Law and Order: Duggars

[Bad Wolf]

According to Pickles, it's on you tube. Haven't checked it out myself.

[Shadoewolf]

I needed a new series since Switched at Birth is off until January. (I have a teenager ok!!! She got me into it) so I went On Demand and started watching Quantico.  Not bad, but a lil....racy.

[CyborgKin]

Well, I usually call it SVU, but when I am typing I might flip the letters and call it SUV.  

 

Very late to make this joke but...

Not to be confused with the show NTSF:SD:SUV. (Which once had a character named Olivia Frampton who looks extremely similar to my avatar except less terminatory

[Karma]

I've got to thank Pickles for providing the youtube link - we are way behind in Australia and I was having serious envy issues.  I think they covered the story very well in the time frame.  Enough differences in the storyline to cover themselves from being used by the Duggars -that comment on the Duggars by Rawlings was a classic - but enough similarities that it's obviously based on the Duggars.  That Pastor though. Seriously creepy. 

[SilverBeach]

One of the meanings of "seduce" is "to maneuver or inveigle."  To inveigle is to get someone to do something through trickery or deception. I think that describes what the pastor did.  He did not use force. She did not feel violated (though obviously she was).

I used "seduce" instead of "rape" because it seemed easier than typing  "coerced to have sex" or statutorily raped."  I prefer to use language that reflects the perceptions/experience of the participants, not just my evaluation.  From Lane's perspective, he seduced her.   From the legal perspective it was statutory rape.  

If any romantic inference is removed from seduction, it seems appropriate then.  I associate seduction with romance, forgetting for a moment about evil folks use of seduction as trickery and deception. That said, the girl was still raped, statutorily or not, because in no way was she equipped to give consent. There is her perspective, and the larger moral perspective, to consider.

[SilverBeach]

Actually when Olivia asked Lane if she knew how she had gotten pregnant, the girl admitted that she had engaged in sexual activity. But I agree that it is statutory rape because they were in no position to consent or refuse consent.

My first response crashed...aargh. Maybe it was a lucky guess on the girl's part. Not Pastor was mind raping her pretty good, but the parental brainwashing about the complete evil of any sexual activity before marriage would be stronger than his influence. Would she really have been behaving so normally at the purity ball no less, knowing that she was now "impure"? Statutory rape can be looked at as rape with mental abuse instead of physical violence, such as in this case. But rape is rape, sexual abuse is sexual abuse, any way you slice it. 

[HarleyQuinn]

Wait, someone made a Pinterest board for purity ball ideas? 

[morri]

yuck.

[Trynn]

Where can I watch this? I don't have TV, but I have a netflix and prime account. Apparently I can no longer watch anything on hulu unless I have an account? Someone said it was on youtube but I can't find it.

[Cannelle]

I saw the ending a little differently. In one way, yeah, it looked like NotMichelle was finally defending her daughters and being the mother they deserved, but in another way, maybe the writers were taking a dig at them- it was all fine and dandy and they could just sweep it under the rug when they thought it was one of their own (NotJosh), but since it was someone outside of the family, OMG MAKE HIM PAY. Hypocrisy much? I feel like they would act the same in real life- maybe not if Gothard or aother pastor harmed their daughters, but an outsider.

[VineHeart137]

Where can I watch this? I don't have TV, but I have a netflix and prime account. Apparently I can no longer watch anything on hulu unless I have an account? Someone said it was on youtube but I can't find it.

That's strange. I watched it on Hulu yesterday with no account.

[Walking Cat Bed]

There's always [redacted] (go for [redacted] or [redacted]; never use the video providers that require "registration", especially if that requires a card number -- I had to have my bank call them to cancel the account because they wouldn't respond to my requests).

[Snarkle]

My guilty pleasure is watching Forensic Files.  I've seen it on different channels and they're always true crime and wrapped up in a half hour.  The focus is more on the evidence linking the suspect(s) to the crime(s) and the actual people involved (friends, family, law enforcement, prosecutors even local TV and newspaper reporters) and less on the salaciousness of the story.  I even looked up the narrator of the series in IMDB because his voice is so distinctive.

I also have an interest in Cold Case Files and American Justice, both of which are narrated by Bill Kurtis.  He was the local TV anchor when I was a kid growing up, so his voice is equally soothing to me.

[morri]

it was on nbc, i only needed an vpn,. wouldnt work on netflix or hulu...

[Granwych]

I wasn't saying it was "right" in a general way--I was suggesting that compared to the seduction it was a minor point, hardly a major "yuck" but just a part of the whole disgusting seduction thing.  It isn't the marriage but the sex with a barely pubescent girl that bothers me.  

Totally agree that it is gross that he is marrying her after seducing her, mindfucking her etc.  

My point was that given that the girl was pregnant and the parents believed the pastor that he was marrying her to save her name and would treat her like a daughter and given that their beliefs were closer to those of people 50 years ago in that respect, there was nothing specifically "gross" about the marriage.  What was gross was that he had sex with a 13 year old, not that her parents consented to the marriage.

Oy!  When my dd was 13, we were at the food court in the local mall.  DD was pretty stacked on top, and I caught two officers of the law checking her out.  It took quite a bit of reining me in by dd to keep me from marching over and screaming at those boys in blue.  And no, we aren't fundy by any means of the imagination, just easily skeeved by drooling horndogs of any age.

[Karma]

 

Where can I watch this? I don't have TV, but I have a netflix and prime account. Apparently I can no longer watch anything on hulu unless I have an account? Someone said it was on youtube but I can't find it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iovn4RhoBE

[EyeQueue]

Wait, someone made a Pinterest board for purity ball ideas? 

At least one someone.

And my google search did not yield any purity ball cakes that had father/daughter figures to parallel the husband/bride of a wedding cake, so I guess I'll just chalk that up to artistic license on the part of the show. It does carry out the creepy father-daughter vibe that is part of other activities and imagery involved in purity balls, though.

[SilverBeach]

My guilty pleasure is watching Forensic Files.  I've seen it on different channels and they're always true crime and wrapped up in a half hour.  The focus is more on the evidence linking the suspect(s) to the crime(s) and the actual people involved (friends, family, law enforcement, prosecutors even local TV and newspaper reporters) and less on the salaciousness of the story.  I even looked up the narrator of the series in IMDB because his voice is so distinctive.

I also have an interest in Cold Case Files and American Justice, both of which are narrated by Bill Kurtis.  He was the local TV anchor when I was a kid growing up, so his voice is equally soothing to me.

I like all of these programs too.

[EmCatlyn]

My first response crashed...aargh. Maybe it was a lucky guess on the girl's part. Not Pastor was mind raping her pretty good, but the parental brainwashing about the complete evil of any sexual activity before marriage would be stronger than his influence. Would she really have been behaving so normally at the purity ball no less, knowing that she was now "impure"? Statutory rape can be looked at as rape with mental abuse instead of physical violence, such as in this case. But rape is rape, sexual abuse is sexual abuse, any way you slice it. 

The daughter who had given birth was also acting naturally and talking about how she never took off her puritty ring.  I think both these girls were portrayed as believing the pastor when he told each of them that what they were doing together was not impure because he loved her (whichever one he was with at the moment).

As for "rape is rape" and "sexual abuse is sexual abuse" and so forth, I disagree.  Words mean different things to different people at different times and in different situations depending on cultural, social and other factors. 

Take for example the word "mother."  Is it the person who birthed you? The person who legally adopted you? The person who raised you?  The law may have one view; the child may have another.

Here on this forum people talk of the sister-moms as being the "real" moms of the younger Duggars.  But neither the law, nor the Duggars themselves (including the sister-moms or their sibling-kids). We are using one definition of "mother." The law and the Duggars have another.

The same words may represent different realities for different people. I hold that we need to be sensitive to these different realities.  There is a legal definition of rape. There is also a social/community based perception or understanding of what constitutes rape.  And there is also the experience of rape (or perhaps, of raping).

Please don't misunderstand this as a justification of rape or abuse.  I hold that people have the responsibility to observe the law (even if they disagree with it), that people further have the obligation to be considerate and sensitive towards others and not bully them (even when it is legal to do so). But I also believe that we have to respect the perception of the people involved in an incident, not when we apply the law,, but when we discuss the situation.

Example: When I was six years old, an obsessive-compulsive school mistress forced me to eat everything on my lunch plate until I threw up. When I was 19, a date bullied and manipulated me into performing oral sex on him since I wouldn't go to bed with him after having "led him on."   I look back on these instances and I see the teacher as abusive. I see the guy who got me to give him a bj as a major jerk, but not a rapist. Nor do I feel that I was "date raped." I believe I allowed myself to be manipulated and intimidated, but that was on me.  

Now there are a lot of people who will see the guy as a rapist. And there are people who will excuse the teacher because I was a picky eater and she did not realize how traumatic the experience was, etc. She meant well; on the surface, she got a lot less out of making me eat all my food (it was for my own good, after all) than the guy who got the bj.  

But when I was six I felt totally helpless against the adult who stood over me to force me to eat.  When I was nineteen,  I knew I could refuse. I foolishly thought I owed it to him for flirting beyond some unspoken code, but I also knew that I could tell him that I was very sorry to have misled him and he should just go home and take a shower.    I chose not to because he made me feel that it would be "wrong" to go back on something I had unintentionally offered.

Was I raped?  I never felt I was, but when (some 20 years later)  I got involved in campus date-rate prevention on a campus where I was a teacher, one of the "this is rape" scenarios was very similar to what had happened to me.

So, where is this long and winding message going? I am trying to explain why I believe that we need to respect the individual perception of an experience as well as the legal definition of words even as we might have strong opinions about what the words "should" mean.  By all means, we should be active in promoting and supporting the definitions of specific words that we believe are right.  But let's not forget that there are other definitions and be sensitive to how these differences in definition may impact different people's responses or experience.

    Stepping off my soapbox now.

[AliceInFundyland]

Quoting isn't working out well for me but @emmalyn-I agree with you. 

I have a friend who had been intimate with someone a few times. They had a conversation or two about stopping that because my friend was interested in someone else. Then they were drunk at the bar and went home. Upon waking, discovered they'd had sex, and felt extremely manipulated and used. 

My friend feels raped (their word). My friend is a guy. Because of his public behavior (he gets drunk too much and does dumb shit with women) everybody thinks he's full of crap. But ultimately I chose to believe him because if a female friend of mine had the same story, I'd believe her. 

I hope that isn't upsetting to anyone. It has been on my mind a lot lately. A lot of people seem to think men can't be raped. But to me what emmalyn says about perception rings really true. 

[SilverBeach]

The daughter who had given birth was also acting naturally and talking about how she never took off her puritty ring.  I think both these girls were portrayed as believing the pastor when he told each of them that what they were doing together was not impure because he loved her (whichever one he was with at the moment).

As for "rape is rape" and "sexual abuse is sexual abuse" and so forth, I disagree.  Words mean different things to different people at different times and in different situations depending on cultural, social and other factors. 

Take for example the word "mother."  Is it the person who birthed you? The person who legally adopted you? The person who raised you?  The law may have one view; the child may have another.

Here on this forum people talk of the sister-moms as being the "real" moms of the younger Duggars.  But neither the law, nor the Duggars themselves (including the sister-moms or their sibling-kids). We are using one definition of "mother." The law and the Duggars have another.

The same words may represent different realities for different people. I hold that we need to be sensitive to these different realities.  There is a legal definition of rape. There is also a social/community based perception or understanding of what constitutes rape.  And there is also the experience of rape (or perhaps, of raping).

Please don't misunderstand this as a justification of rape or abuse.  I hold that people have the responsibility to observe the law (even if they disagree with it), that people further have the obligation to be considerate and sensitive towards others and not bully them (even when it is legal to do so). But I also believe that we have to respect the perception of the people involved in an incident, not when we apply the law,, but when we discuss the situation.

Example: When I was six years old, an obsessive-compulsive school mistress forced me to eat everything on my lunch plate until I threw up. When I was 19, a date bullied and manipulated me into performing oral sex on him since I wouldn't go to bed with him after having "led him on."   I look back on these instances and I see the teacher as abusive. I see the guy who got me to give him a bj as a major jerk, but not a rapist. Nor do I feel that I was "date raped." I believe I allowed myself to be manipulated and intimidated, but that was on me.  

Now there are a lot of people who will see the guy as a rapist. And there are people who will excuse the teacher because I was a picky eater and she did not realize how traumatic the experience was, etc. She meant well; on the surface, she got a lot less out of making me eat all my food (it was for my own good, after all) than the guy who got the bj.  

But when I was six I felt totally helpless against the adult who stood over me to force me to eat.  When I was nineteen,  I knew I could refuse. I foolishly thought I owed it to him for flirting beyond some unspoken code, but I also knew that I could tell him that I was very sorry to have misled him and he should just go home and take a shower.    I chose not to because he made me feel that it would be "wrong" to go back on something I had unintentionally offered.

Was I raped?  I never felt I was, but when (some 20 years later)  I got involved in campus date-rate prevention on a campus where I was a teacher, one of the "this is rape" scenarios was very similar to what had happened to me.

So, where is this long and winding message going? I am trying to explain why I believe that we need to respect the individual perception of an experience as well as the legal definition of words even as we might have strong opinions about what the words "should" mean.  By all means, we should be active in promoting and supporting the definitions of specific words that we believe are right.  But let's not forget that there are other definitions and be sensitive to how these differences in definition may impact different people's responses or experience.

    Stepping off my soapbox now.

I too am a language person, but as your bolded wording say, words mean different things to different people, making understanding other people difficult no matter how well they explain themselves. I don't agree that precise legal definitions are required on a snark board. Maybe I don't take this all that seriously, to me FJ is a form of entertainment. As I always say, to each their own. It is OK to experience the world differently and there is no right or wrong way to do so. But when it come too rape, the republicans tried to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate, and look how that went. As the mother of a girl and a woman myself, who unfortunately has been the victim of child sexual abuse (at 9 years old by my mother's husband), rape is not a theoretical discussion to me. And thinking something did or did not happen doesn't mean it did or did not...the mind is a tricky thing sometimes especially when traumatized. This is more back and forth than I usually engage in, because its OK when folks disagree with me and I usually drop it. But, I needed a little soapbox time of my own, haha.

I too am a language person, but as your bolded wording say, words mean different things to different people, making understanding other people difficult no matter how well they explain themselves. I don't agree that precise legal definitions are required on a snark board. Maybe I don't take this all that seriously, to me FJ is a form of entertainment. As I always say, to each their own. It is OK to experience the world differently and there is no right or wrong way to do so. But when it come too rape, the republicans tried to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate, and look how that went. As the mother of a girl and a woman myself, who unfortunately has been the victim of child sexual abuse (at 9 years old by my mother's husband), rape is not a theoretical discussion to me. And thinking something did or did not happen doesn't mean it did or did not...the mind is a tricky thing sometimes especially when traumatized. This is more back and forth than I usually engage in, because its OK when folks disagree with me and I usually drop it. But, I needed a little soapbox time of my own, haha.

Oh, and the same word can, in different contexts, mean different things even when used by the same person! I agree about respect, and at no time did I ever show disrespect to anyone, not my style.

 

[EmCatlyn]

Quoting isn't working out well for me but @emmalyn-I agree with you. 

<snip>

My friend feels raped (their word). My friend is a guy. Because of his public behavior (he gets drunk too much and does dumb shit with women) everybody thinks he's full of crap. But ultimately I chose to believe him because if a female friend of mine had the same story, I'd believe her. 

I hope that isn't upsetting to anyone. It has been on my mind a lot lately. A lot of people seem to think men can't be raped. But to me what emmalyn says about perception rings really true. 

Definitely men can be raped.  It may not legally be rape, but if your friend was tricked/manipulated into sex when he had decided firmly, "no more," then he was violated, and his perception that it was "rape" has to be respected.  (This doesn't mean that I think his ex should be prosecuted.  I am just talking about respecting different perceptions.)

[EmCatlyn]

@Silver Beach if my message came across as suggesting that you (or anyone else) were being disrespectful of victims (or anyone else) I apologize!

I was, rather, trying to explain why I chose not to use the word "rape" when talking about the story of Lane and the Pervert Pastor.  I also was explaining why I disagreed with your broad statement that "rape is rape."  And that is simply because the word "rape" does not have one single consistent meaning for everyone.

Definitely we can disagree on this, but I like to be understood (and to understand) before moving on.  So, let me clarify that I wasn't suggesting we have to use only legal terms, or the same dictionary in any FJ discussion.  Nor was I criticizing you or anyone else for your word choice.  Just as you have tried to explain where you are coming from--I am truly sorry that you experienced abuse as a child--I was trying to explain my position about the different meanings of words and how my own experience leads me to feel that different words can mean different things in different situations.

And, if I understand you correctly, I think we may agree about that.

 

[SilverBeach]

 

I was, rather, trying to explain why I chose not to use the word "rape" when talking about the story of Lane and the Pervert Pastor.  I also was explaining why I disagreed with your broad statement that "rape is rape."  And that is simply because the word "rape" does not have one single consistent meaning for everyone.

Definitely we can disagree on this, but I like to be understood (and to understand) before moving on.  So, let me clarify that I wasn't suggesting we have to use only legal terms, or the same dictionary in any FJ discussion.  Nor was I criticizing you or anyone else for your word choice.  Just as you have tried to explain where you are coming from--I am truly sorry that you experienced abuse as a child--I was trying to explain my position about the different meanings of words and how my own experience leads me to feel that different words can mean different things in different situations.

And, if I understand you correctly, I think we may agree about that.

 

Yes, we do agree about that. Thanks for the clarification.

[SilverBeach]

Quoting isn't working out well for me but @emmalyn-I agree with you. 

I have a friend who had been intimate with someone a few times. They had a conversation or two about stopping that because my friend was interested in someone else. Then they were drunk at the bar and went home. Upon waking, discovered they'd had sex, and felt extremely manipulated and used. 

My friend feels raped (their word). My friend is a guy. Because of his public behavior (he gets drunk too much and does dumb shit with women) everybody thinks he's full of crap. But ultimately I chose to believe him because if a female friend of mine had the same story, I'd believe her. 

I hope that isn't upsetting to anyone. It has been on my mind a lot lately. A lot of people seem to think men can't be raped. But to me what emmalyn says about perception rings really true. 

He was forced into sexual contact without his knowledge and consent. He was raped. Rape is thought more of as homosexual with men, but as with your friend it happens heterosexually too. There should be no double standard here. Good for you for believing him. Very few men come forward because they are less believed than women.