Girls raised in the Church

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Talk to the Marine Corp.  Find out why they use the "death before dishonor" slogan.  Probably much the same thing going on.

Remember that "death before dishonor" doesn't mean "death after dishonor" or "death because of dishonor" 

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Remember that "death before dishonor" doesn't mean "death after dishonor" or "death because of dishonor"

Obviously.
It means choose death rather than dishonor.

Which brings up an interesting point.
All the concern here over the notion that it would be worse for a child to die than to commit a grievously serious sin.

Ignoring the very fair point for a moment that repentance is almost always possible, are there situations where we think death might be preferable?

Is death such a bad thing?  EVERYONE will die.  Death is inevitable.  Only the timing and manner are up for change.
So is death something to be feared, hated, and considered the worst possible fate?  It's everyone's fate.

I am not trying to discount anyone who has suffered the loss of a child.  I would be inconsolable if I were to lose a child.  It would be the worst pain I can imagine.  But on principle alone, is death such a bad thing or a necessary step?  There are definitely sins I would hope I would die before the Lord would ever let me commit.
 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

 Therefore, the first and greatest commandment implies that the higher truth of the matter is, we have no reason to fear God.  

That doesn't mean God doesn't use fear to motivate us when we are being bone-heads (D&C 19:6-12).  Wisdom is justified of her children, so whatever it takes,  But imo the higher truth, the "good news" of the gospel, is:  There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done.    

Perhaps someone has mentioned it, but the word translated as "fear" in scriptures quite often is closer to how we use "awe" than "fear" these days.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

A good goal, but I think a better approach is to encourage teaching with the spirit.  Without the spirit, nothing of consequence is really learned. 

When we teach in the church we are goal is not to share facts, but to change hearts.  Without the change in the heart there is not going to be a lot of long term good.

I support your desire to update the manuals, I even agree with you that Moroni 9 is off subject (one of us should make a suggestion to the curriculum department).

It will never be enough.  

People will still be called to teach who haven't studied the manual enough.  

People will come up with lesson plans seem good in theory but fall flat.

Teachers will make errors.

The spirit will whisper ways of teaching particular individuals that might seem wrong to us here on the internet but might  be just what an individual student needs to hear to touch their heart.

Teaching the lords way will always be about connecting individual people together, about learning to hear the word of the Lord through a fallible, imperfect person.

Successful teaching will always be more about being worthy of the spirit than about having all the facts or a perfect presentation.

Not everyone has access to the Spirit when they are teaching no matter how hard they tried.  My connection with the Spirit was cut off for two years due to an antidepressant I was taking to help with what we thought was post partum depression and a couple of years later when I was properly diagnosed with a sleep disorder I got to live three years in depression because the doctors refused to give me a drug without that side effect.  Thankfully we moved to the states where doctors were more comfortable listening to the patient to find out what was needed rather than telling the patient what they needed and the depression lifted and me and the Spirit started to have some nice chatting again.  Despite my limitations they really like me as a teacher because they knew I cared.  I was willing to take the hard cases and use my brain even when the drugs made my heart and soul flat.

Kids need teachers who are dependable and committed no matter what to know that they matter to someone besides their parents, who are dedicated and showing up each week rather than deserting their kids because they are having trouble accessing the Spirit that week because of some personal struggle or family difficulty.

Teach with the Spirit first at all times, but having a good manual as a backup is a better idea than solely depending on the first and it means the Spirit can focus on what to say rather than having to put effort into influencing a teacher to keep their mouth shut so often.

Why bother to put out a manual at all if you don't intend to make it the best possible to help teachers teach students and instead just figure a mediocre job is sufficient because they should be relying on the Spirirt completely?

I agree that teachers will always be making errors, but why not do our best not to add to their burden by removing errors we are aware of instead of giving them a pass because of tradition or because most students are smart enough to ignore the misconception and just focus on the good stuff?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Obviously.
It means choose death rather than dishonor.

Which brings up an interesting point.
All the concern here over the notion that it would be worse for a child to die than to commit a grievously serious sin.

Ignoring the very fair point for a moment that repentance is almost always possible, are there situations where we think death might be preferable?

Is death such a bad thing?  EVERYONE will die.  Death is inevitable.  Only the timing and manner are up for change.
So is death something to be feared, hated, and considered the worst possible fate?  It's everyone's fate.

I am not trying to discount anyone who has suffered the loss of a child.  I would be inconsolable if I were to lose a child.  It would be the worst pain I can imagine.  But on principle alone, is death such a bad thing or a necessary step?  There are definitely sins I would hope I would die before the Lord would ever let me commit.
 

There are definitely situations where death would be preferable.  There are things that some children suffer at the hands of evil people that i would rather my child die than have to exist with such torture and brutality.  "Sometimes dead is better."

But, where repentance is possible I think life is always better than death.  

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Obviously.
It means choose death rather than dishonor.

Which brings up an interesting point.
All the concern here over the notion that it would be worse for a child to die than to commit a grievously serious sin.

Ignoring the very fair point for a moment that repentance is almost always possible, are there situations where we think death might be preferable?

Is death such a bad thing?  EVERYONE will die.  Death is inevitable.  Only the timing and manner are up for change.
So is death something to be feared, hated, and considered the worst possible fate?  It's everyone's fate.

I am not trying to discount anyone who has suffered the loss of a child.  I would be inconsolable if I were to lose a child.  It would be the worst pain I can imagine.  But on principle alone, is death such a bad thing or a necessary step?  There are definitely sins I would hope I would die before the Lord would ever let me commit.
 

You're getting closer to the actual content. I have lost a child. I will state this as clearly as possible. THERE IS NO GETTING OVER A LOSS OF A CHILD. I fostered a child with diabilities beyond comprehension. Blind, mentally handicapped, quadraplegic, with no capabilities beyond hearing and inability to remember things heard. A child with so few capabilities and yet......is death better than life?

It doesn't matter that death is inevitable. IT DOESN*T matter!. The worst fate is not loss of chastity. The worst fate is lack of meaning to life. All else: chastity, virgintiy, virtue, being unrespected, being unloved, is worse.

 

[Bobbieaware]

On September 8, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Calm said:

That makes no sense.  It was key to Mormon's comment that the form of chastity and virtue he was talking about was destroyed/"deprived" through violence.  It was in no way "incidental" but the focus of what he was saying.  And given his form of chastity and virtue had nothing to do with moral agency, it is not the same thing our leaders are generally discussing.

If you will allow me, I'm going to methodically answer all the points you've made in each of your posts and do so one item at a time. In other words, I'm going to proceed step by step as would be done in a legal inquiry. This way each point you've made in disagreement with me can be focused on like a laser so that confusion, misunderstandings and the extraneous can be avoided. The point of yours that I'm specifically addressing will be highlighted In bold in the quote. .Now on to my response to your first specific point:

This is specific point I made that you say makes no sense:  The fact that Mormon mentioned this glorious eternal verity in connection with rape is purely incidental. 

For clarity, I will restate. It's undeniable that there is a record of several modern Church presidents, apostles and Women's leaders who have given addresses (or written articles) in which they quote or paraphrase the portion of Moroni 9:9 that testifies to the fact the twin gospel principles of chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things" but then consciously and deliberately leave out of their messages the part of the verse that speaks of the rape of the Lamanite women. If, as you say, Mormon 9:9's concept of chastity and virtue as being most dear and precious above all things is unavoidably and inextricably linked to the rape of the Lamanite women, why would these Church leaders refer to the part of the verse that speaks of the superlative moral nature of chastity and virtue but then fail to mention the part of the verse that speaks of rape? So why do our leaders often point only to the part Mormon 9:9 that speaks of the exalted nature of chastity and virtue but then, apparently,  do violence to what you believe is the actual meaning of the verse by leaving out of their remarks the part that speaks of rape?  Do they fail to mention the part of the verse that speaks of rape because they are ignorant, lacking in insight, misinformed, neglectful or just plain uninspired? I don"t think so.

The reason why our leaders often leave the portion of Moroni 9:9 that speaks about rape out of their remarks is because the gospel principle that chastity and virtue are most dear and precious above all things stands independently on its own as one of the greatest and most spiritually elevating revelations in all of scripture. But then one is caused to ask why did Mormon mention this glorious principle in connection with rape? He did so because mentioning the great eternal value of chastity and virtue powerfully underscores the heinous nature of rape.

The sad but very real consequences (deprivations) of rape are: the deprivation of the right to choose to have sexual relations with only one man of your own choosing; deprivation of the right to live life while not being haunted by traumatic memories of violent sexual assault; deprivation of the sacred right to exercise one's own free agency; deprivation of the right to have your husband be the only potential father to your children, deprivation of the right to live a happy life without living in constant fear. The list of deprivations of rape could go on and on. This is what Mormon meant when he spoke of how the Lamanite women were deprived of their right to live chaste and virtuous lives without having to deal with the degrading and soul-sickening consequences of rape. Nevertheless, only someone who's ignorant of the entire gospel program could even begin to imagine Mormon's meaning is that from a moral and accountability point of view raped women are morally stained. There is a big difference between being physically and psychologically injured and being morally stained and accountable for something over which innocent victims have no control. 

The following are just two examples of how leaders of the Church quote the exalted principle on chastity and virtue found in Moroni 9:9 without feeling compelled or obligated to mention the part of the verse that speaks of the incident of rape (hence my use of the word 'incidental) found in the very same verse.

The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls. I promise that obedience to the law of chastity will increase our happiness in mortality and make possible our progress in eternity. Chastity and virtue are now, always have been, and always will be “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9). I so testify in the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. (David A Bednar, We Beleve in Being Chaste)

and... 

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob tells us that the Lord delights in the chastity of His children (see Jacob 2:28). Do you hear that, my brothers and sisters? The Lord is not just pleased when we are chaste. He delights in chastity. Mormon taught the same thing to his son, Moroni, when he wrote that chastity and virtue are “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9).(Ezra Taft Benson, The Law of Chastity)

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If you will allow me, I'm going to methodically answer all the points you've made in each of your posts and do so one item at a time. In other words, I'm going to proceed step by step as would be done in a legal inquiry. This way each point you've made in disagreement with me can be focused on like a laser so that confusion, misunderstandings and the extraneous can be avoided. The point of yours that I'm specifically addressing will be highlighted In bold in the quote. .Now on to my response to your first specific point:

This is specific point I made that you say makes no sense:  The fact that Mormon mentioned this glorious eternal verity in connection with rape is purely incidental. 

For clarity, I will restate. It's undeniable that there is a record of several modern Church presidents, apostles and Women's leaders who have given addresses (or written articles) in which they quote or paraphrase the portion of Moroni 9:9 that testifies to the fact the twin gospel principles of chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things" but then consciously and deliberately leave out of their messages the part of the verse that speaks of the rape of the Lamanite women. If, as you say, Mormon 9:9's concept of chastity and virtue as being most dear and precious above all things is unavoidably and inextricably linked to the rape of the Lamanite women, why would these Church leaders refer to the part of the verse that speaks of the superlative moral nature of chastity and virtue but then fail to mention the part of the verse that speaks of rape? So why do our leaders often point only to the part Mormon 9:9 that speaks of the exalted nature of chastity and virtue but then, apparently,  do violence to what you believe is the actual meaning of the verse by leaving out of their remarks the part that speaks of rape?  Do they fail to mention the part of the verse that speaks of rape because they are ignorant, lacking in insight, misinformed, neglectful or just plain uninspired? I don"t think so.

The reason why our leaders often leave the portion of Moroni 9:9 that speaks about rape out of their remarks is because the gospel principle that chastity and virtue are most dear and precious above all things stands independently on its own as one of the greatest and most spiritually elevating revelations in all of scripture. But then one is caused to ask why did Mormon mention this glorious principle in connection with rape? He did so because mentioning the great eternal value of chastity and virtue powerfully underscores the heinous nature of rape.

The sad but very real consequences (deprivations) of rape are: the deprivation of the right to choose to have sexual relations with only one man of your own choosing; deprivation of the right to live life while not being haunted by traumatic memories of violent sexual assault; deprivation of the sacred right to exercise one's own free agency; deprivation of the right to have your husband be the only potential father to your children, deprivation of the right to live a happy life without living in constant fear. The list of deprivations of rape could go on and on. This is what Mormon meant when he spoke of how the Lamanite women were deprived of their right to live chaste and virtuous lives without having to deal with the degrading and soul-sickening consequences of rape. Nevertheless, only someone who's ignorant of the entire gospel program could even begin to imagine Mormon's meaning is that from a moral and accountability point of view raped women morally stained. There is a big difference between being physically and psychologically injured and being morally stained and accountable for something over which innocent victims had no control. 

The following are just two examples of how leaders of the Church quote the exalted principle on chastity and virtue found in Moroni 9:9 without feeling compelled or obligated to mention the part of the verse that speaks of the incident of rape (hence my use of the word 'incidental) found in the very same verse.

The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls. I promise that obedience to the law of chastity will increase our happiness in mortality and make possible our progress in eternity. Chastity and virtue are now, always have been, and always will be “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9). I so testify in the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. (David A Bednar, We Beleve in Being Chaste)

and... 

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob tells us that the Lord delights in the chastity of His children (see Jacob 2:28). Do you hear that, my brothers and sisters? The Lord is not just pleased when we are chaste. He delights in chastity. Mormon taught the same thing to his son, Moroni, when he wrote that chastity and virtue are “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9).(Ezra Taft Benson, The Law of Chastity)

 

 

 

I have occasionally wondered about the wording in Moroni 9, believing as I do that a woman or girl who is raped does not lose her chastity or virtue in that instance, as she had no control over what happened to her. 

This has made me wonder whether rape was involved in what was done to the Lamanite women taken prisoners that Mormon speaks of here or whether there was some degree of consent involved.

I'm not saying definititively this is what happened; I'm only suggesting the possibility. But we have at least one modern-day example of such a thing occurring. I was in Germany a couple of months ago covering the European tour of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. While there we visited Dachau, the site of one of the Nazi concentration camps. I learned that there had been a brothel in the camp staffed by women who were among the prisoners there. Where prostitution is involved, one cannot say the sex is forcible, or not entirely so. Could not the same sort of thing have prevailed between these wicked Nephites and some of the Lamanite women they took prisoner? In that event, it would be accurate to say the women had been deprived of chastity and virtue because there would have been consent involved. 

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have occasionally wondered about the wording in Moroni 9, believing as I do that a woman or girl who is raped does not lose her chastity or virtue in that instance, as she had no control over what happened to her. 

This has made me wonder whether rape was involved in what was done to the Lamanite women taken prisoners that Mormon speaks of here or whether there was some degree of consent involved.

I'm not saying definititively this is what happened; I'm only suggesting the possibility. But we have at least one modern-day example of such a thing occurring. I was in Germany a couple of months ago covering the European tour of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. While there we visited Dachau, the site of one of the Nazi concentration camps. I learned that there had been a brothel in the camp staffed by women who were among the prisoners there. Where prostitution is involved, one cannot say the sex is forcible, or not entirely so. Could not the same sort of thing have prevailed between these wicked Nephites and some of the Lamanite women they took prisoner? In that event, it would be accurate to say the women had been deprived of chastity and virtue because there would have been consent involved. 

It seems to me that it's unlikely the Lamanite rape victims volunteered in any meaningful sense of the word. I say this because after being raped Mormon tells us they were most cruely tortured to death and then devoured. The inclusion of torture, muder and cannabilism in the account, at least for me, makes it highly unlikely these Lamanite women were even partially willing. Does it not seem there was no desire on the part of the wicked Nephites to keep the women around?

[bsjkki]

Wrong quote 

Edited September 11, 2016 by bsjkki

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It seems to me that it's unlikely the Lamanite rape victims volunteered in any meaningful sense of the word. I say this because after being raped Mormon tells us they were most cruely tortured to death and then devoured. The inclusion of torture, muder and cannabilism in the account, at least for me, makes it highly unlikely these Lamanite women were even partially willing. Does it not seem there was no desire on the part of the wicked Nephites to keep the women around?

But how is that different than what happened at Dachau? Are you saying that none of the women who inhabited the brothel were later tortured/starved/murdered?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have occasionally wondered about the wording in Moroni 9, believing as I do that a woman or girl who is raped does not lose her chastity or virtue in that instance, as she had no control over what happened to her. 

This has made me wonder whether rape was involved in what was done to the Lamanite women taken prisoners that Mormon speaks of here or whether there was some degree of consent involved.

I'm not saying definititively this is what happened; I'm only suggesting the possibility. But we have at least one modern-day example of such a thing occurring. I was in Germany a couple of months ago covering the European tour of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. While there we visited Dachau, the site of one of the Nazi concentration camps. I learned that there had been a brothel in the camp staffed by women who were among the prisoners there. Where prostitution is involved, one cannot say the sex is forcible, or not entirely so. Could not the same sort of thing have prevailed between these wicked Nephites and some of the Lamanite women they took prisoner? In that event, it would be accurate to say the women had been deprived of chastity and virtue because there would have been consent involved. 

This whole comment is appalling.  Just because a brothel is involved in no way implies there was consent.  You need to study up on the real problems with human trafficking and since the women were in a concentration camp, their consent did my exist.  To imply any consent in Moroni 9:9 with its clear context, shows how, if you can think the things you have, young girls should never read this scripture to learn more of virtue.  

[Bobbieaware]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

This whole comment is appalling.  Just because a brothel is involved in no way implies there was consent.  You need to study up on the real problems with human trafficking and since the women were in a concentration camp, their consent did my exist.  To imply any consent in Moroni 9:9 with its clear context, shows how, if you can think the things you have, young girls should never read this scripture to learn more of virtue.  

Are you sure you quoted the right person? If not, please do me a favor and delete this post. I posted the post you quoted three days ago, and it says nothing even remotely related to human trafficking.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This whole comment is appalling.  Just because a brothel is involved in no way implies there was consent.  You need to study up on the real problems with human trafficking and since the women were in a concentration camp, their consent did my exist.  To imply any consent in Moroni 9:9 with its clear context, shows how, if you can think the things you have, young girls should never read this scripture to learn more of virtue.  

Why is it so appalling? You can't have prostitution without consent. True, the prostitution was likely pressured. But isn't that the case very often with prostitution? Aren't many, if not most, women who become prostitutes driven to it by deplorable conditions in their lives? 

Or do you think most prostitutes voluntarily take up that occupation because of the great working conditions? 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Are you sure you quoted the right person? If not, please do me a favor and delete this post. I posted the post you quoted three days ago, and it says nothing even remotely related to human trafficking.

Sorry, I caught my mistake immediately but not soon enough.

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But how is that different than what happened at Dachau? Are you saying that none of the women who inhabited the brothel were later tottured/starved/murdered?

I'm giving the Lamanite women the benefit of the doubt because Mormon says they were deprived (robbed) o their CHASTITY and VIRTUE. It seems reasonable to me that chaste and virtuous women would want nothing to do with sexual immorality. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'm giving the Lamanite women the benefit of the doubt because Mormon says they were deprived (robbed) o their CHASTITY and VIRTUE. It seems reasonable to me that chaste and virtuous women would want nothing to do with sexual immorality. 

Any woman is chaste up until the moment she of her own volition surrenders that chastity through illicit sexual relations. 

I'm saying we don't know enough about conditions and circumstances in that horrible time in Nephite history to draw a conclusion about whether or not consent was involved. 

And I'm trying to reconcile the phrasing that was used. I repeat that I reject the notion that a woman has lost her chastity and virtue by reason of being raped. So I have to try to conceive of explanations as to why that wording was used. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it so appalling? You can't have prostitution without consent. True, the prostitution was likely pressured. But isn't that the case very often with prostitution? Aren't many, if not most, women who become prostitutes driven to it by deplorable conditions in their lives? 

Or do you think most prostitutes voluntarily take up that occupation because of the great working conditions? 

You really should stop.  This is reputation damaging.  I find no consent in this article.  None. If you do, you have a problem.  http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-632558.html

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it so appalling? You can't have prostitution without consent. True, the prostitution was likely pressured. But isn't that the case very often with prostitution? Aren't many, if not most, women who become prostitutes driven to it by deplorable conditions in their lives? 

Or do you think most prostitutes voluntarily take up that occupation because of the great working conditions? 

I don't know where you get the idea prostitution requires consent.  The title of this article says it all. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/human-trafficking

[Bobbieaware]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Any woman is chaste up until the moment she of her own volition surrenders that chastity through illicit sexual relations. 

I'm saying we don't know enough about conditions and circumstances in that horrible time in Nephite history to draw a comclusion about whether or not consent was involved. 

And I'm trying to reconcile the phrasing that was used. I repeat that I reject the notion that a woman has lost her chastity and virtue by reason of being raped. So I have to try to conceive of explanations as to why that wording was used. 

My gut instincts (inspiration?) have always caused me to feel these women were innocent victims and their attackers were savage, evil brutes and Mormon provides no reason for me to presume otherwise. Remember, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon we're told the Lamanites, in spite of their apostate condition, were known to be faithful, committed and loving monogamists. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

My gut instincts (inspiration?) have always caused me to feel these women were innocent victims and their attackers were savage, evil brutes and Mormon provides no reason for me to presume otherwise. Remember, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon we're told the Lamanites, in spite of their apostate condition, were known to be faithful, committed and loving monogamists. 

Maybe they were. 

But then we are left with the problem of why the scriptural account says they were deprived of chastity and virtue when a woman doesn't lose her chastity by reason of being raped. At least in my mind, she doesn't. Maybe I am unique in that respect. I don't think I am. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You really should stop.  This is reputation damaging.  I find no consent in this article.  None. If you do, you have a problem.  http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-632558.html

I'm not denying for a moment there was cruelty and brutality at work. I believe many women who take up prostitution are driven to it by cruelty. 

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe they were. 

But then we are left with the problem of why the scriptural account says they were deprived of chastity and virtue when a woman doesn't lose her chastity by reason of being raped. At least in my mind, she doesn't. Maybe I am unique in that respect. I don't think I am. 

This proves my point expressed in this entire thread that this article should never be included in chasity and virtue lessons in young women's.    

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't know where you get the idea prostitution requires consent.  The title of this article says it all. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/human-trafficking

If there is no consent involved, then it is not, by definition, prostitution. 

[BlueDreams]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it so appalling? You can't have prostitution without consent. True, the prostitution was likely pressured. But isn't that the case very often with prostitution? Aren't many, if not most, women who become prostitutes driven to it by deplorable conditions in their lives? 

Or do you think most prostitutes voluntarily take up that occupation because of the great working conditions? 

No, just no. 

Forced prostitution is a thing. It's called sex slavery. It isn't a form of consent. It often entails rape as a form of initiation...particularly in conservative cultures where virginity is tied to family honor. The women that come out of it have a lot of healing to do and can exhibit symptoms of PTSD. They often exhibit other mental health issues like dissasociation, depression, anxiety, etc. There are prostitutes who "choose" to be such because of hard circumstances. But if they're in a prison camp it's not choice in even that minimal stance. There is very little difference between that and putting a gun to their head. 

 

I do agree that the wording make me wonder if they became sexual slaves. I've also had clients who after sexual abuse often struggle with developing healthy sexual relationships/boundaries as well. In a sense they've been deprived because the circumstances have left some scars on their soul. In these circumstances, therapy, family/loved ones (who are healthy), and the atonement are all tools that can help mend and heal what was broken by anothers cruelty. 

But again, placing this in a general lesson about virtue or chastity seems misplaced. I remember this coming up before and it always felt discordant. It's like if I was teaching about healthy sexuality and started the lesson with a discussion on forced prostitution or rape to have that generally apply. Who does that? 

 

With luv,

BD