How Far Apart Were Your Legs? (page 2)

mana11

These arrogant elders need to be taken to task.....

Shame on them!

konceptual99

Stan - are there any written instructions from the watchtower society as to how these elders conduct these hearings--? what questions are required ? does any one know ?

Yes, The Shepherd the Flock of God book has the JC process documented. In terms of questioning this is what it has to say:

5. The committee should first seek to establish the facts and ascertain the attitude of the accused. This requires skillful and discreet questions. The judicial committee should be thorough but not inquire about needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct. However, in some instances, when Scriptural freedom to divorce and remarry may be an issue, details may need to be clarified. When the elders on the judicial committee feel that they have a clear picture, they may excuse the accused from the room and discuss the case and the individual’s repentance or lack thereof.

This would suggest that the Elders don't need to delve too much into detail. If they do then it's for their own benefit.

There may be more stuff in BoE letters as well.

Joe Grundy

konceptual99

Thank you for that extract.

Then I ask my question again in simple terms (that's what detectives do, until it's answered).

WTF did elders on the JC ask this lady to demonstrate how far her legs were apart?

(And do they know, for example, what position a woman's legs need to be in before penile penetration is feasible? Sorry to bring this back to real life but that can be the only justification (?) for such a question).

Joe Grundy

"

she was d/f'd in her late teens for sexual misconduct. apparently the elders made her describe--in graphic detail---her private behaviour.

this cannot be right--surely?"

No. It is absolutely wrong. It is yet more abuse.

I can only wonder why they do this - but I think I know the answer. It is similar to sex offenders on remand in prison. They have the right (in many jurisdictions) to have the evidence prosecution to peruse. This will include graphic and detailed statements from victims describing the acts in great detail. Offenders can jerk off to these, of course, but can also sell the papers on to others to jerk off over.

Again, sorry for reality intruding here, but this is real life.

Joe Grundy

PS: I'm sorry, I seem to be banging on about this - but I offer no apologies whatsoever for trying to bring this to notice.

I consider JWs generally as an inconsequential cult and their teachings as more laughable than dangerous.

But in this area - abuse etc., - they are dangerous and destructive and despicable. They deserve my attention and I will be happy to spend my post-retirement resources, knowledge and capabilities to attack them in this area.

konceptual99

I am not 100% sure it would have been to determine if penetration had taken place. Don't forget that years back there was the view that if a woman did not scream or take other strong action to try and prevent a sexual assault then she could have essentially consented to sex and it would not be rape.

Given that it seems the BoE (probably on the Branch/CO recommendation) brought in some elders from outside the congregation and they were described as being old, perhaps they were still thinking about this old stance? I wonder if the question was designed to see if the girl had in some way infer consent to sex because she had not resisted enough "scripturally".

Despicable either way.

konceptual99

See http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/rape-fornication.php for more info.

It seems I am wrong, as recently as 2003 there is still the impression given that screaming is required and that the victim may feel guilty for not resisting more.

Witness My Fury

No apologies needed, have at it Joe, you know your stuff and this has pissed you right royally off.

It's time for these amateurs and their kangaroo courts to be exposed for the abuse they deliver.

Joe Grundy

KC99I am not 100% sure it would have been to determine if penetration had taken place. Don't forget that years back there was the view that if a woman did not scream or take other strong action to try and prevent a sexual assault then she could have essentially consented to sex and it would not be rape

I understand your second point in terms of OT theology, flawed as it is.

Re 'penetration' - there is a legal definition of this (at least here in UK). Do you think that 'elders' could determine whether penetration had taken place by the position of the woman's legs? Most of us in the real world know that penetration can happen with a woman's legs (vaginally or anally, and certainly digitally) firmly clamped together. Sorry, that's the real world again.

How TF can 'elders' seek to justify these questions? I bet that a good hooker could get into positions that allow penetration that they've never dreamed of, so what makes them think they're qualified to ask these questions?

From my experience, women trying to defend themselves against rape is not as straightforward as the OT and JWs believe.

Just yesterday a BBC report on child grooming and abuse had a quote from a child victim to the effect 'I was on the bed with some men. They asked and I said 'yes' because I knew that if I said 'no' they would go ahead anywy.'

That's real life.

ScenicViewer

This is a good topic, and I say Yes, bring the elders into the light, expose them, and let them answer for themselves, and let Watchtower answer for itself, if they can.

For either a girl or a young woman to be questioned by 3 older men about a sexual assault has to be a traumatic experience for her. To be asked graphic questions about the lurid details embarrasses and humiliates the victim further, and adds more damage to the rape.

As to the "how far apart were your legs" question, I think the elders ask questions like that to try to determine if the girl/woman was really raped. These elders are looking for an angle to say the girl was complicit in what happened, to reach the conclusion that 'You must have asked for it.' They were looking for a way to blame the victim.

The BBC report was outstanding, and that is exactly the kind of exposure Jehovah's Witnesses should have.

How Far Apart Were Your Legs?

Share this