Jump to content

Menu

How do deviant proclivities get wired in? (Sort of a S/O of Duggar)


Ginevra
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Lecka said:

My husband has said no to several things.  If I couldn’t also say no to him on my high-priority items we would definitely have a loaded gun not in a gun safe.  Instead we have a gun in a gun safe and no ammo in the house.  I can’t think of any other hard no’s I have had but it is a hard no for me.  
My husband had access to a gun in his home when he was a teen and played with it, so he doesn’t disagree, but it’s not what he would do if I weren’t  making it a big deal.  

If my DH wanted to do something I heartily disagreed with, I would let him know and chances are he'd reconsider.

If he wanted to do something dangerous to others and wouldn't reconsider, I'd have put my obedience to God and my conscience before my submission to him and do something about it. I think this is in keeping with Scripture.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

<sigh>

Saying that I don't think we should put much stock in rumors does not mean I'm giving him the "benefit of the doubt." 

I've followed FJ off and on for years. There were always rumors about Josh. People knew about what he did to his sisters because it was made public in their church. But the sisters have never said anything about it continuing until Josh left the house. 

Trafficking exists but nothing to the extent of what many people believe. 

 

I just realized I joined FJ in 2008, back in the Yuku days. I started off by trying to understand my fiancé’s fundamentalist Baptist background and stayed to understand my own homeschool fundie weirdness.

My sister that is estranged married into a fundamentalist cult.  Between that and trying to make sense of much of my own childhood, I’ve spent too many years studying and reading this stuff. I actually own a couple books by the infamous Botkin sisters and some others.  
Not that it matters. I just feel old lol.

Edited by Mrs Tiggywinkle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ordinary Shoes, I appreciate you attaching those articles, but I I mean what I said about believing lies. I thought about this conundrum a lot with all the political upheaval and social stress of last year. Like, who has time to vet all the information we hear? And once you have determined you have info from a reliable source (as I did with the human trafficking seminar), it seems like it’s safe to believe. That’s why something like 70% of Republican voters still believe the election was stolen. 

PS, labor trafficking was mentioned by the speaker, though it wasn’t dwelled upon because, by numbers, sex abuse was the bigger issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Quill said:

@Ordinary Shoes, I appreciate you attaching those articles, but I I mean what I said about believing lies. I thought about this conundrum a lot with all the political upheaval and social stress of last year. Like, who has time to vet all the information we hear? And once you have determined you have info from a reliable source (as I did with the human trafficking seminar), it seems like it’s safe to believe. That’s why something like 70% of Republican voters still believe the election was stolen. 

PS, labor trafficking was mentioned by the speaker, though it wasn’t dwelled upon because, by numbers, sex abuse was the bigger issue. 

Human trafficking DOES exist, in the US. 

https://www.justice.gov/humantrafficking

Sex trafficking exists a subtype within the bigger picture 

It happens to thousands of people in the US every year but it is difficult to track bc of the nature of the crime.

https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/sex-trafficking

the above has stats for both labor and sex trafficking...over 10,000 total for both in 2019

I am not sure what the issue is? Oh, it’s exaggerated or overblown? Is 10000 people a year not a big deal? 

Has anyone read the Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas lately?

I guess 10,000 people a year is NBD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s 10,000 PEOPLE a year, in the US. That’s an estimate, but the page I cite gave a range, with that as their count

Who are these people (Christians, did you say? Overreacting Christians?) that are claiming how prevalent it is? Links to surveys of people who vastly overstate the prevalence of trafficking? Citations of studies that say it’s not “prevalent”?

I guarantee you that at the Kentucky Derby this weekend you could have found people being trafficked...both sexually, which is RAPE, if it is under 18 and for labor.

Large influxes of people draw crime. Shocking, I know. Whether it be the Super Bowl or the NCAA finals or the Democratic and Republican National conventions. 

This was after final four basketball in Minneapolis 

47 people charge with felony solicitation of a minor under 16

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ooc/news-releases/Pages/Undercover-Operation-Results-in-Dozens-of-Arrests-and-Rescue-of-More-Than-Two-Dozen-Trafficking-Victims.aspx

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think that the concern about human trafficking minimizes the risks to women in children in their own homes. Where were the Duggar girls hurt? Is the focus on human trafficking a way of deflecting attention from scandals within churches? IDK. Most people are much more afraid of a stranger kidnapping their child than the adults they welcome into their home and we know the latter poses a much greater risk to our children. 

 

QFT.

And much of the trafficking that's out there has a big overlap with abuse in the home. It's rarely young person kidnapped off the streets. It usually starts with abuse in the home that turns into trafficking, often out of the home or the home of a family friend initially. When we focus on trafficking as some big bad that goes around stealing away children and taking them to mystery cities, that allows us to ignore the greater danger that's usually posed by family friends and people close to the child. There's a comfort in thinking that the danger is always a strange boogeyman because then we don't have to examine truths that are more difficult and complex to fix.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Farrar said:

QFT.

And much of the trafficking that's out there has a big overlap with abuse in the home. It's rarely young person kidnapped off the streets. It usually starts with abuse in the home that turns into trafficking, often out of the home or the home of a family friend initially. When we focus on trafficking as some big bad that goes around stealing away children and taking them to mystery cities, that allows us to ignore the greater danger that's usually posed by family friends and people close to the child. There's a comfort in thinking that the danger is always a strange boogeyman because then we don't have to examine truths that are more difficult and complex to fix.

I’d say the vast majority of women on this board know the biggest possibility of danger of abuse comes from people who are known.

this tangent came bc someone stated there isn’t a surge of trafficking at Super Bowls (Ordinary Shoes?)...and then someone else questioned that (Quill)

No one here is mixing the two situations except you and Ordinary Shoes.

and speaking of push back...it makes me wonder, why pushback so hard against conversations about trafficking?!?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pinball said:

and speaking of push back...it makes me wonder, why pushback so hard against conversations about trafficking?!?

Because the false trafficking narratives hurt organizations actually fighting against real trafficking and the lies are used as propaganda for spreading conspiracy theories.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

Because the false trafficking narratives hurt organizations actually fighting against real trafficking and the lies are used as propaganda for spreading conspiracy theories.

Where, in this thread, are the posts espousing the false trafficking narratives?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

You caught us..we're involved in human trafficking. And BTW, I think Josh Duggar is dreamy and completely innocent of all of the charges. 

We're pushing back SO HARD against talking about human trafficking. Uh huh. Obviously because we think it's awesome sauce. Along with p#rn, I'm rah rah for all the p#rn. 

So keep wondering and questioning because you are totally getting to the bottom of the real issues. All of the children will be much safer with you on the job. Here's your gold star. 

👍

 

This is called deflection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, pinball said:

Where, in this thread, are the posts espousing the false trafficking narratives?

 

It isn't in this thread.  But it has been in plenty of threads on this board in the past few months, from boardies who had previously been trusted for years.  I think it's safe to say plenty of us have become a bit sensitive about it.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, true. I am trying to deflect criticism of my human trafficking activities. You're right -goodness you are definitely earning your gold star today! 

And now time for my detective work. You're one of those posters who left a few months because of the "pile-ons," we're all so intolerant, whatever. But your new forum is boring so you made up a new name and you're back. 

No, you are deflecting my factually appropriate posts about trafficking within this thread and somehow attributing me talking about it with ignorance about other abuse statistics and the risks of children becoming trafficked by strangers.

As for your detective work...you’re wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Katy said:

It isn't in this thread.  But it has been in plenty of threads on this board in the past few months, from boardies who had previously been trusted for years.  I think it's safe to say plenty of us have become a bit sensitive about it.

Links?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pinball said:

Links?

Why would I want to waste half an hour googling something that you're perfectly capable of googling yourself?  Besides, I'm pretty sure the worst scuff ups were locked and possibly deleted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Katy said:

It isn't in this thread.  But it has been in plenty of threads on this board in the past few months, from boardies who had previously been trusted for years.  I think it's safe to say plenty of us have become a bit sensitive about it.

 

8 minutes ago, pinball said:

Links?

 

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

Why would I want to waste half an hour googling something that you're perfectly capable of googling yourself?  Besides, I'm pretty sure the worst scuff ups were locked and possibly deleted.

So you get to claim something, and when I ask for proof, you won’t provide it? Plus “the evidence is probably destroyed” ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pinball said:

 

 

So you get to claim something, and when I ask for proof, you won’t provide it? Plus “the evidence is probably destroyed” ?

Are being lazy or are you just trolling at this point? There is proof.  Read the threads you skipped, specifically ones on Q.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

Are being lazy or are you just trolling at this point? There is proof.  Read the threads you skipped, specifically ones on Q.

Neither. YOU posted some kind of vague assertions and now you want ME to prove them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm pretty sure @Katyis correct that the worst of it--and it was bad--was deleted.

So I can’t have a factual conversation in this thread about trafficking because other threads in the past that are gone now had people espoused false trafficking narratives?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/search/?q=trafficking&quick=1

Here are search results from searching on trafficking. The first few are for this thread here, but below that on the same page are a bunch to previous threads where it has come up.  A LOT.  

I thought you were someone who said they lurked a lot before joining?  Since this seems to be a big interest of yours (not sure interest is the word but can't think of another), you have probably read some of these posts in the past.  

It is interesting how we have so many new posters who sound just like old posters who left, down to their arguments and opinions on very controversial issues and are so eager to jump into those controversial conversations right off the bat.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/search/?q=trafficking&quick=1

Here are search results from searching on trafficking. The first few are for this thread here, but below that on the same page are a bunch to previous threads where it has come up.  A LOT.  

I thought you were someone who said they lurked a lot before joining?  Since this seems to be a big interest of yours (not sure interest is the word but can't think of another), you have probably read some of these posts in the past.  

It is interesting how we have so many new posters who sound just like old posters who left, down to their arguments and opinions on very controversial issues and are so eager to jump into those controversial conversations right off the bat.  

The almost entire first page was this thread!

then further on...

and I did not read the Q thread, bc I have no interest in Q.

and the other thread entitled child trafficking related I also did not read bc I did not see it. It was from a couple months ago, it looks like.

so if that is where all the posters are who had false trafficking narratives are, I didn’t see them. And let’s say I take your word for it...they are in there.

how does that relate to ME and what I wrote? What did I write that is false?

Am I not allowed to talk about it bc some other people have false information? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More deflection, but with Brady Bunch memes.

Any way...if anyone cares, there is an org in the DC area, that I’m not going to link, so people can look on their own,

that supports women leaving trafficking.

it’s called fair girls dot org

i feel like it accurately portrays aspects of trafficking and is trying to help the victims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked what the problem was with this line of conversation, I told you, you argued exactly along the lines of a troll who left after much drama. 

I was accused of being an old troll under a new name with my first few posts here, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You can bring up whatever you want and have whatever conversation you want.  But if you’re rude, argumentative instead of having polite discussion, or are otherwise in any way as obnoxious as the person everyone seems to think you are, you’re going to get rude answers right back until people give up and block you. 

There have been *many* awful, contentious, and disturbing conversations here about human trafficking, specifically demonstrably false posts about q-anon in recent months. I wasn’t informing you of that to argue with you. I don’t have anything to prove and frankly I don’t care if you believe me. I was trying to politely inform you of why few of us have patience for this line of discussion anymore. If you want to carry on anyway, feel free to.  But there’s really no rude to be rude or accuse me or anyone else of poor logic. I’m not arguing with you. I’m not debating with you. I was only trying to give helpful background information. If you can’t appreciate that please block me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analysis from UNDOC re trafficking of (mainly but not only) women and girls.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-report-trafficking-persons-2020

I've got no idea about Q and Super Bowl - but here's some facts from the UN about trafficking (who, where, why). Ppl can judge for themselves whether there's a 'significant' problem. 

Given that the women most likely to be trafficked are migrants, in poverty or otherwise vulnerable, my personal opinion is that it's a significant problem globally, that wealthy nations aren't immune, and that it's worth good faith actors both helping these women escape, and lobbying for changes in law, policing etc to enable prosecution of those engaged in the crime of trading in humans.

Trafficking isn't a deviant proclivity, however. It's business. A huge, global, profit making business, relying on the exploitation of (mostly) female bodies.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

QFT.

And much of the trafficking that's out there has a big overlap with abuse in the home. It's rarely young person kidnapped off the streets. It usually starts with abuse in the home that turns into trafficking, often out of the home or the home of a family friend initially. When we focus on trafficking as some big bad that goes around stealing away children and taking them to mystery cities, that allows us to ignore the greater danger that's usually posed by family friends and people close to the child. There's a comfort in thinking that the danger is always a strange boogeyman because then we don't have to examine truths that are more difficult and complex to fix.

That’s true, BUT let me just say, the seminar person was not beating the “stranger danger” drum at all. She literally said the very substantial majority were groomed into it by derelict parents/stepparents and kids living in homes with abuse and/or young teens who run away from home and this is a way they can survive. 

She did, however, say the thing about the Super Bowl. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I would have had literally had no idea about the debate over trafficking if it weren't for this forum. 

Not everyone is aware of the things we think they should be aware of, KWIM?

(Sorry, that's a lot of acronyms.) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m about halfway through & I’m finding this video extremely interesting. Obvious trigger warnings.  This woman is a defense attorney who has dealt with charges like this before. It’s interesting & touches on the theory that interest in children is an orientation that cannot be rewired. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 5/3/2021 at 4:03 PM, pinball said:

 

 

So you get to claim something, and when I ask for proof, you won’t provide it? Plus “the evidence is probably destroyed” ?

If you are not who some think you are then you're truly new. And if you're truly new you don't know about those threads. Those of us who aren't new know about them. They existed. They were bad. Moderators deleted them. And this is a conspiracy by veteran board members how?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stella21 said:

Addiction is very bad whether it is for sex or anything else. Some people are so addictive to sex that they can't control even in the public places.

Welcome to the forum, Stella. 🙂 

Is there any particular reason why you are resurrecting old threads? I noticed that you also bumped up the vasectomy thread today. 

I hope you will tell us more about yourself -- feel free to start a new thread to introduce yourself so we can all get to know you better!  🙂 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...