Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
Feb 17, 2005

Between the fortress-like homes, the incest, the loving over kids for political power, the husbands raping their wives, the arranged marriages, the million kids who nobody can remember the loving names of anyhow, the animal torture, the incest, the paranoia that everyone's scheming to get them, the incest, the scheming to hide the incest, the treating women like they're walking vaginas, the fact they want to live in a society that makes renaissance festivals look like loving Star Trek, the incest and the complete lack of shame about any of this including the incest, you'd think the Duggars are looking to jump over to HBO after TLC dumped them.


Feb 17, 2005

hemophilia posted:

It's gonna really, really suck for everyone who is raping boys and girls and siblings and all that poo poo in the name of God, when they actually get to the afterlife.

Theologically the issue for them isn't so much that God won't forgive certain sins, but that forgiveness requires repentance and repentance requires accepting the reality and the gravity of the sin. The Duggars have gone out of their way to minimize what happened and avoid any negative consequences. Everything they've done, they've done to keep up the illusion that they're this perfect family and all the benefits they've been able to grab from it.

Their concern for their public image still pales in comparison to how Gothardists/Quiverfuls treat the victims. The victim may not be ready to forgive and that's to be expected because the abuser hurt them and they're still dealing with that. Pressuring a victim to forgive their abuser instead of helping undo the harm is sick because it shows no consideration for the victim's well-being, just for some magic words they can hold up to show that all is forgiven.

What's more, pressuring a child to forgive because "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us" is beyond hosed up. It takes the focus off the abuser's sin and instead makes the victims look at themselves as sinners even if they've done nothing wrong. They can't even comprehend just how badly they were sinned against and suddenly stealing from the candy bowl or not doing exactly what mommy and daddy say is the problem. If the victim doesn't drop it forever, then it's their own fault because God's already forgiven the abuser. They don't give a poo poo about forgiveness, they just give a poo poo about maintaining control.

Feb 17, 2005

Geoj posted:

Posting this again because it should be posted on every page:

Specifically #8.

Jesus Christ that thing pisses me off from the very loving beginning although I never commented on it. It goes from merely wrong to so loving wrong that they should bring back burning at the stake.

1. They start off breaking the victim apart so that they can treat the physical acts done to the victim as distinct from the emotional and spiritual consequences. People well versed in feminism can probably far better explain how separating a woman's body from her identity is central to sexual objectification—I'll just point out that whoever wrote that is doing it to a child.

2. Then they minimize the value of the victim's body while at the same time laying the ground work for telling them it doesn't matter what they feel because of the spiritual trump card.

3. Now it's the victim's fault for the consequences they're supposed to care about while the abuser's only at fault for what amounts to spiritual petty vandalism. The victim's the one doing the real harm to themselves; they coincidentally started just after the completely unrelated abuse. I just shot you, you chose to bleed to death. Great loving logic there, Humbert.

4 & 5. This is particularly ugly since it starts by moving the remaining responsibility from the abuser to God. So now it's a question of whether it's God's fault or the victim's fault rather than whether it's the abuser's fault or the victim's fault. Both are equally absurd but changing the other option from sinful human being to perfect God is stacking the deck to an impossible level. Whatever "sins" the victim supposedly committed are immeasurably small in comparison to those of the abuser so they can't let the victim make that comparison; it's got to be against God so their only options are blaming themselves and blasphemy. And continuing the "author is a goddamn pedophile" theme, there's a strong "but she seduced me!" subtext here.

6. In spite of "If abused was not at fault" sounding like we hit rock loving bottom, it's just the setup for the theological bunker buster to break out when the victim blaming isn't cutting it. If it wasn't God doing this to punish the victim, then it's God doing it to benefit the victim. In spite of all that happened to them, they're somehow better off than before if only they're willing to see it. If they really aren't better off then it must be because they really were somehow at fault in the first place.

7. Pointing out what happened to Daniel serves as a way to downplay the severity of what happened to the victim, moving the goalposts to irreparable bodily harm. An alternative example: Job. Horrible stuff happened to him for no reason. He never cursed God and only wanted to know why while his friends were convinced it was because of some horrible sin he committed. In spite of point 6, sometimes there simply isn't a why and it's not your fault for not seeing the silver lining if one doesn't exist.

8. This is an amazing inversion: Someone who's truly penitent would take their sins back if they had the choice and is sorrowful because they can't and now everyone has to live with the consequences. Even if the victim recovers, they still hold that regret. This poses the victim with the same question but turns the whole question of regret on its head and pressures them to say the exact opposite or oppose God's will. The abuser's choice in the matter is irrelevant and it's all but demanding the victim say it's not a sin.

9. There's a lot of hosed up to unpack here, starting with the whole idea that the thing that really bothers the victim is that it sullied their sexual purity. Belay that. The whole idea that the victim necessarily understands what sexual purity might be or why anyone cares about it in itself. Belay that. The whole idea that anyone should care about a child's sexual purity beyond the fact it means someone did something terrible to the child. There's no doubt that bothers the author but if the emotional consequences bothered them they sure as gently caress forgot to mention it. I think they were too emotionally overcome by the thought of being only the second person to assault their next victim.

10. On the other hand they did dedicate an entire loving point and half the images in the document to their magical decontamination procedure (Warranty void if victim ever has sex again) Here's my version: If having their first time with someone sexually pure matters that much to your future spouse, they should be able to satisfy their need if they go gently caress themselves. And finally the victim should forgive and leave all punishment or lack thereof (with a clear preference for the latter) to God (who won't punish them anyhow if they ask for forgiveness) rather than reporting their abuser to the authorities. (Warranty void if victim reports abuser to the police)

Feb 17, 2005

Arkansas allows child marriages?

  • Locked thread