Capracus said:
How many times do I have to state that I considered Lena Dunham’s incident with her sister to be born of innocence, and that I considered that Josh’s actions went too far?
I think part of the problem here is just that you're behaving stupidly.
What has been reported by the family member who were close to the events is that for the most part Josh rubbed the clothing over their breasts and vaginas gently enough not to wake them.
Then you're either not paying attention or else you're deliberately being deceptive while trying to defend child molestation.
I would, for instance, point out that
you posted↑ an
L.A. Times↱ story that speaks otherwise. Your phrase, "for the most part" suggests you reeally, really want to avoid the truth in order to continue minimising the molestation. And this behavior reinforces rape culture, and that is why you are viewed right now as a rape advocate.
Since when does careful execution exclude curiosity? Those two qualities are cornerstones of scientific inquiry.
As a raw question, it doesn't. However, given the age difference and the predatory behavior, continuing to describe serial child molestation as "curiosity" is grotesque at best. Again, you are in the realm of rape advocacy.
If he was taught that these girls existed for his pleasure, why would guilt over his actions send him crying to his parents to confess his offenses?
His belief in the redemption and condemnation of the immortal soul?
Why was the "guilt over his actions" insufficient to prevent further predation?
Stop trying to miminze sexual predation.
Better your school friends die as a result of this normal risky illegal behavior than to be gently fondled in their sleep, excellent social proposition. Let’s yank a teen molester out of the home for the slightest offense, but give the rest of the teens a pass on their normal risky behavior, even though it has vastly more potential for harm. Cigarettes, wine and car keys for all teens who vow not to molest, sounds like the makings of a proper anti rape culture campaign.
This sort of tantrum doesn't really help your argument.
Seriously, do I have to point out the basic reality that no matter how stupid people can be, there is a difference between
managing self-harm that has potential to harm others and
deliberately harming others.
Your need to ignore details in order to maintain an assertion of principle about your argument has not slipped by without notice.
You’ve really got this stuff twisted. I never said it was normal for teens to engage in molestation, I said that behaviors that teens normally engage in are more destructive, and are not treated with the same degree of disdain and resolution.
Get a handle on yourself, Capracus. You don't get to pretend the rest of your posts and arguments don't exist in order to create that distillation.
I’m asking why it’s worse to molest your schoolmates than to recklessly kill them.
The difference is in that sentence, Capracus. To recklessly and accidentally kill someone is bad enough. To deliberately harm a person is a different set of issues.
If it’s a fact that normal behaviors are more destructive than the abnormal act of molestation, then it’s this reality that minimizes its offensiveness by comparison.
No, not "reality", Capracus. Just you, and some of your fellow rape advocates.
How the hell you get the above response from my statement below is beyond me.
Well, maybe it's that everything your arguing is in the context of rape advocacy. The similarity you see
"in the level of application" first requires that you distort the context of application.
Think of it this way, Capracus:
You have written a number of posts minimizing sexual predation and molestation. You try to say that's not what you're doing, and point to this or that example. In the first place, those examples do not overcome the general themes of your posts; in the second, they still minimize sexual predation and molestation.
This is a tale of serial predation taking place in an environment intended to groom females into sexual subservience. The "safeguards" put in place by the family were easily evaded; he just molested girls
in another room. They took him to "the police" for a stern talkin'-to, except this cop was a longtime family friend and deliberately abandoned his duty to report the incident. Oh, and then he went up for fifty-six years on his second child pornography conviction.
And amid all this, you want to pore over details of just how this molester abused little girls in order to make value judgments about
what these acts mean to you.
The psychs and social workers who deal with sexual abuse victims are recoiling in horror; this chapter of the public discourse is
exceptionally dangerous. The Duggar drama is emblematic of ownership and rape cultures; it is as pure a distillation of these problems as we've ever seen. And, you know, really? Okay, so ... what about this sex predator is so special? Why do we need to overturn the entire record of the damage child sexual abuse does to individuals, local communities, and larger societies, in order to give this predator a pass?
Think of it this way: It's so out of hand that even in
Arkansas the Department of Human Services is ready to call the cops. And we know that because they did, last month, after the
Duggars refused DHS access to a child↱.
They're still protecting the predator.
Why would anybody else help them?
____________________
Notes:
Parker, Ryan and Saba Hamedy. "Josh Duggar scandal: He 'was a child preying on a child,' his father says". Los Angeles Times. 3 June 2015. LATimes.com. 11 Jun. 2015. http://lat.ms/1MpmcdS
Marcus, Stephanie. "Duggar Family Reportedly Under New Investigation By Arkansas Department Of Human Services". The Huffington Post. 10 June 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 11 June 2015. http://huff.to/1C14APj