation of these cases.

    The simple fact that he violated their privacy by way of any nonconsensual physical contact could be minimally defined as assault. By appling the Bells zero tolerance rule; all nonconsensual contact must be violent assault. So if Josh had been drawing mustaches on his sisters while they slept he is equally as guilty.

    A virtual rape tutorial.



    What if the pen had slipped and penetrated his nostril?!!!

    So which of the Duggar girls informed you of their views on dominance and sexual assault? Or are you just psychic? And how does gently touching someone over their clothing or drawing mustaches on their face equate to rape?

    I view your reaction to how particular degrees of assault are treated as hypersensitive.

    Is that before or after you condition her to perceive a particular touch as harmful? Because until you do, she wouldn’t have a clue. How many times in her life was that young girl touched on her breast or vagina, and suddenly this one time was to be understood as horrific?

    What does normalcy have to do with whether or not something is socially correct or not? It’s not normal for most people to be a saint or a serial killer, but it is normal for people to explore the tendencies that lead to these polar outcomes. I have no desire to encourage abusive behavior of any kind, but I do realize that the means to that end doesn’t always necessitate an aggressive approach.

    Sexual molestation of a serious nature if allowed to progress can become a serious problem.

    Remember, there were no screams from the sisters, as they were unaware of the violation. The only one screaming was Josh.

    So you assume that Josh was not admonished not to keep touching the girls? Or that Jim Bob didn’t take the rod to him after the first incident? That doesn’t fit their ideological profile.

    Jim Bob: Josh, I command thee to go forth and molest thy sisters. Sisters, yee shall run and hide when thy brother approaches, but if thee should capture thou, thou shalt submit to thine advances and forgive thine transgression.

    Sound plausible?

    And of course all sexual assault is equal, and should be treated as such. And god knows if something is illegal it must be horribly wrong. Excellent logic don’t you think?

    I never said it wasn’t assault, I said the level of assault didn’t necessitate the level of response you thought fitting.

    I haven’t been conditioned to appreciate incest, but I don’t really have a problem with those who consensually wish to practice it. To the degree that molestation becomes a significant violation of ones physical and emotional well being, I think it should be dealt with in a proportional manner.

    Yes.

    Do I think all sexual assault is equal? No.

    Yes.

    Why do you make a distinction about age? Violence is violence and it’s all supposed to be treated equally. Right?

    That’s what you’re trying to do by putting an age limit on it. Why wouldn’t your logic also apply to sexual violence?

    Because they don’t believe as you do that what their brother did warranted your solution. And their Christian philosophy instructs them to forgive their transgressors.

    I can imagine the pressure you feel to express some of the nonsense you espouse.

    Like such a thing can’t possibly exist. It’s either all or nothing in your book.

    What, the adult Duggar girls are still under the spell of their lying, degenerate svengali of a father? And you know this from some long intimate conversation with them? Please, enlighten us and post a transcript of this dialogue. God I wish such a thing actually existed.
     
    Capracus, Jun 8, 2015
    #60
Page 3 of 19

Share This Page