Jump to content
IGNORED

Miss Raquel's 2nd Novel - Part 4


samurai_sarah

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Honestly I don't know why she is allowed back. And I don't know that we are getting the whole story, either. Did she take it or did he gift it to her? The age difference could be less than three years, did the house parents just think it was a cute "crush" thing to do? The kids like to give gifts (usually crafts or friendship bracelets or drawings), did they just think it was part of that? I don't know, and I desperately hope that she truly does just consider them brothers and friends as she keeps posting over and over. She's super young still, and other than the Peru stuff her posts are the same as every other 16-23 year old I am friends with on Facebook. Clueless and over-sharing, with every little thing being the world's biggest drama.

I do know that her Instagram is being followed by the home director's wife (who is in charge of the groups) and I know the two of them well enough to know that if they thought she was any danger to the boys she'd never be allowed back. The boys' well-being is their prime concern. She's not being left alone with them.

I just am bothered by the implication that this one clueless barely-adult girl is causing the whole organization to be looked on as suspect. She's been there less than 15 days total, it looks like, at one home. They have multiple homes, each helping up to 30 or so children, plus a school for the deaf and support for former residents of their homes. They're good people. This girl needs to GTFO and grow up.

You can say the name of the organization.  It is Scripture Union, Peru.  Scripture Union is interdenominational and evangelical and has been around for ages.  I wouldn't call them Fundie either; I would call them extremely evangelical.  On the other hand, each country's Scripture Union tub stands on its own bottom.  We have discussed those short-term mission trips and the benefits and drawbacks of them elsewhere, many times.

I assume you are talking about the Clarks, either the first or second generation?  Yes, they have been in Peru for many years and appear to be good people doing good work.  They really do need to clamp down on Raquel.  She is making them look very bad with her over-the-top photographs and gushing descriptions of the boys.  It may be that they have spoken with her.  If this particular boy has aged out they can't forbid contact - but they can control for her contact with the children still in the homes.

10 hours ago, Alisamer said:

did the house parents just think it was a cute "crush" thing to do? The kids like to give gifts (usually crafts or friendship bracelets or drawings), did they just think it was part of that?

Possibly, but:

1.  a hoodie is a much bigger gift than a bracelet or a drawing, and that is very concerning, and

2. it is how Raquel chose to treat the gift afterwards that makes me absolutely gag.

I absolutely agree with you that Raquel needs to grow the fuck up.  These vulnerable  boys must not be used to bolster her fragile ego or boost her self-esteem until she does.  

I also share your concern that she is making the whole organization look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 541
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, Anonymousguest said:

I'm not sure the "best friend" and hoodie owner is a kid from the home. Would he be allowed to keep a cell phone? Or spend his day hanging out with Raquel? 

I'm not sure that the hoodie owner and the person she visited are the same people. She is very liberal with the "best friend" phrase and called several of them her best friend. The hoodie guy had been at the boy's home since the first time she visited, and looked rather youngish in her first pictures from Peru. He was still living there when she took his hoodie to sleep with. 

It sounds like the guy she visited this time and gave a cell phone to, she met at the boy's home, but now he has aged out. Raquel meeting a teen boy on a mission trip and then flying to Peru to shower him with gifts as soon as he is 18 sounds disturbing too. 

Raquel makes the boy's home look really, really bad. Another reason they should cut all ties with her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

You can say the name of the organization.  It is Scripture Union, Peru.  Scripture Union is interdenominational and evangelical and has been around for ages.  I wouldn't call them Fundie either; I would call them extremely evangelical.  On the other hand, each country's Scripture Union tub stands on its own bottom.  We have discussed those short-term mission trips and the benefits and drawbacks of them elsewhere, many times.

I assume you are talking about the Clarks, either the first or second generation?  Yes, they have been in Peru for many years and appear to be good people doing good work.  They really do need to clamp down on Raquel.  She is making them look very bad with her over-the-top photographs and gushing descriptions of the boys.  It may be that they have spoken with her.  If this particular boy has aged out they can't forbid contact - but they can control for her contact with the children still in the homes.

.....

I also share your concern that she is making the whole organization look bad.

Yes, Scripture Union. I'd prefer their name not be associated with this chick however. I have met the Clarks (both generations) but the people I'm speaking of (don't want their names dragged into it either) are under them and working specifically with the homes (coordinating and accompanying groups and overseeing the running of the homes) while the Clarks are over the organization as a whole. I believe the older Clarks are at least semi-retired, and Billy Clark seems to especially focus a great deal on the school for the deaf, at least last time I met him.

I've messaged the coordinator of the groups and asked about this Racquel, and pointed out some of the things she's posted that seem creepy to me, but haven't gotten a response. It's busy time for them and they are constantly traveling, so I'm sure she'll respond when she can. I'm positive that if she's not banned outright she'll be at very least spoken to and carefully monitored.

They can't really do much about her going on her own by herself, however. I'm positive her solo trip had nothing to do with Scripture Union, as she couldn't afford the costs associated with that - each group (no matter the size) makes a donation to the homes to be allowed to go, to assist in the running of the homes and cover materials costs for the work they're doing while there. That donation doesn't vary by size of the group unless it's an unusually large group when it might go up, is my understanding. If she's visiting a guy who has aged out and is living independently, they have no say in that.

And thanks to everyone for making me aware of this stuff. I believe until I hear from them I've done all I can about this. And I will say that I still think that at least half of this is normal for the culture in Peru, and only looks sketchy because it's Racquel posting it alongside the creepy stuff she posts after she's returned home. Hugging, tickling, hanging all over each other for photos - not a concern to me. Taking a hoodie to SLEEP with? Creepy. On HER part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird that it doesn't say "Christian" on the homepage, but it says "Christian Liberal Arts College" on the tab on my browser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her latest blog post:

Quote

One thing I hate is when people say "You don't know what love is"...in companions to their own personal experiences

I make typos all the time here and always cringe when I see them later, but if I was writing a blog post trying to act like a professional writer, I would proofread. 

Quote

I've actually had someone (a couple years older than me) tell me that I don't know what true love is because I didn't have the type of relationship with my former boyfriend that they had with their ex-girlfriend.  Because THEY loved each other and wanted to get married and blah blah blah. 
Funny thing is, though, he found out that she cheated on him with her coworker.  And they were together for four months total.  Now I'm gonna take my own medicine here and give them the benefit of the doubt that they were truly in love and whatnot.  But...actions speak louder than words, right?  And if what they had was true love, why did she cheat on him?

Raquel always wants to make sure that the people in her life know exactly who it was who pissed her off. She likes making passive-aggressive digs at people who don't fawn over her.

Quote

Love is quite possibly the most amazing, intense, crazy feeling you will ever know.  It changes you.  It takes you on an adventure.  It makes you fly. 

I'm been married all this time and I've not started to fly. :my_sad: Raquel is still caught up in a Nicholas Sparks/Pinterest version of romance. Love is amazing and it does change you, but often the adventures are your spouse watching the kids so you can go to the grocery store by yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She ends that entry with

Quote

And above all, encourage the positive energy, the positive love, and the beautiful things in life.

Unless someone has said something you don't like. In that case, be sure to make a point of their failings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Her latest blog post:

I make typos all the time here and always cringe when I see them later, but if I was writing a blog post trying to act like a professional writer, I would proofread. 

Raquel always wants to make sure that the people in her life know exactly who it was who pissed her off. She likes making passive-aggressive digs at people who don't fawn over her.

I'm been married all this time and I've not started to fly. :my_sad: Raquel is still caught up in a Nicholas Sparks/Pinterest version of romance. Love is amazing and it does change you, but often the adventures are your spouse watching the kids so you can go to the grocery store by yourself. 

This, quite literally. I used to really look forward to going to the commissary by myself. I would stretch that trip out to two or three hours sometimes, just to have that me time. :pb_lol:  Fortunately I'm not married to Ken Alexander. My husband didn't consider it baby sitting, or 'permitting me' some time to myself. He was a parent. And I swear sometimes he seemed almost disappointed when I finally got home because he loved having big chunks of one-on-one time with our kids. Give me that over Nicholas Sparks crap any day. :pb_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is  - because I stumbled onto the tuition/fees when I clicked the link and poked around a bit earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 26, 2016 at 6:58 AM, formergothardite said:

I'm not sure that the hoodie owner and the person she visited are the same people. She is very liberal with the "best friend" phrase and called several of them her best friend. The hoodie guy had been at the boy's home since the first time she visited, and looked rather youngish in her first pictures from Peru. He was still living there when she took his hoodie to sleep with. 

It sounds like the guy she visited this time and gave a cell phone to, she met at the boy's home, but now he has aged out. Raquel meeting a teen boy on a mission trip and then flying to Peru to shower him with gifts as soon as he is 18 sounds disturbing too. 

Raquel makes the boy's home look really, really bad. Another reason they should cut all ties with her. 

      So she basically took the clothes off of an orpan's back. 

        I realize Peruvian culture may be a culture where people are more phisicaly affectionate with one another, it seems though that the boys may possibly feel they are in a subordinate posisition to Raquel. What if they didn't want to be touched and tickled? Would they feel like they can say that to a volunteer? What if a boy felt left out or another one jealous? What if a boy misunderstood her intentions? It seems like a slippery slope.

      

  Quote

I've actually had someone (a couple years older than me) tell me that I don't know what true love is because I didn't have the type of relationship with my former boyfriend that they had with their ex-girlfriend.  Because THEY loved each other and wanted to get married and blah blah blah. 
Funny thing is, though, he found out that she cheated on him with her coworker.  And they were together for four months total.  Now I'm gonna take my own medicine here and give them the benefit of the doubt that they were truly in love and whatnot.  But...actions speak louder than words, right?  And if what they had was true love, why did she cheat on him?

        In regards to this quote. If you understood love you would understand how painful this situation must be and not bring it up. You sound almost like you relish the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am part Peruvian, (don't worry Raquel, only 1/4th so you're still better than me) and I can tell you that South American culture can be very stoic, mothers are generally a bit cold towards their children. It is more common of the Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and general Mediterranean culture to be overly affectionate, but not Latin America. Even if it was, Raquel is dealing with ORPHANS. Her behavior is going to confuse them, and she is taking advantage of them.

P.S. I am thankful that I did not inherit my dad's Peruvian nose ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not Peruvian, or even South American.  I am Guatemalan though, so very intimately acquainted with Latin American culture.  Yes, Latin American culture can be very outgoing and friendly - and the personal "bubble" of space that we are accustomed to in N. America doesn't exist, but I don't know of anywhere in Latin America, that being that touchy-feely with a person of the opposite gender is considered acceptable behaviour.  And, if these boys are street-wise orphans, they have definitely been exposed to inappropriate sexual behaviour and are most likely, very hyper-sexualized.  Nothing that Raquel has done with them is ok.  

Also, I am giving this "mission" a massive side-eye for how they are dealing with her and quite frankly, for allowing any of their female guests to interact with the boys in this manner.  As an MK, whose dad worked with several organizations over the past 25 years (including many schools and orphanages), young Miss Raquel would have been given the boot a long time ago.  None of the orphanages he worked with would have allowed people of the opposite gender to spend the night anywhere on the property.  And great care was taken by the organizations to ensure that nothing inappropriate ever happened, several people were asked to leave on various occasions.  

Also, 16-23 isn't really an age range.  16 year olds are still in high school and are still considered minors everywhere.  23 year olds are grown-ass adults who should be in or just graduated from college, and absolutely need to be held accountable for their actions.  I am 25 now, and I cringe in embarrassment at some of the things I did when I was 16. I hope to god I am not posting the same ridiculous crap on facebook now that I did at 16.  Miss Raquel needs to grow the F up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   @treehugger very well said! I am not comfortable with saying 'it's just the culture!.' That only goes so far. Not to mention what kinds of abuse these boys may have expierienced. And I will point out again if it were reversed and it was a 23 year old male and a 16 year old orphan.......I think they can be streetwise and hardened and vulnerable all at the same time.

       I am sure these people do good things and help lots of people, and maybe they have bigger, more urgent crap to deal with, and they don't want to alienate thier volunteers........it still doesn't look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always a fine line, dealing with volunteers and short-term missions staff, because of course so many just want to help (as an aside, I HATE, with a passion short term missions for so many reasons).  But, what Raquel is doing with these boys is actively harmful to them.  While the organization may have lots going on, if they actually care about the children in their charge, , they will deal with her immediately.  These boys have been through enough hurt and trauma to last a lifetime - they do not need a ditzy do-gooder with no education, training or experience, inflicting any more on them.  As an organization, you pander to the volunteers who actually have something to offer (trained counselors, medical personnel, teachers, etc...) they do not need an uneducated woman-child messing around with their boys.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should really have teen girls/women who are close in age to the teen boys only work with the younger kids to avoid the whole issue of "crushes" and women like Raquel posing with teen boys kissing her. I'm pretty sure Raquel wouldn't go if she was not allowed access to the older boys. 

5 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

And I will point out again if it were reversed and it was a 23 year old male and a 16 year old orphan.......I think they can be streetwise and hardened and vulnerable all at the same time.

Exactly. If roles were reversed, there would be no question that this is predatory behavior. 

Scripture Union needs to do some soul searching about the vetting of these short term volunteers. Clearly their process isn't working because they let a person like Raquel not only come down several times, but also come as a team leader. 

If Scripture Union doesn't want to be associated with Raquel, then they should not have associated with her and when they learned of her behavior, should have immediately called her up to cut all ties and do what they could to keep her from staying in contact with boys who still live in the home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, treehugger said:

It's always a fine line, dealing with volunteers and short-term missions staff, because of course so many just want to help (as an aside, I HATE, with a passion short term missions for so many reasons).  But, what Raquel is doing with these boys is actively harmful to them.  While the organization may have lots going on, if they actually care about the children in their charge, , they will deal with her immediately.  These boys have been through enough hurt and trauma to last a lifetime - they do not need a ditzy do-gooder with no education, training or experience, inflicting any more on them.  As an organization, you pander to the volunteers who actually have something to offer (trained counselors, medical personnel, teachers, etc...) they do not need an uneducated woman-child messing around with their boys.  

I always thought short term missions seemed to hurt more than help. These people aren't worth the organization's time, because they aren't even there long enough to be properly trained. They aren't truly invested in where they are "serving". In my experience, all the people who go off and so short term missions usually have run out of options (job, education) where they are at. I think it's unfair they go and serve willy nilly at places who should be able to spend their precious resources training more permanent help. Why let donors spend tens of thousands of dollars letting a group of 15 kids be at a place for two weeks rather than supporting two or three local (yes, local, Americans don't need to go and save the world themselves) individuals to be long term staff. 

 

Oh wait, but then the American Christians don't get the "experience", right? Well boo hoo - if you want a spiritual experience, have it at your own expense, don't waste the time of people overseas who could use that money for someone who I actually worth their time.

This whole short term missions thing, namely YWAM, is rooted in Western privilege. Most of these people just want an escape and want the photo ops, they would never spend more than a couple months someplace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most short-term missions are a complete waste of time and money for the organizations they are trying to help.  The only exception to that rule that I can think of is medical short-term missions, where you have highly skilled professionals volunteering their time and skills, (as an aside, on all of the medical mission trips that I have been involved with, the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc... paid for everything themselves, including rent for use of the guest facilities on site and food).  

Any short term mission involving teenagers and unskilled labourers are guaranteed to not only waste everyone's time, but also take away jobs from the local people.  If you want to go and see the rest of the world, great - but do it on your own time with your own money.  Any money that could be begged for your mission trip would be better off being donated directly to the organization.  Many local people could be employed with that money, and the ripple effect would be far bigger.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2016 at 1:56 PM, Alisamer said:

I've messaged the coordinator of the groups and asked about this Racquel, and pointed out some of the things she's posted that seem creepy to me, but haven't gotten a response. It's busy time for them and they are constantly traveling, so I'm sure she'll respond when she can. I'm positive that if she's not banned outright she'll be at very least spoken to and carefully monitored.

Thank you.  I'd be very interested to know what she says.  Unfortunately the cat is well out of the bag when it comes to SU, Peru.  Raquel let that kitty escape ages ago - its name is out there and her behavior does reflect badly on the organization.

I have the impression that they may have spoken to Raquel already (coughs discretely).  Whether that means they addressed the actual behavior with the boys, or the social media and blog shenanigans, I don't know.  It also doesn't mean they won't allow her back with better supervision.

Like @treehugger, I am a former MK.  Also like her, I am very skeptical about the benefits of the short-term missions, especially when you have a gaggle of youngsters without training and who can't even speak the language.  It is one thing to have teams of high-school and young college volunteers  spend a couple of weeks digging trenches and building walls.  It is quite another to let them loose "counselling" abused and vulnerable children.  You need trained people and long-term stays for that.  You don't want lightweight idiots like Raquel - even if she does speak Spanish.  She's more trouble than she's worth.

Frankly, the main purposes of the short-term missions for untrained people (voluntourism or misscations) are to raise awareness in the young people's countries of origin - and to give the kids the illusion of helping and some international travel experiences.  IMO, the money spent getting to Peru could be donated outright to the mission with better effects.  The mission can then give employment to nationals in building projects and not have to supervise groups of kids who are wet behind the ears and potential liabilities.

I'm sorry if that hurts people's feelings if they have been on short-term missions, but it is how I feel strongly.

Looking at the SU, Peru Facebook, it seems that they are entering a new phase and will have fewer building projects in the future.  That means more evangelizing and interaction with the children.  That also means that they are going to have to be much more careful who they allow on the short-term mission trips, and how they monitor and train them in the first place.  There have been too many scandals over predators self-selecting into these mission groups.  

This article was linked from the SU, Peru Facebook and I found it interesting:  http://uwm.org/2016/03/1309/platform=hootsuite

The writer means well, and at least she developed a continuing and very useful relationship with SU Peru herself.  However, I'm afraid I don't agree with her about the benefits of short-term missions and I think she sounds extremely naive.  I wonder whether she would be able to clamp down on misbehaving Raquel-types in these groups.  I think it needs firm action and direction from the top - and definitely fewer short term missions from high school students and college age idiots like Raquel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Like @treehugger, I am a former MK.  Also like her, I am very skeptical about the benefits of the short-term missions, especially when you have a gaggle of youngsters without training and who can't even speak the language.  It is one thing to have teams of high-school and young college volunteers  spend a couple of weeks digging trenches and building walls.  It is quite another to let them loose "counselling" abused and vulnerable children.  You need trained people and long-term stays for that.  You don't want lightweight idiots like Raquel - even if she does speak Spanish.  She's more trouble than she's worth.

Frankly, the main purposes of the short-term missions for untrained people (voluntourism or misscations) are to raise awareness in the young people's countries of origin - and to give the kids the illusion of helping and some international travel experiences.  IMO, the money spent getting to Peru could be donated outright to the mission with better effects.  The mission can then give employment to nationals in building projects and not have to supervise groups of kids who are wet behind the ears and potential liabilities.

I'm sorry if that hurts people's feelings if they have been on short-term missions, but it is how I feel strongly.

I completely agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, but voluntourism almost always does more harm than good. Even if the voluntourists aren't actively harming members of the community, the presence of free labor undercuts the ability of locals to find paying work. Why pay a local guy a day's wage when you can have an American teenager/young adult pay you to do it? This kind of thing does very real, long-term damage to local economies. 

As for the counseling thing-- as a licensed therapist, it always burns my biscuits when fundies try to pretend that they're mental health providers. As far as overseas work goes, Doctors Without Borders hires mental health professionals. In order to qualify, though, you have to have:

  • the requisite education to be a licensed therapist in the US (at minimum, a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in one of the mental health disciplines).
  • an unrestricted clinical license (which entails, at minimum, completing 2-4 years of supervised practice and passing 1-3 board exams, depending on one's clinical specialty)
  • completed 2 years minimum of post-licensure practice
  • training and experience in treating PTSD

They also prefer it if you speak French or Arabic. 

Not seeing a lot of that in fundie circles...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xRoo said:

Someone else is mad too. 

image.png

How do you find this stuff? I guess I'm not as twitter-savvy as I thought I was..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • samurai_sarah locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.