Is Self-Help Legitimate Defense Against Unwanted Sexual Contact?

[USU78]

Back in '76 I attended my first Priesthood Session . . . in the Great and Spacious Marriott Center. I'd never participated before. It had barely registered with me that such a phenomenon regularly occurred. You see, growing up in the provinces in the North Bay and Brigham City, we were actually discouraged from attending conference meetings of any kind, Saturday, Sunday or any day.

I attended it with a relative who has since become quite an infamous anti-Mormon homophile advocate. He was still closeted, though, as events later showed, quite active in the yBu homosexual underground while attending grad school in Provo.

Now, when I heard the following words from Elder Packer:

Now a warning! I am hesitant to even mention it, for it is not pleasant. It must be labeled as major transgression. But I will speak plainly. There are some circumstances in which young men may be tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another physically in unusual ways. Latter-day Saint young men are not to do this.

Sometimes this begins in a moment of idle foolishness, when boys are just playing around. But it is not foolishness. It is remarkably dangerous. Such practices, however tempting, are perversion. When a young man is finding his way into manhood, such experiences can misdirect his normal desires and pervert him not only physically but emotionally and spiritually as well.

It was intended that we use this power only with our partner in marriage. I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just "that way" and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men --masculine, manly men --ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.

Even those who have been drawn into wicked practices and are bound by almost unyielding habits can escape. If one of you seems trapped in that, escape. Go to your father or bishop, please. Your parents, your bishop, the servants of the Lord, the angels of heaven and the Lord himself will help redeem your from it.

Young Latter-day Saint men, do not tamper with these powers, neither with yourself alone nor with one of your own kind. Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation.

Many in the world would, I'm sure, be amused by this counsel. Let them be amused. They live by another standard, a lower one. We live by the Lord's standard and continue to teach it.

I heard what appeared to me then and appears to me now to be good sense. The foregoing, in red, seemed to me to be of a kind with the scriptural lesson of Joseph in Egypt who, when the boss lady got over-frisky with him and actually grabbed hold of him, fought his way clear, leaving his clothes, which she refused to let go of, in her hands.

Joseph, of course, didn't strike her . . . at least there's no record of such a thing . . . but he physically resisted. Nobody says a word about it. Nobody says that he should have simply complied with a rape because he was, at that time in his life, her personal property. Slaves aren't supposed to resist such things. The tales of white masters taking "bellywarmers" are far older than Roots.

So . . . Elder Packer advocated self-help in dealing with what he charmingly called "enticements" to engage in homosexual acts. Physical resistance to unwanted sexual contact, at least in nearly all peoples' minds, is considered not only permissible, but a duty. Under rape laws, the victim's expression of resistance, physical or verbal, prohibits the perpetrator from claiming consent or implied consent.

What it seems the 1-3% [self-claimed 10%] are claiming here is that under no circumstances may a person physically protect him-/herself from unwanted sexual contact.

Elder Packer's language was clear and precise. "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."

"Teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." JSJr

It is up to the individual in the moment to assess the nature and extent of a threat. The Church does and the rest of the world should respect the individual's right to be left alone, and justify with law, policy and social mores acts reasonably necessary to protect the sanctity of one's person.

My view, therefore: If you advocate against self help, you encourage rape. And G-d help you.

[MiserereNobis]

Yes, if someone is physically forcing you to do something you do not want to do, then you have a right to defend yourself physically. However, the problem is that some people think that if a homosexual makes advances on them, then they are warranted in physically striking the homosexual. If a man tells me that I am good looking and then leans over to kiss me, I move out of the way, tell him that I am not gay, and leave. I have no right to strike him in this situation. If a man grabs me and tries to force a kiss, then I can get physical to get myself out of the situation.

I think Elder Packer should have been more clear on this point. Someone could easily read what you highlighted and come to the conclusion that is permissible to strike a homosexual in self-defense when the homosexual has not done anything physically threatening.

By the way, I am a little unclear on what you mean by "self-help."

[california boy]

I think the moderators only allow one thread on homosexuality at a time. Sorry, but you really should wait for the other thread to close before you start your "it's ok to hit gays" thread.

[thesometimesaint]

Rape is about power and not about sex. To use position or rank to procure sex is rape. Self defense is a legitimate defense if it is proportional.

[MorningStar]

Whatever sex you are, if you grope me (unless you're my husband), I will hurt you.

[MorningStar]

Oh, and unless you work for TSA.

[USU78]

Oh, and unless you work for TSA.

:rofl:

[USU78]

I think the moderators only allow one thread on homosexuality at a time. Sorry, but you really should wait for the other thread to close before you start your "it's ok to hit gays" thread.

We've had this conversation before. Nobody's advocating hitting anybody. Elder Packer is quite clear. There is a clear distinction made between what is advocated [resisting sin's enticements, whatever form they might take] and what is permissible [physical resistance, should that prove necessary].

Nobody but the individual being harassed is in a position to judge the necessity of physical resistance. I advise my daughters to take any and all measures into their own hands, including deadly force if necessary, to protect their persons. Proportionality is, of course, an important issue, but there should be no mistake: to misrepresent Elder Packer is to advocate consequence-free homosexual rape.

[USU78]

By the way, I am a little unclear on what you mean by "self-help."

"Self-help" is a legal concept in the Common Law. You generally have a right to protect/assert your own personal and property rights, unless there is a countervailing law or policy. For example: If somebody erects a barricade in your driveway, or puts a fence across your yard, you have the right to tear 'em down. If somebody tries to punch you out, you have a right not only to block the blow, but return the favor.

[KevinG]

I would not condemn my girls from smacking a guy who put unwanted moves on them. Why should it be different for my sons?

[mfbukowski]

I am having trouble even figuring out what there is to discuss about this.

If someone were to lay hands on me, you can be assured that I will lay hands on he/she/it, and not even ponder whether or not such behavior is appropriate, when that individual obviously did not take time to think about it themselves.

[mfbukowski]

I think the moderators only allow one thread on homosexuality at a time. Sorry, but you really should wait for the other thread to close before you start your "it's ok to hit gays" thread.

I am not on the other thread- and regardless of what was said there, this is a new thread and a new question- and it has nothing to do with hitting gays.

It has to do with responding to personal violence in self defense. You mean you actually have a problem with that?

[california boy]

If the topic is simply "is a person justified to use physical force to protect him or herself against any sexual assault" then yes of course. Who would disagree with that. What is there to discuss. The law already allows that kind of self defense. No one is advocating changing such a law nor is any suggesting that the law is inappropriate. I really don't get the point of the thread.

If a person simply says "I think you are cute". Physical violence would be inappropriate. If a person physically touches someone, then appropriate action is also expected and allowed by law and society. A bit of judgement is expected as to how that physical response is handled however is expected. If rape is involved, violent harm to the rapist is allowed and justified.

If you are advocating that because the situation involves a gay man, there should be a different level of response, then you are wrong and being homophobic. I assume that is not the case. Maybe you could explain the point of this thread so that others would not misinterpret your intentions.

[Kemara]

At some point the heterophobes are going to have to accept the simple reality that the world is not defined in relation to them nor does it revolve around them.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Kemara

[altersteve]

By self-help I assume you mean self-defense, right?

[DavidB]

Elder Packers was not clear as to what happened, for all we know the one company said "wanna makeout" . Elder Packers words make it seem as though the askee now has grounds to physically assault the askor.

However, in the case of being assaulted I think it within section 98 to fight back.

[DH]

I agree with MiserereNobis. There's a difference between being merely propositioned and being attacked. If you're attacked and someone (whether homo- or heterosexual) tries to force you into a sexual act, then you have a right to defend yourself. If a person is just expressing an interest in sex, though, hitting that person would be a wrongful assault.

It was not clear from Elder Packer's example what happened in that one case.