Bethany Patchin speaks out (and a NYT article)

[hoipolloi]

Alecto: Good points - I think we were posting simultaneously.

I agree that her public statements, without elaboration or context, are not going to do anyone much good, particularly the children.

[Juliakitty]

You make good points. Sam Torode's sister turned up on the old board, so his family clearly Googles him at least occasionally.

Further, I think he has zero chance of remarrying unless he sues her for full custody now. If he says nothing and does nothing, it's as good as an admission that her version of events is the truth. If his position is that she's lying/disturbed/mistaken, then he needs to remove his minor children from such a person's care. In the eyes of future partners, he's either a rapist or a shitty father who lets his kids spend most of their time with a crazy/disturbed/lying person while doing nothing to protect them.

This is likely going to turn into the kind of drama that never dies...and Google is forever. Even if she deleted them now, it's too late.

This. I remember when Sam's sister came here. I don't for a second doubt Bethany's version of events, and I even understand why she decided to blog about it, but this is seriously going to bite her in the @$$ as well as possibly harming the kids.

I have been thinking about this all day, about how saving your first kiss for your wedding not only doesn't guarantee you a happy marriage, it doesn't even guarantee that your husband won't butt-rape you. Sam and Bethany seem to have come to their senses, but why won't the current people see what happened to them and learn from it? I like how in the NYT article Sam says he is out of the business of telling other people what they should do. Why can't more people learn from that? It really frustrates me.

[browngrl]

I wonder why she chose to speak to the NYT or to blog about this now. Why does she allege rape and offer lurid details in a public forum when she does not seem to have any intention on acting on her words? If this whole confession was just to ease her mind it would have been better dealt with in a confidential therapeutic counselling session. If this confession was to bring light to a crime that has gone unpunished it would have been better dealt with by a lawyer/the police. This story will surely disrupt what ever calm her children have in their lives. I hope she is prepared to deal with the collateral damage.

Edit: I thought about this for a while before I posted and after I did - I realized that others had said the same thing. Sorry for the duplication.

[Rosa]

It's possible she's talked to him about this first. They've both completely left the Evangelical movement, and he was interviewed for the story as well.

[Austin]

She did address these issues just a bit in her response to a commenter (I think the last commenter).

[aerynoctober]

She seems to think her kids will never see it. The eldest is nearly ten. His parents' love story is in the foreword to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" (or at least the last time I saw that book, it was). He'll Google them in no more than three or four years. Hell, his parents have been in the New York Times. He's going to find out. And once he does it's a matter of time until the younger ones do.

She's being terribly naive there. :?

[Austin]

She seems to think her kids will never see it. The eldest is nearly ten. His parents' love story is in the foreword to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" (or at least the last time I saw that book, it was). He'll Google them in no more than three or four years. Hell, his parents have been in the New York Times. He's going to find out. And once he does it's a matter of time until the younger ones do.

She's being terribly naive there. :?

I had the same thoughts. I just thought it was interesting that she had considered these issues and how she believes it will play out.

[treemom]

No one had a problem when Redheadskeptic posted her story. It isn't like unwanted anal sex could be substantiated anyhow.

Do I think it was the best idea to blog it? No. But I also don't think it was wrong per se either.

[Lainey]

Did I wake up in a different dimension?

[aerynoctober]

No one had a problem when Redheadskeptic posted her story. It isn't like unwanted anal sex could be substantiated anyhow.

Do I think it was the best idea to blog it? No. But I also don't think it was wrong per se either.

"Redheadskeptic" isn't a fundie celebrity. We are not using her name. Her four (!) children's names, ages, and photos weren't in the New York Times yesterday. Very big difference.

[demgirl]

I support Bethany in writing what she needs to write and telling what she needs to tell, not only for her own emotional recovery, but also as a warning to those considering entering into a Patriarchal and quiverfull religion.

It's not like the national article talks about the rape. It's much more of two young people explaining they don't know everything and that P/QF can be dangerous to emotional and physical health.

I don't want to start a fight, but sometimes it feels like the P/QF people can't win with people like us. If they stay, we criticize them for their choices (as I believe we should and that it is a valid criticism). If they leave, we speculate why. If they tell us, we say they should be silent, because of how it could affect their children or because they don't go about it in a way that we personally find to be best. I understand where people are coming from, but how can it be bad to go public on this movement? Isn't that what (most of us) want -- enough publicity about the problems with this movement that those who enter it do so with their eyes wide open?

[brashchick]

She does need to be aware of what her children will be looking up on the internet, though. True story: before I had told my kids I was gay and that was one of the reasons their dad and I had separated, my son's best friend had looked up my match.com profile and told my son. The friend's dad was out there trying to date, and he was checking up on his own dad. Then it was like "Hey, lets see what M's mom is doing now that she is single". It never occured to me this would happen. Teenagers are full of surprises.

[Alecto]

I support Bethany in writing what she needs to write and telling what she needs to tell, not only for her own emotional recovery, but also as a warning to those considering entering into a Patriarchal and quiverfull religion.

It's not like the national article talks about the rape. It's much more of two young people explaining they don't know everything and that P/QF can be dangerous to emotional and physical health.

I don't want to start a fight, but sometimes it feels like the P/QF people can't win with people like us. If they stay, we criticize them for their choices (as I believe we should and that it is a valid criticism). If they leave, we speculate why. If they tell us, we say they should be silent, because of how it could affect their children or because they don't go about it in a way that we personally find to be best. I understand where people are coming from, but how can it be bad to go public on this movement? Isn't that what (most of us) want -- enough publicity about the problems with this movement that those who enter it do so with their eyes wide open?

The problem is LEGALLY she has put herself into a bad situation. This kind of thing can be (and frequently is) painted as Parental Alienation. Putting up unsubstantiated accusations that your ex is a rapist is just asking for him to take you to court and take custody away from you. Most custody agreements prohibit either parent from "badmouthing" the other in front of the children, and putting your dirty laundry in a public venue (such as a major newspaper) would qualify.

[aerynoctober]

I support Bethany in writing what she needs to write and telling what she needs to tell, not only for her own emotional recovery, but also as a warning to those considering entering into a Patriarchal and quiverfull religion.

It's not like the national article talks about the rape. It's much more of two young people explaining they don't know everything and that P/QF can be dangerous to emotional and physical health.

I don't want to start a fight, but sometimes it feels like the P/QF people can't win with people like us. If they stay, we criticize them for their choices (as I believe we should and that it is a valid criticism). If they leave, we speculate why. If they tell us, we say they should be silent, because of how it could affect their children or because they don't go about it in a way that we personally find to be best. I understand where people are coming from, but how can it be bad to go public on this movement? Isn't that what (most of us) want -- enough publicity about the problems with this movement that those who enter it do so with their eyes wide open?

I don't disagree. She does need to write and talk and tell. That doesn't mean she needed to discuss the details sufficiently to set up her kids to hear "OMG, your parents got divorced because your dad butt-raped your mom!!!" on the playground. Which, she now has.

Their names are widely and well known in fundie circles. They have *unusual* first names. Torode is not a common last name. Just by googling their OWN names, they're going to find their mother's blog eventually.

Talking/telling/warning = laudable.

Sufficient detail to scar your children, give them insane emotional baggage, and hurt their relationship with their dad forever = unwise at best.

Wouldn't YOU feel guilty loving someone who ass-raped YOUR mom?

[GenerationCedarchip]

The problem is LEGALLY she has put herself into a bad situation. This kind of thing can be (and frequently is) painted as Parental Alienation. Putting up unsubstantiated accusations that your ex is a rapist is just asking for him to take you to court and take custody away from you. Most custody agreements prohibit either parent from "badmouthing" the other in front of the children, and putting your dirty laundry in a public venue (such as a major newspaper) would qualify.

Yes, this. Even if you don't have a custody agreement, a lot of states put this kind of language in their court orders on custody, too. It's one thing to talk about it in therapy(and probably very healthy to do so), but it's another thing to air it publicly where all the family and friends can see it.

[Lainey]

It's just that, y'know, if he hadn't raped her in the first place, she wouldn't have it to write about. So really, if what she says is true (and I have no reason to doubt her, sounds truthful to me), the fault is his.

[aerynoctober]

It's just that, y'know, if he hadn't raped her in the first place, she wouldn't have it to write about. So really, if what she says is true (and I have no reason to doubt her, sounds truthful to me), the fault is his.

If he wishes to assert legally that it isn't true, your statement here is excellent evidence that she has influenced his reputation (and, given that he is self-employed, quite probably his livelihood) negatively.

It isn't only men whose relationships with their children can be controlled and regulated by the courts. Women have to be accountable, too. True or not, it was a wildly stupid thing to post on a blog.

[Lainey]

I get your point, I really do. It just sucks to see that if she was a victim of rape, she's still at fault.

[Alecto]

It's just that, y'know, if he hadn't raped her in the first place, she wouldn't have it to write about. So really, if what she says is true (and I have no reason to doubt her, sounds truthful to me), the fault is his.

If she has a standard custodial court order in Tennessee, then she likely violated said court order, therefore the fault is hers for doing that.

[aerynoctober]

I get your point, I really do. It just sucks to see that if she was a victim of rape, she's still at fault.

Yes, it does. Life is brutally unfair sometimes.

[masagoroll]

The problem is LEGALLY she has put herself into a bad situation. This kind of thing can be (and frequently is) painted as Parental Alienation. Putting up unsubstantiated accusations that your ex is a rapist is just asking for him to take you to court and take custody away from you. Most custody agreements prohibit either parent from "badmouthing" the other in front of the children, and putting your dirty laundry in a public venue (such as a major newspaper) would qualify.

The major newspaper article did not mention the rape or any particular bad thing about either parent. It was pretty non-confrontational.

The blog is a public venue, too, though, I suppose.

[lovefromgirl]

Yes, it does. Life is brutally unfair sometimes.

It doesn't have to be.

I read Bethany as saying, "My husband had no idea how to be a husband, including the part where you don't rape your wife." Someone taught him to think that way, and considering how young they were, it doesn't take but a minute's deeper thought to get to "Sam was taught some whacked-out things about sex" from "Sam raped Bethany during their marriage." Especially not from the way she said it, both on her blog and in the NYT article. She was cautious to remind the reader that she still considers him a fit father, because his attitudes still came from a place of sexuality belonging to adults (as opposed to the assumption that he's going to rape his kids, too) and that both of them have undergone dramatic changes in the years since their separation and divorce.

So if we're going to knee-jerk this, and assume that the courts would knee-jerk it too--you know, instead of carefully examining evidence, listening to Sam and Bethany themselves, getting both of the parties psych evals--sure, Bethany should sit down and shut up. But. Maybe I'm naïve, but I can still believe in a society that thinks beyond the first impression, especially the part of it devoted to justice.

I'm also of the opinion that how we respond to things like this does say a lot about who we are, however unintentionally. Aeryn, I get the impression you're not quite as trusting as I am when it comes to the courts operating on common sense and deeper thought. Am I way off-base in that impression? Honest question, no snark intended.

[antifundie]

I think that it's good that she said this--in the sense that it shows how this movement can negatively affect both men and women.

I'm not excusing rape at all, BUT it sounds like this guy was never taught about healthy sexuality. There is this whole idea of your body belonging to your spouse in this movement, and you combine that with a dose of patriarchy and you can end up with a rapist who feels that he has the right to do whatever he wants to his wife's body, because he OWNS her.

Again, I'm not excusing this behavior. I am saying that rape, marital rape, and how to have healthy discussions of sexuality (i.e., "I want to try anal. How would you feel about that?") are not taught or discussed much in this culture. I think it was Austin (forgive me if I'm wrong!) who mentioned that she talked with her boys about consent and what it means, which I think is very important in discussing sexuality as a whole, for girls and boys. That's not discussed so much, except for the "don't let a boy pressure you" and the underlying idea that rape was something that happened to girls who didn't follow the rules of dress or behavior.

Guess what is NOT talked about in any of the Christian sex/development books I've read (granted, ones for teenagers, not married people)? Consent. Because it's NOT an issue because you will be PURE on your wedding day--there is no criteria for consent or what it means until the magic marriage words are spoken. And then the expectation is that you can go hog-wild on your honeymoon.

Since it's not really encouraged to talk about sexual expectations prior to the wedding, bride might go in expecting candles, flowers, and tender touching, while groom might be wanting to try anal on the first go. (Or vice versa.) NOBODY (especially women) are taught how to say no (nor do they get any practice saying it), they aren't used to having intimate sexual conversations (which are hard enough, I would imagine, without fundie upbringing)--you can see where I'm going with this. In the best of relationships, this is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not commenting on Bethany in particular--I'm saying that in that culture, it would never be mentioned that rape was a possibility after the wedding. Nobody would tell you that if your husband wanted something sexually that you didn't that you had the right to say no. Obviously, I don't know what happend between this particular couple, but I am saying a woman in that situation might not realize that something counted as rape. Or that she could say no. Or that what she was experiencing in the bedroom was unhealthy--because again, you're not given a healthy expectation of sexuality.

Same applies a man. He might not know what could be considered rape, or consent, or how to talk to his partner. I'm not excusing behavior--BUT, a man raised in this culture probably doesn't think rape exists in marriage, has has been told his wife is there to satisfy all of his sexual needs/urges. It isn't a big leap to see that a sense of entitlement that deep could result in rape, even if the man in question didn't have that as in intent.

I hope this was clear--I'm not excusing behavior. I just think that one other side of patriarchy is that it can/does turn men into (potential, if not actual) rapists.

[Guest Anonymous]

I do think, though, it takes something f-ed up in a man's head to force the woman he loves - or any woman at all - regardless of what level of privilege he's grown up with.

(My emboldening)

This. Lots of fundie men are 'victims' of an upbringing that teaches them that they will rule over their wives including in the bedroom. They don't all go on to force their wives to have sex when she has explicitly said "No" "Stop" and "It hurts".

I'd be very worried about that man influencing my children with his ideas about sex.

It seems to me as though Bethany is still deep in therapy for her pain, and she is sharing her 'aha' moment publicly, without thinking through the potential consequences.

[aerynoctober]

Aeryn, I get the impression you're not quite as trusting as I am when it comes to the courts operating on common sense and deeper thought. Am I way off-base in that impression? Honest question, no snark intended.

You are correct. My attitude is based on my professional experience dealing with the court system, which is long and substantial. The best way to get justice in the USA is to be a wealthy male, a hot female, or to plan strategies assuming the judges are old and inflexible i their thinking, the attorneys are shysters, and the jurors are morons.