<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Alternative Scenario for the Tarot Cards Story</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Caton</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-326468</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Caton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:29:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-326468</guid>
		<description>With the risk of also seeming insensitive, if the women in question were 24, and they had sex with someone over tarot cards - or for any reason not involving coercion - it was their choice to do so, and not anyone else&#039;s job to tell them they couldn&#039;t.  Their bodies, their choice.

&quot;But tarot equals coercion!&quot;  Think about it this way:  at what point are you free to assume that another person is capable of acting in their own best interest?  In the case of sex, if s/he is under 18, you&#039;re not.  If the person is mentally ill to the point that they can&#039;t keep the lights on or hold a job, you&#039;re not (ethically, if not legally).  But if the person is capable of paying the rent/mortgage but has some irrationalities - just like you and I do - then they&#039;re on their own, just like you and I are.  

That&#039;s why, if you go down to a burger joint where they&#039;re practically giving their burgers away, you have no moral obligation to figure out that these people actually had a cogent business plan and weren&#039;t just being irrationally optimistic (and hence financially self-destructive).  It&#039;s not up to you to decide whether everyone you meet during the day is capable of taking care of themselves, beyond the obvious categories of too young, or mentally ill.  Otherwise you&#039;re stuck being your brother&#039;s keeper, a lesson in a certain book with which I happen to strongly disagree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the risk of also seeming insensitive, if the women in question were 24, and they had sex with someone over tarot cards &#8211; or for any reason not involving coercion &#8211; it was their choice to do so, and not anyone else&#8217;s job to tell them they couldn&#8217;t.  Their bodies, their choice.</p>
<p>&#8220;But tarot equals coercion!&#8221;  Think about it this way:  at what point are you free to assume that another person is capable of acting in their own best interest?  In the case of sex, if s/he is under 18, you&#8217;re not.  If the person is mentally ill to the point that they can&#8217;t keep the lights on or hold a job, you&#8217;re not (ethically, if not legally).  But if the person is capable of paying the rent/mortgage but has some irrationalities &#8211; just like you and I do &#8211; then they&#8217;re on their own, just like you and I are.  </p>
<p>That&#8217;s why, if you go down to a burger joint where they&#8217;re practically giving their burgers away, you have no moral obligation to figure out that these people actually had a cogent business plan and weren&#8217;t just being irrationally optimistic (and hence financially self-destructive).  It&#8217;s not up to you to decide whether everyone you meet during the day is capable of taking care of themselves, beyond the obvious categories of too young, or mentally ill.  Otherwise you&#8217;re stuck being your brother&#8217;s keeper, a lesson in a certain book with which I happen to strongly disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jemand</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325991</link>
		<dc:creator>jemand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325991</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m still surprised you don&#039;t see it would be way easier to be tricked by someone who is TRYING to trick you into having sex (these girls) than by someone who is NOT actually trying to kill you (cancer/Houser) but that&#039;s an accidental by product of the belief....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still surprised you don&#8217;t see it would be way easier to be tricked by someone who is TRYING to trick you into having sex (these girls) than by someone who is NOT actually trying to kill you (cancer/Houser) but that&#8217;s an accidental by product of the belief&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bleatmop</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325915</link>
		<dc:creator>Bleatmop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325915</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;To extend the metaphor to our situation, there are plenty of people outside the cult who *should* have been telling this girl that the Leader is wrong, immoral, inappropriate. With good reason. Where are they?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I dunno, Mars? &lt;a href=&quot;http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-suggesting-that-women-take-precautions-to-prevent-being-raped/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What difference would it have made?
&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;blockquote&gt;JoAnne Schmitz points out another problem with the “precautions”:

    T&lt;a href=&quot;http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-suggesting-that-women-take-precautions-to-prevent-being-raped/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he question is, why do the warnings not help? Is the warning not strong enough? I don’t think so. I don’t know any women who don’t consider rape a realistic threat to them, and I don’t know any women who never alter their behavior because of a fear of rape.

    Well, the obvious answer: Rape keeps happening because rapists keep doing what they’re doing. Because it works. So how can what they’re doing work if we have all these strong warnings about?

    The warnings women get are misleading. They leave out the acts of the rapist himself. They focus on the situation. They also may focus on the “kind of man” the potential rapist is. If he’s a friend of a friend, or your uncle, he’s “safe.” It’s the stranger who’s the threat.

    And we know that’s not true.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>To extend the metaphor to our situation, there are plenty of people outside the cult who *should* have been telling this girl that the Leader is wrong, immoral, inappropriate. With good reason. Where are they?</p></blockquote>
<p>I dunno, Mars? <a href="http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-suggesting-that-women-take-precautions-to-prevent-being-raped/" rel="nofollow">What difference would it have made?<br />
</a> </p>
<blockquote><p>JoAnne Schmitz points out another problem with the “precautions”:</p>
<p>    T<a href="http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-suggesting-that-women-take-precautions-to-prevent-being-raped/" rel="nofollow">he question is, why do the warnings not help? Is the warning not strong enough? I don’t think so. I don’t know any women who don’t consider rape a realistic threat to them, and I don’t know any women who never alter their behavior because of a fear of rape.</p>
<p>    Well, the obvious answer: Rape keeps happening because rapists keep doing what they’re doing. Because it works. So how can what they’re doing work if we have all these strong warnings about?</p>
<p>    The warnings women get are misleading. They leave out the acts of the rapist himself. They focus on the situation. They also may focus on the “kind of man” the potential rapist is. If he’s a friend of a friend, or your uncle, he’s “safe.” It’s the stranger who’s the threat.</p>
<p>    And we know that’s not true.</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CatBallou</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325577</link>
		<dc:creator>CatBallou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325577</guid>
		<description>Yes, 24-year-old people have reached the age of consent, so no matter what ruse was used to obtain the consent, there is no rape. 
But when the goal of the con man is money, not sex, there is still the possibility of liability. Why is lying to obtain sex OK, when lying to obtain money is fraud?
Unfortunately, our culture still thinks of sex as a rare commodity that women control and that men should try to obtain by any means necessary, rather than an activity between two consenting people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, 24-year-old people have reached the age of consent, so no matter what ruse was used to obtain the consent, there is no rape.<br />
But when the goal of the con man is money, not sex, there is still the possibility of liability. Why is lying to obtain sex OK, when lying to obtain money is fraud?<br />
Unfortunately, our culture still thinks of sex as a rare commodity that women control and that men should try to obtain by any means necessary, rather than an activity between two consenting people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Becky</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325455</link>
		<dc:creator>Becky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325455</guid>
		<description>Made a comment on the wrong post; oops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Made a comment on the wrong post; oops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325380</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325380</guid>
		<description>I think the people claiming that Hemant is equating the two situations are wrong.  I know it is a common rhetorical device to present scenario A that is considered wrong, then change it a little bit to become scenario B that is less objectionable.  But to be equating the two you have to go on to then argue that the differences between the scenarios are meaningless in the context.  I don&#039;t think that is what Hemant did.  Instead Hemant just changed the scenario to a situation where the victims are normally considered fully adult and fully responsible for themselves.  He could go on to equate still but at least so far he hasn&#039;t.

From my point of view all adults hold some responsibility for their actions.  If an adult has sex with or gives money to a scammer then yes they are at least partly to blame.  This doesn&#039;t mean that the scammer is any less responsible just that we are all responsible for protecting ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the people claiming that Hemant is equating the two situations are wrong.  I know it is a common rhetorical device to present scenario A that is considered wrong, then change it a little bit to become scenario B that is less objectionable.  But to be equating the two you have to go on to then argue that the differences between the scenarios are meaningless in the context.  I don&#8217;t think that is what Hemant did.  Instead Hemant just changed the scenario to a situation where the victims are normally considered fully adult and fully responsible for themselves.  He could go on to equate still but at least so far he hasn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>From my point of view all adults hold some responsibility for their actions.  If an adult has sex with or gives money to a scammer then yes they are at least partly to blame.  This doesn&#8217;t mean that the scammer is any less responsible just that we are all responsible for protecting ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325327</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325327</guid>
		<description>Hemant wrote:

&lt;blockquote&gt;These girls did two things: they believed in something (Tarot) without any rational basis and also trusted the man despite him telling them to do awful things. Why?! I want to know why. How does that happen?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

What rational basis does a child believe that if they don&#039;t wear a seat belt the police might pull them over and issue a ticket?

What rational basis does a child believe that brushing their teeth at night before bed helps keep cavities away?

You seem stuck on the assumption of the infinitely low probability that Tarot cards can divine the future. You take for granted that you make that assumption. Why should these kids have made that assumption? Because someone should have told them? Because they should have come to that conclusion themselves?



If you&#039;re looking for a scientific explanation, then let me attempt a psuedo-scientific one. Within the framework of evolution, the young offspring who accept the teachings of the elders have a better chance at survival because the elder teachers are interested in keeping them alive to replicate and elders have more life experience so their teachings have value. (Pure speculation, but it kinda makes sense don&#039;t it?)

The most common way we get our children to do or believe what we say is to &lt;strong&gt;appeal to our own authority&lt;/strong&gt;, is it not? What parent has the patience to rationalize why it is a good idea for their kid to behave themselves in a department store, grocery store, or movie theater?

Let&#039;s also not forget that critical thinking is not a natural skill. It takes much time, practice and maturity to do properly. You know very well that adults don&#039;t even acquire such skills properly, yet you are shocked that these &lt;strong&gt;children&lt;/strong&gt; did not employ these skills to protect themselves from &quot;obvious&quot; Tarot card coersion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hemant wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>These girls did two things: they believed in something (Tarot) without any rational basis and also trusted the man despite him telling them to do awful things. Why?! I want to know why. How does that happen?</p></blockquote>
<p>What rational basis does a child believe that if they don&#8217;t wear a seat belt the police might pull them over and issue a ticket?</p>
<p>What rational basis does a child believe that brushing their teeth at night before bed helps keep cavities away?</p>
<p>You seem stuck on the assumption of the infinitely low probability that Tarot cards can divine the future. You take for granted that you make that assumption. Why should these kids have made that assumption? Because someone should have told them? Because they should have come to that conclusion themselves?</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re looking for a scientific explanation, then let me attempt a psuedo-scientific one. Within the framework of evolution, the young offspring who accept the teachings of the elders have a better chance at survival because the elder teachers are interested in keeping them alive to replicate and elders have more life experience so their teachings have value. (Pure speculation, but it kinda makes sense don&#8217;t it?)</p>
<p>The most common way we get our children to do or believe what we say is to <strong>appeal to our own authority</strong>, is it not? What parent has the patience to rationalize why it is a good idea for their kid to behave themselves in a department store, grocery store, or movie theater?</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s also not forget that critical thinking is not a natural skill. It takes much time, practice and maturity to do properly. You know very well that adults don&#8217;t even acquire such skills properly, yet you are shocked that these <strong>children</strong> did not employ these skills to protect themselves from &#8220;obvious&#8221; Tarot card coersion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AxeGrrl</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325319</link>
		<dc:creator>AxeGrrl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325319</guid>
		<description>Hemant wrote: 

&lt;blockquote&gt;What bothered me about the story is that the girls believed what this man was saying&lt;/blockquote&gt;

And children who get abducted &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; their abductor really &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; &#039;looking for his dog&#039; when they get in his van to help him look.

The point?

that a predator is &#039;successful&#039; because he/she &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;knows&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; how to spin a yarn that&#039;s &#039;believable&#039; &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt; to their intended prey.

They&#039;re skilled at what they do.

Manipulators/predators make their &#039;trade&#039; in gauging &lt;em&gt;what will work in fooling their victims.&lt;/em&gt;

Hemant, consider this scenario:  someone gets to know you, the things you believe and don&#039;t believe; the things you&#039;re intensely interested in, and perhaps why you&#039;re interested in them.....imagine this person gets to really &#039;know&#039; you. They get to know what your &#039;buttons&#039; are.....and you eventually think of them as a good friend....

Do you really believe that that entire &#039;grooming&#039; process &lt;em&gt;wouldn&#039;t&lt;/em&gt; make you more likely to fall for something this person might propose to you? (your gender, age and belief-system being different than the girl(s) in the original story, the ‘goal’ of your predator would probably be different as well)  Do you really believe that you&#039;d &#039;know better&#039; &lt;em&gt;when someone has weaseled their way into your psyche to the point that they know how you&#039;re going to react&lt;/em&gt; to everything they propose?

if you don&#039;t think you could be &#039;fooled&#039; by such a predator, fooled into doing something you wouldn&#039;t normally do but &lt;strong&gt;would&lt;/strong&gt; do in this case, &lt;em&gt;because you see them as a &#039;friend&#039; and &lt;b&gt;trust&lt;/b&gt; them&lt;/em&gt;, then you&#039;re more vulnerable than you may think you are.

I don&#039;t think this whole thing is about believing &#039;woo&#039; specifically, it&#039;s about a predator &lt;em&gt;knowing what will work&lt;/em&gt; given the psyche of their prey.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hemant wrote: </p>
<blockquote><p>What bothered me about the story is that the girls believed what this man was saying</p></blockquote>
<p>And children who get abducted <em>believe</em> their abductor really <em>is</em> &#8216;looking for his dog&#8217; when they get in his van to help him look.</p>
<p>The point?</p>
<p>that a predator is &#8216;successful&#8217; because he/she <em><strong>knows</strong></em> how to spin a yarn that&#8217;s &#8216;believable&#8217; <em>specifically</em> to their intended prey.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re skilled at what they do.</p>
<p>Manipulators/predators make their &#8216;trade&#8217; in gauging <em>what will work in fooling their victims.</em></p>
<p>Hemant, consider this scenario:  someone gets to know you, the things you believe and don&#8217;t believe; the things you&#8217;re intensely interested in, and perhaps why you&#8217;re interested in them&#8230;..imagine this person gets to really &#8216;know&#8217; you. They get to know what your &#8216;buttons&#8217; are&#8230;..and you eventually think of them as a good friend&#8230;.</p>
<p>Do you really believe that that entire &#8216;grooming&#8217; process <em>wouldn&#8217;t</em> make you more likely to fall for something this person might propose to you? (your gender, age and belief-system being different than the girl(s) in the original story, the ‘goal’ of your predator would probably be different as well)  Do you really believe that you&#8217;d &#8216;know better&#8217; <em>when someone has weaseled their way into your psyche to the point that they know how you&#8217;re going to react</em> to everything they propose?</p>
<p>if you don&#8217;t think you could be &#8216;fooled&#8217; by such a predator, fooled into doing something you wouldn&#8217;t normally do but <strong>would</strong> do in this case, <em>because you see them as a &#8216;friend&#8217; and <b>trust</b> them</em>, then you&#8217;re more vulnerable than you may think you are.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think this whole thing is about believing &#8216;woo&#8217; specifically, it&#8217;s about a predator <em>knowing what will work</em> given the psyche of their prey.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milena</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325316</link>
		<dc:creator>Milena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325316</guid>
		<description>Hemant, they believed him because they trusted him. Kids their age trust adults, especially when their parents trust those same adults. Furthermore, they may feel like they&#039;re doing something for the &quot;greater good,&quot; even if it doesn&#039;t benefit them. The article stated that Ayala told the girls that they had a curse on them or their family and it could be lifted through sex (which he mystified beforehand, to lend him more credibility). He had trust and authority on his side, not to mention a well-constructed story placing him as a savior to the girls (from the curse), rather than a predator. 

I can completely understand why they&#039;d give Ayala the benefit of the doubt and trust that what he was saying was true. I was molested by my mom&#039;s boyfriend when I was 12. I knew it was wrong, yet I didn&#039;t tell anyone until several years later, in part because I trusted him when he said that if I didn&#039;t tell, he wouldn&#039;t do it again (which he didn&#039;t, although from my current position, I can tell how foolish it was to trust that he wouldn&#039;t), and in part because I thought that if he made my mom happy, what right do I have to screw that up for her by telling her.

That tarot cards are bullshit is irrelevant. Plenty of 13-year-olds (and people much older) believe stupid things. The relevant thing is Ayala&#039;s abuse of  the trust and authority that he cultivated in these girls&#039; lives and families.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hemant, they believed him because they trusted him. Kids their age trust adults, especially when their parents trust those same adults. Furthermore, they may feel like they&#8217;re doing something for the &#8220;greater good,&#8221; even if it doesn&#8217;t benefit them. The article stated that Ayala told the girls that they had a curse on them or their family and it could be lifted through sex (which he mystified beforehand, to lend him more credibility). He had trust and authority on his side, not to mention a well-constructed story placing him as a savior to the girls (from the curse), rather than a predator. </p>
<p>I can completely understand why they&#8217;d give Ayala the benefit of the doubt and trust that what he was saying was true. I was molested by my mom&#8217;s boyfriend when I was 12. I knew it was wrong, yet I didn&#8217;t tell anyone until several years later, in part because I trusted him when he said that if I didn&#8217;t tell, he wouldn&#8217;t do it again (which he didn&#8217;t, although from my current position, I can tell how foolish it was to trust that he wouldn&#8217;t), and in part because I thought that if he made my mom happy, what right do I have to screw that up for her by telling her.</p>
<p>That tarot cards are bullshit is irrelevant. Plenty of 13-year-olds (and people much older) believe stupid things. The relevant thing is Ayala&#8217;s abuse of  the trust and authority that he cultivated in these girls&#8217; lives and families.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hemant Mehta</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/07/03/an-alternative-scenario-for-the-tarot-cards-story/#comment-325298</link>
		<dc:creator>Hemant Mehta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=13286#comment-325298</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I think you agree that these children were unequivocally raped. That is good. What is troubling me is that you are seeming to imply that these girls are somehow to be blamed, or share the blame for their rape. They are completely without blame.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I&#039;ve said it before, but here&#039;s another go at it.

The girls in the original story (all minors) were unequivocally raped.  It&#039;s horrible.  It&#039;s awful.  I&#039;ve (thank FSM) never been in that position nor have my immediate family members.

What bothered me about the story is that the girls &lt;em&gt;believed&lt;/em&gt; what this man was saying.  I have a hard time getting over that.  I know the Tarot cards are just an accessory to his crime, and it&#039;s a bigger issue that the man abused their trust in him.  

These girls did two things: they believed in something (Tarot) without any rational basis and also trusted the man despite him telling them to do awful things.  Why?!  I want to know why.  How does that happen?  No answer excuses what the man did.  

Surely someone had warned them about both situations in their lives, right?  Maybe I should be focusing my frustration with this story on the girls&#039; parents. 

Anyway, to reiterate: I&#039;m not &quot;blaming&quot; the girls for what happened.  

&lt;blockquote&gt;
A leader of a fundamentalist sect teaches to his flock that this thirteen year old girl is chosen to be his wife (where he can rape her under the guise of consensual marital relations) and that this is her only path to salvation, lest she be eternally punished in hell.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

To extend the metaphor to our situation, there are plenty of people outside the cult who *should* have been telling this girl that the Leader is wrong, immoral, inappropriate.  With good reason.  Where are they?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I think you agree that these children were unequivocally raped. That is good. What is troubling me is that you are seeming to imply that these girls are somehow to be blamed, or share the blame for their rape. They are completely without blame.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ve said it before, but here&#8217;s another go at it.</p>
<p>The girls in the original story (all minors) were unequivocally raped.  It&#8217;s horrible.  It&#8217;s awful.  I&#8217;ve (thank FSM) never been in that position nor have my immediate family members.</p>
<p>What bothered me about the story is that the girls <em>believed</em> what this man was saying.  I have a hard time getting over that.  I know the Tarot cards are just an accessory to his crime, and it&#8217;s a bigger issue that the man abused their trust in him.  </p>
<p>These girls did two things: they believed in something (Tarot) without any rational basis and also trusted the man despite him telling them to do awful things.  Why?!  I want to know why.  How does that happen?  No answer excuses what the man did.  </p>
<p>Surely someone had warned them about both situations in their lives, right?  Maybe I should be focusing my frustration with this story on the girls&#8217; parents. </p>
<p>Anyway, to reiterate: I&#8217;m not &#8220;blaming&#8221; the girls for what happened.  </p>
<blockquote><p>
A leader of a fundamentalist sect teaches to his flock that this thirteen year old girl is chosen to be his wife (where he can rape her under the guise of consensual marital relations) and that this is her only path to salvation, lest she be eternally punished in hell.
</p></blockquote>
<p>To extend the metaphor to our situation, there are plenty of people outside the cult who *should* have been telling this girl that the Leader is wrong, immoral, inappropriate.  With good reason.  Where are they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/4 queries in 0.026 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 300/308 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-02-14 11:07:48 -->
