“According to DC Wullenwaber, Sitler had, to the best of Wullenwaber’s recollection, 14 ‘touching’ victims and 3 ‘sight’ (voyeurism) victims. Of the ‘touching victims,’ most were under 12, all were non-consensual (by law), none were ‘forcible,’ and many of the victims did not know the touching had occurred (for they were asleep, etc).”
CREC Presiding Ministers’ Report
Rape is a criminal act for which the rapist alone is responsible. This is well settled law.
— Boz Tchividjian (@BozT) July 5, 2017
In other words, if God will not judge the rapist on the Last Day, then all the feminist screeds in the world should not make a rapist feel bad about what he is doing. A great desire is evident in our culture to ‘absolutize’ the evil of rape, but since the process is an arbitrary one, suspended in midair, there is no reason to take it seriously (Fidelity, pp. 81–82).
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.
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.
“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.”
Rape is not defined as sexual intercourse. Rape is sexual intercourse that is contrary to the revealed will of God in a particular way.
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.’
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.
Was that 14-year old psychologically ready to engage in consensual sex with a man ten years her senior? In my opinion, no.
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.
Rapists are hardly a good pool for selecting fine sons-in-law.
If a policeman is gentle with the rapist, he is harsh with the rapist’s victim. If a shepherd is gentle with wolves, he is being harsh with the sheep. We must learn when and how we are to be gentle (for we are to be gentle people), and we must also learn when and how we are to be hard (and as pointed) as nails.