Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[ERCougar]

one of the real struggles rape and incest victims can have, and not uncommonly, is difficulty not blaming themselves. this can be particularly problematic in incest cases, where the victim may blame herself for not adequately refusing or even in some cases, having experienced some sexual satisfaction from the experience, 'consenting' to it (not fully understanding that 'consent' is not even possible). RGS' words are absolutely the last thing these victims need to hear. he needs to shut the hell up. really.

[CardiacCoug]

Because there is a difference ... and he is clearly not talking about rape (contrary to your misrepresentation). Rape (with the exception of statutory rape) implies a lack of choice. Being the victim of abuse does not. A victim of abuse may or may not have a choice to have sex.

Sexual abuse is sometimes used as a euphemism for rape, but not all sexual abuse IS rape. There are varying degrees of abuse and this is clearly what Elder Scott was talking about. You can't read the entire talk without understanding that. Your interpretation contradicts everything else he is saying ... and everything the Church teaches about agency.

I think the way you jump to defend and in fact totally restate what RGS said isn't necessary. Would you agree with this approach?:

RGS sent the wrong message here -- the message that abuse victims (maybe even sexual abuse or rape) often bear some responsibility for the abuse and that guilty feelings that abuse victims have come from God. The Church does NOT in fact teach this and teaches that abuse victims are by definition completely innocent -- they are VICTIMS of abuse. This might be the reason that I'm pretty sure he hasn't said anything similar to this in 20 intervening years. He was wrong.

Doesn't that interpretation make more sense than going into hypotheticals about threesomes?

[SoCalCoug]

I'm in YW and so is the bishop's wife. She told the girls last week that there are "two sins God doesn't like to forgive: murder and sexual sins." Damaging stuff about sex and virginity gets slung around all the time. It's somewhat amazing to me that anybody graduates from the LDS youth programs without seriously fucked up ideas about sex.

Holy shit, but that's disgusting. I'd take my daughter out of Young Women if she was being taught that.

[All-American]

The RGS Cardiac quoted implies that, in some cases of abuse, there is some voluntary choice:

Most often, the victim is innocent. I believe that is beyond dispute. Where a choice is voluntary, and not made out of fear or compulsion, you may bear a degree of responsibility for it. No argument from me there. All in all, I think you could make the case that this quote is insensitive, but not that being raped is a sin, or that it is better to die than to be raped.

[SoCalCoug]

I honestly don't think any of those quotes support the idea that it is better to die than to submit to rape. You could use them to support the idea that it is better to die than to "lose one's virtue", but most of those quotes go out of their way to affirm that doing so requires choice, and that where there was no voluntary choice, there is no condemnation.

In what context does having to choose between losing your life and losing your virtue/chastity not implicate rape?

[All-American]

one of the real struggles rape and incest victims can have, and not uncommonly, is difficulty not blaming themselves. this can be particularly problematic in incest cases, where the victim may blame herself for not adequately refusing or even in some cases, having experienced some sexual satisfaction from the experience, 'consenting' to it (not fully understanding that 'consent' is not even possible). RGS' words are absolutely the last thing these victims need to hear. he needs to shut the hell up. really.

I think he has, as CardiacCoug's post implies.

[SoCalCoug]

When two sentences next to each other seem to completely contradict each other ... you are probably not understanding one of them correctly.

Actually, three consecutive sentences in that quote are contradictory. But I'm not sure that it's an interpretation isuse.

[All-American]

In what context does having to choose between losing your life and losing your virtue/chastity not implicate rape?

Apparently any context, since (as the quotes quite forcefully state), one who is forcibly raped does not lose their virtue/chastity.

[ERCougar]

I think he has, as CardiacCoug's post implies.

and props to him for that. but what the hell was he thinking in the first place? what good is coming from that statement? is there a large contingent of abuse victims that need to finally own up to their role in the abuse?

geez...I'd have a hard time excusing that statement from my crazy neighbor, but an apostle? heh.

[SoCalCoug]

Apparently any context, since (as the quotes quite forcefully state), one who is forcibly raped does not lose their virtue/chastity.

One who is forcibly raped who struggles against her rapist adequately, you mean.

[All-American]

and props to him for that. but what the hell was he thinking in the first place? what good is coming from that statement? is there a large contingent of abuse victims that need to finally own up to their role in the abuse?

geez...I'd have a hard time excusing that statement from my crazy neighbor, but an apostle? heh.

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

[All-American]

One who is forcibly raped who struggles against her rapist adequately, you mean.

I mean no such thing, as I am sure you know.

[SoCalCoug]

I mean no such thing, as I am sure you know.

Because you're being intellectually dishonest about what those quotes say and imply.

[SoCalCoug]

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

Which really sucks when you have an entire religion hanging on your words and being counseled all their lives to listen and sustain you.

[grapevine]

From CB Ed Kimball's bio on his Fathers Presidency is more correct than the Book of Mormon. I even read the CD. Though CD got lost when computer got fixed. Wish I could bye CD only. But on certain page says that J. Reuben Clarks words were misunderstood and talking about voluntary loss. Than said church leaders were not to decide how much the victim resisted.

Another interesting one as Young Missionary Marion G. Romney's own father at depot said same thing when Marion departed. Marion thought he was crazy. Talk Dave gave as President of Y of I. Interesting. http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Tr..._07_Bednar.htm