Rape

@BozT

Wednesday, July 5, 2017 |

“a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape”

One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.
Douglas Wilson

“I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law. . . I do not justify rape; she does.”

The theology of a slut walk, however, by its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything. Now lest I be misunderstood at this point — which I understand has happened before! — let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law. I am not defending the rapist. I am simply pointing out that his victim was a person who had given herself to organizing events built on a theology that, when applied consistently elsewhere, fully justifies rape. I do not justify rape; she does.
Douglas Wilson

“Sex with a woman who is not consenting is rape”

“Sex with a woman who is not consenting is rape whether it happens on a date or the guy hides in the woods (I would say that sex with a woman who is not your wife is a kind of rape as well, but that’s another issue). In both cases it is violent and in both cases it is a sexual act. We can talk about both of these aspects, but we must never separate them.”
Mike Lawyer

Friday, February 24, 2017 |

“I would define rape as having any kind of sexual relationship with someone apart from or against her or his consent.”

Sarah Moon writes here about complementarianism’s ‘ugly relationship with rape.’ She poses two questions of us bad people, and they are as follows — first, how do we define rape? And secondly, what do we propose to do about it?

Okay. I would define rape as having any kind of sexual relationship with someone apart from or against her or his consent. So far, so good, probably, but she then objects to our recognition of the possibility of varying degrees of foolishness on the part of the victim, and she interprets this recognition as somehow meaning ‘when they say they are against rape they don’t mean all rape.’
Douglas Wilson

“If a trusted spiritual leader starts abusing a girl when she is 14”

At the same time, of course, we should make allowances for those situations where an abused girl was never given the opportunity to become a responsible adult. If a trusted spiritual leader starts abusing a girl when she is 14, it is not as though, after 7 years of abuse, a magic moment happens when she turns 21, making it easy for her to now walk away. In a situation like that, the word victim is appropriate. But we ought to reserve the word for situations like it, and not use it in circumstances like this one.
Douglas Wilson

“those who are willing to defend such predators should be ashamed of themselves”

The recent revelations of homosexual abuse of boys by various predatory priests over the course of many years is the kind of problem that I think should be addressed (in the civil realm only) with a tall tree and a short rope. Not only am I not ashamed of thinking this (because of Leviticus, in context), I believe that those who are willing to defend such predators should be ashamed of themselves.
Douglas Wilson