Bethany Patchin speaks out (and a NYT article)

[fundiefan]

I ask again. Would you not feel intense guilt, shame, conflict, and confusion if you found out that you had a close and loving relationship with someone who ass-raped your mother?

If your answer is yes, then you have all the evidence you need that it was psychologically damaging, at the least, to make the information public. It puts the kids in the position of feeling intense pulls toward loving their father (with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their time and who, even by their mother's account, is a good father) and the natural desire to hate, loathe, despise and detest someone who would ass-rape anyone, much less your mother.

In the post-feminist era, we women are full adults with moral and legal accountability for our actions and words. That's a double-edged sword. You can't be a helpless victim who is entitled to all sorts of understanding when it suits you and not, when it doesn't.

I know more things about my mother's relationship with both my father and her current husband than I ever needed or wanted to know. And, although much of it repulses me, I am now glad I know. It explains a hell of a lot of secrets and other things that were 'off' as I was growing up. It clarifies a lot of things that in some ways made life really hard and confusing at the time as I was kept in the dark. I know who my father was as a human being and I also know who my mother is as a human being. I take no sides and I never transferred their sick relationships to myself. Trust me, we all have our own sick relationships, I never needed to take on any of their issues.

Yes, she has a responsibility for and towards her kids. The question is, does that responsibility trump her responsibility to herself and her healing? She can't be a healthy mom if she is not a healthy individual. If she is messed up because of not dealing with something, that will affect her children.

The old idea of 'staying together for the kids' was blown out of the water a long time ago.

I am not honestly trying to argue a position. As I said in my very first post on this subject, I am not entirely sure where I stand or what I think. And I sure as hell can't, and won't, say what I would or wouldn't do in her circumstances.

Healing happens in many, many ways. Sometimes, the anger and hatred and revenge have to fully manifest and be acted upon to get to the next step. No one can say what she is feeling, experiencing or going through. And for sure no one can say anything about her ex. Again, I say unless or until he reacts, his possible reaction is not a reason to shut up. Especially on this forum since we don't know him or anything of him or his healing process. He may very well be part of the process. The thinking that men are evil and don't learn does no more damage to 'feminism' than women refusing to take responsibility.

They ARE co-parenting their children. He DID participate in the NYT article. There is more evidence to suggest they are both healing and working together than to suggest that he is going to feel wronged and go out for vindication.

[Alecto]

So? The problem is RHS alleged sexual misconduct but she isn't a fundie celebrity? And you don't think her daughter might be able to google it one day?

Did she use her real name in that story? From a legal POV, there is a difference.

[aerynoctober]

So? The problem is RHS alleged sexual misconduct but she isn't a fundie celebrity? And you don't think her daughter might be able to google it one day?

Anything CAN happen.

It's a question of likelihood. Someone known by a handle (a cursory check of RHS's website shows a first name only), who is NOT a fundie celebrity, who did not, with their former spouse, publish books together about marriage, who did NOT, with their former spouse, become well known for opposing birth control, who did NOT grace the pages of Christianity Today, Focus on the Family, and other Christian magazines, whose love story with their former spouse is NOT the foreword to one of the perennial Christian bestsellers, whose ex-husband is NOT promoting a book at the moment, and who is NOT gracing the pages of the New York Times, has not set about making it virtually impossible for their kid to be spared finding out salacious details.

She has.

Edited to fix a bunch of screwed-up pronoun references. This is what I get for posting on pain meds. Damn knee.

[treemom]

Did she use her real name in that story? From a legal POV, there is a difference.

But people aren't only talking about the legal risk she took, they are assigning a moral value to it. That is what I object to. It is, well, fundamentalist.

[Alecto]

But people aren't only talking about the legal risk she took, they are assigning a moral value to it. That is what I object to. It is, well, fundamentalist.

I disagree with her on a legal basis, and somewhat morally simply because what she is doing is likely in violation of her divorce decree, therefore endangering her custody and possibly allowing someone she says raped her to have custody of her child.

Even if they agree now? Who says they will agree in 2 years? It's better to be safe than sorry.

It reminds me of what a lawyer friend of mine said. He does family law exclusively, and says facebook has made his job so much easier and harder. Easier because you can track down the bad thing your opponent is doing. Harder because they can do the exact same thing. I think sometimes we think we are anonymous on the internet and tend to over share, and that over share can come back to bite us in the ass.

[fundiefan]

But people aren't only talking about the legal risk she took, they are assigning a moral value to it. That is what I object to. It is, well, fundamentalist.

Exactly. You cannot assign a moral value to it. You also cannot assign motives, on either side or assign reactions either. A possible reaction is not a given. Speculation is not fact and by its very nature, is not even known.

Unless you can see into the future, as well as the minds and values of other people, you can't even guess that she is putting custody at risk. For that to happen, there would have to be direct, intentional, specific action on the part of her ex husband. He has not spoken. At least not anywhere that FJ'ers see or know of.

Assigning motives and morals is the same as assigning action. There is no basis for it and it serves no purpose.

[aerynoctober]

Exactly. You cannot assign a moral value to it. You also cannot assign motives, on either side or assign reactions either. A possible reaction is not a given. Speculation is not fact and by its very nature, is not even known.

Unless you can see into the future, as well as the minds and values of other people, you can't even guess that she is putting custody at risk. For that to happen, there would have to be direct, intentional, specific action on the part of her ex husband. He has not spoken. At least not anywhere that FJ'ers see or know of.

Assigning motives and morals is the same as assigning action. There is no basis for it and it serves no purpose.

So....you get to assign moral value to other people's perceived assignments of moral value, because your value system is the right one. Got it. Check. Glad that's settled.

[Alecto]

Assigning motives and morals is the same as assigning action. There is no basis for it and it serves no purpose.

But this is the reality of the family court system, and there IS a purpose - because most people don't know or understand how it all works, even those involved. When your children's future, living arrangements, ect are in the hands of the court and not fully under your control, you do have to live under a different standard, and that standard involves not doing anything that would give a judge a reason to change said custodial agreement. It's part of the reality of divorce, and I am glad she removed the post, because it really wasn't in her best interests to have that out there and give her ex any ammunition he could use in court should they disagree in the future.

[aerynoctober]

But this is the reality of the family court system, and there IS a purpose - because most people don't know or understand how it all works, even those involved. When your children's future, living arrangements, ect are in the hands of the court and not fully under your control, you do have to live under a different standard, and that standard involves not doing anything that would give a judge a reason to change said custodial agreement. It's part of the reality of divorce, and I am glad she removed the post, because it really wasn't in her best interests to have that out there and give her ex any ammunition he could use in court should they disagree in the future.

This. Divorcing when you have kids is a big damn deal. We live in this cultural assumption that men will write checks and "visit" when we as women allow them to and under our terms, and when someone has the gall to suggest that a woman should be held accountable to the terms of an agreement (the TN standard agreement does have the no-badmouthing provision), it's OMG! Teh Eeeebil Patriarchy Oppressing the Helpless Wimmen Victums again!

We are equal adults, or we're not. If we are, court orders and the like apply to us, too, and should be obeyed whether we have reason to believe those parties who would have legitimate redress will seek it at this time or not. Even if he were to agree to it, to say, "I'm an evil rapist! Tell the world! It won't affect my livelihood, which is all self-employment, one bit! It won't hurt our kids at all! Go for it!" It would STILL be violating a court order, and it would still be unwise.

Watch what happens if Mr. Torode does remarry, and remarries someone who thinks, fairly or not, that the way she's raising the kids is unhealthy/inappropriate. The next blog posts will be about how they're going to court to re-negotiate custody. She handed him a "Take the kids away free, or at the very least, make me have to fight very hard to keep them" card.

Anyone who doesn't think this way is only proving their complete lack of professional expertise and/or personal experience in the family court system.

[fundiefan]

This. Divorcing when you have kids is a big damn deal. We live in this cultural assumption that men will write checks and "visit" when we as women allow them to and under our terms, and when someone has the gall to suggest that a woman should be held accountable to the terms of an agreement (the TN standard agreement does have the no-badmouthing provision), it's OMG! Teh Eeeebil Patriarchy Oppressing the Helpless Wimmen Victums again!

We are equal adults, or we're not. If we are, court orders and the like apply to us, too, and should be obeyed whether we have reason to believe those parties who would have legitimate redress will seek it at this time or not. Even if he were to agree to it, to say, "I'm an evil rapist! Tell the world! It won't affect my livelihood, which is all self-employment, one bit! It won't hurt our kids at all! Go for it!" It would STILL be violating a court order, and it would still be unwise.

Watch what happens if Mr. Torode does remarry, and remarries someone who thinks, fairly or not, that the way she's raising the kids is unhealthy/inappropriate. The next blog posts will be about how they're going to court to re-negotiate custody. She handed him a "Take the kids away free, or at the very least, make me have to fight very hard to keep them" card.

Anyone who doesn't think this way is only proving their complete lack of professional expertise and/or personal experience in the family court system.

A whole lot of IF's.

I had zero clue of the family court system until I experienced it. Even after I thought I knew, I have been blindsided. Being ignorant of the system is neither crime nor character trait.

We all view life and situations through the lens of our own experience. I have tried really hard not to judge or use my own morals or values in this discussion. If it is seen that I am I can't do anything about that. Mostly because I know that merely by existing, my view is clouded by who I am.

But before you bind and shackle Bethany for all the possible consequences of her actions, without knowing her ex or his character as a man healing from the same screwed up policy of life that she is -and with no input from him - judging me for reacting and trying to see it through my own values is pretty worthless.

If she can change from 'accepting' and living with what she doesn't want, why can't he? Did he know any better how to control his impulses and desires? If she lived for years under the doctrine and it controlled her actions and responses, why does that only apply to her and her choices and not his? If one is not educated in healthy, mutual sexual relations, man or women, they just don't know. And if they live a life where man is king, they will believe that without contradictory input!

I am not justifying a damn thing. I am saying Bethany is being nailed to the wall for speaking out when it is entirely possible, given their shared past and the fact that both have acknowledged they are coming OUT of that way of living - that her ex may not be anywhere near taking this to court or taking the kids from her or reacting at all. He may very well be living and learning, and acknowledging and admitting mistakes and past bad judgment.

So, yeah, legally if he takes her to court her custody could be affected.

That is not the only thing at stake, it is not the only relevant part of their story or lives, it is not the only piece of the puzzle that is their existence. It is a possibility. Possibility does not guarantee. And, in the end, no matter the consequences, isn't speaking out, learning, living, growing and healing more relevant to the individual - and the family - than continued pain and suffering?

[fundiefan]

So....you get to assign moral value to other people's perceived assignments of moral value, because your value system is the right one. Got it. Check. Glad that's settled.

That is the exact opposite of what I have been trying to say but if you must take issue just to take issue, have at it.

We are ALL judging and commenting based on our OWN values, motives, experiences and opinions. Um, this forum wouldn't exist otherwise. If my doing so is to become the topic of discussion, then so be it. If I am acting in contradiction to my written words, let's make that the discussion and leave the actual topic behind.

You want me to defend or explain myself. Which ultimately puts the focus on me, not the topic of the thread.

Yeah, that's productive.

[aerynoctober]

Legally: the court order applies to all parties, and only the court can change it. Parents don't get to pick and choose what parts of it they wish to obey, EVEN IF THE OTHER PARENT AGREES.

Morally and psychologically: please provide a hypothetical scenario under which it is healthy, appropriate, and helpful for four small children (the eldest of whom isn't even ten yet) to find out that their mother has accused their father, with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their lives, of ass-raping her.

[Guest Anonymous]

We are equal adults, or we're not. If we are, court orders and the like apply to us, too, and should be obeyed whether we have reason to believe those parties who would have legitimate redress will seek it at this time or not. Even if he were to agree to it, to say, "I'm an evil rapist! Tell the world! It won't affect my livelihood, which is all self-employment, one bit! It won't hurt our kids at all! Go for it!" It would STILL be violating a court order, and it would still be unwise.

Exactly. What man sits quietly while being accused of rape?

[fundiefan]

Legally: the court order applies to all parties, and only the court can change it. Parents don't get to pick and choose what parts of it they wish to obey, EVEN IF THE OTHER PARENT AGREES.

Morally and psychologically: please provide a hypothetical scenario under which it is healthy, appropriate, and helpful for four small children (the eldest of whom isn't even ten yet) to find out that their mother has accused their father, with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their lives, of ass-raping her.

Tell ME one case where a court order controlled someone's behavior? I'm still living in the world of repeatedly going back to court because court ORDERS were not complied with and in some cases outright defied. The only recourse of defiance of court orders is to go back to court. They don't mean shit.

There is always a way around it. Always justification, usually accompanied by yet another court order.

Live as is healthy and right for you. Regardless of who judges you or how, including FJ.

[aerynoctober]

Tell ME one case where a court order controlled someone's behavior? I'm still living in the world of repeatedly going back to court because court ORDERS were not complied with and in some cases outright defied. The only recourse of defiance of court orders is to go back to court. They don't mean shit.

There is always a way around it. Always justification, usually accompanied by yet another court order.

Live as is healthy and right for you. Regardless of who judges you or how, including FJ.

Within JUST the community of Wiccans/Pagans, I can provide you with ten citations of people who lost custody for practicing a minority religion, which is their constitutional right.

People lose custody for BULLSHIT reasons ALL the time. Accusing the father of your children of ass-raping you when they spend 50% of their time in his care and thus need to feel safe and emotionally close to him is not even a bullshit reason.

Legally, she's on very shaky ground. Having deleted the posts relatively quickly, she's on better ground, but it was still a monumentally stupid thing to do legally.

Morally and psychologically, again, how is it okay to simultaneously have your children spend just shy of 50% of their time with their father and indirectly (through either naivete or stupidity or a subconscious need for revenge or some combination of two or of all three) provide them with information that can only make them feel conflicted and guilty about loving him?

Again, the question no one has answered yet -- wouldn't YOU feel guilty if you loved and were close to someone who ass-raped your mother? I would, and my mother is a lunatic Jesus Camp Palin-voting moronic bitch.

[fundiefan]

Within JUST the community of Wiccans/Pagans, I can provide you with ten citations of people who lost custody for practicing a minority religion, which is their constitutional right.

People lose custody for BULLSHIT reasons ALL the time. Accusing the father of your children of ass-raping you when they spend 50% of their time in his care and thus need to feel safe and emotionally close to him is not even a bullshit reason.

Legally, she's on very shaky ground. Having deleted the posts relatively quickly, she's on better ground, but it was still a monumentally stupid thing to do legally.

Morally and psychologically, again, how is it okay to simultaneously have your children spend just shy of 50% of their time with their father and indirectly (through either naivete or stupidity or a subconscious need for revenge or some combination of two or of all three) provide them with information that can only make them feel conflicted and guilty about loving him?

Again, the question no one has answered yet -- wouldn't YOU feel guilty if you loved and were close to someone who ass-raped your mother? I would, and my mother is a lunatic Jesus Camp Palin-voting moronic bitch.

I did answer. I know more about my parents than I want to. I feel a whole lot about that, but none of what I feel has anything to do with me as a person or how I feel about myself. And I started learning these things when I was ten years old. I can't say all will feel and live as I do with the knowledge I have, but for the sake of this conversation, your question has been answered.

**Edited because I was too open on a public message board when trying to make a point.

[aerynoctober]

fundiefan: Thank you for answering.

Now, would it have been good and healthy for you to learn those things while you were nine years old and spending just shy of 50% of your time under the perpetrator's direct care, completely dependent on him for everything? Would that have enhanced your childhood making it better and healthier, or not?

The other thing no on has mentioned here is that the children's father may not even have to get involved for it to end up in court. I've never been a mandated reporter in Tennessee, but in the two states where I have been a mandated reporter, an assertion by someone in a position to know that the person caring for four minor children 3 full days out of every week is a rapist would have been reason enough to require me to file a report and start an investigation. If any mandated reporters in Tennessee read her blog, she could have already sealed her fate and essentially made herself an appointment in front of a judge already.

Since she seemed to realize her mistake and deleted the posts quickly, she's on much better ground. She'd likely get enjoined from blogging about her kids and their father anymore and that's it. (Well, depending on the judge. Most of the judges I appeared before would've gone that route. One would've sent all the kids to foster care for a month while both parents got psych evals and took polygraphs, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...)

[mirele]

Oh, and to the folks on here blaming patriarchy for what happened to her, bear in mind that the type of rape she referred to is absolutely a forbidden type of activity in the fundie world. When my husband was in Bible college they literally rounded up all the guys and told them straight out that it was one thing you do NOT do. Oral may or may not be debated, but the back door is NOT considered an option whatsoever.

I don't know if I believe this or not. If the guys had to be rounded up and told not to do it, that means it was being done and wives were complaining. Given the general inability of fundamentalists to handle sexual issues in a normal way (or in ANY way), it would not surprise me at all to find out there were guys who went for anal with their wives being clueless. And hurting.

I'd also like to reiterate that there is this whole notion among certain fundamentalists, evangelicals and other conservative religious types that "the two shall become one" and that the husband is the leader of the family and the wife is supposed to submit, no matter what. Even in matters of sex. I remember one particularly loathsome representation of conservative evangelical Protestantism back on Usenet in the 1990s who thought that marriage gave him the right to demand sex at any time from his wife. Even after two lawyers told him that in his state, that was considered rape if his wife did not consent. He simply *did not care.*

I have no problem imagining these young lords and masters asking their naive wives for oral or pushing anal on them. None whatsoever.

[fundiefan]

I was ten when the realities of my parent's lives starting coming out and having an effect on life. The reality waterfall lasted roughly six years, with 'smaller' things coming for years and years later. I was in my mother's custody officially but my father had an open door policy as far as time and visitation. So, from my perspective, I was 100% in both of their care.

I will never claim it was healthy or right or good or anything else. It was only as an adult that I could separate myself from either of them. I just lived as was best for me and worked for me.

Bad things happen. Painful things happen. Our worlds get shattered.

If protecting your kid's world from being shattered means you do not speak up about your own pain and experiences...who are you helping and who are you hiding behind? What, IF Bethany's daughter gets involved with a man who doesn't respect her, could Bethany possibly say or give support with given what she went through and said nothing? How could she ever help or protect her daughters when she did the opposite herself? Would her girls even trust her to come to her?

For the sake of not putting daddy in a bad light, nothing is exposed or dealt with. Later, one of the daughters is in that situation - you have to remain silent or tell her to put up and shut up for the sake of others or a legal arrangement. Worse, what if one of her sons is the one who decides he can choose what to do with his wife, without her input or consent, just because he wants to?

Silence is seldom the answer.

[aerynoctober]

I was ten when the realities of my parent's lives starting coming out and having an effect on life. The reality waterfall lasted roughly six years, with 'smaller' things coming for years and years later. I was in my mother's custody officially but my father had an open door policy as far as time and visitation. So, from my perspective, I was 100% in both of their care.

I will never claim it was healthy or right or good or anything else. It was only as an adult that I could separate myself from either of them. I just lived as was best for me and worked for me.

Bad things happen. Painful things happen. Our worlds get shattered.

If protecting your kid's world from being shattered means you do not speak up about your own pain and experiences...who are you helping and who are you hiding behind? What, IF Bethany's daughter gets involved with a man who doesn't respect her, could Bethany possibly say or give support with given what she went through and said nothing? How could she ever help or protect her daughters when she did the opposite herself? Would her girls even trust her to come to her?

For the sake of not putting daddy in a bad light, nothing is exposed or dealt with. Later, one of the daughters is in that situation - you have to remain silent or tell her to put up and shut up for the sake of others or a legal arrangement. Worse, what if one of her sons is the one who decides he can choose what to do with his wife, without her input or consent, just because he wants to?

Silence is seldom the answer.

I agree with you that silence is seldom the answer.

My position is that there is a middle ground between total silence and publishing lurid details online under your real name when you are already a sub-culture celebrity, just when a NYT article is going to bring you massive blog traffic.

Like, say, talking to the kids individually and privately with a counselor's help when they're old enough to start dating.

[bunny]

I don't know if I believe this or not. If the guys had to be rounded up and told not to do it, that means it was being done and wives were complaining. Given the general inability of fundamentalists to handle sexual issues in a normal way (or in ANY way), it would not surprise me at all to find out there were guys who went for anal with their wives being clueless. And hurting.

I'd also like to reiterate that there is this whole notion among certain fundamentalists, evangelicals and other conservative religious types that "the two shall become one" and that the husband is the leader of the family and the wife is supposed to submit, no matter what. Even in matters of sex. I remember one particularly loathsome representation of conservative evangelical Protestantism back on Usenet in the 1990s who thought that marriage gave him the right to demand sex at any time from his wife. Even after two lawyers told him that in his state, that was considered rape if his wife did not consent. He simply *did not care.*

I have no problem imagining these young lords and masters asking their naive wives for oral or pushing anal on them. None whatsoever.

Actually none of these guys were married. They were in the dorm at the time.

[lovefromgirl]

Morally and psychologically: please provide a hypothetical scenario under which it is healthy, appropriate, and helpful for four small children (the eldest of whom isn't even ten yet) to find out that their mother has accused their father, with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their lives, of ass-raping her.

Not picking on Aeryn; this is something that keeps coming up, and she had the handiest example. I'd like to point out that unless these kids are reading the New York Times or reading their mother's blog--and the eldest is ten; I wasn't breaking into my dad's email until I was twelve at least--Bethany has a couple of years to figure out how to handle her children finding out about her blog. I'd be more worried that other people would read it and tell the kids, if I were her.

This is not just Bethany's problem. As the current generation of bloggers grows up and, possibly, reproduces, it will have to face the likelihood that it will raise net-savvy kids, and that those kids might find their parents online. I see a lot of people doing a lot of things online that they may come to regret for such a reason. One thing I try never to forget is that if it was ever online, it will probably not go away. Ever. So practice damage control early: lock it down from the start if you don't want anyone else to see it, or better yet, consider very bloody carefully what you're going to post.

I would also suggest that parents supervise children's online time before they hit a certain maturity level or be ready for some interesting experiences. Don't leave yourself logged into places you don't want your kids going. Keep your less kid-friendly bookmarks on your own personal computer. Install a net-nanny program on a designated family computer; make sure the adults log themselves out of their personal workstations. Teach kids how to be safe online once it's clear they'll be accessing the Internet outside the home.

[Alecto]

This is not just Bethany's problem. As the current generation of bloggers grows up and, possibly, reproduces, it will have to face the likelihood that it will raise net-savvy kids, and that those kids might find their parents online. I see a lot of people doing a lot of things online that they may come to regret for such a reason. One thing I try never to forget is that if it was ever online, it will probably not go away. Ever. So practice damage control early: lock it down from the start if you don't want anyone else to see it, or better yet, consider very bloody carefully what you're going to post.

I just want to quote this for absolute truth. People don't realize that what they put on facebook/blogs/livejournal/twitter is going to be around FOREVER. There are even companies now that do a "social networking report" on you for perspective employers. I imagine the same could easily be done in a court case, divorce or even by your future in-laws.

I blog about food, but I leave my personal life out for the most part.

[aerynoctober]

Not picking on Aeryn; this is something that keeps coming up, and she had the handiest example. I'd like to point out that unless these kids are reading the New York Times or reading their mother's blog--and the eldest is ten; I wasn't breaking into my dad's email until I was twelve at least--Bethany has a couple of years to figure out how to handle her children finding out about her blog. I'd be more worried that other people would read it and tell the kids, if I were her.

This is not just Bethany's problem. As the current generation of bloggers grows up and, possibly, reproduces, it will have to face the likelihood that it will raise net-savvy kids, and that those kids might find their parents online. I see a lot of people doing a lot of things online that they may come to regret for such a reason. One thing I try never to forget is that if it was ever online, it will probably not go away. Ever. So practice damage control early: lock it down from the start if you don't want anyone else to see it, or better yet, consider very bloody carefully what you're going to post.

I would also suggest that parents supervise children's online time before they hit a certain maturity level or be ready for some interesting experiences. Don't leave yourself logged into places you don't want your kids going. Keep your less kid-friendly bookmarks on your own personal computer. Install a net-nanny program on a designated family computer; make sure the adults log themselves out of their personal workstations. Teach kids how to be safe online once it's clear they'll be accessing the Internet outside the home.

Exactly. No Twitter, no facebook, no blog of any kind anywhere here. And even though I don't like her much, I frequently hope intensely (an atheist's version of prayer, at least in my case) that my step-crotchfruit's mother lives to see them all reach adulthood. If she were to pass away, I'd have a moral and legal obligation to keep tabs on them online, since I'd adopt them. What a goddamn nightmare that would be. Facebook, twitter, Tumblr, texting, Google Plus -- GAH!!

[treemom]

Legally: the court order applies to all parties, and only the court can change it. Parents don't get to pick and choose what parts of it they wish to obey, EVEN IF THE OTHER PARENT AGREES.

Morally and psychologically: please provide a hypothetical scenario under which it is healthy, appropriate, and helpful for four small children (the eldest of whom isn't even ten yet) to find out that their mother has accused their father, with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their lives, of ass-raping her.

I don't have to because I am not asserting that. You are asserting that people who have been raped can't allege that publicly because omg think of the kids.

I am saying I don't know. But I will not say it is morally wrong to decide you want to speak out about your rape.