Relevation & Inspiration...MTC abuse

[The Folk Prophet]

Re sex vs gender, I have a hard time fully buying into a separation of these ideas that were designed by feminists to promote feminism.

https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/sex-gender-and-the-origin-the-culture-wars-intellectual-history

[Vort]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Re sex vs gender, I have a hard time fully buying into a separation of these ideas that were designed by feminists to promote feminism.

https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/sex-gender-and-the-origin-the-culture-wars-intellectual-history

The point was that the word "sex" referred to the biological fact of being male or female, while "gender" referred to a linguistic construct describing certain characteristics of nouns and pronouns in various European languages. This distinction is commonly ignored today, and we are linguistically poorer for it.

[Crash]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm guessing that anatess was just being funny and riffing off of what you wrote. She probably agrees with your distinction between "sex" and "gender". I certainly do.

The problem with being relatively new is that one does not understand when another person has a dry sense of humor or is being nefarious. 

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I am sooooo itching to troll you... because you make it so easy.  But I'll engage my compassionate side and let you off the hook to swim in peaceful waters. 

Now, in all seriousness, compelled language is stupid.  Understand what they're saying rather than compelling people to use terms in pedagogical accuracy or political correctness especially if their usage of words is a common cultural usage in the language they employ especially if the distinction is useless in the thought conveyed.

So, instead of being compassionate and swimming in peaceful waters, you are engaging in being passive aggressive. 

Paraphrasing: "Yeah, so I'll be nice but you deserve trolling because I think you are stupid and I hate your opinions and I don't want you telling me what I should write." But cue the compassion. How's that working out for you?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

The point was that the word "sex" referred to the biological fact of being male or female, while "gender" referred to a linguistic construct describing certain characteristics of nouns and pronouns in various European languages. This distinction is commonly ignored today, and we are linguistically poorer for it.

Note the word "fully" in my comment.

I understand. Where I rebel is in the concept that they are, despite their linguistic difference, separable.

[lostinwater]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually, I meant to ask if Bishop confessed to rape. I believe he did not.

Thank-you!

Well, i'll cite hypothetical third person perspective again.  But point is well taken - accurate words are important - especially when allegations of this sort are involved.

Honestly, i'm not out to scalp Bishop.  i wasn't there.  And even if i was, i don't think that making someone else suffer will heal anyone.

But when admission of guilt on tape is insufficient for a victim to be believed.  That, i think, is the message that is being heard by a lot of people.  i'm not demanding that others shut up or not talk about those whom they advocate for.  All are important.  Just giving one perspective.  i'm not perfect enough to understand every viewpoint.  Probably none of us are.

And if, purely for the sake of argument, this woman is somehow taking advantage of the situation, then my concern about the message being heard by the silent ones is even deeper.  Because it would send not just the signal of "a taped confession isn't enough to be believed" - but rather "see, all the things i feel about myself after being abused are right - it really WAS my fault".  

[Crash]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um...so this sister missionary was wearing a bikini... in the MTC... .... um ......

Yeah. We clearly have the full details here.

I don't think it said that the sister missionary was wearing a bikini in the MTC, just that the MTC president was telling the sister missionary about a time when a woman took her bikini top off for him. 

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand. Where I rebel is in the concept that they are, despite their linguistic difference, separable.

If "gender" is understood as linguistic terminology, then the two are obviously separable, as they refer to completely different things.  (But I agree with your underlying point, assuming I understand it correctly.)

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Re sex vs gender, I have a hard time fully buying into a separation of these ideas that were designed by feminists to promote feminism.

https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/sex-gender-and-the-origin-the-culture-wars-intellectual-history

I don't approach the difference from a Gender Studies perspective but rather from a linguistic perspective.  This stems from a Bisaya trying to learn Spanish.  A table does not carry a sex.  It carries a gender - female.  Make sense?  Now, Bisaya is even worse than English when it comes to gender - in English, inanimate objects don't have genders but things that carry a sex have genders, so you have he or she, son or daughter, brother or sister, goose or gander, etc.  In Bisaya, there's no distinction between the genders not just of inanimate objects but even animate objects except for mother and father and aunt and uncle.  And if you look at true Bisaya (pre-colonial era that has been lost), even those 2 are not gender distinguished, the gender distinction is a Spanish influence on the language.

So, as illustrated - gender and sex are different things.  But what gender and sex reference in regards to what is female and what is male is the same.  Gender Studies use the distinction between sex and gender as a way to remove gender from its corresponding typical traits.  Like - vagina is female, no no no.. it's not.  Those kinds of things.  I think, if I understood you correctly, that's where your objection lies.

Edited March 27, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But when admission of guilt on tape is insufficient for a victim to be believed.  That, i think, is the message that is being heard by a lot of people.

I understand. My entire point is that the taped admission of guilt is not insufficient. Everyone agrees that Bishop appears to have engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. Few dispute that.

But that is a far cry from rape. So far as I know, Bishop has not admitted to forcibly raping anyone. So claiming he has, then wondering why anyone doubts his accuser, is specious.

It is exactly like a person admitting to embezzling from work, then everyone says, "See? He really did  rob the bank! He ADMITTED to it!" Well, no, he did not. He admitted to something else, something related but definitely lesser.

If Bishop has admitted to forcible rape, show me and I will quickly concede your point that it's absurd that people won't believe the victim's claim of forcible rape when her rapist has confessed. Until then, that is NOT the present situation.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Crash said:

So, instead of being compassionate and swimming in peaceful waters, you are engaging in being passive aggressive. 

Paraphrasing: "Yeah, so I'll be nice but you deserve trolling because I think you are stupid and I hate your opinions and I don't want you telling me what I should write." But cue the compassion. How's that working out for you?

Well, this statement says a lot about you more than it does about me.  Your name checks out.

It's working great for me, thank you.  Happily chewing the words you put in my mouth... or rather, the thoughts you put in my head.  

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I understand. My entire point is that the taped admission of guilt is not insufficient. Everyone agrees that Bishop appears to have engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. Few dispute that.

But that is a far cry from rape. So far as I know, Bishop has not admitted to forcibly raping anyone. So claiming he has, then wondering why anyone doubts his accuser, is specious.

It is exactly like a person admitting to embezzling from work, then everyone says, "See? He really did  rob the bank! He ADMITTED to it!" Well, no, he did not. He admitted to something else, something related but definitely lesser.

If Bishop has admitted to forcible rape, show me and I will quickly concede your point that it's absurd that people won't believe the victim's claim of forcible rape when her rapist has confessed. Until then, that is NOT the present situation.

Thank-you.

Yes.  true.  Thank-you for the correction.

Then substitute "inappropriate sexual behavior" - i think the idea is still valid.  i don't think the lines as to where one stops and the other begins are as clear in the abuse victim's mind as they are in a courtroom - which coincidentally, this is never likely to see.  

But i guess it goes back to perspective.  

[Vort]

Just now, lostinwater said:

i don't think the lines as to where one stops and the other begins are as clear in the abuse victim's mind as they are in a courtroom

That may be true, but I don't understand why it would be. Forcible rape is obvious; someone (typically the man) forces someone else (typically the woman) to engage in sexual intercourse over her objections. If Sister ****** took off her shirt at President Bishop's request, then it was a consensual act. She was a grown-up, and she agreed to undress in front of a man who was another woman's husband, then allow him to fondle her. Whether she enjoyed it or not -- whether she WANTED it or not -- is not immediately relevant. She agreed to it. Ergo, not rape, not in any possible sense. I do not understand how any reasonable person could disagree with this most obvious assessment.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Carb, don't you see the irony here.  She says he raped her.  He admits to touching a sister missionaries breasts, and people here say...."but we don't know what happened."  

BUT he claims she made stuff up and it's "Well, see she's just a liar."  Someone else is even accusing some sister he knew during that time...

Feels like a double standard to me.  If Bishop's own admission of guilt is not enough, then his claim that she made stuff up is suspect as well.  

No, no irony here.  Touching is touching.  Rape is rape.  To conflate the two is doing the entire "me too" movement a disservice.  For all we know is that it was consensual.  AND YES, this ABSOLUTELY makes the guy a slimeball.  But being a slimeball is bad.  Being a rapist is criminal.  That's the distinction that I'm making.

I see one of three scenarios that played out.

SCENARIO 1: HE'S A PREDATOR

He was a slimy snake who used his position to look out for young women who confessed to unchaste tendencies.  He would then encourage that in them -- specifically to act those tendencies out with him.  Even though the woman had good intentions to come clean, he turned her the other direction.  I hope he burns in hell.

SCENARIO 2: SHE'S A PREDATOR

She's a woman who never really got the Law of Chastity thing and decided to flaunt it whenever she could.  She did her best to seduce every man she saw.  When she was in a private setting, she "felt out the territory."   Recognizing that Bishop was getting somewhat excited by her reciting certain feelings, she poured it on him and ultimately seduced him beyond his normal capacities to resist.  I hope she burns in hell.

SCENARIO 3: A COMBINATION OF THE TWO

She started feeling him out.  He was feeling her out.  They both decided to...  Mutual consent.  I hope they both burn in hell.

The big thing is whether one or both A) did something evil in the eyes of God and/or B) Broke the law.

Conflating the two doesn't help an unemotioned investigation.

Automatically assuming the woman was guiltless doesn't help us get to the WHOLE truth.  How do you know it wasn't mutual consent?  How do you know she didn't set him up?

[Crash]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, this statement says a lot about you more than it does about me.  Your name checks out.

It's working great for me, thank you.  Happily chewing the words you put in my mouth... or rather, the thoughts you put in my head.  

Great, let's do this. 

Literally the first time I've ever had any exchange with you whatsoever, you mocked me. So, when I confront you about it, you get more agressive towards me and your ad hominem attacks progress. But I'm ready to take it to the next round.

Question though, should I take things to a personal level like you have towards me or should we keep our continuing exchange professional, which seems to be one-sided at the moment? Or are you completely not worth the time? I've had it out with other sociopaths, so if you're expecting me to be intimidated by you, not gonna happen. 

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

That may be true, but I don't understand why it would be. Forcible rape is obvious; someone (typically the man) forces someone else (typically the woman) to engage in sexual intercourse over her objections. If Sister ****** took off her shirt at President Bishop's request, then it was a consensual act. She was a grown-up, and she agreed to undress in front of a man who was another woman's husband, then allow him to fondle her. Whether she enjoyed it or not -- whether she WANTED it or not -- is not immediately relevant. She agreed to it. Ergo, not rape, not in any possible sense. I do not understand how any reasonable person could disagree with this most obvious assessment.

Vort, I understand what you're saying but consider the power structure.  A woman who took off her shirt doesn't necessarily mean consent especially with a vast imbalance in perceived power.  This concept is not as pronounced in the US where Freedoms are maximized but in places like the Philippines, the distinction can be quite stark, especially in student/teacher worker/boss plebe/politician, etc. scenarios where the consequence of saying No can be a matter of life or death.

* Clarifying life or death:  E.g. student/teacher scenario - in the Philippines, a college education is the path out of poverty for many.  A bad grade could mean going back to digging through trash for your next meal.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Crash said:

Great, let's do this. 

Literally the first time I've ever had any exchange with you whatsoever, you mocked me. So, when I confront you about it, you get more agressive towards me and your ad hominem attacks progress. But I'm ready to take it to the next round.

Question though, should I take things to a personal level like you have towards me or should we keep our continuing exchange professional, which seems to be one-sided at the moment? Or are you completely not worth the time? I've had it out with other sociopaths, so if you're expecting me to be intimidated by you, not gonna happen. 

Wow, now I'm trying to intimidate you.  smh.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Re sex vs gender, I have a hard time fully buying into a separation of these ideas that were designed by feminists to promote feminism.

https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/sex-gender-and-the-origin-the-culture-wars-intellectual-history

Haven't you ever studied a foreign language?  I can't tell you how many times my language teacher kept saying "Words have gender.  People have sex."

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

That may be true, but I don't understand why it would be. Forcible rape is obvious; someone (typically the man) forces someone else (typically the woman) to engage in sexual intercourse over her objections. If Sister ****** took off her shirt at President Bishop's request, then it was a consensual act. She was a grown-up, and she agreed to undress in front of a man who was another woman's husband, then allow him to fondle her. Whether she enjoyed it or not -- whether she WANTED it or not -- is not immediately relevant. She agreed to it. Ergo, not rape, not in any possible sense. I do not understand how any reasonable person could disagree with this most obvious assessment.

Disagree.  i think there are so many levels of emotional manipulation or fear that could be applied here.  

Regardless, the point i was trying to make was made - and improved upon with your correction (thank-you again).  Maybe it's wrong, maybe i'm stupid, but i think i got across what i was trying to say.

i respect what you are saying, regardless.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Disagree.  i think there are so many levels of emotional manipulation or fear that could be applied here.  

Regardless, the point i was trying to make was made - and improved upon with your correction (thank-you again).  Maybe it's wrong, maybe i'm stupid, but i think i got across what i was trying to say.

i respect what you are saying, regardless.

Yes, that is true.  Many levels.  But have you considered that the woman would be equally capable of emotional manipulation here?  Just because she's only 21 at the time does not mean she doesn't have the ability to seduce.

It's all about the assumptions we make about each or both.  I've really tried to ask myself with EVERY accusation,"What if it's true?  What if the reverse were true?  How do we know?"

It could very well be that he did the domination thing all over her and she broke under pressure.  OR it could very well be that he was a weak man who was doing his best to keep things together, and she seduced him to finally break.

Assuming it was all one-sided isn't looking for the truth -- the WHOLE truth.

[Crash]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Wow, now I'm trying to intimidate you.  smh.

I'd love to know what words I'm putting into your mouth for you to chew or thoughts I'm putting into your head. I'm waiting to get your perspective on what controversial things I may have written, if any, other than distinguishing between sex and gender because that's obviously gotten you worked up enough to troll me, or are you just that petty?

Edited March 27, 2018 by Crash

[Vort]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Disagree.  i think there are so many levels of emotional manipulation or fear that could be applied here.

But emotional manipulation does not equate to forcible rape.

Look, I'm not trying to justify President Bishop's sexual perversions, not to any degree. On a strictly moral level, his actions appear to have been reprehensible, even if they were "only" to tell the sister to remove her shirt and then fondle her breasts. For him, this is tantamount to adultery. I fear for his eternal state and desperately hope he can find his way to repent of such a deplorable abuse of his authority. If these things are found to be true, he will surely be excommunicated. I hope he lives long enough to repent, or his state will be awful.

But he should not be accused of rape, ever, at all, unless he actually raped someone. The only evidence that that is the case is the word of Sister ******, who does not seem to be the most credible source.

By the way, I appreciate your calm demeanor in making your point. I don't think anything you wrote was "stupid", even the parts I didn't agree with.

[lostinwater]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

By the way, I appreciate your calm demeanor in making your point. I don't think anything you wrote was "stupid", even the parts I didn't agree with.

You are too nice.  i guess that's my cop-out way of trying to ensure i don't get too full of myself.  It doesn't always work - actually, it usually doesn't.  Mostly, what works is when smart people like you call me on the rug for something, and are right about it  .  

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Vort, I understand what you're saying but consider the power structure.  A woman who took off her shirt doesn't necessarily mean consent especially with a vast imbalance in perceived power.  This concept is not as pronounced in the US where Freedoms are maximized but in places like the Philippines, the distinction can be quite stark, especially in student/teacher worker/boss plebe/politician, etc. scenarios where the consequence of saying No can be a matter of life or death.

* Clarifying life or death:  E.g. student/teacher scenario - in the Philippines, a college education is the path out of poverty for many.  A bad grade could mean going back to digging through trash for your next meal.  

What you say above is well worth considering. In the US, it is not the case -- or if it is, then it's a felony and the perpetrator can be sent to jail for years, where he belongs. In the present case, that doesn't sound like what happened.

I think it was @NightSG who pointed out that a mission president could make a missionary's life pretty miserable by sending her home -- something I have seen in my own family, and I agree it's an evil thing when done for reasons of the mission president's self-protection for his own misconduct. But paint me skeptical that Sister ****** undressed in front of President Bishop because she was afraid of being sent home from her mission. I mean, this is a MISSION. You're representing JESUS CHRIST, for heaven's sake (literally). The stakes are simply waaaaay higher than "Oh, I'm afraid he'll send me home, so I better undress."

Men must be held responsible for what they do. They must not be held responsible for what they don't do. And in the US, we presume innocence until guilt is proven. Beyond the bare assertion of Sister ******, I see no compelling evidence in news reports that Bishop raped her. Even Bishop's own guilty conduct seems to speak against the idea -- if he's going to cop to sexual transgression, why would he not have admitted (in what he thought was private circumstances) to actual rape? The guy's consumed by guilt and knows he's a filthy hypocrite and a fraud, yet somehow he's willing to confess in private to sexual shenanigans but unwilling to own up to rape? What sense does that make?

I will change my tune if Bishop confesses to rape or if the rape allegation can be proven by any means. Until then, assuming that Bishop's questionable moral character means he raped a woman based solely on the testimony of the woman (who is herself has a criminal background and is of questionable moral character) is beyond the pale.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Vort

[anatess2]

 

2 minutes ago, Crash said:

I'd love to know what words I'm putting into your mouth for you to chew or thoughts I'm putting into your head. I'm waiting to get your perspective on what controversial things I may have written, if any, other than distinguishing between sex and gender because that's obviously gotten you worked up enough to troll me, or are you just that petty?

Here ya go:

40 minutes ago, Crash said:

Paraphrasing: "Yeah, so I'll be nice but you deserve trolling because I think you are stupid and I hate your opinions and I don't want you telling me what I should write." But cue the compassion. How's that working out for you?

That's what you got out of my post that started with "in all seriousness"... which separated the paragraph from the humor before it.  If that's what you got out of it, then there's nothing I can do about it.  That's not a mere misunderstanding.  That's character assassination.  The way I see it, you're like the lion with a thorn on its paw.  You're lashing out from a perceived insult you thought I hurled at you.  Nothing I can do about that.

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I hope he/she burns in hell [repents and qualifies for celestial glory through the atonement of Jesus Christ].

fixed.