‘Coach’ Dave: ‘The Pedophiles Are Coming’

“Coach” Dave Daubenmire delivers another one of his very loud and shouty Youtube videos, this time ranting about how gay rights leads to pedophile rights. Because he apparently can’t see the difference between consenting sex between adults and raping a child, something the rest of us don’t seem to have any difficulty doing.

On the other hand, maybe he was just thinking about his own son Zachary, a convicted felon for “pandering obscenity involving a minor.” Zachary recently had a hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court over the question of whether he will be allowed to take the bar exam in that state. The court said no, upholding a determination by the local bar association that his conviction violated the requirements for character and fitness for attorneys. But in that case, Zachary blamed his problems partly on his father:

Risen testified that the focus of Daubenmire’s therapy was to identify and help him understand what led him to view child pornography. Based on her treatment, she believed that there were two primary issues. First, she believed that his repressed upbringing caused him to seek sexual experience vicariously, rather than engaging in age-appropriate sexual conduct. She also found that he had developed anger toward, and resentment of, his father, who had set high standards for him, and who would have been subject to embarrassment if he failed to live up to those expectations.”

Risen is the therapist who examined Zachary.

"The thing I've heard from smarter conservatives about why they're not bothered by Trump's lack ..."

McConnell Thinks Trump May Be Gone ..."
"I do believe it is possible to have a point at which it cannot get ..."

Trump Aides: It Could Be Worse
"They need an excuse for not getting any.Back in my day... they claimed it was ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    You really have to wonder about the self-proclaimed Morality Brigade’s inability to tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. It is just flat-out creepy.

  • cottonnero

    #1 Gregory in Seattle:

    My guess is that it has something to do with an authoritarian mindset. Rape, along with a variety of consensual sex (same-sex relationships, non-marital sex, etc.) are lumped together as Sex You’re Not Supposed To Have.

    Tangential hypothesis: authoritarian sorts are the ones with a problem with victimless “crimes”: consensual homosexual or unmarried sex, drug use, blasphemy, etc.

  • leftwingfox

    If I were to rank the people most likely to be pedophiles based on news reports, “Coach” is just one step removed from “Catholic Priest”.

  • cottonnero

    Low on the totem pole of Shit Coach Dave Got Wrong, but still: I’m guessing when he talks about 2001, he means Lawrence v. Texas, which the courts ruled on in 2003.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Off-topic, because you don’t seem to have a ‘Contact’ button:

    The Company Doe case

    Tuesday, October 23, 2012

    Company’s case against Consumer Product Safety Commission sealed and decided based on secret proceedings; Public Citizen appeals

    Apparently, not only are corporations people, my friend, but they also have a right to privacy.

  • Jeremy Shaffer

    My guess is that it has something to do with an authoritarian mindset. Rape, along with a variety of consensual sex (same-sex relationships, non-marital sex, etc.) are lumped together as Sex You’re Not Supposed To Have.

    Possibly more like the concept of consent, particularly in regards to interpersonal relationships, is a non-issue to the authoritarian mindset.

  • unbound

    @1 – Gregory in Seattle – Keep in mind that for the vast majority of the Morality Brigade, things like rape are always a matter of the victim asking for it. The sole exception to that rule is when it happens to one of their own, in which case it was the extremely rare exception (in their minds).

    This is the same mindset they have with abortion. Abortion (in their minds) is only for immoral people who have rampant sex with dozens (if not hundreds) of partners and are trying to get a free pass for their immorality. The sole exception to that rule is when it happens to one of their own, in which case it was the extremely rare exception. (There are even cases where anti-choice protesters have gotten abortions and are back out protesting in front of abortion centers a few weeks later because they were the exception)

    Of course, for those not twisted by religious dogma, it is easy to see how this is nonsense.

  • A Masked Avenger

    unbound,

    Keep in mind that for the vast majority of the Morality Brigade, things like rape are always a matter of the victim asking for it.

    Ironically, though, when they use rape as an analogy, they start with the premise that the victim is blameless. I.e., they suddenly understand that rape is a violation of boundaries that are defined by consent. When they liken things to rape, they are specifically calling those things out as non-consensual boundary violations.

    The problems with the analogy are obvious–especially when you remember how many listeners are themselves survivors of actual rape. Like Holocaust analogies, going nuclear like this completely drowns out any point that’s trying to be made.

    It’s a double irony for me personally, because I’m usually inclined to sympathize with anyone who upholds consent-based boundaries. The nature of law is to impose something on people regardless of their consent. In the case of laws against assault, rape, murder, etc., this is easily defended: it violates the “consent” of the murderer or rapist, in order to protect the boundaries of their victims; this is obviously just. In other cases a more subtle argument is needed to justify imposing others’ will on someone by law, and I think that most modern societies are inclined to enact such laws with little regard for individuals’ boundaries. Laws prohibiting Muslim garb, or hoodies, are an obvious example of that.

    Equating a (racially-motivated) anti-hoodie law with rape drowns out the quiet, but very important, point, that such laws impose non-consensual behavior on people (of color particularly). We should be able to have that sort of conversation without simultaneously suggesting that rape is somehow on par with one’s choice of jacket.

  • caseloweraz

    Daubenmire: The pedophiles are coming. Yep, the pedophiles are coming.

    Why does he smile when he says this? Perhaps he’s thinking they’ll come off a submarine run aground in rural Maine, like the Russians in the 1966 film starring Alan Arkin and Carl Reiner.

    /snark

    Daubenmire: If you legalize thievery, you get more thievery. If you legalize baby murder, you get more babies murdered.

    Wow — theft is legal now! I’m going out and get me some of that Adobe software, and maybe a copy of Solidworks or Pro Engineer.

    /snark again

    Daubenmire: If you say that a man has a right to violate God’s law to marry a man, how can you say that a man doesn’t have a right to violate god’s law and have sex with a younger man—a pre-pubescent man?

    Sure, because God only ever made one law: Thou shalt not disobey me in anything my righteous disciples shall decree. And having laid that law down on the small tablet of stone Moses carried down from the mountain in his pocket, God muttered, “And if thou dost disobey my law, thou art doomed to thy slippery slope.”

    /snark yet again

    To the couch, Coach.

  • Michael Heath

    unbound writes:

    Keep in mind that for the vast majority of the Morality Brigade, things like rape are always a matter of the victim asking for it. The sole exception to that rule is when it happens to one of their own, in which case it was the extremely rare exception (in their minds).

    Actually the anti-abortion movement’s approach is evolving. Here in Michigan they’re attempting to pass legislation that requires people to purchase coverage for abortion in a separate rider, they can’t make it part of their Obamacare plan. The only exception is supposedly a threat to the life of the mother.

    This same effort was attempted awhile back, but it vetoed because Gov. Snyder wanted Obamacare plan providers to also include coverage for rape victims. In this new attempt they don’t require the governor’s signature (forgot why). In this current attempt, the anti-abortion rights crowd is putting advocates who were a product of rape front and center to make the case that women shouldn’t have access to abortion coverage in their Obamacare plan in cases of rape.

    So rather than avoid or deny the rape issue as they’ve long done, they’re starting to instead make an argument that women who have been raped still don’t deserve a right to have an abortion.

  • suttkus

    When your worldview is about good and evil, black and white, there’s no room for subtlety. Wrong is wrong, and jaywalking and genocide are both wrong, so much the same thing. And if your opponent supports one thing you consider wrong, then they must be evil and support all manner of wrong things, since clearly they have no sense of morality whatsoever!

  • Abby Normal

    If you say that a man has a right to violate God’s law to eat shellfish, how can you say that a man doesn’t have a right to violate god’s law and eat a person—a tender little baby?

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    As is often the case with his sort Coach Dave’s statements imply sexually abusing boys is worse than sexually abusing girls.

  • Ichthyic

    —a tender little baby?

    aww damnit, now you made me wanna go clean up the BBQ for the weekend.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    I know the bible relatively well (three readings a week at Mass growing up), but does it actually have any laws against having sex with children or what we would consider “underage” individuals? And consent by women to anything barely figures in the Bible at all. I do seem to remember some instance of rape being commanded by god (Amalakites?)

  • freehand

    There are really only two laws in the Old Testament, both of which are capital offenses: disobedience, or disrespect. Disobey or show disrespect to Yahweh or any of his recognized representatives on Earth, and you’re toast.

    Lot’s wife was killed, not because she was overcome by curiosity, but because she disobeyed a direct order. Lot was saved and rewarded because he showed respect.

    Forty two children killed by she-bears for showing disrespect to a general working for Elijah the prophet.

    Etc.

    No, consent doesn’t enter into the Fundie discourse on morality. I believe they see the topic of consent as a rhetorical device, which is why they get analogies so very wrong, so very often.

    Ichthyic: —a tender little baby?

    aww damnit, now you made me wanna go clean up the BBQ for the weekend.

    You barbeque babies?!

    In this weather?!

  • caseloweraz

    Unbound: (There are even cases where anti-choice protesters have gotten abortions and are back out protesting in front of abortion centers a few weeks later because they were the exception.)

    Soon after Dr. Tiller’s murder, I read of one case where a woman waiting for an abortion was handing out anti-abortion literature in the waiting room. (I doubt that she had many takers, however.)

  • marym

    The last paragraph of the Supreme’s decision states ” Accordingly, we disapprove Daubenmire’s pending application, but we will permit him to reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar

    examination by submitting a new application to register as a candidate for

    admission to the bar and an application to take the bar examination. At that time,

    he shall submit to a full character and fitness investigation. “