Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

High profile story of abuse between a Mormon couple

Recommended Posts

On 2/7/2018 at 10:49 PM, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop, I helped a sister flee and hide from her abusive husband. He called me and told me he knew where my family lived.

Wow. I do believe that I would have told him to come over to talk to me about it.  Alma 43:47

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2018 at 11:14 AM, juliann said:

All I learned from you is that you still don't believe women. It's getting old.

I'm not Darren10, but I think you assume too much.  At the risk of being labelled falsely, I will assert that both women and men can and do lie about abuse.  Of whatever kind.  It isn't frequent, but it isn't overwhelmingly rare either.  And a woman who complains of physical or sexual abuse should be taken seriously -- but as for any kind of accusation of wrongdoing, reported by anyone versus anyone, regardless of gender or status, a grain of salt must be taken as to presumption of guilt or innocence. There are men (and women, too) who have spent time in prison due to lying accusations -- only to be released later when it turned out that in the matter of "he said/she said", someone was prevaricating their head off.

With all due respect, you seem to make the assumption that no woman would ever lie.  I invite you to consider that maybe you're wrong about that, if that's what you think.

From Slate: Crying Rape: False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.

And yes, this discussion is about physical abuse, not rape, per se, but it still applies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh for heaven's sake. It's always about the men no matter how many women are hurt, right? 

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

Quote

Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes.  Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.

Add that to an estimated 40% of rapes that aren't even reported.

Or here:  https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Or here: https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Or here: https://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/

Quote

Fact: Only 2-8% of rapes are falsely reported, the same percentage as for other felonies.[3]

How much time do you spend boo hooing that you are going to be falsely accused of murder?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. It's always about the men no matter how many women are hurt, right? 

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

Add that to an estimated 40% of rapes that aren't even reported.

Or here:  https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Or here: https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Or here: https://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/

How much time do you spend boo hooing that you are going to be falsely accused of murder?  

You just confirmed my faith.  Exactly what I expected.

I hope you realize that in the vast majority of cases I agree with you and you make perfect sense, and when you pull out your big guns on most issues I am there fist pumping saying "You go, girl!" Figuratively, you understand. I know you're a mature, grownup woman.

But on this topic you are so completely focused that I don't think you're seeing yourself -- and I've seen a few others like this, too.

NO, it's not always about the men, but on the subject of believing every accusation of rape, or abuse, REGARDLESS OF THE SEX(ES) OF THE VICTIM AND PERP, a modicum of reservation of judgement should always be exercised.  That's all I'm saying, and I knew from the moment I started writing what I wrote that you would say respond pretty much the way you have.  Do you get it, yet?

Saying that one must ALWAYS believe the apparent victim is a fine thing to prescribe.  And I actually would believe someone who said they were raped, regardless of their sex, or at least take their claim seriously.  Would you believe a man who said he was raped?  Would you believe that many men suffer from rape, and that there is a societal taboo about reporting on it, even more so than for women?  

US_Sexual_Victimization_2014.png

(See the American Journal of Public Health: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&)

Oh, and by the way, I don't spend all that much time worrying about being falsely accused of murder, but believe it or not, it has happened to some others!  I have a concealed carry permit, too, not because I constantly fear being attacked when out of the house, but because it has happened to others, including to people I am acquainted with. And I don't walk down dark alleys at night in my downtown, because I know better and DON'T want to have use my pistol in self-defense.  I have life insurance, too, even though I am pretty sure I'm going to live until the Second Coming.

I am fascinated by this: "we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason."  Who is this "WE" your quote refers to?  I don't know anyone -- ANYONE -- who would react that way.  I'm more likely to immediately want to shoot a person whom a woman says "He just now raped me!" If the person merely robbed her, then all I want to do is make chase.  But rape?  Center mass -- three rounds with a 9mm Hydrostatic.  I'm a pretty good shot, too.  But note that I'm not a violent person. I've never killed or injured any person, with or without a weapon, or wanted to, even though I know how.

I'm sorry, Juliann, but I just don't see what "40% of rapes that aren't even reported" has to do with this subject?  If they're not reported, then nobody can disbelieve in them, can they?  I'm sure the 40% of unreported rapes includes male victims, by the way.

I'm not trying to minimize rape, far from it, but have a look at what I wrote, not merely what you believe I wrote.

And in the end, just because a woman OR a man says she or he was raped, there's always a possibility that he or she is lying.  So, for that reason, I feel we should withhold shooting the accused until the crime has been proven.

Do I still get accused of the heinous crime of not believing a woman, or have I finally gotten you past that particular bump in the road?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2018 at 9:40 AM, bsjkki said:

Yes, they will suffer. He will, too. It’s no picnic for anyone. The Savior is the only remedy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Wow. I do believe that I would have told him to come over to talk to me about it.  Alma 43:47

Not a happy memory.

Share this post


Link to post

"on this topic you are so completely focused that I don't think you're seeing yourself"

Always useful to look in the mirror first when making claims like this

"just don't see what "40% of rapes that aren't even reported" has to do with this subject?"

Why are people so reluctant to report rapes and other forms of assault (see link below for rate of non reporting of domestic abuse)?

Quote

It's always about the men no matter how many women are hurt, right? 

" NO, it's not always about the men...

"Would you believe a man who said he was raped?  Would you believe that many men suffer from rape, and that there is a societal taboo about reporting on it, even more so than for women?   (table follows)...

"I'm sure the 40% of unreported rapes includes male victims, by the way."

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
  • Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that "intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women."

  • Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men.2 In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

  • The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman. 

  • https://www.dccadv.org/img/fck/file/Resources/DCCADV_DomesticViolenceFacts_Sheet.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

"on this topic you are so completely focused that I don't think you're seeing yourself"

Always useful to look in the mirror first when making claims like this

"just don't see what "40% of rapes that aren't even reported" has to do with this subject?"

Why are people so reluctant to report rapes and other forms of assault (see link below for rate of non reporting of domestic abuse)?

" NO, it's not always about the men...

"Would you believe a man who said he was raped?  Would you believe that many men suffer from rape, and that there is a societal taboo about reporting on it, even more so than for women?   (table follows)...

"I'm sure the 40% of unreported rapes includes male victims, by the way."

I've looked in the mirror. I still see that it is necessary to donate a modicum of circumspection when hearing accusations. Of any kind. 

I still believe the idea that a woman must always be believed is going too far. So is the idea that a man must always be believed is going too far. What I do believe is that an accusation must be taken seriously, and treated as if it may be true.

I fail to see how this is too horrible to contemplate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm not Darren10, but I think you assume too much.  At the risk of being labelled falsely, I will assert that both women and men can and do lie about abuse.  Of whatever kind.  It isn't frequent, but it isn't overwhelmingly rare either.  And a woman who complains of physical or sexual abuse should be taken seriously -- but as for any kind of accusation of wrongdoing, reported by anyone versus anyone, regardless of gender or status, a grain of salt must be taken as to presumption of guilt or innocence. There are men (and women, too) who have spent time in prison due to lying accusations -- only to be released later when it turned out that in the matter of "he said/she said", someone was prevaricating their head off.

With all due respect, you seem to make the assumption that no woman would ever lie.  I invite you to consider that maybe you're wrong about that, if that's what you think.

From Slate: Crying Rape: False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.

And yes, this discussion is about physical abuse, not rape, per se, but it still applies.

"And a woman who complains of physical or sexual abuse should be taken seriously"

ABSOLUTELTY! Where I'm lost is what I have posted that gives even a hint that I do not / would not take it seriously. But, I will not believe an accusation just because the accuser is a woman. absolutely not.

"but I think you assume too much", "With all due respect, you seem to make the assumption that no woman would ever lie."

You lost me just as much as Calm and Julianne. What did I post which would suggest that? They absolutely can lie and do.

"this discussion is about physical abuse, not rape, per se," - I view rape as inherently physically abusive...among other things.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

Taking the stance that belief of an alleged victim's accusations should be the starting point (the alleged victim is "innocent until proven guilty") rather than the ending only after accusations are demonstrated to be true (alleged victim is "guilty until proven innocent" of false reporting, overdramatizing, exaggeration, etc.) allows safety procedures to be taken when they are needed and not delayed while more harm is done or it becomes too late.  That approach also reassures the vulnerable that it is appropriate to speak up rather than risking shutting them down out of fear of not being believed or being treated as the one doing wrong or inflaming the anger of the abuser, placing them at more risk rather than helping them escape or resolve safety issues.

That does not mean during any investigation or attempt to help potential victims, one ignores evidence to the contrary nor does it mean one doesn't investigate for actual evidence, including contrary, beyond just the alleged victim's say so.  False reporting research has found patterns in false reporting that are not present in true so that even if one starts from the position of accepting accusations as valid, investigation will likely lead to uncovering most false allegations (false accusations of rape are usually not followed through on by the accuser after pressure from parents or partners is lifted once the alleged rape is reported or there is a known history of lying by the alleged victim), which amount to 8% at the most and may be as little as 2% of accusations for rape (other abuse accusations follow similar patterns from what I have seen, always more factual accusations than false).  If the majority of accusations are true, it makes sense to start from that position in investigations even if there are stricter rules when it comes to prosecution.

 It has also found that starting from the position of doubt shapes the outcome leading to less investigation and therefore less arrests, convictions, and thus less justice and protection for actual victims.  A position of belief of the alleged victim is thus more likely to result in accurate findings in the long run.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8687479/lie-rape-statistics

Is there a risk of innocents' lives being hurt if accusations are treated seriously prior to any actual evidence outside the victim's claim?  Yes, of course.  It would appear from statistics, however, there is a much greater level of harm if doubt is the initial response, up to and including the death of victims who were not believed.

When my nephew as an infant was brought into the ER covered in bruises, it was emotionally traumatic for both parents and child to be separated while an investigation into the cause of the bruises occurred.  In reality he needed the loving support of his parents at that time, but there was greater statistical risk that the parents were in fact the abusers and might hurt or run with their child once they got over the fear of going too far and felt cornered by the questions, etc. if allowed access.  In a day or two, the investigation cleared them as it was the babysitter and one thinks if only this had been known at the beginning, additional tears and trauma could have been avoided for the ones who were suffering the most...but that doesn't change the fact we don't live in an omniscient society and with potentially critical safety issues, people need to act as if all accusations are valid at the beginning (the victim is "innocent until proven guilty") and until safety concerns are resolved if lives are to be saved.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Taking the stance that belief of an alleged victim's accusations should be the starting point (the alleged victim is "innocent until proven guilty") rather than the ending only after accusations are demonstrated to be true (alleged victim is "guilty until proven innocent" of false reporting, overdramatizing, exaggeration, etc.) allows safety procedures to be taken when they are needed and not delayed while more harm is done or it becomes too late.  That approach also reassures the vulnerable that it is appropriate to speak up rather than risking shutting them down out of fear of not being believed or being treated as the one doing wrong or inflaming the anger of the abuser, placing them at more risk rather than helping them escape or resolve safety issues.

That does not mean during any investigation or attempt to help potential victims, one ignores evidence to the contrary nor does it mean one doesn't investigate for actual evidence, including contrary, beyond just the alleged victim's say so.  False reporting research has found patterns in false reporting that are not present in true so that even if one starts from the position of accepting accusations as valid, investigation will likely lead to uncovering most false allegations (false accusations of rape are usually not followed through on by the accuser after pressure from parents or partners is lifted once the alleged rape is reported or there is a known history of lying by the alleged victim), which amount to 8% at the most and may be as little as 2% of accusations for rape (other abuse accusations follow similar patterns from what I have seen, always more factual accusations than false).  If the majority of accusations are true, it makes sense to start from that position in investigations even if there are stricter rules when it comes to prosecution.

 It has also found that starting from the position of doubt shapes the outcome leading to less investigation and therefore less arrests, convictions, and thus less justice and protection for actual victims.  A position of belief of the alleged victim is thus more likely to result in accurate findings in the long run.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8687479/lie-rape-statistics

Is there a risk of innocents' lives being hurt if accusations are treated seriously prior to any actual evidence outside the victim's claim?  Yes, of course.  It would appear from statistics, however, there is a much greater level of harm if doubt is the initial response, up to and including the death of victims who were not believed.

When my nephew as an infant was brought into the ER covered in bruises, it was emotionally traumatic for both parents and child to be separated while an investigation into the cause of the bruises occurred.  In reality he needed the loving support of his parents at that time, but there was greater statistical risk that the parents were in fact the abusers and might hurt or run with their child once they got over the fear of going too far and felt cornered by the questions, etc. if allowed access.  In a day or two, the investigation cleared them as it was the babysitter and one thinks if only this had been known at the beginning, additional tears and trauma could have been avoided for the ones who were suffering the most...but that doesn't change the fact we don't live in an omniscient society and with potentially critical safety issues, people need to act as if all accusations are valid at the beginning (the victim is "innocent until proven guilty") and until safety concerns are resolved if lives are to be saved.

"Taking the stance that belief of an alleged victim's accusations should be the starting point (the alleged victim is "innocent until proven guilty") rather than the ending only after accusations are demonstrated to be true (alleged victim is "guilty until proven innocent" of false reporting, overdramatizing, exaggeration, etc.) allows safety procedures to be taken when they are needed and not delayed while more harm is done or it becomes too late.  That approach also reassures the vulnerable that it is appropriate to speak up rather than risking shutting them down out of fear of not being believed or being treated as the one doing wrong or inflaming the anger of the abuser, placing them at more risk rather than helping them escape or resolve safety issues."

Reread my posts. When did I not believe / trust an alleged victim's accusations, so far as the accusations in and of themselves were concerned, as a starting point? What I will not do is believe a woman was abused simply because she said so. Doing so naturally also makes me believe that the accused abuser did abuse her. Am I to believe a woman's husband abused her because she said so? I believe that a woman's accusation of abuse is concerning to her and it concerns me as well but that does not mean I "believe her". No way.

Speaking of protocols and procedures, "innocent until proven guilty" is intended upon the accused, not the accuser and that is precisely to help avoid persecuting / prosecuting the accused unjustly. Erasing that empowers liars and vindictive people to have power over others unjustly.

" It has also found that starting from the position of doubt shapes the outcome leading to less investigation and therefore less arrests, convictions, " - Oh, yes, increasing arrests ad convictions because we no longer assume the accused are innocent until proven guilty would greatly improve society.

"When my nephew as an infant was brought into the ER covered in bruises, it was emotionally traumatic for both parents and child to be separated while an investigation into the cause of the bruises occurred.  In reality he needed the loving support of his parents at that time, but there was greater statistical risk that the parents were in fact the abusers and might hurt or run with their child once they got over the fear of going too far and felt cornered by the questions, etc." - That's circumstantial evidence which indicated parental abuse. While investigating I strongly suspect that both the victim and potential abusers were treated as innocent until proven guilty. When my wife was very young sperm was found in a urine sample she gave to the doctor. Of course her parents were investigated and due to her father having a very low sperm count, one "blessing" from his doing drugs in his youth, he was discounted as a suspect. Niki does not remember anything happening but the most probable situation if she was sexually abused would have been a young boy at the house where she was babysat. But all parties were assumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I typed a multi paragraph post featuring Niki and her experiences dealing with bishops but accidentally deleted it. I'm way too frustrated to do it again. Hopefully soon to come.

Share this post


Link to post

Stop thinking it is all about you.  If I don't quote you, don't assume I am responding to something you said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Stop thinking it is all about you.  If I don't quote you, don't assume I am responding to something you said.

OK, fine. But I don't think it is all about me. I think it is all about the subject of the conversation.

Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2018 at 5:59 AM, Calm said:
  • Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that "intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women."

  • Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men.2 In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

  • The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman. 

  • https://www.dccadv.org/img/fck/file/Resources/DCCADV_DomesticViolenceFacts_Sheet.pdf

Those statistics don't sound quite right. From the CDC report (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf):

"Intimate partner contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking was experienced by 37.3% of U.S. women during their lifetime, with state estimates ranging from 27.8% to 45.3% (all
states) and 30.9% of U.S. men, with state estimates ranging from 18.5% to 38.2% (all states)."

The 85% figure seems to just divide 30.9/37.9 (=.828). But that doesn't strike me as an appropriate expression of the data. Instead one should take the % / (%+%) giving an ~55% and 45% gender ratio. Count the well known issue of IPV (intimate partner violence) being under-reported by males and the statistics don't paint the same figure that the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence is presenting. Irrespective of which population is the more victimized, domestic violence is a bad thing all around (as is relational aggression).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Stats are notorious around this issue.  First problem is getting a good number for those who do not report, women and men.  Second is dealing with law enforcement beliefs about false reporting.

And then you have the bias of the foundations working to eliminate the violence.

CDC numbers are probably the best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

They need to stop calling it "intimate partner" violence like that is some special niche that makes it different. It's male violence against women.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, juliann said:

They need to stop calling it "intimate partner" violence like that is some special niche that makes it different. It's male violence against women.  

I agree.  It is not like a marriage license gave him permission.  A person like (IMO)...probably left some bruised girlfriends in his lifetime.  I would not know and this is heresy..but I have heard that men like this treat their sisters with greater disdain.

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post

Of course, since wives never ever in a million years abuse husbands or children, the entire concept of "intimate partner" violence is solely a male problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course, since wives never ever in a million years abuse husbands or children, the entire concept of "intimate partner" violence is solely a male problem.

 

:lol:  We could make a bingo game for responses like this. Or a drinking game.....

Thank you for checking in, NotAllMan!

 lub-notallman_500x.jpg?v=1490996067

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, juliann said:

They need to stop calling it "intimate partner" violence like that is some special niche that makes it different. It's male violence against women.  

I will have to vigorously disagree that we just call all domestic abuse male violence against women. It factually is not. Intimate partner violence includes violence of women against men too. And it occurs at a much higher rate than we sometimes like to acknowledge (see prior comment). About half of domestic violence incidence involve reciprocity. Men are more likely to cause physical injury. Women are more likely to be the perpetrator in non-reciprocal violence (~70%). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Relating these back to Mormonism, whatever training bishops should have with respect to recognizing domestic violence, I think they should also learn to recognize when the husband is the abusee and not just vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post

From NoFear's link:

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence...."

That is so utterly depressing.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:24 PM, Calm said:

Stop thinking it is all about you.  If I don't quote you, don't assume I am responding to something you said.

You've yet quoted me at all. So, please start quoting me.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

From NoFear's link:

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence...."

That is so utterly depressing.

My wife hit me I the face once with a shoe. It was on accident but she threw it while extremely mad. Does that count? Oh, she and I had a pushing match one night. She started it. Does that count?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...