Understanding How to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Predation in the Church

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  We recently had an heartbreaking issue with an active member of my ward that caused a bit of a ward rift and lots of hard feelings against the man, who was prosecuted for child porn.  I supported his access to church (with precautions which he and his wife fully supported) and never wished him any harm and hoped for his rehabilitation.  There were others that did not, at least at first, but seemed to come around.

Sometimes it takes us time to come around to where the Savior wants us.  

That's really rough. I think the ugliness when things like that happen would surprise a lot of people, sometimes about themselves (think, "Monsters are Due on Maple Street"). 

 

[Rain]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think they would too. 

But I think they would not endorse or authorize a person to damage a (purported) perp's property, or to inflict grievous bodily injury on him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but bluebell never suggested that.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I think they would not endorse or authorize a person to damage a (purported) perp's property, or to inflict grievous bodily injury on him.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.  I never said otherwise. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Now I'm really confused.  What would training for bishops be if not including "top down directed questions" (that is, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve authorizing training for bishops in terms of asking questions designed to ascertain whether sexual abuse has occurred)?

Long's thesis is that bishops are not picking up on what he calls "piecemeal disclosures" of abuse, and that they should therefore be getting trained on how to ask more sex-related questions to see if abuse has occurred.  What is it about this summary that you find inaccurate?

As for the "difference between asking top-down directed questions and listening to understand what a child is trying to tell," what do you think that difference is?

You and I must have listened to different conversations. Long appears to suggest that 1) the most likely disclosure to come from a child is a piecemeal disclosure or an accidental disclosure. 2) Most people aren't trained to know what that looks like. Long gives two examples of this. It appears that what Long is saying is similar to this:

https://www.childhelp.org/story-resource-center/handling-child-abuse-disclosures/

Quote

Disclosures can be direct or indirect. Most likely a disclosure will be indirect, which can mean the child does not share the details of the abuse without being prompted, or does so in a roundabout way. An example of this is, “Sometimes my step‐dad keeps me up at night.” A disclosure can also be disguised, for example: “I have a cousin who is being abused.” In other cases the disclosure can be through hints or gestures, or even through another child “My friend told me…” The child is hoping that a caring parent or caregiver will get the “hint” they are offering.

Quote

It is important to recognize the possible clues so that further questions are asked. Most children who disclose want the abuse to stop. When the disclosure is “missed” they may continue with additional hints, or not. For many abused children, a class presentation on child abuse prevention is the first time they realize that what happens to them does not happen to everyone. Some children may try to protect the abuser, especially when the abuser is someone they love.

Quote

Be matter-of-fact and try to be objective. Encourage your child to open up by repeating what he or she told you and then saying “Tell me more” and “What happened next?” Avoid questions that suggest that something has happened, such as “Did Grandpa touch your private body parts?” It’s also important not to pressure your child to talk. If pressured, a child may become too anxious to talk or may deny the abuse.

Quote

Limit questioning to only the following four questions if the child has not already provided you with the information:

• What happened?
• When did it happen?
• Where did it happen?
• Who did it?
• How do you know them? (If the relationship of the abuser is unclear.)

 

Nothing here suggests that explicit sexual questions need to be asked. What needs to be done is to recognize what a piecemeal or indirect disclosure is. Then to provide a safe place to listen to the child, and to reassure them that they did nothing wrong etc.

Not sure why you find this so objectionable.

Edited January 5, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think a prophet of God and God Himself would also talk about forgiveness and compassion towards those who wronged them. Not just focus on the person who needs the love. I also think they would talk about how corrosive hate towards people who wrong them is. 

Specifically, as it relates to the violent suggestions about what to do towards the perpetrator, I think everyone knows what both of them would say about that when asked.  

Eventually, sure.  But when someone is actively hurting and being self destructive (as someone is who is throwing rocks at trailers), talking about forgiveness and compassion for the guy that hurt them isn't usually the right order of things.  It's true, but it's not usually helpful to the person.  They aren't in the right place mentally and emotionally for that yet.  

I think of it this way:  Everything on Maslow's triangle is important and necessary for someone to become a complete and fulfilled person.  But timing and the order of growth is essential.  If you skip making someone safe and instead try to go right to helping them achieve self esteem, you'll likely fail while causing more harm than good along the way.  Likewise, forgiveness and compassion for those who have wronged us is also important and necessary, but you can't reach that by focusing on it before you've dealt with the more pressing emotional wounds first.

If someone has been hurt, and they are lashing out, you don't stop that lashing out by lecturing them on how it's illegal and the prophet and Savior would not condone it (even though that's probably true).  Most of the time that's about as helpful as lecturing someone who is having a heart attack on how they need to change to a low fat diet.  It's true, but that's not the intervention they need at that moment.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why not?  Just look at how quickly we've escalated.  In this thread we have one fellow saying it's okay to throw rocks at a (purported) perp's house, and now another - a licensed attorney, no less - is saying he would "break the guy's knees with a baseball bat."

Would you be okay with that?  Would you say "I don't think we need to judge {whether a private citizen acting extra-judicially by breaking a purported perp's knees with a baseball bad} as right or wrong?"

What about torturing the perp?  Would that be wrong?  What about straight up killing him?  (You can't really accuse me of hyperbole, since we've already graduated from throwing rocks to breaking kneecaps.)

So do I.  But that doesn't justify the actions.

I can be charitable and also maintain the moral clarity to know that illegally damaging or destroying another person's property as retribution, or breaking his kneecaps with a baseball bad, are wrongful acts.  And I'm not "focusing" on this.  It came up in the discussion, and I commented on it.

Yes, let's consider that.  The Savior intervened and prevented others from killing her, wrongdoer though she was.  Wouldn't that be akin to intervening and discouraging/preventing Mr. Crockett from breaking a wrongdoer's kneecaps with a baseball bat?

Exactly.  So how can you then rationalize and excuse extra-legal retributive conduct like damaging property or breaking kneecaps?  Where's the "mercy" in those behaviors?

You will recall that the Lord did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He did not forgive her either.  She would still need to repent.  But as for the rest of us (including those she wronged through her conduct), the Lord's commandment is pretty clear: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  D&C 64:10.  I don't see how that commandment can be reconciled with deliberately inflicting property damage or grievous bodily injury.

Wrongdoers should be punished.  But within the parameters of the law.

I haven't condemned anyone.  As for Tacenda and her husband, they have my empathy.  Every whit.  What they don't have is my agreement that they should damage the guy's property (or, as Mr. Crockett proposes, that they should break his kneecaps with a baseball bat).  Such behavior will not help with "healing."

And I think Pres. Nelson would agree with me on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

They were small rocks. But what if my husband had thrown a rock and it hit some innocent person out for a run? 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They were small rocks. But what if my husband had thrown a rock and it hit some innocent person out for a run? 

Then he is really bad at throwing rocks and should stick with the “baseball bat on kneecaps” approach.

Edited January 5, 2021 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This discussion saddens me. As horrific as child molestation is, seriously considering extra-legal violence against perpetrators is really sad. Not only do "two wrongs not make a right," but from the gospel perspective we supposedly base things on. Even the worst people in the world (and history) are our spirit brothers and sisters, and their horrific decisions and actions are a cosmic tragedy. Of course, they inflict unspeakable horrors on others who are also our brothers and sisters --- that goes without saying.

I'm looking at this from the perspective, too, of helping some of these people come back into full fellowship in God's church. It takes decades, and multiple failed applications to the First Presidency, with extremely long periods of "exemplary" behavior before it is even considered, and they pay the uttermost farthing legally and criminally as part of this. 

A few years ago, a man made an appointment with me and told me he had just finished a 14 year sentence for molestation. I ordered his church disciplinary paperwork (we didn't even know of his existence), which I got through the stake president, but he also handed me a thick file folder with his court transcripts. He warned me that it didn't "paint him in a very good light" (understatement), and I was surprised he would do that when the church paperwork was plenty to let me know that precautions would be necessary. He expressed a desire to overcome and come back into fellowship, but noted that he would rarely be able to be at church because the only work he could find with his record was delivering toxic chemicals to the mines, and this involved Sunday work. We talked about the long road back (I don't want people to have false hope that it wouldn't take decades --- like upwards of three ---, and I assured him that he was welcome. He also said that he fully understood and wouldn't be offended at any precautionary measures I would need to take. 

He did show up to church twice, before we moved, and once he went to use the restroom during sacrament meeting. I sent a note to my pre-mission-but-soon-departing son via a deacon and just told him to follow him and be with him wherever he went, including the restroom. Don't let him out of your sight! Anyone can probably figure out the why, but that's the best I could do with confidentiality. 

The other Sunday, he got up to bear his testimony. As he sat on the stand waiting his turn, I went and sat by him and quietly explained that he couldn't do that with his discipline status. He was horrified and embarrassed, and I told him that I would sit with him for a few speakers so that it wouldn't be as obvious that he had been prevented from speaking. Hopefully, it just looked like we chatted a while while others spoke and then he sat back down. It's the best I could do in "real time" at the moment.

I've tried putting myself in his and others' shoes. If I was a repentant molester, I definitely wouldn't want vandalism, harassment, and violence against me. I feel the same way about "scarlet letter" yard signs for those jurisdictions, or the Facebook witch hunts where people post addresses from the public offender registry. 

Good for you Rongo. I know the recidivism is high with sexual child abuse but there may be those that will not repeat their crimes and need the hope of being truly forgiven and able to totally reform themselves.

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then he is really bad at throwing rocks and should stick with the “baseball bat on kneecaps” approach.

😳

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

the recidivism is high with sexual child abuse

Depends on the type of abuse, some have quite low rates (those who have only abused one child, juvenile offenders if caught and given effective treatment...possibly others I can’t remember right not). The kind that victimize large numbers are the ones with high recidivism.  Also iirc, those who abuse younger kids, but I need to double check that. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on the type of abuse, some have quite low rates (those who have only abused one child, juvenile offenders if caught and given effective treatment...possibly others I can’t remember right not). The kind that victimize large numbers are the ones with high recidivism.  Also iirc, those who abuse younger kids, but I need to double check that. 

Thanks for the correction and info!! Good to know!! I can't imagine a youth making one mistake and having to be stigmatized or penalized for a good portion of their lives. 

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Men at church hug teenage girls? This is so far out of my experience/observation that I'm taken aback.

I was friends with an LDS family from France many years ago, and I remember having a few discussions with them about how strange they thought Americans were with respect to physical contact - as though all touch were inherently sexual. The way we behaved seemed so...foreign to them.  

Whenever we would meet, even in public (including at church), I would receive a hug and kiss on the cheek from each of them: father, mother, and teenage daughter included. Even at Wednesday night activities, if their daughter saw me she would run up and give me a hug / kiss just the same as she would with any of her friends.

I thought it was kind of strange at first, but I got over it fairly quickly. 

Of course, the only teenage girl I hug nowadays is my own daughter - though, as a teenager, there are occasionally days where she isn't especially huggable.  

Still, I wonder sometimes if my French friends weren't onto something; perhaps we would be better off if we learned how to develop more platonic interactions with each other rather than sexualizing everything. 

I don't see that happening anytime soon (or even in my lifetime), but it's something to think about. 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good for you Rongo. I know the recidivism is high with sexual child abuse but there may be those that will not repeat their crimes and need the hope of being truly forgiven and able to totally reform themselves.

It is not actually that high.

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

😳

I’m kidding. I don’t mean to suggest anything about your husband.

And yes, forgiveness is generally better than breaking kneecaps or even throwing rocks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Perhaps we would be better off if we learned how to develop more platonic interactions with each other rather than sexualizing everything. 

As one who was raised in a culture that was far, far less sexualised, I 100 per cent agree with this. At the same time, I have zero desire to hug a young woman, and it has nothing to do with the interaction feeling (potentially) sexually charged. I think it just sounds awkward. Maybe because I've never seen it be done? Maybe because so many young women where I live now appear to feel awkward in their own bodies? Maybe because I overwhelmingly live in a world where men minister to men and women minister to women? I'll have to think about this ...

Edited January 6, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not actually that high.

I’m kidding. I don’t mean to suggest anything about your husband.

And yes, forgiveness is generally better than breaking kneecaps or even throwing rocks.

I knew you were, I like that emoji and it was a good time to use it, haha!

I appreciate your comments, it helped me emotionally that you understood the feelings we were going through and made me tear up today thinking back to those days that my life changed forever, and my trust issues began in a big way.  

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote

Perhaps we would be better off if we learned how to develop more platonic interactions with each other rather than sexualizing everything. 

As one who was raised in a culture that was far, far less sexualised, I 100 per cent agree with this. At the same time, I have zero desire to hug a young woman, and it has nothing to do with the interaction feeling (potentially) sexually charged. I think it just sounds awkward. Maybe because I've never seen it be done? Maybe because so many young women where I live now appear to feel awkward in their own bodies? Maybe because I overwhelmingly live in a world where men minister to men and women minister to women? I'll have to think about this ...

I said this in July 2019:

Quote

Quote

Likewise last year that Bishop in Lehi who wasn't just a predator but had apparently actually run a prostitution ring in St. George while a police officer. It's completely understandable when members hear news stories like that to lose a lot of the benefit of doubt with respect to Bishops.

Sadly, yes.  The very small number of those who have breached the trust given to them taint the reputation of the thousands of good and decent men who have behaved with decorum and honor.

I and my wife have long had a very clear understanding about her never leaving me alone with small children in our home (other than our own children, that is), including nieces/nephews.  I have the same rule in place for our sons (they are never left alone with smaller children).

I also make sure all doors in the house are always left open when kids are visiting.

I also never change diapers or help little ones go to the bathroom.

I pretty much never pick up or carry visiting children, or have them sit on my lap or anything like that.  High fives, fist bumps, and a very rare side hug is about it.  If a little one wants a hug or to be picked up or whatever, I have my wife or older daughter do it.

I never transport a child or youth anywhere alone.  I either have my wife do it, or I bring one of my older children with me.

I never babysit, and I don't let my sons babysit.

My wife trusts me, and I trust myself.  However, I hope that relatives and friends and neighbors may feel a bit more at ease when they know two adults (one of which is always a woman) is present when their kids are visiting our home.  Plus I want to reduce the risk of misunderstandings and/or false accusations (particularly given the environment being created by the ongoing hysteria-creating antics of Sam Young and his ilk).

I think people like Sam Young, and people who have bought in to his moral panic/hysteria, have contributed to the "sexualization" problem.  They make every hug a "grooming" maneuver, every interaction with a male a potential danger, and every male inherently untrustworthy and a potential molester.  

I find this very discouraging.  In order for me to function in society, I need to have a reputation of decency and trustworthiness.  

In order to have such a reputation, I feel that I must abstain from many/most interactions with children, and to teach my sons to do likewise.

As this becomes more widespread, I think children will come to have fewer interactions with men, particularly if they come across hysterical screeds that paint all men as presumptively perverted and untrustworthy, or are even specifically indoctrinated with that idea.

Those fewer interactions, and worsening suspicions/presumptions, will erode the ability of men to function as role models for, and friends to, children. 

These lessened interactions and worsening suspicions/presumptions also erode the cumulative respect our society has previously reposed in men as father figures, protectors, and so on.  

As respect for these male roles in society diminishes, fewer men will aspire to them, and will instead retreat into gaming, movies, sports, casual-but-noncomittal relationships with women (or, in the future, with sexbots).  Men will check out.  And society will be worse off because of it.  It's a downward spiral.

Last month I started a thread that addressed some of this.  I quoted an article that lists 8 Reasons Straight Men Don’t Want To Get Married.  Some excerpts:

Quote

1. You’ll lose respect.  A couple of generations ago, a man wasn’t considered fully adult until he was married with kids. But today, fathers are figures of fun more than figures of respect: The schlubby guy with the flowered diaper bag at the mall, or one of the endless array of buffoonish TV dads in sitcoms and commercials. In today’s culture, father never knows best. It’s no better in the news media. As communications professor James Macnamara reports, “by volume, 69 percent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavorable, compared with just 12 percent favorable and 19 percent neutral or balanced.”
...
8. Single life is better than ever. While the value of marriage to men has declined, the quality of single life has improved. Single men were once looked on with suspicion, passed over for promotion for important jobs, which usually valued “stable family men,” and often subjected to social opprobrium. It was hard to have a love life that wasn’t aimed at marriage, and premarital sex was risky and frowned upon. Now, no one looks askance at the single lifestyle, dating is easy, and employers probably prefer employees with no conflicting family responsibilities.  Plus, video games, cable TV, and the Internet provide entertainment that didn’t used to be available. Is this good for society? Probably not, as falling birth rates and increasing single-motherhood demonstrate. But people respond to incentives.  If you want more men to marry, it needs to be a more attractive proposition.

I believe the remedy to these developments is what the Church is teaching. 

Faith in God creates belief in an a sense of accountability to an external and higher moral authority.  "Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise."  (Moroni 7:41)

Repentance allows and incentivizes the individual to correct an erroneous course of action, since he knows that forgiveness is possible.

Forgiveness of others allows us to come back together again after having been estranged by offense or error.

Gratitude and humility instill in us happiness for what we have, and keep things in proportion, and are excellent attributes to counter pride, envy, anger, and so on.

Education and hard work help us improve ourselves, our circumstances, our communities, and allow us to provide for our families.

The Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity help us constrain and control our appetites and passions.  Imagine how many problems would go away if we all worked to live in accordance with these principles.

In short, belief in and emulation of Jesus Christ is the best way.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

Huh.  Having turned to the scriptures, I am not now as discouraged as I was when I started writing this post.  Funny how that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

@smac97's post reminded me of something I heard from Dr. Dobson on a Focus on the Family daily broadcast years ago. Basically, Dr. Dobson went on a several minute "lecture" on how he would never hire a young man as a babysitter because he judged the risk of abuse too high. As I have asked around, I have seen many others who agree with the sentiment -- young men just cannot be trusted to care for children. As a young man, I picked up a few babysitting gigs and mostly enjoyed them, so I was a little saddened that many in my adult circles would absolutely not hire me to babysit. I understand the sentiment (and it's not like I was really a good babysitter), but part of me feels like we lose something as a society when we are so afraid of boys/men.

I'm not as convinced that the Church has all the answers to these problems (part of why a discussion like this can go on for 7 pages). Especially in matters of sexuality, we seem to harbor a fear of stereotypical male sexuality that is difficult to counter. Part of that is we absorb it from the broader culture (it is deeply rooted in broader Christianity and society), and part of it is that we can't really describe the fear in words. It just kind of sits underneath showing up in little ways (like how @smac97 describes the extra care he takes in avoiding certain interactions with young children or how women/young women are seen as safer childcare providers).

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97's post reminded me of something I heard from Dr. Dobson on a Focus on the Family daily broadcast years ago. Basically, Dr. Dobson went on a several minute "lecture" on how he would never hire a young man as a babysitter because he judged the risk of abuse too high. As I have asked around, I have seen many others who agree with the sentiment -- young men just cannot be trusted to care for children. As a young man, I picked up a few babysitting gigs and mostly enjoyed them, so I was a little saddened that many in my adult circles would absolutely not hire me to babysit. I understand the sentiment (and it's not like I was really a good babysitter), but part of me feels like we lose something as a society when we are so afraid of boys/men.

Yep.  

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not as convinced that the Church has all the answers to these problems (part of why a discussion like this can go on for 7 pages).

In broad strokes, I think the Restored Gospel answers these problems.  However, the Gospel only has utility insofar as we are willing to apply it in our lives.  Outside of that, we have had civil society, which is eroding, and civil authorities, who often lack the means and resources to effectively address these issues (and when they do, it is mostly after-the-fact).

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Especially in matters of sexuality, we seem to harbor a fear of stereotypical male sexuality that is difficult to counter.

You mean the Church?  How so?

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Part of that is we absorb it from the broader culture (it is deeply rooted in broader Christianity and society), and part of it is that we can't really describe the fear in words. It just kind of sits underneath showing up in little ways (like how @smac97 describes the extra care he takes in avoiding certain interactions with young children or how women/young women are seen as safer childcare providers).

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You mean the Church?  How so?

Kind of, but kind of not. I don't want to get bogged down in defining "we" or "the Church", but when I say "we", I mean the immediate community that is the Church, but I also see that the Church does not exist in a vacuum. "We" (the Church) absorb some of these teachings/attitudes/beliefs/practices from broader Christian (we), American (we), Western (we), and World (we) culture. In doing so, we (the Church) does not always successfully separate the good/right from the bad/wrong that exists in the broader culture.

An example -- licked cupcake/chewed gum/etc. analogies for sexual purity. I have seen it claimed that we (the Church membership) imported these from broader Christian purity culture. In spite of some effort by the Church (leadership/institution), these ideas have never been fully exorcised from our teaching/beliefs. Of course, this example is fairly explicitly and consciously known and talked about. Some of the attitudes/beliefs that I see underlying this tangent are not as consciously or explicitly acknowledged or understood -- whether we are talking about the Church or the broader cultures in which the Church exists.

And all of that does not necessarily imply that these undercurrents are wrong. It's possible that men really are more dangerous than women. Women might be inherently more pure/righteous than men. Or maybe men are just inclined towards the more significant sexual sins and women are inclined towards lesser sins. Or [insert possible subconscious cultural belief here]. The existence of these undercurrents is not necessarily right or wrong, but the challenge could be more about discerning the truth and error of these cultural undercurrents.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

I'm not as convinced that the Church has all the answers to these problems (part of why a discussion like this can go on for 7 pages).  Especially in matters of sexuality, we seem to harbor a fear of stereotypical male sexuality that is difficult to counter.

You mean the Church?  How so?

Kind of, but kind of not. I don't want to get bogged down in defining "we" or "the Church", but when I say "we", I mean the immediate community that is the Church, but I also see that the Church does not exist in a vacuum. "We" (the Church) absorb some of these teachings/attitudes/beliefs/practices from broader Christian (we), American (we), Western (we), and World (we) culture. In doing so, we (the Church) does not always successfully separate the good/right from the bad/wrong that exists in the broader culture.

Okay.  Can you give some examples of this?  Particularly as pertaining to "matters of sexuality?"

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

An example -- licked cupcake/chewed gum/etc. analogies for sexual purity. I have seen it claimed that we (the Church membership) imported these from broader Christian purity culture. In spite of some effort by the Church (leadership/institution), these ideas have never been fully exorcised from our teaching/beliefs.

But substantial efforts to do so have been underway for some time.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Of course, this example is fairly explicitly and consciously known and talked about. Some of the attitudes/beliefs that I see underlying this tangent are not as consciously or explicitly acknowledged or understood -- whether we are talking about the Church or the broader cultures in which the Church exists.

The Church teaches the Law of Chastity, which makes us pretty prudish compared to prevailing sexual mores in 2021.  Adultery, fornication and same-sex behavior are categorically prohibited.  Viewing pornography and masturbation are not acceptable, but I think there is more effort to work non-punitively with people on these things.

I don't think anyone begrudges us for condemning adultery.

We're seen as pretty prudish, bordering on weird, for prohibiting fornication.

We are often criticized for prohibiting same-sex behavior and discouraging masturbation.

We are sometimes criticized for being too prudish regarding pornography, but this seems like a fairly minor grievance.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

And all of that does not necessarily imply that these undercurrents are wrong. It's possible that men really are more dangerous than women.

Statistically, they do commit more crimes.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Women might be inherently more pure/righteous than men.

Dunno about that.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Or maybe men are just inclined towards the more significant sexual sins and women are inclined towards lesser sins.

Dunno about that, either.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Or [insert possible subconscious cultural belief here]. The existence of these undercurrents is not necessarily right or wrong, but the challenge could be more about discerning the truth and error of these cultural undercurrents.

Still not quite sure what you are talking about here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Long story short, to stop people from being sexual predators we need to actually stop them, by whatever means necessary. 

We can start by saying it is wrong to be a sexual predator... unless the sexual predation is strictly within the confines of a righteous marriage and both the man and woman are mutually consenting to be the sexual predator of each other, or both consent to only one of them be the sexual predator while the other is a willing victim... and from there we can escalate the means to prevent it, such as providing chastity belts to everyone or handcuffs or whips or chains or jail cells or shot guns or whatever else it may take to prevent it.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Long story short, to stop people from being sexual predators we need to actually stop them, by whatever means necessary. 

We can start by saying it is wrong to be a sexual predator... unless the sexual predation is strictly within the confines of a righteous marriage and both the man and woman are mutually consenting to be the sexual predator of each other, or both consent to only one of them be the sexual predator while the other is a willing victim... and from there we can escalate the means to prevent it, such as providing chastity belts to everyone or handcuffs or whips or chains or jail cells or shot guns or whatever else it may take to prevent it.

This goes from weird to weirder...

Quote

and from there we can escalate...providing chastity belts to everyone or handcuffs or whips or chains or jail cells or shot guns or whatever else

Is this part of your prevention measure, or part of your strange consensual sexual predation fantasy scenario?   I can't quite tell.  Either way, I'm a little creeped out. 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

This goes from weird to weirder...

Is this part of your prevention measure, or part of your strange consensual sexual predation fantasy scenario?   I can't quite tell.  Either way, I'm a little creeped out. 

Creeped out or not, we're simply focused on preventing sexual predators from predating... except within a righteous marriage, and those who are righteously married can sexually predate on each other however and however much they both want to.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Creeped out or not, we're simply focused on preventing sexual predators from predating... except within a righteous marriage, and those who are righteously married can sexually predate on each other however and however much they both want to.

You are definitely focusing on something.  Creeped out for sure. 

Seriously dude, TMI.   Did you have to bring in a twisted and creepy sexual predation fantasy into this?  If thinking about and pretending to be a sexual predator gets you off, I'm sorry but there is something wrong with that.  That is not ok to fantasize about and makes me concerned about whoever does that.  I wouldn't want my children anywhere near them. 

...then you bring in whips, chains, and hand cuffs?   Serious man, this is messed up.

Edited January 6, 2021 by pogi

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are definitely focusing on something.  Creeped out for sure. 

Seriously dude, TMI.   Did you have to bring in a twisted and creepy sexual predation fantasy into this?  If thinking about and pretending to be a sexual predator gets you off, I'm sorry but there is something wrong with that.  That is not ok to fantasize about and makes me concerned about whoever does that.  I wouldn't want my children anywhere near them. 

...then you bring in whips, chains, and hand cuffs?   Serious man, this is messed up.

LOL

fantasy?  Not for me, bro.  Is it for you?

I think you need to lighten up a little.   Try sensing MY sense of humor.  It can be fun to prevent some people from being a sexual predator, and when it can't be at least we can prevent people from being a sexual predator.  By whatever means necessary.