Where In The World Is Doug Philips (Who Is A Tool)?? (Part 4)

[nausicaa]

3 hours ago, ladyamylynn said:

Right? There's one woman hand-wringing and praying for Doug's soul, all the while demeaning Flo and basically calling her a hooker. I feel bad that she ever got mixed up with Doug and this band of judgemental bitches.

I worried that this would happen, and felt bad about Flo and her vintage quirky Franco-coolness potentially getting besmirched by her unknowingly associating with such a con artist. 

Like, last time I checked we have zero evidence that Flo has ever cheated on her husband, fleeced people out of their money by running a religious scam, or raped anyone, so maybe they just redirect their aspersions and their prayers. 

 

Also, it's interesting that Ashley Schnarr Easter (i.e., the one time media posterchild for the SAHD movement) is chiming in. She's definitely a great example of people evolving in their beliefs. 

I still don't understand equating burlesque with sex trafficking though. I understand having conservative beliefs that stop you from attending a show, but maybe I've just met too many burlesque performers to think of it as anything other than a dance performance by artsy chicks into makeup and dressing up. 

[Quinquagenarian]

I agree  Flo didn't ask to be slimed by this sleazeball. Flo's husband looks like he could easily whoop DPIART. I think she will begone with the little man if she discovers all this or not care as long as he takes good pictures. How they equate the performance with trafficking Defies sound reasoning.   These folks are willingly performing.  And enjoying themselves....Including the desperate or not so desperate housewives of Durango. 

[hoipolloi]

Genuine victimhood notwithstanding, the slut shaming by the good Christian ladies over there on FB is really vicious.

They remind me of the village women closing in on Tessie Hutchinson at the end of Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery."

[Anonymousguest]

Yeah, the burlesque= sex trafficking is  weird, but it just shows naivete I think, not malice. Some strippers possibly are victims of sex trafficking, but he's not filming in strip clubs, lol! (Or at least hasn't posted evidence of that, lol)

[Quinquagenarian]

1 hour ago, Anonymousguest said:

Yeah, the burlesque= sex trafficking is  weird, but it just shows naivete I think, not malice. Some strippers possibly are victims of sex trafficking, but he's not filming in strip clubs, lol! (Or at least hasn't posted evidence of that, lol)

Naïveté. Hmm. That might be generous. I think it's painting with a broad brush and perhaps feigned ignorance to meanspiritedly trash Flo a bit. Or is there a subculture within the VF crowd of men and strippers (i.e. foxy Bubbles) that these "ladies" know more about than they are letting on?  Surely they are not going to try and claim les Belgiques seduced DPIART into filming them?  

 

Update--I reread the thread at this point and I see the naïveté theory. She seems to equate any commercial use of sex such as stripping or porn with " trafficking". Ignorance versus naïveté maybe. 

[Columbia]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Also, it's interesting that Ashley Schnarr Easter (i.e., the one time media posterchild for the SAHD movement) is chiming in. She's definitely a great example of people evolving in their beliefs. 

Where do you see that? I can't find it anywhere. 

[RebelliousEscapee]

12 minutes ago, Columbia said:

Where do you see that? I can't find it anywhere. 

Its in this comment thread. 

[NachosFlandersStyle]

2 hours ago, Quinquagenarian said:

 She seems to equate any commercial use of sex such as stripping or porn with " trafficking".

I think that the reason a lot of evangelical churches have latched onto the sex trafficking issue is that it gives them a way to express their anxieties about sexuality without appearing hateful or oppressive. I mean, I'm sure there are evangelicals out there who are genuinely doing good work to prevent human trafficking, but for the most part it seems like they have a pretty shallow analysis of the issue (see here, here). It's a way to wring their hands about sex-- not labor exploitation, not poverty, not systemic oppression, just sex-- in a way that looks concerned and compassionate. And when that half-assed analysis becomes a standard talking point in church, surely a lot of churchgoers are going to come away with an even more muddled picture of the issue.

I suppose it also comes back to the idea of protecting your daughters. Doug's followers, present and former, are primed to believe that their lily-white suburban daughters are under constant threat of being snatched off the street by some predator unless they keep constant guard. So who's to say that this healthy, middle class, self-esteem-possessing woman who performs openly in her own community isn't a victim? In their version of the world, the risk factors aren't poverty or precarious housing situations or global migration. Anyone who isn't under her father's protection is probably being controlled by another man!

[Cartmann99]

I've been so consumed with the Donald Trump saga, that I haven't been keeping up with Doug Phillips. I just finished reading all of part four today to try and catch up on some of what I've missed. I'm glad to see that some of his former fans are now reassessing the mountain of bullshit they have so stridently defended in the past. 

 

[Howl]

@NachosFlandersStyle, all good points. 

I'm fascinated by the discussion going on over at the Valerie Jacobson page.  Many different viewpoints heard from.  Yes, the broadness of the sex trafficking angle is very weird to us;  I can see how some would view it differently and VERY differently.  When cloaking the female body is synonymous with purity, the celebration of physicality is scary.  The incredible athleticism and sheer strength of the dancers, slack liners, hoopers and silk performers (whatever that's called) is simply mind blowing. 

There are women chiming in to say that the whole VF thing (and especially upper management) gave off a very weird and unpleasant vibe when they encountered it in person, and found DPIAT to be a tool from the first moment they met him.  There are  women commenting who were attracted to patriarchy because it originally seemed like a safe haven from abuse and found out otherwise.   

But the three-hour conversation™ anecdote is the weirdest and most telling thing of all (to me). 

The fetish angle is being explored. 

Another angle being explored is when various bible verses are used like a cudgel to excuse the inexcusable, keep people silent, and women in bad, bad marriages.

It's ick to see feminism bashed as evil and  anti-Christian at the same time that some of the commenters are voicing the first glimmers of awareness of their power as women. 

 

 

[Maxwell]

7 minutes ago, Howl said:

@NachosFlandersStyle, all good points. 

I'm fascinated by the discussion going on over at the Valerie Jacobson page.  Many different viewpoints heard from.  Yes, the broadness of the sex trafficking angle is very weird to us;  I can see how some would view it differently and VERY differently.  When cloaking the female body is synonymous with purity, the celebration of physicality is scary.  The incredible athleticism and sheer strength of the dancers, slack liners, hoopers and silk performers (whatever that's called) is simply mind blowing. 

There are women chiming in to say that the whole VF thing (and especially upper management) gave off a very weird and unpleasant vibe when they encountered it in person, and found DPIAT to be a tool from the first moment they met him.  There are  women commenting who were attracted to patriarchy because it originally seemed like a safe haven from abuse and found out otherwise.   

But the three-hour conversation™ anecdote is the weirdest and most telling thing of all (to me). 

The fetish angle is being explored. 

Another angle being explored is when various bible verses are used like a cudgel to excuse the inexcusable, keep people silent, and women in bad, bad marriages.

It's ick to see feminism bashed as evil and  anti-Christian at the same time that some of the commenters are voicing the first glimmers of awareness of their power as women. 

 

 

Sounds like that post is full of gossip and slander and anyone who claims to be a Christian should stay off of it.

[Howl]

4 minutes ago, Maxwell said:

Sounds like that post is full of gossip and slander and anyone who claims to be a Christian should stay off of it.

Heh. So true.  But there's also a lot of, Holy Crap, did we ever get screwed by VF/patriarchy and other insights with a lot of black-belt bible fu going on. Fascinating from a sociological perspective. 

[Quinquagenarian]

Becky Morecraft is sickened by this? Wasn't her husband one of "the confronters?" I trust she is not SURPRISED. These folks are incredibly slow to wise-up.  Perhaps she is not surprised and just sickened but frankly, they should have been more surprised that DPIART wasn't into some reinvention of himself. Noticeably dominated by female comments versus males.

[RebelliousEscapee]

21 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm fascinated by the discussion going on over at the Valerie Jacobson page.  Many different viewpoints heard from.  Yes, the broadness of the sex trafficking angle is very weird to us;  I can see how some would view it differently and VERY differently.  When cloaking the female body is synonymous with purity, the celebration of physicality is scary.  The incredible athleticism and sheer strength of the dancers, slack liners, hoopers and silk performers (whatever that's called) is simply mind blowing. 

Not teaching consent is part of this as well, methinks. When Christian sex ed consists almost entirely of "this is appropriate sex" and "everything else is an evil abomination", it seems to skew people's perspective. 

As a fairly conservative Christian myself, I would consider burlesque to be inappropriate. But as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult (and not lying through their teeth about having a strict moral code which they impose upon others) I would consider the matter to be none of my business. So long as they're not hurting anyone, who cares?

But when you throw away the teachings of consent (or ruin them by giving daddy dearest the power of consent) then adultery, rape, being gay, pedophilia, incest, and more are all shoved into the same category.

And so sex trafficking sudddenly equals any sexual act that involves money, because consent isn't a thing. Gays are all in favor of pedophilia, Josh Duggar's sin of adultery was just as bad as his molestation of his sisters, and Doug's relationship with Flo is nearly indistinguishable from his relationship with Lourdes. 

Or so some seem to think. 

[Howl]

@RebelliousEscapee, thanks for your thoughtful deconstruction of these teachings.  

[DomWackTroll]

45 minutes ago, Quinquagenarian said:

Noticeably dominated by female comments versus males.

I love how the VF men pretend it's a "gossip issue" that should be left to the chatty, silly womenfolk, when the truth is, most of them are just too cowardly-- even today!-- to speak out against Doug and Vision Forum. 

Even when they are brought into the conversation through tagging, you can tell they'd rather be anywhere else in the world. When Perry's dad tagged him (thank you, Perry's dad), Perry responded with a curt, "Yeah, I saw." Later, of course, he said how awful and hypocritical it was, but only because he felt he had to. There's no way on earth he would have ever started this conversation himself. 

[Marian the Librarian]

You're right, as usual, DWT. Where is the outrage, where are the comments, from the manly protective Dominionist men? I'm looking at you, Scott Brown, Botkin pere et fils, Michael Bradrick, Voddie Baucham, Matthew Chancey...how 'bout y'all man up and speak up, so the wimminfolk aren't doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to speaking the truth and shaming the devil?

[Quinquagenarian]

Would someone who can post on that thread, (Marian?) throw them on the scent of DPIART/DW/D. Walrus's Durango Dalliances too?  They are so focused on Flo and France and Fetish/Burlesque.  His frequenting of the watering holes and the plethora of femme friends in Durango should help further break down their Phillips paradigms and pedestals. 

As for the "give him the benefit of the doubt" strand that keeps popping up--what happened to "shaking the dust off their sandals" a la Matthew 10:14 and all of James 2--especially--"For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy" ???

I will wager one of these women has/will write Flo. Poor Flo. She will have NO idea what they are talking about.

 

[Howl]

I'm not clear on the Durango dalliances other than filming the Imaginario Circus. Am I missing something?

[Maxwell]

50 minutes ago, Quinquagenarian said:

... DPIART/DW/D. Walrus's Durango Dalliances ...

(Quote seriously trimmed as I just got may hands slapped with a 0 point warning.  Hope I didn't include too much of the quote this time)

Walrus stories as already been mentioned but you'll have to expand some of the replies to find it -- which is why I'm assuming it's not getting more tractions.

[ladyamylynn]

1 hour ago, Marian the Librarian said:

 Where is the outrage, where are the comments, from the manly protective Dominionist men? 

Well, then they would have to admit publicly, in front of women no less, that they were wrong in their association with Doug, and that they exercised poor judgement. Not gonna happen. They'll relegate any truth-telling on this matter to the lady-folk, who are acting as their proxies. 

[Quinquagenarian]

22 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm not clear on the Durango dalliances other than filming the Imaginario Circus. Am I missing something?

Just all his chumminess with the womenfolk there. Someone highlighted a "beautiful couple" from there who were lovely enough in normal eyes but would not be Vision Forum's Catalog Cover a few years ago, etc. On his cinematographer page, one Durango gal says, "I want to come" and his reply is "Come along.
 or "Come on."  (NOTE: This is different than the lesson he learned as Billy Graham's driver.)   He's primarily involved/followed/posts by females from Durango who with him,  make references to local restaurants/bars etc.  I'm sure those gatherings and social times are when DPIART is not at The Quarry Church outdoors club or whatever it is.

[Destiny]

26 minutes ago, Maxwell said:

(Quote seriously trimmed as I just got may hands slapped with a 0 point warning.  Hope I didn't include too much of the quote this time)

First, this discussion belongs in community discussion if you have a question about a warning. That said, I'm going to answer you here because you made it a part of another post. When you are quoting a person, please quote only relevant bits, like I have done here. It's PAINFUL for people on mobile to have to scroll through a long quote to just see that someone has commented on only one part of the whole, and since over 50% of our traffic is people on cellphones, it's best to be nice to our friends on mobile. Also, a zero point warning is simply a "hey, you broke x rule so you know for the future," not a handslap. If you would like to discuss this further, Community Discussion is the venue please. 

Topic: I agree entirely with @Howl. While I'm horrified by the slut shaming and just as confused by the sex trafficking angle as everyone, it's interesting to see the beginnings of a real conversation about how this cult / lifestyle / fundamentalism / whatever the hell you want to call it hurts women and families. I am curious to see if this will become an ongoing conversation in these circles and or lead to more families seeing that this isn't for them. 

[Howl]

Wanted to add a bit more in response to @RebelliousEscapee's post:  

And when you combine this: 

Not teaching consent is part of this as well, methinks. When Christian sex ed consists almost entirely of "this only married sex is appropriate sex and everything else is an evil abomination"

and 

when you throw away the teachings of consent (or ruin them by giving daddy dearest the power of consent)  

and indoctrinate daughters to submit to absolute male headship power, they normalize physical, sexual, emotional and spiritual abuse in marriage.  Not saying it always occurs. 

At the same time, at least some of the women posting on Ms. Jacobson's page who didn't originally understand that abuse was happening in their own marriages, consider themselves perfectly capable of condemning what they see as abuse in the evil secular world, with one of the root causes (in their minds) being feminism.

 Some of the women commenters have sorted out the first part of this equation (they finally recognized abuse in their own marriage and are no longer married) although their church hierarchy strongly encouraged staying with the abuser. 

They haven't sorted out the second part of the equation -- that they can even leave their marriages, are allowed to divorce and have  choices about how and where to live their lives precisely because feminist activists forged the way.  My grandmother was born into a world where she was not allowed to vote; as a young married woman she still didn't have the vote.  So yes, feminists (suffragettes) started the battle for women's rights a long time ago. 

When my mom began the process of  divorcing my very alcoholic dad in the 1960s, she could not open a bank account in her own name.  She'd had a full time job for years. My dad was no longer living in the house.  Think about that. Not being able to open her own bank account to deposit her own earnings was just the first of many legal and financial hurdles women faced when trying to divorce in those days. 

[hoipolloi]

3 hours ago, RebelliousEscapee said:

But when you throw away the teachings of consent (or ruin them by giving daddy dearest the power of consent) then adultery, rape, being gay, pedophilia, incest, and more are all shoved into the same category.

And so sex trafficking sudddenly equals any sexual act that involves money, because consent isn't a thing. Gays are all in favor of pedophilia, Josh Duggar's sin of adultery was just as bad as his molestation of his sisters, and Doug's relationship with Flo is nearly indistinguishable from his relationship with Lourdes. 

So well said, @RebelliousEscapee.

There may also be a big, probably unacknowledged or unrecognized streak of jealousy among the discussants on FB over the fact that Flo appears to be leading a life that she enjoys and planned for by pursuing academic & work goals to get there. To boot, Flo also appears to be happily married and has a cute kid as well as friends & colleagues with whom she likes working.

All this, and she didn't have to be a slave to some asshat "patriarch" or suffer the abuse many of the commenters seem to have undergone, never mind not swearing allegiance to some bogus "Christian" cult with a zillion rules.

It is an enlightening & sad discussion.