Severely Need Relationship Advice

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Well that's a leap. You're comparing understanding of what it emotionally feels like to be raped to a logical perspective about protection against invasion to any degree. The one (which, of course some men could understand...but that's beyond the point) may not be fully understandable by others, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

It's not a leap at all. We were talking about survivors . . .

[estradling75]

LOL, Kudos, you are a master...

A master at twisting my words....even when I'm trying to find common ground, you find a way to try and make me look like the bad guy.

About that supporting one another...yeah still waiting. ...

 

 

Stereotypical guys are fixers.  A guy who has a problem and reaches out he wants to know how to fix and prevent said problem.  He is not going to take suggestions on how to fix and prevent said problems as attack on his character and judgement..  He is going to take such as Christ-like support and understanding.  Naturally per the Golden Rule when some one comes to said stereotypical guy with a problem he is going to show is support and understanding by offering suggestion on how to fix and prevent said problems.  This is done with no intent to attack the character or judgement of the person asking for help.   It is done because is trying to follow Christ command to support and "Do unto other as he would have them do unto him."  It has absolute nothing to do with if he has been abused or not.

 

However if the person he is trying to help is not a "Fixer" it usually goes something like this

[The Folk Prophet]

In this matter what has been said is not even opinions, but rather violations of facts---- 

 

What is a violation of fact is that emotions concerning an issue have any bearing on truth or that feeling strongly makes one right. The fact is that feeling bad because someone is or isn't successfully supportive of one's idea of the best way to heal doesn't have any bearing on the choices that were made that should not have been or the choices that could be made in the future. You are using the idea that feelings are hurt (which may be a legitimate complaint on it's own) to support an unrelated idea -- that we can limit our vulnerability by making certain choices. That is factual and complaining that it's unkind or insensitive doesn't change that it's factual. It may be an unwise response because it hurts feelings, but that doesn't prove it wrong factually. 

 

it is flat out wrong and damaging to others. 

 

I agree that it could be damaging at times in the wrong places and/or times. But flat out wrong? You have yet to substantiate that or to even address the logic presented. You just keep saying it's wrong. Well, not to put too fine a point on the matter...but prove it.

 

and see women to blame in some form. I understand that sometimes it makes people feel better about crimes if they can blame it on the victim, and even make them believe it is true ...typically because they do not want to deal with, or help them through their pain---if they can blame it on the person, then they don't have to support them. Telling someone they are in some way at blame helps to silence them, and make them feel bad for "complaining", and thus removes their responsibility to otherwise help and support (because most people don't seek support for something they themselves did wrong).

 

Clearly you do not understand at all why we hold the stance we do, so let me explain it. (Though I expect you'll ignore this too and continue your rant along the same fashion as you have).

 

It is a false equation to claim that a discussion of wise safety choices and modesty are the same as blaming the victim. The reason I defend against this idea is because it is critical of the church and it's leaders who consistently teach the same.

 

Saying that one cannot both teach wisdom, safety, and modesty and also show love and compassion is a lie. That lie stems from a movement to tear down the church and the principles that are taught therein. I don't hold that against most who say it (except for their naivety) because I don't think it's done with intentional support of the devil's kingdom, but that is the result, and it is based on utterly flawed logic and emotional claptrap that holds no water, and the end result is to buoy up sin in the name of not blaming victims. Bit we we can both condemn sin and stupidity and also love, support and succor victims of abuse.

 

Elizabeth Smart is a prime example, bless her heart. I have a great deal of compassion for what happened to her. I followed the story with fear and horror -- was overjoyed when she was found, etc. But now she's going about throwing blame at the church for her emotional trauma.

 

Excuse me? How about we blame the kidnapping rapist for the emotional trauma of kidnap and rape and not the church and/or those who advocate for modesty, chastity, and protective caution in our actions?

 

And that's the biggest flaw of your approach. In the same breath you're trying to both state that the emotional damage of rape should fall squarely on the rapist, and at the same time blaming those who had nothing to do with the rape for suggesting modesty. You can't have it both ways. Is it the rapist's fault alone or is it not? The fact is, however, that our emotional trauma are the fault of both our own weaknesses and the sins of others. But what is not to blame are the principles of the gospel.

 

You and your like, apparently, would have women walk about anywhere with any clothing and any attitudes whatsoever, and then when the bad things happen -- that certainly in a perfect would should not, but we live and a fallen world and so they will -- take no responsibility whatsoever for the poor choices made that could have been made otherwise. And you will not even address this concept from a logical and reasonable point-by-point view, but instead just keep spouting the same emotionally charged "how dare you" sort's of accusations, and then try and claim that we are just trying to wash our hands of the guilt or something so we don't have to deal with it. What a load of crap!

 

We're the ones who are making efforts to protect those who might be abused by advocating for defensive measures. We're the one who are trying to support sound emotional and mental views so that victims can properly keep themselves safe and move forward with their lives and face the realities of the wicked world they live in. We're not the ones burying our heads in the sand so we don't hurt feelings.

 

You may legitimately claim that myself and others like me are insensitive and tactless. I'll own that as one of my weaknesses. But speaking of "how dare you"...to claim we're just trying to blame the victims because it makes us feel better about ourselves and gives us reign to not get involved otherwise is beyond the pale as to inconsiderate rudeness, tactless, and insensitive.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's not a leap at all. We were talking about survivors . . .

 

Survivors don't need protection against further abuses?

[The Folk Prophet]

I mean, seriously, it's like in a war (which we are in) and a soldier gets shot in the chest, and someone says soldiers need to wear bullet proof vests and...how dare you blame the soldier for getting shot?!?

 

What?!?

[yjacket]

. We are not to blame for bad people existing. <snip>

Boy you sure cast a lot of blame around don't you.

 

You don't know who I am, what happened, when or anything about the circumstance-yet you in your self-righteous indignation castigate and condemn me.

 

Maybe you ought to look at your own life and understand where all the hate is coming from.

 

You know there is this funny thing called responsibility that actually enables one to be a well-adjusted adult. My wife was abused, she went through horrible things-but it wasn't some "abuse counselor" with 3 letters after his name that made her all better her 'cuz she went to one, while it helped open her eyes to what happened, it didn't help her really get better or what actually propelled her to be more of the person God intended.  

 

No it was that she finally realized that when those things happened she was ignorant and simply lacked any ability to make things different; those who abused her were also ignorant in many things and lacked the knowledge and power to change. She as an adult now has additional power, knowledge, sight, etc and as such every day she has the ability to determine through her actions the type of person she wants to be.

 

When she stopped being a victim, applied the Atonement to the past and started taking charge of her life is when thing really started to change.

 

You can lamblast me, like I don't know what I'm talking about that I'm a cruel person, blah, blah, blah.

 

Listen closely-I don't care what your thoughts on my actions are- I have seen in my own flesh and blood living proof of what changed with my wife-and I thank God that it happened.

[estradling75]

 

Elizabeth Smart is a prime example, bless her heart. I have a great deal of compassion for what happened to her. I followed the story with fear and horror -- was overjoyed when she was found, etc. But now she's going about throwing blame at the church for her emotional trauma.

 

Wait what???  Last I heard people in the press and whatnot were trying twist her words into saying that and throwing blame at the church, but it wasn't what she really said.   Has that changed?

[The Folk Prophet]

Wait what???  Last I heard people in the press and whatnot were trying twist her words into saying that and throwing blame at the church, but it wasn't what she really said.   Has that changed?

 

Well...maybe I saw the press reports and judged unfairly. So if that is true I'm not determined in accusing her or something (really, I'm not...)

 

But the principle is still the same...if not from her then certainly from a great deal of others. "Teaching modesty encourages a rape culture" and the like.

[yjacket]

Specifically to the OP,

 

Think long and hard about this decision, then pray, then think long and hard again.

If she doesn't want to pursue it, then I would drop it.

 

Having been (so far) successfully married for a little bit of time to someone who was abused, I'm here to tell you if you marry her you will be in for one heck of a ride. Before you leap on that ride, you better be darn sure that marrying her is what God wants you do to. Because if you don't have a very strong confirmation that you should pursue it from God (and she needs the same confirmation), it will break your marriage.

 

Bank on it breaking you and only through God's grace surviving with a better understanding of the Atonement and true Christlike love.

 

What I'm saying, all sounds ethereal and not too real and well it won't be that hard, probably clouded by those good feelings of being in-love.  If she has fully applied the atonement and not made this part of her identity then maybe not, but if she hasn't yet, then it is very real and you will never know how very hard that path is until you walk it and if you have a good confirmation from God then that very hard path will be worth it in the end and it will make you a much better person, but if you don't then it will destroy you.

Edited January 25, 2016 by yjacket

[estradling75]

Well...maybe I saw the press reports and judged unfairly. So if that is true I'm not determined in accusing her or something (really, I'm not...)

 

But the principle is still the same...if not from her then certainly from a great deal of others. "Teaching modesty encourages a rape culture" and the like.

 

 

Ahh... that could be...  My understanding was that mentioned that she had heard the chewed bubble gum analogy   (did not claim from where) but then credited the Teaching of her Parents and the Church for understanding that it was simply not true. 

 

Alot of press when into her having "heard" about the Chewed Gum analogy and nothing about her Crediting the Church with help in debunking it.

 

Of course that was a while ago and things can change, I was hoping this wasn't one of them.

[Guest]

Let's put this whole "Modesty" and "Rape" discussion to bed.

 

Love OTHERS as you love YOURSELF.  The 2 has to be in balance - others and self.

 

The 2nd great commandment as applied to this situation is:

The person who says, "I will follow God's commandment on respecting myself and choosing the right and help others come closer to Christ by helping them choose the right."

 

The person who says, "I raped the woman because she was asking for it - wearing 3 scraps of fabric the size of bandaids in the middle of Salt Lake City", obviously is more in love with himself than the woman.

 

The person who says, "I should be able to wear anything I want - even 3 scraps of fabric the size of bandaids in the middle of Salt Lake City", obviously is more in love with himself than others.

 

We are all in this boat together.  It is our duty and obligation as Christians to not be tempted by evil as well as not be a vehicle for temptation for evil.  Both in balance.

 

So... next time we talk about this topic - we must think first, are we inadvertently supporting the person who says "I raped the woman..." or are we inadvertently supporting the person who says "I should be able to wear anything...".  Both are wrong.  We need to talk about this topic as Christians in the same boat commanded to Love One Another.

[LeSellers]

No, you are the one that does not understand. You are equating a bag you left out, and visible.......to sexual assault being someone's fault for somehow being visible. The whole point I have tried to express is..... a woman cannot hide that she is a woman ( nor should she have to).

It seems you may be over reacting to the words, because I don't see it as "blame", []per se.

Being a victim of the theft of a bag in one's car is, with obvious and significant differences in magnitude, no different in quality to being sexually assaulted: both are crimes perpetrated against an innocent victim who bears no responsibility for the crime. But having a clean car makes it less likely that the car owner will become a victim. And we all want fewer victims, whether of sexual assault of burglary.

The message is that there are what you call later, people who are "twisted inside". Irrespective of whether women have the right to go anywhere they choose anytime they choose, those twisted inside people exist. That's something neither you no I can change. But, to this point, they are somewhat predictable. That is, just as we can avoid having our cars broken into by taking precautions (the so-called "clean car"), there are precautions one can take in the face of the reality of twisted people.

Not taking those precautions does not change the fact that the blame for the attack rests solely on the attacker. But an attack avoided is a victim who isn't victimized.

A woman is not to blame because someone twisted inside attacked them simply because they are a woman and have something they want to take from them. Being vulnerable is not something that is a fault, let alone something that should be looked at as a source of blame.

Again, as I read it, it is not "blame" that is being apportioned, it is simply a reflection of the fact that wisdom does not always take every opportunity since some choices put one the way of danger.

No one blames the victims of a home invasion where three or six evil men force their way into a home, brutalize the family and may end up killing them, as well. But we are justified in telling others that you don't open the door to strangers, even strangers with an injured cat. You have the right to open your front door, but it is not always wise to do so. But, if you do, it is wise to be wary, and to be able to protect yourself, and I don't mean with 911 on speed dial: when seconds cont, the police are mere minutes away.

It just blows my mind, as well as makes me sad..... that people think this way at all.

It doesn't seem to me that people are thinking "this way". What we are reading is that it is wise to take sensible precautions to avoid this kind (or, indeed, any kind) of crime. If a crime happens and the victim could have done something to avoid it, the criminal is still the only one responsible for his choice. A threat avoided is a crime deterred.

It shows how far our society has yet to come on education. It is often the reactions and blame of others that force victims to have to deal with things in silence. People stay silent when they feel ashamed, or like others will see them as damaged, and to blame somehow.

None of which applies here.

Victims are not responsible for their plights. That's the reason we call them "victims" rather than "criminals".

So, whether women who want to avoid rape or a family who wants to avoid an invasion of their home, or a car owner who does not want his car broken into, there are things he can do to make himself less "target-like". That may mean (and often does) not taking advantage of every liberty he is entitled to.

That is not "blaming the victim", it's "counseling prudence".

That said, not every rape, not every crime can be avoided. But that does not negate the counsel to to what we can to avoid becoming a victim where possible.

Lehi

[mrmarklin]

We seem to have gone far afield here.

To the OP, ther are plenty of non abused young women to marry. Marry one of them. Trust me, it's a lot easier.

Knowing what I know now about people who have been abused as children, I would have never married my wife. It's a hard road. Not only will you be affected, but so will your children. Think of them, if nothing else.

[Vort]

 

   No one asks for, or deserves to be violated. It doesn't matter what a person wears, what their history is--- if they say no, it is not something that should be taken.

 

Everybody already agrees with this.

 

Victims are not to be blamed----ever.

 

Depends on what you mean by "blame".

 

A year ago, I left my bike outside my garage. It was stolen.

 

A few months ago, I left two bikes outside my garage again. They were stolen.

 

My wife blamed me for leaving the bikes outside. She said that I knew what might happen, and she was right. Was she "blaming the victim"? That's the question I put to her. I was miffed that she was cussing me out because of what some slimeball lowlifes did.

 

But guess what? Though it was not my fault that the bikes were stolen, it was my fault that I left them outside in a position to be stolen. So while I in no way "deserved" to have my bikes stolen, and while it was not morally or legally my fault, I was foolish to do what I did.

 

If we tell women, "Don't get drunk and then run around the streets naked at 2 AM, or you might get raped", and then one of them gets drunk and runs around the streets naked at 2 AM and gets raped, what exactly is wrong with pointing out, "You acted unwisely, and you were warned against that"?

 

The way you are rationalizing/ looking at things is essentially saying its someone's fault for "inviting" it, like they should have known better...Sorry, but it is just so backwards to suggest a victim is at all to blame for the lack of control, lack of moral compass, and the desire to harm.....

 

It is saying no such thing. That is simply false. No one is suggesting the victim is to blame for being raped. They are suggesting minimal common-sense actions that, if followed, dramatically reduce the risk of being victimized.

 

 that bad people have. " Well its your fault you got the attention of a bad person".....instead of...."that bad person never should have been bad to begin with, or taken something without permission." When a store is stolen from, do we say, " Well, it is their fault for stocking things people would want to steal"??  That is essentially what is being said here when an assault victim is in any way blamed for the crime.

 

I cannot believe you would maintain such a position.

 

I have a daughter. I don't want her to be raped, so I tell her very explicitly to avoid certain actions and activities.

 

And you are suggesting that, instead, I should just say, "Poor darling, I certainly hope you don't get raped while doing all these unwise activities that you have a legal right to do, or that in any case don't merit you getting raped for"?

 

I love my daughter a lot more than that. So I arm her with specific information of what to do and what not to do. And if I hear a story of a women being raped while involved in foolish activities, I will point it out to her and say, "Don't be like that! Don't do those foolish activities! They could lead to you being raped!"

 

I will go so far as to proclaim that any parent who loves his daughter will tell her the very same things.

 

Bad people will hurt, steal, assault..... regardless.

 

FALSE, FALSE, FALSE!

 

This sort of fatalistic thinking is part of the problem of powerlessness. "Oh, dear, bad people will do bad things no matter what, so therefore there is no use in taking any sort of precautions. We just need to destroy all bad people and force society to be such that no bad people exist."

 

It. Will. Not. Happen.

 

Ever.

 

In almost all cases, BAD PEOPLE ARE OPPORTUNISTIC. In 99.9% of cases, if you don't give bad people an opportunity to exercise evil upon you, THEY WON'T DO IT.

 

Now it's possible to go too far in such self-protection. "I will never leave my house, because I might get assaulted" is a nonsense way to live. But "I won't go to parties that last past 11 PM, and I won't ever get drunk in public or in a party situation" is not nonsense. It's common sense.

 

I am sincerely sorry for the evils you have experienced. I wish I could make them go away. But the fact that you have experienced such horrible evils does not mean that such evils are utterly unavoidable, and certainly doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands in despair and refuse to take common-sense actions to protect ourselves.

[LeSellers]

In almost all cases, BAD PEOPLE ARE OPPORTUNISTIC. In 99.9% of cases, if you don't give bad people an opportunity to exercise evil upon you, THEY WON'T DO IT.

I disagree slightly. You may be right and 99.9% of the time no crime will occur, but I doubt it.

What is more likely to happen is that the criminal will find a different victim. And, as far as the skipped-over now-a-non-victim is concerned, it amounts to the same thing.

We cannot control who is evil. We cannot control what that evil person does. We can control where we are, how alert we are, and how we react to circumstances.

Just for the record, and for the n^th time, no one can avoid all dangerous situations. But those we can avoid, we ought to.

Lehi