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

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

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, true. What I find striking is the antisocial aspects of it, since the only real issue of conscience evident in Tali's posts manifest in a loathing for individuals, resulting in a willingness to take extremely stupid positions for the sake of being oppositional.

    But look at how this troupe works. It is nearly cultish in itself. These summaries intended to praise those who aid and abet child molesters are deliberately constructed to pretend there is a gray area.

    Like Tali's glowing praise for aiding and abetting the molestation of children:

    "You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. In a house of 19 kids, one of the children goes down a bad path. [1] The parents institute an escalating series of remedial actions [2], and appear to have raised the child into an adult who no longer molests [3]. And liberals are complaining about this? It's almost like they are pissed that they missed the opportunity to tar and feather, and then crucify, a conservative [4]. Isn't it a shame that you can't punish someone for what they did in childhood, especially when they are reformed[5]?"

    I marked some problems with the paragraph:

    (1) In an inherently difficult situation to manage, a predictable result occurs.

    (2) If recidivism was not already an issue, there would be no need for an "escalating series of remedial actions".

    (3) Lack of evidence must necessarily equal evidence of lack.

    (4) This is what it's really about, as an entire political culture just discovered a gaping crack in its foundation.

    (5) This sort of bitter, childish accusation is all they have left.​

    There are, of course, a number of cynical issues going on. But consider how broadly ownership culture affects Republican politics. Indeed, the simplest way to express it is to consider the power of social conservatives within the Republican Party, and then remind ourselves that ownership culture is an integral component to the entire soccon platform.

    I have recently been musing nostalgic about the heavy metal wars, the glory days of the PMRC and Christian censorship advocates, in no small part because the seeming caricature of the supremacist hardliners from what would seem a relatively unimportant social-issues dustup has become something of the operating reality in hardline conservative politics today. The argumentative form, such as it is, seems very nearly identical.

    But there is another connection. Here's the story of how the Parental Music Resource Center came to be: Tipper Gore didn't stop and think before buying her nine year-old daughter a copy of the Purple Rain soundtrack.

    Yes, really. That's what happened. That's how it started. And, you know, pretty much any parent would be shocked to hear their nine year old daughter singing "Darling Nikki"°, but come on, really?

    So they went and started all that. Tipper Gore and Susan Baker. And we all know how that went.

    While Satanism drew a lot of attention in the heavy metal wars, there was also a general prudishness that failed to distinguish between various modes addressing sex and sexual issues. To these Christian censors, there was no difference between rape culture and women's liberation.

    I take comfort in the hindsight that 2 Live Crew, the iconic band that marked the censors' swing from metal to rap, was one of the gayest rap troupes in history. Still, though, there are some of us who see a difference between male-dominant sexual expression like anal gangbanging and unclean rimjobs―two of 2 Live's most notorious lyrical images―and the idea of a woman who will fuck simply because she is horny. But to the prudes the liberated woman is denigrating, because she has fallen from her glorious, God-given place in service to men↱°°.

    This failrue to acknowledge the difference is a distinguishing characteristic of ownership culture when it treads into rape culture. As I noted previously↑: This isn't about how to treat a woman, but which woman to treat that way.

    My point is that certain events and issues have coalesced in recent times, and erupted as such more specifically, in such a manner as to suggest that I'm witnessing the same ideological heritage.

    And that serves as a marker; look at how broadly this ownership culture permeates the soccon platform. It is present at every defining level. Abortion, birth control, nonmarital sex, homosexuality, transgenderism, marriage, even rape itself. Remember, social conservatives started trying to dissect rape in order to reserve statutory rape as something less real or legitimate.

    And it goes beyond. Music? Really? Movies? Books? I'm not joking↑ about reading lesbianism into a Shakespeare joke. This is where their minds are at. This is what ownership culture is for.

    Think of something specifically identifiable, like a "great" religion. In a way, we who do not accept the presuppositions can actually view what these people are doing as a complicated version of a child's game. They're playing make-believe, but on a much higher valence.

    Ownership culture is a large, communal sex fantasy. This is why gendertyping and inequality are so important to the game; the sexplay doesn't work if you change the rules for the participants.

    And look at how much ownership culture touches.

    All of that is at stake if this whole thing blows up. That child molestation happens is reality. That it will happen in a setting like this, that is designed to foster sexual exploitation, is obvious. But the confounding aspect of this tragedy, the hard line that people are drawing in defense of child molestation―whether this specific case or, as we have seen, more generally―arises from what is at stake.

    At every juncture, the Duggars seem to have acted in defense of an abstract higher cause. That is to say, we might reiterate here the point that their focus has been on defending and justifying the molester instead of supporting and empowering the victims. This is not how God does it. Nor is it any working definition of Justice. The higher cause is the ownership culture by which they extraordinarily identify, which in turn serves as a lever to justify both their fame and political influence.

    And if one celebrity or set was all that was at stake, they would be thrown under the bus. But this goes beyond just the Duggars. This is like Horatio Alger syndrome, or the Tea and Crumpets Party; there is specific sympathy toward child molestation.

    This is as clearly as we ever see this part of our societal influence, and on some level even those subsumed in ownership culture can perceive the exposure and continuing damage. This doesn't just shake the Duggars; this shakes an entire political platform.

    And that is why the defenders have fallen back to the lines they have; there is more at stake here than just the Duggars. In order to preserve that, they will justify Josh Duggar. And watch them struggle to literally rewrite the narrative. It reminds me of this Christian censorship advocate named Bob Larson, who used to rewrite the lyrics to songs in order to scare parents about heavy metal. Yeah, really. The guy still works; he has a church ... in Arizona. Couldn't see that one coming, could we?

    But this is what is going on. They are trying to redefine the fight because something bigger is at stake. And if you watch them in this context, Duggar supporters do start to make sense. Not that the resolution shouldn't horrify us, but still, it starts to make a certain amount of sense. The movement is in neurotic rupture and panicking into the range of antisocial behavior.

    Which, in turn, points to one other important element: Cruelty. In another issue, I'm watching very closely as a vicious maneuver plays out. As with and even more so than gay youth, the young transgendered are an especially vulnerable population; naturally, they are the next targets for soccons in the Gay Fray. And we might pause for a moment to consider that the conservative push is ultimately doomed, but will carry out over something of an extended period. It's bad enough taking that kind of crap on the home front, but the focused vice from the halls of power, even at the valence of presidential campaigning? This is going to be an especially rough time, but part of the point for soccons is to actually take the time and effort to pour that scorn upon a vulnerable cohort simply because they can, and that cruel sense of self-empowerment, the empowerment of the bully, is part of the reward one earns for participating in this giant sex fantasy.

    I would then simply point to the untold number of sex abuse survivors in our society, and remind that slut-shaming, blaming others, and justification not only of abuse, but conspiracy to protect the abuser at the expense of the victims, has reached the valence of presidential politics. And, you know, bullying sex abuse survivors is just part of the reward.

    It really is that sick.


    ° "I knew a girl named Nikki, I guess you could say she was a sex fiend. I met her in a hotel lobby masturbating with a magazine ...."

    °° The notorious Def Leppard t-shirt for "WOMEN: Worship Our Masters' Every Need" stands out in my mind; the song makes the point well enough, but there is always the question of how it was intended, and the general opinion remains that biting irony was not so much on the menu―this was a treat for the boys.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    It was the use of the term "liberals" that really sold it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    and i'm sure you'd be oh so understanding if a liberal was found concealing crimes until the statute of limitations ran out. thats just it tali there is no evidence he is reformed just that he is watched to the point he doesn't have the chance to do so again.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    I think, as excuses go, the one they are relying on is pretty sick.

    Here we have Christians claiming religious exemptions for child molestation. And then they whine that to show disgust that the child molestation was allowed to continue is an attack on their faith.

    I don't think Twitter is to blame. I think what is to blame is their attempt to make the molestation of children as a political battleground in their zeal to defend the Duggars. So they blame everyone else. Notice at no time do they blame Josh for actually molesting his siblings or the babysitter. They excuse it, they normalise and minimise it and the focus is on protecting the perpetrator. They are even trying to apply a different standard of interpretation to legislation to protect a child molester. One even went so far as to praise the parents for lying and praised a paedophile for protecting the child molester in not reporting him. You would think that the one thing people would agree on is that molesting children is bad. That this is one subject that no battleground would exist. But apparently not. I don't think it is Twitter, Parmalee. I think what is to blame here is politics. And as much as Milkweed and Capracus are trying to claim a religious exemption exists for molesting children, they should ask the Catholic Church about how well that defense is going.
  8. tali89 Registered Senior Member


    So you consider all 6+ billion people on earth paedophiles until they prove otherwise? Or does your paranoia only apply to conservatives?​
  9. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    The Duggars(Josh, Jim Bob and Michelle)as a group were the confidential parties relating the knowledge of abuse to the clergy, so there was no mandated reporting in this case.

    These mandatory reporting laws only came into existence in the last 40 years, so I doubt that the Christianity or the Bible were traditional advocates of government intervention in such cases.

    My bad, I misread the language in the bill as professional. The mandated reporting for mental health professionals in Arkansas has been law for at least 20 years, so if the Duggar’s professional counselors failed to notify CPS they may have violated the law.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Josh never spoke to them. Neither did Michelle Duggar. Only Jim Bob approached the elders seeking advice on what he should do.

    Others also knew, since one of these people wrote it down on a piece of paper and put it in a book. That is how the story got out in the first place.

    And Jim Bob did not confess to anything. The only way the exemption you are trying to rely on would apply would be if child molestation is part and parcel of the Bible and their religion or if it was a confession by the molester. Neither of which apply.

    If you want to try and argue that child molestation is a part of Christian teachings, then by all means make the argument instead of trying to skirt around it. Otherwise, you are relying on something that cannot actually be relied on as a defense to protecting child molesters.

    Which means the exemption does not apply and the clergy who were told of it broke the law by failing to report.

    Or the family never got those children professional counseling and they lied.

    Wow, this argument is more stupid than your doctors are eyewitnesses when they look at scans and biopsies of cancer. I didn't think you could get worse.

    You proved me wrong.

    Well done you!

    Now you should go and hi 5 that strawman.
  11. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    As a lawyer, of course you are 'pretty sure' you answered that question. But what you really did was dodge the question. What PERCENTAGE of families attempt to resolve the issue on their own and when it happens again, seek outside help?

    And I know why your dodging the question. It is a significant portion (ESPECIALLY with siblings) that take that approach. But you work on the prosecutorial end of the 'justice' system; and we've all read stories about prosecutors who 'withheld evidence'.


    Of course there is another aspect of this, you might lose your job if you told people just what percentage of families attempt to resolve these issues first; that would go against 'the message' you've been hired for. Which is probably why you wont answer a basic math question; choosing to deflect.

    More flim-flam/moving the goal posts.
    noun informal
    noun: shyster; plural noun: shysters
    1. a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business.
    Heres what you really said:
    You misrepresented the meaning of "accredited" and in typical lawyer modis operandi you try to blame me.

    Its not me claiming they (duggars) lied. And it is not the duggars responsibility if 'mandated reporters' didnt. I understood exactly what they said and didnt mistake that for being a licensed-by-the-state counselor.

    And at the end of it all, it appears the approach the Duggars took in this matter resolved the issue. Without the courts, without child protection/DHS, without jail/hospitalization.

    And thats fine with me.
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Can I just say I'm pretty certain that's not what Jesus meant?

    That is to say, of all the elements of rape culture evident in the Bible, I'm just gonna go with, "That's not what Jesus meant, Bob", for a thousand.

    I don't know, are you hoping one of them actually takes the challenge? Because, in truth, I sincerely doubt "getting the point" is on their agenda.

    I always wonder about those who can't distinguish between those with a known history of child molestation and those we don't.

    I won't mention the hashtag that just came to mind.

    Er ... ah ... right.

    Practically speaking, though, I wasn't aware that all seven billion of us had histories of recidivistic child predation.

    That archive's gotta make for some scary reading.

    • • •​

    Well, you know, the sonar joke from "Road to Germany"↱ comes to mind.

    And now, Poetry Time with Ezra:

    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

  13. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    • knock it off with the preaching / proselytizing
    I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak... I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done...there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
  14. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Stop proselytizing, Photizo.
  15. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Yes. The outrage exhibited by liberals on this thread is perplexing. Don't they *want* potential child molesters to be reformed before they grow into adult child molesters? Liberals are choosing to focus on this case of child molestation, where the parents implemented a number of measures to prevent a child developing into an adult sex offender. Of all the cases of molestation that occur in the world, it's the one that was *nipped in the bud* that liberals choose to harp on and on and on about. It's clear that those slamming the Duggars don't care about the children, they just care about themselves. It's all about *their* political views, and *their* outrage at conservatives, and *their* notions of selective justice. The hollering and petulant footstamping from egotistical individuals like Tiassa and his clergy in this thread effectively amounts to 'But what about ME!?'

    Indeed, some of the arguments being flung about are the height of irony. Tiassa stated that 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', which is the exact same argument theists provide when atheists challenge their beliefs. And none of the atheists in his echo chamber call him on this hypocrisy. It's also worth noting that he has a very low view of police officers and the justice system in general, yet seems quite insistent to have a child thrown into a system that he feels lacks procedural fairness.

    The most tragic thing about all of this is that liberals would have preferred Josh to be sanctioned like all other child molesters (eg. criminal record, listed on a sex offender register), even though such sanctions frequently fail to protect children. If they had to choose between punitive measures that don't work, or rehabilitation that does work, they would pick the punitive measures to satisfy their own bloodlust. And then they have the gall to claim that anyone who disagrees with them supports child molestation. Pathetic.
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Except it not about being a 'liberal'. If it was a liberal issue, they would incorporate new info (such as the justice dept info or the sociologist talking about the duggars approach being 'defensible' with the draconian approach taken when the 'state gets involved').

    True 'dat. And that is ignoring the fact that two of the sisters have stated its continued absence.

    Only because of who this family is and what they represent (homeschooling/fundamentalism/conservative/republican). They would have preferred the family be split up and the parents charged with a crime. There is a whole bunch of internal/personal bias present in this discussion.
  17. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    You're so frantic to make it a political issue you're practically foaming at the mouth about liberals.

    It's about child molestation, not politics.

    But hey, right-wing nutjobs have to discredit their opposition wherever they can.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jun 21, 2015
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    THEY DID COMMIT A CRIME. they tried to conceal what he did from the police. covering up crimes is illegal.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Thoughts on the Larger Implications

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And in order for this to happen, the police officer had to break the law. The Duggars conspired with a police officer to break the law. This is pretty straightforward.

    It would, in fact, seem that you, sir, are the ones playing with definitions:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then let us make that clear: Minimizing, excusing, and empowering sexual abuse of children is not normal, and there is no good route for you to get there.

    Deliberately misrepresenting history in order to empower sexual abuse of children is not normal, and there is no good route for you to get there.

    Insisting on false definitions of words custom-tailored to suit your immediate fancy is, in fact, very normal, which is why people so easily see when you attempt these sleights in hopes of empowering sexual abuse of children.

    No, Josh is a child molester. People tend to be angry about that.

    As to the Duggars, they are, indeed, problematic in their own right. Part of the point of giving them a television show is that they represent an emblematic distillation of a genuine American cultural phenomenon↱. Part of the point of being disgusted with that decision is that they are emblematic of an American cultural phenomenon that harms people, and is established specifically for that purpose.

    This "quiverful" ideology is a rape factory. As I said at the outset, this isn't about how one treats a woman in general, but which woman one is allowed to treat that way.

    In the time since this scandal broke, we have been treated to a spectacle of immense stupidity.

    You know, the thing is that there does exist a certain valence at which Josh Duggar is also a victim, but we can't get back there as long as empowering child molestation is the order of the day.

    The only part I don't understand is why so many people, when they come face to face with what is actually going on, would rather make excuses for it. That is to say, sure, people are covering their own asses in some way that seems obscure to those of us who don't support this harmful assertion of orderly society, who think possession of other people and their sexual behavior isn't healthy.

    There are actually multiple issues taking place here. I suppose the part that surprises me is that the advocates didn't fall back in support of ownership in culture in general, but instead leapt forward to make a principled stand in defense of child molestation and conspiracy including actual lawbreaking in order to protect and further empower the molester.

    The discussion of ownership culture and its powerful influence in rape culture has yet to begin. Right now, the rape culture advocates are busy trying to convince us that serial child molestation isn't a big deal, or that enlisting police to break the law in order to protect a predatory molester is somehow honorable conduct.

    This is, really, rather quite sickening a sight, and only reminds that should we ever meet these people face to face in the world we ought to keep them miles away from any children under our care.

    And, really, one of the things we're still miles away from considering is the cyclical, recursive aspect. There might in some future world come a day when we can responsibly discuss just "how bad" is copping a feel versus hard groping, or how that stands in comparison to digital penetration, and so on, but that discussion is generally impossible right now owing to societal influences that actually empower the rape culture that shames and seeks to silence survivors of its abuse.

    The observable gap between the purported virtue of this gigantic sexplay fantasy that grooms generations of future victims and its actual practicce is fairly apparent. To wit, this ownership culture is what places upon the victims of its abuse the burdens that exaggerate the moral self-condemnation and empowers the pathetic excuses.

    There is actually much to discuss about the ideology the Duggars represent; it's just that right now we're a bit busy trying to figure out why our neighbors are so obsessed with normalizing, legitimizing, and empowering child molestation.

    Your argument in their defense is rather quite sick, relying as it does on articles of faith in lieu of observable reality. It is a package of talking points:

    "Different issue. Duggarts were not obliged to report but they did have the kid talked to in an apparent 'scared straight' fashion."

    You are praising conspiracy to aid and abet a crime.

    That's just the simple reality. You cannot call it a different issue and then make it part of their merit: Look at them, they did this thing that we should think is good, and it is a different issue altogether that they conspired to break the law in order to do so.

    And this time it's really, really important. This isn't the average lawbreaking most of us do, like speeding or smoking dope. This is child molestation. This is as dangerous as we can be unto these victims and our society in general. You work out the neuroses that sexualize little girls in the minds of the pious, and, you know, sure, we have a pathway to work with. But that's a tall task, and because reality itself does not paint ownership culture or its adherents in any good light, some people inherently resist for the sake of politics.

    Interestingly, without the Christian dressing, most defenders of this culture would find it just as abhorrent as they do in other forms existing among humanity. Ownership culture exists in every society; the psychoanalysis of how it works is at once basic enough to provide a general template, but complex enough to require specific accounting in any given manifestation.

    Ownership culture influences a tremendous range of issues, many of which have direct implications for quality of life.

    And in this debacle―even granting this family every benefit of the doubt, they have still managed to somehow do everything exactly wrongly. At every step of this narrative, they chose the wrong answer.

    Many families opt for internal solutions to what really do start out most often as juvenile stupidity intersecting with basic development. But the number of real events and ideas we must omit from the record in order to hew to that basic narrative in defense of the Duggars is simply too great. The fact that they continue to make excuses, blame others, and support the predator at the expense of the survivors only complicates any defense of their conduct or outlook.

    Ownership culture suffers exposure, and can only take damage under the circumstances. While some degree of panic is actually expected, given the magnitude of what is happening, the defenders are only exacerbating and inflaming the damage.

    That is to say, sure, they're going to panic, but at the point they're down to legitimizing serial predatory child molestation?

    The problem is, this is actually what ownership culture is for. It's never been a question of how to treat women, but, rather, always been a question of which woman you get to treat that way. In this ownership culture, Josh Duggar's offense is to have violated that boundary; he treated the wrong females that way.

    And that's the part the defenders are holding off. How did this happen? There are reasons, after all. But instead of that examination, which peers into the heart of ownership culture, we are left with this insane bickering about whether it's okay to molest little girls.


    Image note: Lt. Col. Terry Lee and his sixteen year-old daughter, Rachael, place a white rose as a symbol of her pledge to submit to his sexual authority, at the ninth annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball, in 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. (Photo by Kevin Moloney/New York Times↱)

    Merriam-Webster. "recidivism". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (n.d.) Merriam-Webster.com. 22 June 2015. http://bit.ly/1H7AiA3

    Bannerjee, Neela. "Dancing the Night Away, With a Higher Purpose". The New York Times. 19 May 2008. NYTimes.com. 22 June 2015. http://nyti.ms/1ftWQk1

  20. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Its not a 'conspiracy' to ask a cop friend to have a talk with a wayward youth.

    Far as I am concerned the family did the right thing. They didnt trade their parental oversight (and choices) for state ownership. And Josh isnt out there touching little girls. He learned appropriate behaviors without state/court interference.

    As far as your blathering on and on about an 'ownership culture' it is so fringe wikipedia says:

    "The page "Ownership culture" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    It is a conspiracy when said "wayward youth" has broken the law on multiple occasions and has sexually molested children and the police officer in question, a paedophile himself, hid his multiple crimes and failed to report it.

    You support the protection and hiding of sexual molesters from the law.

    How do you know he isn't?

    His wife would not be allowed to report it if he was molesting his daughters, for example. She needs his permission to do something like that.

    And he clearly did not learn appropriate behaviour. If he had, he would never have molested in the first place. He learned that if he sinned, he would go to hell and ruin his future. The future of his victims mattered not. They are mere cattle in the quiverful movement. Owned by their fathers and brothers who even chose their spouses for them.

    Oh no! It's not in wiki! Whatever will you do?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You had to look it up?

    It is part of rape culture. Let us know if you need to look that up and need further explanation. Do you still have issues with what recidivism means? Or have you finally got that sorted out?
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Nothing like making the case for your opponent, eh Milkweed?
    So, once again, with the definitions (this one from Wiki, so it must be true, right?)

    In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.[1] Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.

    Please enlighten us - how are two people, one of which a LEO, that are discussing a crime and agreeing not to report it (a crime in itself) followed by the overt act of actually failing to report the crime not a conspiracy, exactly?
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You know, post #3 above↑ might have been helpful. It covers the basics, with real-world examples. As noted, the term is derived from Judith Butler's observations about prudery of the day. And, as noted, it continues to show itself today.

Share This Page