tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post8619440467615558798..comments2024-03-25T09:01:20.997-07:00Comments on Diary of an Autodidact: John Piper Steps In It on Rape and SexDiary of an Autodidacthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-20792571265786666892017-08-17T14:59:59.530-07:002017-08-17T14:59:59.530-07:00I had a thought. When combined with the "men ...I had a thought. When combined with the "men pursue, women are pursued" idea where the man is always supposed to take the initiative, if and when a woman tries to express any interest in a man to encourage him to initiate, it could be interpreted as a seduction. In other words, she is between a rock and a hard spot if she does ANYTHING other than being a wall flower. That seems like a form of psychological crazy making.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-64509968216076531052015-04-29T14:44:59.477-07:002015-04-29T14:44:59.477-07:00Well, one alternative is an idea that is all too c...Well, one alternative is an idea that is all too common in our culture - and Christian culture as well: women have a "choice" too. If they wouldn't be so darn "seductive" (define that how you will), then men wouldn't want to rape them. Either way, the choice to make a highly gendered comparison shows that he wanted to show *some* equivalence. And that is the problem. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-4290052525974957082015-04-29T13:59:39.939-07:002015-04-29T13:59:39.939-07:00Not finished :)
A definition of seduction would b...Not finished :)<br /><br />A definition of seduction would be fairly subjective unlike rape which is defined objectively by law. Amy Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703068231390465651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-31772024266563148022015-04-29T13:58:13.025-07:002015-04-29T13:58:13.025-07:00The most obvious distinction in Piper's compar...The most obvious distinction in Piper's comparison is that victims of "seduction" still have a choice (at least I hope he's not saying all men are ruled by compulsive instinct alone) but victims of rape don't have a choice. Also a definition of "seductionAmy Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703068231390465651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-65474529032302241492015-04-11T07:20:05.864-07:002015-04-11T07:20:05.864-07:00My college English professor taught me to avoid sl...My college English professor taught me to avoid slippery-slope arguments, along with name-calling and other logical fallacies. :)jochanaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143066702059757955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-10224597183688603672015-04-10T12:04:23.338-07:002015-04-10T12:04:23.338-07:00Indeed. You'd think sexual activity was tanta...Indeed. You'd think sexual activity was tantamount to terrorism! *lol*jochanaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143066702059757955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-24558966531710996132015-04-09T18:27:26.693-07:002015-04-09T18:27:26.693-07:00Another thing I should add, though, to be fair, is...Another thing I should add, though, to be fair, is that the "pedophilia slippery slope" is a longstanding canard of the fundie right. I remember as a kid hearing over and over that the "gay agenda" was the decriminalization of pedophilia so that young boys could be legally victimized. Essentially, NAMBLA was what all gays were like. <br /><br />(This is what landed the Family Research Council on the hate group list, by the way...)<br /><br />I think it is very important to that worldview that gays be associated with predation, and no amount of reality will shake it. <br /><br />Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the same claim was made about the Catholic Church, which proved to have an ACTUAL history of protecting predators...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-58304003990036260232015-04-09T16:15:57.044-07:002015-04-09T16:15:57.044-07:00The only argument I've ever seen in favor of l...The only argument I've ever seen in favor of legalizing incest was apparently made by some Germans (don't have the reference handy), who said that the genetic risk argument didn't work because people with genetic conditions / disabilities are allowed to marry and have children, even though they are at an extremely high risk of passing the condition on to their children.<br /><br />But even if incest did eventually get legalized, in the US or anywhere else, like I said before and you said, I don't anticipate a tidal wave of siblings rushing to get married. It's also been suggested that psychologically, children raised together are desensitized to sexual attraction toward each other - which in that theory is why all the public cases of unintended incest are between siblings / twins who were separated at birth - but I'm not sure that's been solidly demonstrated to be factual.<br /><br />Thanks for the legal info. I had wondered about guardianship issues per animals and bestiality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-86262518820059055202015-04-09T13:11:53.588-07:002015-04-09T13:11:53.588-07:00I agree. I think that so much of the problem here ...I agree. I think that so much of the problem here stems from a belief that God cares about sex more than anything else. And that God is eager to smite anyone who doesn't vigorously enforce a certain interpretation of God's sexual rules. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-29544961128268815702015-04-09T13:10:00.114-07:002015-04-09T13:10:00.114-07:00There are some interesting legal issues there, of ...There are some interesting legal issues there, of course. <br /><br />One thing that must be mentioned, however, is that polygamy, at least, isn't against "God's law." It is expressly provided for in the Mosaic law, and is never anywhere forbidden in the Bible, except arguably for Elders and Deacons. If you take the Bible as literally as possible, then Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were right. <br /><br />However, as many have pointed out, just because something is "permissible" doesn't make it a good thing for a society. Historically, polygamy has been driven by two forces: the view of women as property (leading to a collection of them by the wealthy), and the constant warfare leading to a shortage of males. (Did you see that DNA research recently that indicated that 10,000 years ago, only one male for every 18 females passed on their genes?) <br /><br />So, we as a society have determined that polygamy has problems. That said, I think we are seeing a trend to decriminalize polygamy between consenting adults, focusing on the REAL issues within groups like FLDS, which is the exploitation of children through underage "marriage." Again, note the collection of women and girls by the powerful leaders of the group. <br /><br />Another thought: polygamy actually exists in practice much more than we admit. It doesn't involve marriages, though. Powerful and wealthy men do and always have used women as disposable property for their sexual gratification. <br /><br />Regarding incest, I think you are correct that there will always be a low incidence of it, if for no other reason than that our immediate families will always be an extremely small proportion of the whole population. I don't know about everyone else, but I for one have no desire to have sex with most of the rest of the world's population. I think here too, we at least have a pretty good reason to have a prohibition, which would be the genetic risk. Note, however, that the rules vary greatly by country and state. Also, for the Biblical literalists, note that the second generation of humans would have been incestuous by default, and that Abraham and Sarah were half siblings, and thus in violation of the Mosaic law. It gets tricky, doesn't it...<br /><br />Now, regarding your beastiality question, we have an interesting ethical dilemma. (It's not a legal one yet, but it may become so.) Animals, like children or others who lack legal capacity, cannot "consent" to procedures or sexual activity. However, we do indeed do procedures on them - both animals and children, even infants. How do we do that? We appoint a person who *can* give consent to make those decisions. Otherwise, necessary medicine could never be done to children or animals. Where the ethical dilemma comes in is when we do procedures that are not necessary, and may or may not be in the "best interest" of the child or animal. For children, you typically see this in a request to sterilize a developmentally disabled child. For animals, of course, not only do we castrate them, but we eat them too, so you can see the issue. This is the vegan argument, of course, that we shouldn't eat creatures that can't consent. The flip side would be that whatever you can eat, you can screw. But you are right, that the general trend has been to be LESS tolerant of cruelty and abuse, and that consent is a key factor in this. <br /><br />For most with a theonomic viewpoint, though, the only question is what is permitted and what is forbidden. None of the rest matters. (This is why, in my opinion, the end result of theonomy is polygamy and the treatment of women as property.) Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-73091658735784917272015-04-09T09:07:53.177-07:002015-04-09T09:07:53.177-07:00There are some basic truths here that shouldn'...There are some basic truths here that shouldn't need saying but, in our current theological and emotional climate, do.<br /><br />1. Rape and harassment, including street harassment, flow not from the normal sexual desires we all have, but from the will to power. That power, as George Orwell explains in his novel 1984, expresses itself most obviously when one person makes another suffer and fear. As a friend of mine states succinctly: "Rape is not a sexual crime; it's a violent crime."<br /><br />2. Attraction between two people, even a hetero man and a hetero woman, does not have to be sexual. Even when it is, there is no sin unless a sinful act is done. Yet so many folks misunderstand Jesus' words in Matthew 5:28. "To look with lust" is not to experience a momentary desire, but to accept that desire and nurse it and plan and fantasize and let yourself become obsessed; that is the Biblical definition of lust, and it applies to any person or object--a synonym for "covet."<br /><br />The way these teachings have been misunderstood and mis-taught through the centuries has placed intolerable burdens on far too many (even one is too many!) good folks whose only "sin" is having the human drives God built into us. It is long past time for us to stop conforming to the world's thought patterns and allow God to transform us into balanced, truly loving people who do not fear our own or others' sexuality but rather model God's love for all beings regardless of their sexual practices and beliefs about themselves.jochanaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143066702059757955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-61983522850799077412015-04-08T19:01:12.756-07:002015-04-08T19:01:12.756-07:00To be fair, I do understand where people like the ...To be fair, I do understand where people like the Wartburg commenter get their ideas. There are pedophile groups trying to get pedophilia destigmatized, and a few scattered instances I have seen of people calling themselves "zoophiles" trying to destigmatize bestiality. But I'm still pretty skeptical that either of those (esp. pedophilia) will ever fly as something legally allowed. Not only because of the consent issues I already noted, but also because 1) I doubt more than a tiny percentage of people will ever be interested in either of those things, and 2) both touch on cruelty and abuse law (animal cruelty, child abuse, etc.) which I can't foresee many people in their right mind ever seriously proposing overturning, esp. in the current environment where in many ways people are finally becoming LESS tolerant of animal and child abuse.<br /><br />IMO these folks would have a stronger argument in this vein if they said gay marriage could lead to the normalization of polygamy and (adult consensual) incest (which at least both involve consenting adults), rather than going all the way to pedophilia and bestiality. Though even there, I doubt many people would actually be interested, and reducing the argument to just taking away the "ick factor" is still overly simplistic.<br /><br />Curious legal-ish question, though: I was telling someone about the bestiality thread and mentioned the consent issue. They said that wasn't relevant because we perform veterinary procedures on animals without their consent, so the only valid objection to legally allowed bestiality would be animal cruelty. Does this fly legally?<br /><br />My main concern with this person's reasoning is that it seems to make "go ahead" the default option in situations where someone can't consent, whereas the current default in those situations seems to be "stop." That would, obviously, affect people as well as animals (unconscious people, sleeping people, people in a coma, etc.), and in a 100% negative way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-84251239692422921502015-04-08T16:04:32.363-07:002015-04-08T16:04:32.363-07:00I finally got around to reading the Wartburg Watch...I finally got around to reading the Wartburg Watch article you linked. Lots of good stuff there. <br /><br />I am particularly enjoying your comments on cross-gender friendships. That may be a future blog post, as I experienced a lot of that nonsense about opposite sex friendships inevitably leading to sex. (Because women seduce and men rape?) <br /><br />I have many cross-gender friendships that I cherish from my involvement in both law and music. <br /><br />Thanks for linking and commenting. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-21405916467253056142015-04-08T11:23:39.391-07:002015-04-08T11:23:39.391-07:00So much to love in your comment. I have thought ov...So much to love in your comment. I have thought over your comment about malice, and I made some clarification in the post. It's a bit of a lawyer thing, but "malice" means less ill will than intentionality, and I hope I made that clear. I believe he may well genuinely believe that sexual harassment and coercion are no different than dressing "seductively." <br /><br />I too have seen too many cases where the coercion in the Bathsheba and Esther stories are missed. I don't remember ever missing it in the Joseph story, however. I think that was because *he ends up in prison.* That's pretty hard to miss, although maybe I identified with it more because I am male. <br /><br />There does seem to be a disconnect on the issue of consent with Evangelicals, and I completely agree with you on how ludicrous the argument that allowing gay sex will lead to allowing pedophilia really is. Add to that the common claim that non-Christians can't *possibly* be ethically consistent, which is about as arrogant of a statement as you can make. <br /><br /> Also agree strongly with you that consent is - and moreover should be - not only compatible with Christian sexual ethics, but a necessary and crucial part of those ethics. If nothing else, the Golden Rule demands it. <br /><br />I have been struck - as have you - by the way that many of these guys insist on confirming the worst that atheists believe about us. It's so frustrating, because I really do see that guys like Richard Dawkins (also a notorious misogynist) are capable of far less damage than guys like Piper. I can show that Dawkins misunderstands the Bible - probably intentionally. But how do I argue that Piper and Wilson et al. aren't teaching real Christianity? <br /><br />I also think that the older generation of Evangelicals has become so tone deaf on sex that they are completely missing the way that they have and continue to alienate the younger generations. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-6873883524094542862015-04-07T13:53:54.188-07:002015-04-07T13:53:54.188-07:00Yeah, Piper seems to be saying pretty clearly that...Yeah, Piper seems to be saying pretty clearly that seduction is the female version of rape. Which is obviously stupid on its face. Then again, he seems to say well-meaning but actually horrible things all the time, esp. when he tweets. I've attempted to read a book by the man and let me tell you, he SUCKS at concision (Don't Waste Your Life was 300+ pages and probably could have been condensed into 30 or so). Twitter is NOT his friend and he should probably stop.<br /><br />Also, I know lots of people who can't see the coercion / power differential with the Potiphar's wife (heck, I couldn't until I was older). They can't see it in the Bathsheba or Esther accounts either. They make the fault with Bathsheba out to be mutual (or solely her fault - bathing outside is baaaad), and they make Esther into a love story between her and Xerxes/Ahasuerus (see Christian film One Night with the King for the most egregious and annoying example). So given that, as well as Piper's general incompetence/cluelessness and serious need of Strunk and White, I'm not as confident as you are that this particular tweet was malicious. I agree with everything else you said, though.<br /><br />I think you're 100% on-point with how evangelicals generally seem to think about consent - i.e., not at all. This particular comment thread at The Wartburg Watch (my most regular comment "hangout" space) last weekend is illustrative of this point:<br /><br />http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/03/27/spiritual-friendship-even-celibacy-is-not-enough-for-some-christians/<br /><br />One commenter claimed that the reasoning behind legitimizing gay sex/marriage could also be used to legitimize bestiality and pedophilia, and that the only reason they are perceived as different is because the "ick factor" has been lost for gay sex. As you might imagine, they got quite a bit of pushback (including from me and the blog owners), because children and animals can't consent to sex and/or marriage. The original commenter, however, persisted in completely ignoring consent as a factor in the discussion.<br /><br />I disagree just as much with atheists / secularists I have read who claim consent is inherently incompatible with Christian sexual ethics, because the only thing that matters to Christians is whether God is okay with any given act. That seems pretty ethically simplistic IMO. So when Christians like Piper and the Wartburg commenter act as if consent is irrelevant, I have to wonder if they realize that they're actually agreeing with militant atheists about their own religion / ethical system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com