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

These are actual cases and no, I will not show you the documentation of those cases. For one thing, they have my name in them and secondly, do you really think I am going to let you, the guy who praised a paedophile for protecting a child molester and the guy who claims that sexual assault isn't that bad if she doesn't know about it, know or even come within 100 miles of my real name?

It takes someone with a real problem to come into a thread discussing child molestation and incest to make jokes about it, Capracus. Do you find the thought of someone feeling up little girls funny?

Please, for the safety of those around you, seek help.

Their parents informed everyone when they spread the word of the lesson plans they educate their children by, lessons designed by a guy who sexually assaulted dozens of women, not to mention the fact that the mother released flyers, to help educate women and girls on who and what they should be and how and why they must always be willing and compliant to the needs of the men in their families, particularly their husbands. It's all linked.

You might view my revulsion towards the molestation of children and incest as being hypersensitive and that's fine. I view your excuses for it, your praising known paedophiles and your praising the hiding and protection of child molesters from facing the law to be abhorrent and perverted. Just as I viewed your scoffing that groping someone's breasts while they sleep as being sexual assault to be very disturbing. Not to mention your comments and imaginings of how little you would do to protect your own children if your elder child molested their younger sibling.

What do you consider to be out of bounds when it comes to sexual molestation and incest when the victims are minors, Capracus?

You really don't understand the issue of consent?

Or do you think that if someone molests a child when that child is asleep, that it isn't that bad because the child does not know of or understand what's going on? This has been a running theme for you in this thread.

What do you actually think of child molestation and incest, Capracus?

Do you believe that children who report molestation are conditioned by society and those around them to be harmed by it? Is that the issue here? Do you think touching a 5 year old's vagina for sexual pleasure is okay if she is asleep? Or do you think it is society's "hypersensitivity" towards incest and child molestation which makes it bad, not to mention illegal?

And you think protecting them and hiding them from the law is a better approach?

Normalcy has everything to do with it, Capracus. When you come out and question whether sexual molestation is really harmful or if I have "conditioned" a victim to perceive a touch as harmful, then yes, normalcy has everything to do with it. Because it is only someone who views such behaviour as normal, who would comment that victims are possibly conditioned to perceive harm when sexually molested.

And I think the fact that you don't understand that is concerning. Very and deeply concerning. For a variety of reasons.

What do you classify as a "serious nature" when it comes to sexual molestation of children?

Penetration? Molesting them when they are awake and aware?

More to the point, what sexual molestation of children do you think is not of a "serious nature"?

Why do you think he was screaming for help? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Josh and everything to do with screaming for help to remove temptation from his reach. Hence why the girls were told and the girls were told to not sit on his lap, to not play hide and seek with the boys and to lock their bedroom door at night. The onus was always on the girls to not be molested. Normal child behaviour had become dirty and sinful if the girls did it with the boys. Why? Because the girls could tempt their brother to molest them. The blame was never on Josh, as you are arguing so well. You view Josh as the victim, don't you?

I'm sorry, you don't think sexual assault, child sexual molestation and incest is "horribly wrong"?

 

I linked you several documents, articles and guidelines for how to deal with Josh's actions and behaviour. These are recommendations by specialists and psychologists. All of which clearly state that Josh should have been immediately removed from the house, for his sake and that of his victims, and he should have received the treatment he clearly desperately needed.

As for incest, there are a variety of reasons why it is wrong. I didn't think I would have to explain that.

Now did I expect that I would have to explain why a 15 year old sexually molesting his 5 year old sister is wrong and a deep violation. But alas, I am apparently wrong, because you do not seem to understand this.

You just don't think it's that bad if she doesn't know or understand what is happening or has happened to her.

What makes this more disturbing is that we are discussing the molestation of children. Do you think child molesters should be reported to the police if they molest children while they sleep? What do you think of paedophiles in general? Are you fine with them so long as their sexual abuse does not cause harm? How do you rate harm? Physical? Yes? Psychological? Only if the victim is aware of it? If the victim complains of being sexually molested, do you query if they have been conditioned to perceive that harm?

No Capracus. It isn't. A guy walking up and punching you in a bar is not the same as a guy you are in a relationship with beating you at home.

And domestic violence and sexual violence are not treated the same as other forms of violence. And sexual violence against children is also treated differently, for a variety of reasons. I am surprised you don't understand this and why this is so.

Because their effects and what they do to people, and the fact that one involves children, makes it vastly different.

And the age of victims, especially children, are treated differently by the legal system. For obvious reasons.

You really don't understand what I linked?

They never had a choice. They were then made to sit down and speak to their brother, and forgive him. There was no choice for them. At all.

You think being against child molestation and rape is nonsense?

Yeah, we got it. You have made that clear enough.

I don't make fun of or light of the sexual molestation of children. Nor do I diminish it or try to normalise it. You do. We get that.

Please, seek help.

You mean the fact that they virtually parroted their father's words wasn't of an indication enough for you?

 

Not my problem you have an issue with reading and comprehension.

Let me guess, you agree that sexual molestation of children isn't harmful if they don't know or understand what is happening to them?

I see you are still dishonest.

There is only so much flaming and trolling that you can do to try and throw this thread off topic. And you reached the limit.

What's wrong with it? Capracus has been saying that he thinks victims of child molestation are conditioned to "perceive harm", apparently by me and that sexually molesting children isn't really that big of a deal if they aren't harmed by it. Do you agree with that sentiment or not? A yes or no will suffice. I don't particularly care what you think, but if you wish and demand to make your presence felt in this thread, then at least discuss the thread topic and partake in the discussion instead of trolling and flaming it.

Misrepresenting him? You didn't read his posts, did you?

You can only lie so much, tali89 and at this point, you are being so dishonest, I'm surprised your underpants haven't caught fire yet.

I'll even make it easier for you.

Do you have a zero tolerance for child sexual molestation and abuse? Yes or no?

Because according to Capracus, it is a bad thing to have zero tolerance for the sexual molestation of children. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?

You don't post or participate in discussions though.

And no Tali89, I think you will find that I tend to not initiate these discussions with you. The fact that you have repeatedly advised how you have gone back and read all of my posts from before you joined, is creepy. There is no "us". Please do not associate me with you.

Which is why you comment on things from different threads and subjects from years before you even joined?

Look dude, we get it. You're one of those.

No one really cares. Just stick to the subject of the thread and leave your personal issues out of it.

And yet, here you are, caring. Caring so much that you just jumped into a discussion to try and flame and troll it, without knowing what the person you are avidly supporting is saying. That usually ends bad.

Yet you claim you have. Even referring to things that happened years before you ever joined.

Sadly, you are still not discussing this thread's topic. Please take your little obsessions elsewhere.

 

Mod Note

Since Tali89 refuses to stop trolling and flaming this thread and refusing to take his/her off-topic posts to the appropriate forum, tali89 is barred from this discussion for 5 days.

 

No one can blame the girls for what happened to them, or for their reaction to what happened to them.

They tell of how they forgave, how their father sat down with them to discuss forgiveness and then they were made to sit with their molester and forgive him. Imagine that. These are girls who said they were scared, shocked and appalled by what had happened. Their feelings were never considered. It was their forgiving their brother that was the most important thing at that time.

And now, it is protecting the image that is more important. So these girls had to appear on TV and publicly declare they forgave him and say they were not harmed, because hey, what's some brotherly incest and touching while they are fully clothed and asleep? Capracus touches on the importance of preserving their financial future and the reputation of their son when he praised the paedophile that protected him and when he praised the parent's actions in hiding it all and preventing Josh from even being questioned by police who had no vested interest in protecting him or the family brand. Keep in mind, the paedophile police officer who gave Josh a stern talking to and then failed to report the abuse, was involved in the father's business. Capracus takes each part of this issue and fails to put it into context when he asks 'what's the real harm in what he did'..

But yes, I did note his attempts to pit me against the victims of Josh Duggar. When I had clearly stated several times that their response is to be expected. I certainly was not surprised by it, nor do I blame them for it. They are the real victims here. Not just for what happened to them, but for the way in which they have been treated by the family in their bid to protect the family brand and to protect their brother. It's that brand, and the brother, that are obviously more important.

Duggar sisters Jessa Seewald and Jill Dillard have every right in the world to define their lives and experiences as they see fit. They have every right to decide how they feel about what their brother did to them — and a right to form their own opinions about how the media has handled the revelations that Josh Duggar, in his own words, “acted inexcusably” more than ten years ago. But watching the Duggars — first parents Jim Bob and Michelle, and then daughters Jessa and Jill — trot out their version of what happened all those years ago, and how they handled it, it’s hard not to feel like we’re watching a family more concerned about losing control of a narrative they’ve carefully crafted than of one trying to have an authentic conversation about what they call their “darkest times.”

The Duggars had a nice little industry going for themselves for a while there, withtheir TLC franchise and subsequent book deals and speaking engagements andpolitical clout wielding. Then last month, In Touch revealed the police reports ofmultiple incidents of forcibly touching at least five girls, including his sisters. In their conversation with Megyn Kelly last week, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar simultaneously insisted they’d take appropriate measures to stop the behavior but downplayed the events, saying, “He was still a kid. He was still a juvenile. He wasn’t an adult. This was not rape or anything like that. This was touching someone over their clothes.” And when on Friday it was sisters Jessa and Jill’s turn, they dutifully echoed the sentiment.

[...]

The sisters say that “We’ve never claimed to be a perfect family,” and they are entitled to have private struggles and pains. But when you’re someone like Jessa, who’s compared abortion to the holocaust, or someone like mom Michelle, who’scampaigned actively against rights for transgender individuals, or dad Jim Bob, who has asserted that “rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes,” you have set yourself on a certain morally judgmental plane. You can question the motives of the tabloids, you can assert your own peace with your past, but you don’t get to play the victim card because the rest of the media is not your carefully controlled TV show, or because people are asking questions about the disconnect between your family’s image and the behavior of its members.

And in all of their outrage, the four Duggars who have sat down for interviews have thus far failed to make a strong statement to other girls out there, and other families, about bodily autonomy or about how to appropriately handle a situation like the one they found themselves in. Instead, they’re working a narrative of “It wasn’t that bad and it was long ago and all is forgiven and the media is the real problem.” And that’s what makes it so sad and unconvincing. “We are not a perfect family,” Jill says. “We are just a family.” A family that until recently was a reality empire. A family no longer with a believable script.

​

I doubt anyone was surprised when they virtually parroted their parents comments. And no one can blame them.

These girls were brought up to believe that if a man sexually assaults or rapes a woman, then it is the woman's fault for tempting him. The parents behaviour and their self declared actions point not towards not having Josh re-offend, but to remove temptation before Josh. So the girls were told to not be alone with him, not play hide and seek, no sitting on laps, that it is up to them to lock the door in their room. It was for the girls to alter their behaviour, not Josh. All after being made to sit down with their molester and forgive him, because that is what was expected of them. Imagine growing up in a household where you are taught that if you do not adhere to a strict set of behaviours, that your brother(s) might molest you? Imagine growing up in a household where this is normal? I am reminded of how some became so offended at the thought that women should view all males as potential rapists when they supported rape prevention.

Yet, here we have a family with a wealth family brand, who instilled in their daughters, the belief that it was up to them to alter their behaviour, how they dress and act and play as children, because their brothers are potential molesters and these people have come so far down that dank black hole, that they are questioning if sexually molesting a child is really bad for the child if they slept through it, or complaining about conditioning children to perceive harm from being sexually molested, because they don't really see how some child molestation can be harmful..

 

There is something deeply disturbing with using child molestation as a conservative battleground over parental rights, so much so that they are trying to downplay molestation and excuse it to score political points.

Even more disturbing is that the response to 'child molestation and incest is bad' garners a response that is tantamount to 'parental rights' even when it comes to protecting and minimising the molestation of children. You know the situation is dire when you find yourself praising the actions of a paedophile. I don't know if Fox is a cause or a symptom of a much deeper and darker malady.

 

Are you suggesting that a 14-15 year old boy with full control of his faculties is mentally on par and as mature as a 7 year old? And that pre-pubescent curiousity leads boys to molest their little sisters? Seriously? You're going with this?

The fact that he molested multiple times and clearly knew it was wrong, and was, as his own sisters described him, a "sly" molester kind of says it all.

 

We now live in a nation where the conservative cable news network is spinning in support of a confessed child molester, as well as the people who tried to hide his actions. Fox News Channel has always been an egregious source for misinformation and GOP talking points. We all know this. It’s also been a powerful backstop whenever a Republican candidate commits one of many unforced errors — blurting out a ludicrous rape remark, or worse. However, in the past week, Fox News has crossed the zero-barrier between spinning for the GOP and into the realm of manufacturing phraseology and excuses for a Christian television family caught up in a sexual abuse scandal.

[...]

Fox News might occasionally drop in a word or two about the awfulness of what Josh did, but it’s invariably sandwiched between stories about alleged religious persecution and media recklessness, both of which feature language that understates what really happened.

The most flagrant tell was how Kelly and other on-air hosts have adopted the Duggar euphemism for sexual abuse: “improper” or “inappropriate touching.” It’s the new “homicide bomber” — Fox News Channel’s shifty alternate term for “suicide bomber.” Throughout the Bush years, we witnessed the entrenching of weasel language; the Healthy Forests Initiative or the Clear Skies Act, for example, each of which totally contradicted those titles in content and practice. And now, Fox News has employed this technique to whitewash a confessed sex offender.

It goes without saying that pedophiles across the country are likely grateful for the new-fangled “improper touching” description: I’m no child molester, your honor, it was just some “improper touching.”​

Cesca isn't wrong.

There does a pear to be a new language when describing incest and the molestation of children. And yes, this will go some way to benefit paedophiles. By lessening the crime, by diminishing and minimising it, and worse, normalising it to being not that far from normal, we are entering dangerous territory. That this is being played out in a right versus left arena is ridiculous, but here we are.

The irony of course, is that many on the right are defending child sexual molestation in what they see as being an attack on their religious beliefs. Perhaps they could speak to the Catholic Church when it comes to trying to divert attention away from abuse and molestation by minimising it and having a victimhood complex because they were caught out.

In this case, we see the Duggars and Fox and other right wing pundits complain that the outrage against what Josh Duggar did is a direct attack on all of them, because Josh Duggar is a Christian. To pull this off, of course they minimise the words and diminish his crime to being "improper touching". And of course they keep reminding everyone that incest and sexual molestation and assault of children isn't that harmful. Terms like "improper touching" makes his diddling his 5 year old sister more palatable to their viewers. Then of course we have people like Capracus who go further and complain that it is just as harmful if Josh had kicked his sisters in the shin. Because, apparently, the two are comparable.

Then of course we have the issue of context. The Duggars have made a name for themselves for their obscene ultra right fundamentalist Christian beliefs, that demonise others for their sexuality. And yet, when it comes to a child molester, they are happy to normalise it and deem it to be simply "improper touching".

Stepping back and looking at all of this in the bigger picture, Fox News has turned a crime that ought to have been universally reviled by everyone of all political affiliations into nothing more than a partisan shovel fight. It’s difficult to tell whether Americans will ever again unify around an event or crisis. A sex offender and public figure who confessed to his crime, which included the incestuous fondling of a 5-year-old girl while she slept, ought to be condemned by both the left and the right.

But today, everything from child molestation to an overzealous white cop tackling a 14-year-old African-American girl, after she merely committed the non-crime of mouthing off while black, is a partisan issue. The crime and the hypocrisy should be abundantly clear to all observers. But it’s not.

Frankly, if I were a conservative Christian, I’d be embarrassed and ashamed by the Duggars. I sure as hell wouldn’t be trolling Twitter with Fox News talking points intended to exonerate or distract from what Josh Duggar and his parents did. This story marks a harrowing turning point in our discourse and let history record that Fox News led the way.​

We have entered dangerous territory when sexual assault, sexual molestation of children and incest is described as "improper touching" and when we have people questioning the actual harm from such criminal acts.

Sure, we can blame Fox News. We should also remember that they are pandering to their readers, members and those who watch their news shows.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cesca, Bob. "Fox News Is Covering for the Duggars: With Shifty Language and Half-truths, Fox Chooses the Side of a Molester." Saloncom RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2015. http://bit.ly/1MEh9WU

 

She was 7 years of age.

Josh Duggar was 14 and then 15 years of age.

Josh Duggar was also a molester of opportunity, waiting while his victims slept or were otherwise distracted before groping their vaginas and breasts and then hiding it when they started to wake up, pretending he was doing something else. Lena's curiosity is normal for a child her age. She wasn't groping her sister's vagina and breasts while she slept for her own pleasure at 14 and 15 years of age. Josh did it multiple times, with different victims.

I would have thought that this was obvious.

He was 14 and going on 15. The last time he molested a child, he was a year from being allowed to drive a car.

This wasn't curiousity. He was "sly" about it. He also molested multiple times, even a 5 year old girl.

He had been taught from a young age that his sisters and the women in his life were there to serve him and his needs. That is the joys of ATI home schooling that his parents ascribed to.

Yes. I smoked cigarettes and stole some wine from my dad before going to a party. And going for joy rides in the back of a van without seats. That stopped when the van crashed one night that a lot of us hadn't gone out, but the school friends of mine who were in the back of it all died. I have never not worn a seatbelt since that day.

No, I didn't molest any children.

Why? Because molesting small children does not fall within the realm of normal risky behaviour teenagers often get up to.

Do you understand why that is? Or do you need a blow by blow account of why that isn't normal?

I am pretty certain that the other people posting in this thread did not molest their sleeping and awake younger sisters.

How many small children did you molest?

Since, you know, you are trying to normalise sexual molestation of children as being something normal that teenagers do..

Are you seriously asking that question?

Wow..

Are you asking this on behalf of the molested? Or the molester?

Not only are you trying to normalise the sexual abuse of children, you are also trying to minimise and diminish it by mocking it and mocking those who have survived it, not to mention scoffing at the very notion of harm that is caused by such abuse, because the crux of your argument in this thread has been to ask 'what's the harm in a bit of incest and sexual molestation of children' if it was just touching and if the victim has not been "conditioned" to find it harmful.

As Cesca noted, such arguments only suit molesters. Because it serves them to diminish and minimise the crime and try to question if it is even harmful.

The fact that you think a 15 year old repeatedly molesting his sisters is the same as a 7 year old girl looking at her baby sister's vagina kind of says it all really. Josh didn't look. Josh groped his sisters while they slept, fondled their vaginas and their breasts and even did so to his 5 year old sister as a 15 year old. If you cannot distinguish what is normal touching for a child and what is normal touching for a teenager, then please, seek help immediately.

 

Ah so now you think his actions went too far?

Because you spent nearly 4 pages arguing the absolute opposite. You dismissed what he did, questioned whether sexual molestation of children was even harmful, questioned if children are conditioned to find it harmful. And now you are saying you have been arguing that his actions went too far?

My god, did you not read anything that was linked?

He molested his younger sisters. Stalked them while they slept and molested them. When at least one woke up, he lied, did something with their blankets and then his guilt that he sinned, went and told his parents. Who did nothing the first time. Punished him the second time and then after he had taken to molesting his 5 year old sister, finally acted on it. This is not simple curiousity. He had gotten to the point where he wasn't even waiting for them to be asleep anymore. He molested them 5 times before he spoke up about it the first time. You don't think that was sly? These are kids who are taught that any transgression will result in going to hell.

His victims were then made to forgive him, made to sit with him and speak to him and forgive him. He didn't ask for forgiveness because what he did to them was harmful to them. He asked for forgiveness for himself.

And it wasn't out of curiousity. The fact that he kept molesting over and over again clearly shows it was not curiousity.

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. I said that as a teenager, I did stupid things sometimes.

Sexually molesting children was never one of them. Why? Because it isn't one of the stupid things normal teenagers do.

I never needed to vow not to molest. Did you?

Because that isn't normal.

Who killed who?

You normalised it when you compared it to normal touching, not to mention minimised it as being nothing more than a bit of "feeling up a little sister".

Who said that it was?

You asked about whether I had done anything stupid as a teenager. I said yes, I went on joyrides in a back of a van without seats with my friends. And one night, while a lot of us were studying for our exams, a group of my friends went on a joyride and they all died. I am not saying being molested is worse.

I am saying that we all did stupid things. But molesting little children was never one of them. Why? Because child molesters are inclined to molest, to seek out the opportunity to fiddle with little kids for their own gratification. It isn't curiousity. Curiousity would have been a one off molestation. He molested multiple times. And his victims became younger and younger. Completely different thing to getting into the back of a van without seats and getting smashed into by a truck.

Oh please. Give me a new one. Is this your "it wasn't molestation, your honour, it was just improper touching".

Do you not know or understand the ongoing trauma molestation does to its victims?

And that's the thing. You are comparing a crime against children, to behaviours that do not fall into the same category. Do you consider sexual molestation to a car crash? Is a car crash a behaviour? No, it isn't. Had there been seats in that van and they were wearing seatbelts, they would have died regardless. So your point is moot. But nice try.

You viewed both as being from curiousity and experimentation, not to mention you Josh's molestation as being as harmless as Dunham's looking at her sister's vagina when she was 7 years of age, because Josh's victims were unaware of what was going on as Lena's sister was too young to understand, just as Lena herself was too young to understand. You viewed both as being similar and equivalent, perhaps to even warrant a comparison.