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

[milkweed]

Well, yes, I think it is pathetic, sleazy, and dishonest to try to make the argument that RAINN said "There is No Rape Culture"↑. See, the thing is that your reading of that letter is so terrible that it really is inherently insulting to you that anyone should consider you so stupid and illiterate. To the other, deliberate, calculated misrepresentation doesn't speak any better of you.

I really wish you would stop with the anime. Irrelevant to the convo and you have forums for that.

There is no rape culture. There is no murder culture. There are assholes that rape. There are assholes that murder. RAINN recognises this detraction issue and you should spend some time thinking about that aspect rather than promoting your favorite meme of the week. It does take the focus off the crime and relegates it to whimsical sociology and statistics simply do not hold up under examination.

From 1995 to 2005, the total rate of sexual violence committed against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64% from a peak of 5.0 per 1,000 females in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 females in 2005

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

And I already posted these substantiated facts that were ignored because they dont fit your meme.

But the truth is, young women who don’t go to college are more likely to be raped. Lynn A. Addington at American University and I recently published a study based on the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey data from 1995 to 2011. We found that the estimated rate of sexual assault and rape of female college students, ages 18 to 24, was 6.1 per 1,000 students. This is nothing to be proud of, but it is significantly lower than the rate experienced by women that age who don’t attend college — eight per 1,000. In other words, these women are victims of sexual violence at a rate around 30 percent greater than their more educated counterparts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/o...-rape-and-sexual-assault-in-america.html?_r=0

You got a bunch of name calling but no facts to back it up. A bunch of imagined correlations but again, nothing you can substantiate.

But it is also of interest to me that this time, in the case of the Duggar family, the issue is so plain that some rape advocates are actually standing up and defending child molestation. Aside from the blatant desperation, though, there really isn't anything unusual going on.

And no I dont particularly favor an absolute age cut off of what is/isnt normal, just like I can accept some kids realize at a very young age they are gay and some dont come to that conclusion until later. Prefrontal cortex development and all that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/

But you are well aware of these issues but refuse to acknowledge them with Josh Duggar.
But we all have our inherent bias' dont we?

Interestingly, Mr. Strange filed suit against Auburn University 14 February 2012, and the case was dismissed on 15 February 2012.

Yeah. It was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the case was not decided, and could be pursued.

...The judge denied it saying that we could not prove that expulsion causes irreparable harm. At that point, we knew that filing in State court would not be advantageous because of Auburn's power and because Auburn would most likely remove it to Federal court anyway. We had attorneys that were willing to file in Federal court but we could not afford the upfront $50,000 to $100,000 retainer they wanted. There were no law firms around Auburn large enough to handle the case so it meant going outside of Auburn and actually outside of Alabame to find anyone willing to take the case....

Lots of people cant afford 'justice'.

Allison Strange responding in comments section:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2014/05/due-process-and-duke.html

 

[Capracus]

You do realise this is by their own admittance and the mother and their daughters have discussed this in the past? No?

You’re condemning the Duggars because they instructed their daughters to be chaste before marriage? And that whatever ideological nonsense the daughters were exposed to somehow obligated them to follow it into adulthood? As citizens of the US the Duggar girls have every legal right to say no to any sexual advance they are confronted with, whether it comes from husband, brother, or anyone else.

Are you suggesting unreported rapes and sexual assaults are not crimes because they are not reported?

I’m suggesting unreported assaults can’t be determined be crimes unless there is evidence presented to suggest that they actually occurred.

They are still crimes. It is illegal to rape, sexually assault or sexually molest adults and children. Let me guess, you are from the 'legitimate rape' school?

They are crimes when investigated and determined to be such, just like any other alleged crime. And speaking of other crimes, the number of sexual assaults that are unreported is 15 times less than that of other violent crimes, so where is the cry for justice for those multitudes?

2006–2010 Unreported Violent Crime

Robbery........................297,100

Aggravated assault.......507,700

Simple assault............2,366,200

Total...........................3,371,000

Rape/sexual assault.....211,200

3371/211 = 15

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

 

[milkweed]

But it is also of interest to me that this time, in the case of the Duggar family, the issue is so plain that some rape advocates are actually standing up and defending child molestation. Aside from the blatant desperation, though, there really isn't anything unusual going on.

Addition to previous comment:

Josh didnt rape anyone. So utilizing fallacious logic is your only recourse. Its not an interest of yours, it is an excuse to marginalize differing opinions because you have no other recourse. And rape/child molestation are a particularly easy topic to invoke such methods due to our base reaction to these things; they are horrific crimes against people. But base reactions aside and years after implementing harsh measures to change behavior/prevent crime many are taking a second look and wondering if maybe the reaction is over-reaching.

http://www.startribune.com/affirmat...yed-at-the-university-of-minnesota/312697181/

Some of the comments in the above article are interesting perspectives.

Defending the family approach to (successfully) dealing with Josh' issues outside of court/social service methods is not defending child molestation. Being aware that statistically, Josh was unlikely to develop into a sexual psychopath and not a growing danger to society is not rape advocating. Understanding labeling someone a sex offender for 10 - 25 - lifetime over an issue of touching behavior IS cruel and unusual punishment especially when the incidents occurred during an ongoing developmental age of the child is not defending child molestation.
<-- end of addition to comment

And no I dont particularly favor an absolute age cut off of what is/isnt normal, just like I can accept some kids realize at a very young age they are gay and some dont come to that conclusion until later. Prefrontal cortex development and all that.

 

[Tiassa]

​

There is no rape culture. There is no murder culture. There are assholes that rape. There are assholes that murder.

Murder culture, when it arises, is usually an offshoot of a given society's death cult.

But you also seem to have some trouble understanding the idea of rape culture. To reiterate↑:

You don't blame rape culture for the rapist any more than you blame mommy for the psychopath. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the cultural standards that blame and denigrate victims, dehumanize women, and ultimately encourage in some cases the act itself, but most often the ignorance by which many people commit rape and then pretend they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. And in a country where a jury can still acquit a rapist because of what the woman was wearing, or a prosecutor refuse to charge a confessed rapist because the victim is to blame, there is no question of "systemic barriers to addressing the problem".​

And I even offered you a link to a thread that discusses rape culture↗, but apparently you missed the point. The topic post is riddled with examples of rape culture, from the U.S., Australia, Italy, and India. Indeed, the example from the University of North Carolina is one of several prominent cases that led to the White House Task Force that RAINN sent its letter to.

Rape culture is a general term describing variable ranges of behaviors within societies that aid, abet, and empower rape. Such as when institutional officials receiving rape reports turn on the victims and harass them. Or a prosecutor decides to not pursue a confessed rape because he blames the victim instead of the rapist. Or when people mutter about what the dead girl was wearing, or where she was when she wa attacked, as if it has some moral significance. Or the parish priest nailing a Christmas letter to the church door telling women they bring all this on themselves by being terrible people. Or telling the parents of a five year-old raped by an adolescent boy that you won't be charging a crime because "boys will be boys"↗. You asked about systemic barriers?

Oh, right. #WhatAboutTheMen?

And I already posted these substantiated facts that were ignored because they dont fit your meme.

I don't know what point you think those facts make, or why you think trying to divide up the subclassifications of rape victims into competing blocs serves any purpose.

And no I dont particularly favor an absolute age cut off of what is/isnt normal, just like I can accept some kids realize at a very young age they are gay and some dont come to that conclusion until later. Prefrontal cortex development and all that.

Fascinating. What does that even mean?

 

[Bells]

You’re condemning the Duggars because they instructed their daughters to be chaste before marriage? And that whatever ideological nonsense the daughters were exposed to somehow obligated them to follow it into adulthood? As citizens of the US the Duggar girls have every legal right to say no to any sexual advance they are confronted with, whether it comes from husband, brother, or anyone else.

Is that what they call telling girls that if men sexually molest them or rape them, that it is their fault and they are never allowed to refuse sex after marriage whenever their husband demands it is "chaste before marriage"? And are you seriously suggesting that banning girls from flashing their shoulders, upper arms, knees because it might sexually tempt any male around them and if the males are tempted, it is their fault for tempting them, is instructing those girls to be chaste before marriage?

Those girls were taught that they are not allowed to refuse sex, in a family and community where they could be expelled if they broke those rules, what kind of choice or legal right do you think those girls have or believe they have?

Really?

This is a new low for you.

And speaking of which..

I’m suggesting unreported assaults can’t be determined be crimes unless there is evidence presented to suggest that they actually occurred.

A boy molests his younger sister and you don't think it would be a crime unless it is reported?

And sometimes there is little evidence of the sexual assault. Are you determining it is not really a crime then?

You must have a hissy fit at the numerous cases against child molesting priests where there is no evidence presented, except for testimony or reports from victims. Since by your reckoning, those unreported sexual assaults would not be determined to be crimes or criminal acts until it gets to court.

I have heard some crap when it comes to excusing sexual assault and molestation, but you are really taking the cake and pushing the boundaries.

They are crimes when investigated and determined to be such, just like any other alleged crime. And speaking of other crimes, the number of sexual assaults that are unreported is 15 times less than that of other violent crimes, so where is the cry for justice for those multitudes?

The way you presented that is so misleading because it was so out of context with the rest of the report that you should be ashamed of yourself:

From your link:

From 2006 to 2010, the two highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, and the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations (table 1). About 46% of serious violent victimizations were not reported to police. In general, the percentage of unreported victimizations was lower for serious violent crime than simple assault (simple assault does not involve an injury or a weapon). However, a higher percentage of rape or sexual assault victimizations (65%) compared to simple assault victimizations (56%) went unreported during the five-year period.

The rationale for not reporting to police varied depending on the type of criminal victimization. For example, among unreported violent crime victimizations, the most common reason the crime was not reported was that the victim dealt with it in another way (34%). Among unreported property crime victimizations, the most common reason was that the victim believed the police would not or could not do anything to help (36%). A lower percentage of unreported serious violent crime (13%) was not reported because the victim believed that the crime was not important enough to report, compared to simple assault (21%) and property crime (30%) victimizations. A greater percentage of unreported rape or sexual assault (28%) and aggravated assault (22%) victimizations compared to any other type of criminal victimization were not reported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble.​

Coupled with the fact that the people least likely to report are those who are in a relationship with the offender, which we know ties in with rapes and sexual assaults since the majority of victims know their rapists or are in a relationship with their rapist, not to mention the report finding that women were the least likely to report to the police for fear of reprisals and their belief the police would not do anything about it or they are given little spiels about false reports, frankly, you are trying to be misleading. The very belief that women often feel they cannot prove they were raped so they do not report it, you know, your little spiel about how it isn't really deemed a crime or criminal until the evidence proves it, is why so many women and men and children do not report sexual assaults.

 

[Capracus]

Is that what they call telling girls that if men sexually molest them or rape them, that it is their fault and they are never allowed to refuse sex after marriage whenever their husband demands it is "chaste before marriage"? And are you seriously suggesting that banning girls from flashing their shoulders, upper arms, knees because it might sexually tempt any male around them and if the males are tempted, it is their fault for tempting them, is instructing those girls to be chaste before marriage?

So the Duggars blamed their fully clothed sleeping daughters for enticing Josh to sexually touch them. If you seriously believe that, you’re an idiot.

Those girls were taught that they are not allowed to refuse sex, in a family and community where they could be expelled if they broke those rules, what kind of choice or legal right do you think those girls have or believe they have?

Those girls are not legally bound to sexually submit to anyone, ever. If they choose to follow the advise of their family and religious community and remain chaste until marriage, good for them. If they choose to willingly submit to their husband's sexual desires, they are free to do that as well. If they should tire of this life of self imposed sexual bondage, then they have they right to end it whenever they see fit.

A boy molests his younger sister and you don't think it would be a crime unless it is reported?

And sometimes there is little evidence of the sexual assault. Are you determining it is not really a crime then?

When someone accuses another of a crime in Australia, do they just take them at their word, arrest the accused and send them to prison? Or do they investigate the claim, weigh the evidence and proceed from there?

The reason we know that a boy molested his younger sister is because the boy reported the offense to his parents. Up until that point the girls had no idea they were victims. There was only two occasions that the victims could verify that anything had occurred. As for everything else Josh claims he did, he has no way to substantiate it, we can’t even be certain that portions of his account are valid one way or the other.

You must have a hissy fit at the numerous cases against child molesting priests where there is no evidence presented, except for testimony or reports from victims. Since by your reckoning, those unreported sexual assaults would not be determined to be crimes or criminal acts until it gets to court.

You claim to be an attorney and you don’t understand that witness testimony is considered evidence?

Yes, until the accuser can substantiate their accusation, we cannot assume a crime has been committed.

The way you presented that is so misleading because it was so out of context with the rest of the report that you should be ashamed of yourself.

Misleading? The data speaks for itself, but only if you’re willing to listen. The data clearly shows that sexual assault is a minor subset of violent crime in general. And if one claims that victims of unreported sexual assault are denied justice, then to a much greater degree, so are victims of violent crime in general. Actually it’s you who should be ashamed for taking such a narrow view on the subject of violent crime.

 

[Bells]

So the Duggars blamed their fully clothed sleeping daughters for enticing Josh to sexually touch them. If you seriously believe that, you’re an idiot.

I would say they did. Considering they immediately placed the onus on the girls to not be molested instead of dealing with Josh directly so that he did not molest. Well, at first they did nothing at all and it was when it kept happening that they imposed rules on the girls and their behaviour and actions.

They even admitted to this themselves in their interviews.

Those girls are not legally bound to sexually submit to anyone, ever. If they choose to follow the advise of their family and religious community and remain chaste until marriage, good for them. If they choose to willingly submit to their husband's sexual desires, they are free to do that as well. If they should tire of this life of self imposed sexual bondage, then they have they right to end it whenever they see fit.

This has nothing to do with chastity and everything to do with ownership and control.

You keep going back to chastity, but in doing so, you completely overlook the fact that chastity and purity in this instance is a requirement and is enforced on those girls. They have no say in the patriarchal society they belong to. They aren't even allowed to go to college. There is no choosing to willingly submit to their husband's sexual desires. These girls are taught that what they want or need is secondary because they are women and that they must submit to their husband's needs. And you are very glib about their ending it. Ending it how? These girls have no control over money, they are not well educated, they have no control or access to anything outside of that community. Everything they do is controlled by their spouse or father or brothers. Even their text messages are monitored.

The fact that you completely leave this out in your hurry to change the narrative of what the Duggars do and did shows your complete dishonesty.

When someone accuses another of a crime in Australia, do they just take them at their word, arrest the accused and send them to prison? Or do they investigate the claim, weigh the evidence and proceed from there?

Certainly. What you fail to note is that rape is a crime, as is sexual molestation. One does not have to report the crime for it to be a crime. Josh molesting his sisters was still a criminal offense, even though the parents did not report him.

The reason we know that a boy molested his younger sister is because the boy reported the offense to his parents. Up until that point the girls had no idea they were victims. There was only two occasions that the victims could verify that anything had occurred. As for everything else Josh claims he did, he has no way to substantiate it, we can’t even be certain that portions of his account are valid one way or the other.

We will never know because his parents refused to hand him over for questioning.

Whether those girls were aware or not is irrelevant. They were sexually molested by their brother and it was allowed to continue. This is a crime. Whether the parents reported it or not does not make it any less of a criminal act.

I get it, you have made up enough excuses and praised the parents and the paedophile for protecting the child molester and the fact you don't think it would be a big deal if your daughter molested your son when they were kids, perhaps you don't think sexual molestation should be a crime at all. Believe me, we all get it. What you say is absolutely irrelevant. What Josh did was a crime.

You claim to be an attorney and you don’t understand that witness testimony is considered evidence?

Yes, until the accuser can substantiate their accusation, we cannot assume a crime has been committed.

And sometimes it cannot be substantiated, but we know enough about child molestation to be able to proceed with prosecution. Many victims of child molestation make terrible witnesses, especially in cases that happened years prior. And we can still convict with what little there is. Even though the Catholic Church try to pull a Duggar's and protect the molester, eventually, it comes back to bite them as it should.

Regardless, the molestation is still illegal and a crime.

Just because the Duggars did not report it does not make it any less of a crime.

Misleading? The data speaks for itself, but only if you’re willing to listen. The data clearly shows that sexual assault is a minor subset of violent crime in general. And if one claims that victims of unreported sexual assault are denied justice, then to a much greater degree, so are victims of violent crime in general. Actually it’s you who should be ashamed for taking such a narrow view on the subject of violent crime.

And more misrepresentation. Out of violent crimes, rape and sexual assault has the highest percentage of unreported, at 65%, even though the annual average not reported is lower than other serious violent crimes, it still has the highest percentage of unreported compared to other serious violent crimes. In no way does this diminish other forms of violent crimes. But it shows that rape and sexual assault is still too widely unreported. But your continued bid to diminish the seriousness of rape and sexual molestation and the sexual abuse of children is noted, however.

 

[milkweed]

And I even offered you a link to a thread that discusses rape culture↗, but apparently you missed the point. The topic post is riddled with examples of rape culture, from the U.S., Australia, Italy, and India.

Rape culture is a general term describing variable ranges of behaviors within societies that aid, abet, and empower rape. Such as when institutional officials receiving rape reports turn on the victims and harass them. Or a prosecutor decides to not pursue a confessed rape because he blames the victim instead of the rapist. Or when people mutter about what the dead girl was wearing, or where she was when she wa attacked, as if it has some moral significance. Or the parish priest nailing a Christmas letter to the church door telling women they bring all this on themselves by being terrible people. Or telling the parents of a five year-old raped by an adolescent boy that you won't be charging a crime because "boys will be boys"↗. You asked about systemic barriers?

1. Your disjointed rambling about multiple unrelated rape/assault cases is incoherent. And trying to tie it into a cat torture case... geezus ... yeah, I understand the analogy you were attempting but find it confusing. The generalized meme you are ripping off is Kitty torture is a symptom of a potential serial killer. So Have we made progress then? I mean if they aint gonna turn into a serial killer ...
2. I understand there are people who feel that the cause (zero rape/molestation) would be better served by catch phrases (rape culture). I do not agree.
3. The systemic barriers you choose to use are examples of single persons in a wide variety of situations. There is no common cause to point to. Well... there is. Money. And you ignored my actual question on 'systemic barriers' such as Innocent until proven guilty, the right to face your accuser, and to add another systemic barrier, Jury Nullification.

I don't know what point you think those facts make, or why you think trying to divide up the subclassifications of rape victims into competing blocs serves any purpose.

Putting the focus into the areas which show the greatest need? Rejecting university policies that subvert that 'systemic barrier' of the US constitution via 'white house mandate' under the carrot stick catch-all 'money' (withholding funding). Because that is the root of your 'systemic barrier' Money. Lack of money = greater rape percentage. Shifting burden of proof onto defendant to ensure the 'money' is not disrupted. Or the systemic barrier via some uni self-policing; low rape reporting = more access to tuition money.

I mean do you really think taking down the confederate flag will change people like Dylan Roof? No you dont. But you would celebrate such a diversion as some kind of victory. As you now attempt to elevate an unfounded premise of 'rape culture' ignoring the warnings of people who do work within the system to try to significantly lower the number of sex assaults as a whole:

“In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime,”

 

[Bells]

I mean do you really think taking down the confederate flag will change people like Dylan Roof? No you dont. But you would celebrate such a diversion as some kind of victory. As you now attempt to elevate an unfounded premise of 'rape culture' ignoring the warnings of people who do work within the system to try to significantly lower the number of sex assaults as a whole:

“In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime,”

You keep taking this out of context.

RAINN does not say there is no such thing as rape culture. What they recommended was that instead of trying to take down the all pervasive rape culture which is so well embedded in society, that an easier option would be to tackle rapists themselves. Their whole recommendation discussed everything that would normally fall under term "rape culture". Unless of course you want to argue that the prevailing attitude in society which blames women for being raped is not part of rape culture, but is merely 'something something'?

And no I dont particularly favor an absolute age cut off of what is/isnt normal, just like I can accept some kids realize at a very young age they are gay and some dont come to that conclusion until later. Prefrontal cortex development and all that.

Could you please explain this? What, exactly, do you mean by this?

 

[milkweed]

You keep taking this out of context.

RAINN does not say there is no such thing as rape culture. What they recommended was that instead of trying to take down the all pervasive rape culture which is so well embedded in society, that an easier option would be to tackle rapists themselves. Their whole recommendation discussed everything that would normally fall under term "rape culture". Unless of course you want to argue that the prevailing attitude in society which blames women for being raped is not part of rape culture, but is merely 'something something'?

Its not out of context. Same sentence.

Rape is caused by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime, but not by cultural factors”

And that is the fact, across ALL measurable factors (income, education level, location, religion, nationality, political alignment etc).

 

[Bells]

Its not out of context. Same sentence.

Rape is caused by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime, but not by cultural factors”

And that is the fact, across ALL measurable factors (income, education level, location, religion, nationality, political alignment etc).

While you completely ignore the culture which exists which continuously and repeatedly ignores rape or diminishes it, or blames the victims? For example:

A Montana judge will be censured and suspended for comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim, the Montana Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday. Yellowstone County District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh became famous after he sentenced a teacher who raped one of his teenaged students to just 30 days in jail, because he believed the victim "seemed older than her chronological age" and was "as much in control of the situation" as her rapist. The victim later committed suicide. ​

What, do you think, fed this judge's views of rape and rape victims, which led him to hand out such a pathetic sentence and to hold such appalling views?

Or when things and attitudes like this happen:

A further compounding factor is the unsympathetic and disbelieving attitudes expressed by police to victims/survivors at the time of reporting and the asking of irrelevant and inappropriate questions. One caller recounted being blamed for walking alone at night in the park and being asked if she was a man-hater; another woman recalled how the police had commented to the doctor that she didn't have many bruises and how she was subsequently investigated by the police to construct a picture of her character. The police achieved this by contacting her family, friends and employers without her permission and, as the icing on the cake, released details to the local media. Her case was eventually dropped by the police with the official line that the assailant could not be located.​

What drives such attitudes?

What about the judge who overturned a guilty verdict and ordered a retrial in a case of a young down syndrome woman's rape because she did not act like a victim enough? Despite all evidence pointing to the fact that she was repeatedly raped? What do you think causes people to hold such beliefs? What does how the victim act after being raped have anything to do with the fact that she was raped?

Rape apologists often refer to that one statement from RAINN to ignore or bypass rape culture. Which would explain why the known apologists are referring to it here, while blithely ignore the realities of what rape culture entails, something that RAINN continuously discusses and pushes against. When a judge blames a child for her own rape, that is indicative of rape culture and it further exacerbates the reality of why women and girls and men and boys do not report being raped. The criminal justice system details how and why rape culture continues to exist within the system itself and outside of it.

Deny it as much as you want, but in doing so, you fall firmly within what constitutes rape culture. Especially when one considers how far you have pushed to excuse the sexual molestation of children in this thread.

 

[milkweed]

While you completely ignore the culture which exists which continuously and repeatedly ignores rape or diminishes it, or blames the victims? For example:

Yellowstone County District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh became famous after he sentenced a teacher who raped one of his teenaged students to just 30 days in jail, because he believed the victim "seemed older than her chronological age" and was "as much in control of the situation" as her rapist. The victim later committed suicide. ​

What, do you think, fed this judge's views of rape and rape victims, which led him to hand out such a pathetic sentence and to hold such appalling views?

What is his record on rape/sexual assault during his 30 years on the bench? If there is a pattern, show it to me. Otherwise, you have one very bad ruling and not a 'culture'.

Or when things and attitudes like this happen:

A further compounding factor is the unsympathetic and disbelieving attitudes expressed by police to victims/survivors at the time of reporting and the asking of irrelevant and inappropriate questions. One caller recounted being blamed for walking alone at night in the park and being asked if she was a man-hater; another woman recalled how the police had commented to the doctor that she didn't have many bruises and how she was subsequently investigated by the police to construct a picture of her character. ​

--According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, or 0.1% of the US population 12 or older in 2013.--
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf

How many victims in 2013 reported issues such as the above? Do you know? Do you know if the above cases you cite occurred in the same year, or even the same country? If you are going to claim this is a cultural/systemic issue, then show me the pattern. A hodgepodge of unconnected incidents scattered over years and continents does not make a pattern or a culture. There are asshole cops, we all know that. There are asshole prosecutors, we know that. There are asshole judges too. That does not make a rape culture. Your pattern of outliers destroys your own hypothesis.

Deny it as much as you want, but in doing so, you fall firmly within what constitutes rape culture. Especially when one considers how far you have pushed to excuse the sexual molestation of children in this thread.

Well I am still waiting for you to produce the percentage of families who attempt to resolve those issues within before seeking outside help. My estimate is 90 - 95% of families do not dial 911 or seek out licensed therapists the first time they discover something along the lines of the Josh Duggar conduct. My estimate on a 2nd report is 60% do not alert an authority. But the Duggar family went to what they felt was an authority on the second report.

And your imagined rape culture assessment holds no weight.

 

[Tiassa]

Cleanup

​

This is the part where the Duggars try to sweep the scandal back under the rug:

Josh Duggar is missing from a photo posted Tuesday morning on the family's Facebook account to celebrate the wedding of a close relative.

His absence was noticed by fans – who complained the reality TV show stars had caved to "haters" who criticized their handling of their eldest son's sexual abuse of his sisters and a family friend more than a decade, reported The Daily Mail.

"I hope the duggars don't make a habit of leaving Josh out and this was just the situation of the moment," said fan Chantel "Paulsen" Middleton. "Don't remove a relative for fame to support the haters, as you will lose the fans that love you for all your family values."

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar gathered together nine of their children, less than half, for a photo celebrating the engagement of niece Amy Duggar to Dillon King.

"I love seeing photos of the family — sorry that Joshua is being left out of public photos," said fan Angel Dean Collins. "We love him too."

Daughter Jill Duggar, who revealed to Fox News that she was among four of the sisters molested by their eldest brother when he was a teenager, was also absent from the photo after recently leaving on a long-term overseas mission with her husband and newborn baby.

(Gettys↱)​

Remedial public relations, textbook process:

(1) Remove source of controversy from view; Josh Duggar is absent.

(2) Remove object of controversy; abuse survivor Jill departs on "long-term overseas mission with her husband and newborn baby".

(3) Watch the birdie, er, engagement ring, I mean, engagement ring. 'Cause we've got a wedding to plan! And a joyous, blessed union to celebrate!​

Because, you know, nothing defuses a scandal like a wedding ....

And in the end, everything really could be coincidental. Well, the molester's absence is most likely deliberate. But the thing about textbook examples is that they are textbook examples; that is to say, the example represents a compact distillation of a larger proposition.

And that's the thing. This doesn't even look like Public Relations 101. This is COMM 095, Public Relations Remedial Survey. And the Duggars are failing again.

So here's the problem with this particular clodhopping being particularly coincidental: The Duggars have pretty much screwed up every step of this child molesting issue. If we want to blame Josh's actions on juvenile curiosity and so forth, we must also acknowledge that Duggar family values establish the priority and framework of focus on sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior. This is easy enough to recall from our own lives, I would think. Well, at least for men. In my time, it starts simply enough. We want a peek because, well, it's private, and apparently a big deal. Cookie jar curiosity is one thing, but the Duggars kind of screwed this whole thing up. It's actually similar to ostensibly anti-gay figures like Haggard, Craig, and Rekers, who all fell from grace. Their ego-defense reaction to homosexuality empowered and accelerated the slow return of the repressed, and these closet cases, immersed in and obsessed with homosexual behavior, suffered seemingly inevitable neurotic ruptures.

If it was just cookie jar curiosity, then putting a camera in the girls' bedroom wouldn't have been necessary. If surveillance was necessary, the Duggars did a really, really lousy job. No, really, show me a parent who frets about sexual morality and the corruption of children whose protection scheme is so easy to evade that a molester just takes his victims to another room. Think about that for a minute. Please.

They talked about counseling and specifically chose a nonstandard course, and did so particularly because standard address of these issues would undermine their sexcrafting fantasy.

They turned to law enforcement, but conspired with the cop to break the law in order to protect a young man demonstrating serial, predatory sexually abusive behavior against children.

When the scandal emerged, the Duggars tried to protect the molester, and pretended he was the victim.

Everything about their response to Josh molesting little girls has been exactly wrong. Every step of the way.

And now, this?

It really does look like hack public relations. And, you know, given history, lex parsimonae suggests that is what it really is. Other explanations are complicated and inconsistent.

So here we are.

And so it begins.

Now we're all supposed to forget about it, so the Duggars can get back to grooming children.
____________________

Notes:

Gettys, Travis. "Josh Duggar missing from family's Facebook photo — and 'family values' fans are furious". Raw Story. 14 July 2015. RawStory.com. 15 July 2015. http://bit.ly/1M50tcX

 

[Tiassa]

Purity

This is not surprising:

Josh Duggar, who was forced to resign from his position as executive director of the conservative and anti-gay group Family Research Council Action when he admitted that as a teenager he sexually molested five minor girls -- has now owned up to cheating on his wife after his Ashley Madison profile was discovered.

On Thursday, Josh, as well as his parents, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar (who until July were stars on TLC's "19 Kids and Counting") posted a message on the family's official website.

"I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the Internet, and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife," Josh wrote in a statement, though he has since removed the reference to his Internet pornography addiction.

He added, "I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved [sic] for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him."

Josh, whose wife Anna gave birth to their fourth child in July, went on to say that he "deeply regrets all the hurt [he's] caused by being such a bad example," and concluded his statement by asking for forgiveness.

(Marcus↱)​

By elevating sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior to such prominence, purity culture ends up immersing its followers in what a religious person might call "temptation", and the rest of us just call by its name. They're horny. Sexually frustrated. Surrounded by glorious forbidden fruit. We should not be surprised if they reach for the apple and pluck it from the tree.
____________________

Notes:

Marcus, Stephanie. "Josh Duggar Admits To Cheating On Wife After His Ashley Madison Profile Is Discovered". The Huffington Post. 20 August 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 20 August 2015. http://huff.to/1PoYUFG

 

[Bells]

And his poor wife was probably non the wiser, because as the wife, she is not in command or has the right to access the bank statements if he says no. Quiverfull movement and how they operate means that she must abide by all his wishes. Four kids, a husband who molested his sisters when he was younger and admitted to cheating on her during their marriage. If he asks for forgiveness, she has to give it. That is what they are taught. And what has happened in the past.

Failure by her to adhere to his wishes is not allowed in their religion.

 

[Capracus]

Adherence to a particular rigid ethical standard is self imposed in this case, there’s no one holding a gun to her head. Josh obviously had no problem escaping the yoke of his prescribed convictions. If Anna’s aren’t meeting her expectations, she’s free to follow Josh’s lead.

 

[tali89]

And his poor wife was probably non the wiser, because as the wife, she is not in command or has the right to access the bank statements if he says no. Quiverfull movement and how they operate means that she must abide by all his wishes. Four kids, a husband who molested his sisters when he was younger and admitted to cheating on her during their marriage. If he asks for forgiveness, she has to give it. That is what they are taught. And what has happened in the past.

Failure by her to adhere to his wishes is not allowed in their religion.

If his behaviour was condoned by his religion, he wouldn't be feeling shame, nor asking for forgiveness from his wife, children, fellow believers and Messiah. Nor have we seen any indication that his wife is obliged to forgive him. This is yet another example of you attributing a statement or belief to someone that they have not been demonstrated to hold. I know that you have a rabid irrational hatred of organised religion (particularly Christianity), but using the Duggars as some sort of example to justify your phobia won't convince anyone with even half a brain.

 

[Tiassa]

Technowhatsit? Clickbait NSFW/C. Caption: Anarchy Panty prepares to fight zombie ghosts.
(Detail of frame from Panty & Stocking w/Garterbelt, episode 8, "... Of the Dead")​

If Anna's aren't meeting her expectations, she's free to follow Josh's lead.

While I wouldn't argue with the point, it really is rather beside the point, and also rather quite self-centered, as it affords Mrs. Duggar exactly no genuine consideration.

While I might sincerely disdain such ideologies as Purity Culture, and genuinely resent the damage they do, at least I recognize how much these beliefs mean to these people. They are conditioned beliefs, not easily betrayed from the vantage of obedient subordinate.

"She's free to follow Josh's lead", is a bit simplistic.

Then again, your lack of human sympathy is not entirely unique; some would even go so far as to suggest that we have not seen any indication that Christian is obliged to forgive. And, you know ... I mean, I've heard some stupid things in my life, but that's a turducken among similar stupidities. The stuff of legend. I mean, come on, nobody's really that stupid, right?

So cheer up. You might be thoughtless and insensitive, but it really could be worse.

 

[Bells]

If his behaviour was condoned by his religion, he wouldn't be feeling shame, nor asking for forgiveness from his wife, children, fellow believers and Messiah. Nor have we seen any indication that his wife is obliged to forgive him. This is yet another example of you attributing a statement or belief to someone that they have not been demonstrated to hold. I know that you have a rabid irrational hatred of organised religion (particularly Christianity), but using the Duggars as some sort of example to justify your phobia won't convince anyone with even half a brain.

Except that they have often espouse such beliefs and this has been discussed at length in this thread.

For example:

Indeed, submission is the most important tenet in the Christian Patriarchy movement. “Men are to be leaders, teachers, initiators, protectors and providers,” former Quiverfull adherent, and now a vocal opponent, Vyckie Garrison explains on her blog. “Women are created to be ‘helpmeets’ to the men in authority over them (husbands, fathers, older brothers) ~ they are to be submissive and yielding.”

As Kathryn Joyce recounts in her book, Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, even before marriage young women are taught that men will soon rule over them. In Joyce’s retelling, the wife of now-excommunicated pastor Doug Phillips asked a group of young women, “Are you ready to do the most vulnerable thing that a woman ever can do and submit yourself to a man, who you are going to have to follow in his faith, who is incredibly imperfect and is going to make mistakes? Can you do that? Can you call your husband ‘Lord’? If the answer is no, you shouldn’t get married.”

Michelle Duggar lives this principle, even trumpeting complete submission to her husband’s sexual desires—should she want it or not—as a secret to her happy marriage.​

Like many people, even evil atheists like myself, I was raised in a Christian household. However, at no time did my parents even suggest or live by this sort of standard. On the contrary, in our household, it was always about equality. There was no "lord and master" of the house. Perhaps my parents missed the memo, if you are now suggesting that being against this sort of misogyny is to be against organised religion, particularly Christianity?

But hey, don't let me stop you. Please, carry on defending this sort of rubbish.

 

[tali89]

Except that they have often espouse such beliefs and this has been discussed at length in this thread.

Yes, you've posted a number of opinion pieces from biased news sites which purport to know what the Duggars believe. Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any quotes taken verbatim from the Duggars which support your conjecture? Because as things stand you're simply relying on questionable second-hand information to pigeon-hole the Duggars into a belief system you object to. If I want to know what someone viewpoint on a subject, I generally ask them directly, rather than relying on their ideological opponents to fill me in.

But hey, don't let me stop you. Please, carry on defending this sort of rubbish.

See, there you go again, attributing viewpoints to a person that they do not hold. What exactly am I defending? Please spell it out for me (with supporting quotes) so that I know, because apparently your left-wing tabloid trash and yourself are better authorities on this matter than myself.