A blog is a personal diary. A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world.


Mar 13, 2010

NO means NO....and other abuse truths.

Hi All,

During my forays into the online world, I often come across fundamentalist sites. I have mentioned here previously the Botkins sisters from Visionary Daughters, but I do also read others that I do not wish promote on my site, for varying reasons.

Like all things, fundamentalism has many different shades, and this is evident in the wide variety of blogs that I have come across. However, in the number of years since I was firstly, a fundamentalist, and secondly, since I began reading fundamentalist blogs, I have noticed a slow, but steady slide, to a more more conservative, restricted type of living. To be frank, I find this trend concerning - particularly for the women and children that find themselves trapped in abusive situations thanks to these restrictions, and what ultimately boils down to peer pressure and and far too high expectations.

Tonight, I came across a blog, which I found particularly triggering. By His Grace and For His Glory is written by 17 year stay-at-home daughter, who is definitely on the more extreme end of conservatism.

One of her entries is of particular interest to me, in that it is highly judgemental/critical of sexual abuse victims, and completely ignores the facts of abuse: including that most abuse happens at home by people that are known to the victim.  She neglects to mention the incidents of abuse within the home, portraying that all abuse happens outside the home at school or work.

NOT ONCE does she ever consider the possibility that the father/husband is the person carrying out the abuse.

NOT ONCE does she offer an alternative for the girls that are abused at home.

NOT ONCE does she consider the fact that, at times, your safest option is to leave and cut off all contact.

She writes in the comments of the same article:

For example, a woman wears terribly provocative clothing and a man thinks that due to her attire, she would be willing to begin a sexual relationship with him (this is what that sort of attire is saying about the wearer thereof, whether she intends that or not). He therefore pursues such a relationship, but she fights back while he does so-thus, a terrible rape occurs. This kind of situation can-and most certainly does-occur. This rape occured-in part-because of the woman's attire. I am not placing all blame on her! She didn't force him to rape her. But, the rape perhaps may not have occured were it not for her attire. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Perhaps another example or two would better illustrate my position.

It's like when a young woman dresses immodestly and when young men stare at her body, she gets mad. Obviously, the young man shouldn't be lusting after her and should definitely instead look away. However, the girl wouldn't receive this sort of attention if she were dressing modestly rather than putting a stumbling block in front of the young man.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. Let's say a woman knew that a man guilty of rape lived in a certain house in her neighborhood, and each time he was in his front yard to mow his grass, she would walk by in immodest attire and wink at him. One day he rapes her. Is he to blame for this abhorrent act? Of course he is! But is she not partly to blame for enticing him and tempting him, rather than staying far away from him and leaving him alone? I believe she is, to a degree.

If I had said all victims were to blame, yes, that would be horrifying. But I simply said that *some* were *partially* to blame. That is sad, yes, but factual nonetheless, I believe. Part of the problem here is that we live in a savagely feministic society which hates men and tries to blame them for anything and everything. I'm not saying you do this, I'm simply saying that this is the condition of our culture and a pervading stance therein. Therefore, when one says that yes, men should stop lusting, but women should stop dressing immodestly and thereby encouraging them to lust, people get angry. They want all the blame to be on the men. While some blame should be put there-they are responsible for their own actions, after all-not all belongs to the man.

NO victim is to blame for their rape or abuse. Even if the victim was naked, there is NEVER an excuse for rape. EVER. The blame is solely on the rapist: NO means NO.

I didn't get molested when I was dressing immodestly (ie, as I dress now). I got molested when I was dressing modestly. It isn't ever about the clothes, it is about the control.



Anonymous said...


I, too, have read her work, and I was concerned with your post for the reason that you misrepresented Rebekah's views. For example, in response to the comment you left on her post, she specifically said that there are times when a daughter, because of an abusive father, needs to seek an alternate area of protection. I ask that in the future you would read all of her comments and more accurately represent the person you are posting about.

Thank you!


Princess Jo said...


Firstly, I hadn't read her reply when I wrote this piece.

Additionally, I was more referring to the fact that she did not put a polite disclaimer in her actual blog post. Regardless of my personal opinions currently about stay at home daughters, a simple disclaimer, would for me, gone a long way to allaying many of my fears, and presented an option out for the other abused girls out there that may read her blog. A lot of people don't read through the comments, and would have walked away with a similar conclusion, and felt horribly guilty about their life choices, particularly if they are still Christians.

Anna, I left home, and chose not to find another area of protection. Why? Because for me, it would have been too traumatic to do so. I was very afraid of being abused again. Finding "another area of protection" whilst sounding very simple to you and Rebekah (neither one a victim of abuse as far as I know), is far more complicated in real life...

You and Rebekah both show a remarkable lack of knowledge about abuse and it's long term effects on a person. Please, do a little reading, a little exploring on this blog. Then you might understand that life doesn't always fit in the beautiful little boxes you would like to fit it into. I used to be so like you, my dear. Then I realised that one size does not fit all: that the happy endings that get promised to us, don't always exist, regardless of how we struggle to fit into God's plan for our life. I was YOU, Anna.


shadowspring said...

This young woman is just spouting rhetoric she has learned and church and probably from her parents. She is not "wise" but foolish and proud.

The only people obsessed with the modesty ranking of clothes are perverts. These so-called "modest" people are the ones most obsessed with sexuality!

If you grow up around naked women, naked women don't bother you. My husband grew up in the midst of a Stone Age tribe. He was never titillated by watching the women walk around with no tops. He was not titillated by the naked men, who basically tie a string around their dong and tether it out of the way as they go about life.

He did not grow up a pervert. He is a righteous man who takes responsibility for his own sexual thoughts and behavior.

In twenty-three years of marriage, I have never seen him do a double-take nor ever look at a woman other than his wife in a sexually appreciative manner.

Bare shoulders, cleavage, short skirts, tight pants- he takes it all in stride and concentrates on the human person inside.

These new ultra-conservative books/blogs out show what reprehensible sinners the authors are! Who is this mythical girl mowing the lawn in scanty attire and winking at the neighbor? She never existed! She was made up. There is no person like this.

The implication then is that every girl in shorts, or spaghetti straps, or who has a nice body is that whore with the lawnmower that the poster made up in their head.

I am with you, Jo. The emphasis on women covering up is misogynist. This idea that a woman is asking to be raped by the way she dresses is ridiculous.

The men in her life are just pigs, that's the bottom line. They blame attractive women for their own short-comings- seeing women as only objects of lust instead of human persons worthy of dignity and respect.

Ladies, travel the world and get some real experience before you start your "ministry". Your personal world is so tiny and narrow-minded that at this point you don't even have original insights to offer.

Grow up some and get involved in the real world, don't just regurgitate what someone else told you.

I appreciate your blog and your strong voice, Jo! Don't back down or apologize. Your post was right on and there is reason to be concerned about the ultra-conservative bent in the Christian publishing world.

As a Christian, I am very concerned!!

JM said...

Nice hypothetical situation she puts there. What kind of insane woman would flounce around winking at a man she knows is convicted of rape?

I think I can understand what the author is trying to say (having walked around Melbourne at night and seen teenage girls dressed up...very badly), but I still think she is looking at it from the wrong angle. A rape is a lack of control or mental wrongness on the part of the rapist. Period. If I walk around naked and a man rapes me, it's 100% his fault for not being able to control himself.

If rape was about looks, then we'd be playing a different ball game, but it's not. It's about power.

Finbarpurpleton said...


Is this girl for real? To say a woman is responsible for rape is morally reprehensible. I agree with you the victim is never to blame at all, rape or sexual abuse is about power. It’s misogynistic! And due to fatigue I can’t think of anything intelligent in response to say about this other then wtf? Seriously is she living in a bubble or something?

Melissa :)

Anonymous said...

Jo, I understand a bit where you're coming from.

Ladies, before judging her so harshly, I would encourage you to actually read her entire post and the comments she has made in the comment section to acquire a better representation of her true views. She has laid them out extensively. Furthermore, anyone who reads them would never think to call her proud. She has been criticized quite a bit in the comment section of her post, and she always responds humbly and with much grace.

Thank you,

Lorena said...

Hmmm! I think I'm going to write a post regarding "Honor thy mother and father" being supportive of abuse.

I've written about it before, but maybe I should write again.

Anonymous said...

Hi Princess Jo,

She is just 17 and that's to say.... she a kid. She hasn't seen much in life or hasn't met a survivor of an abusive church/family yet. I usually don't take 'stay-at-home daughters' blogs seriously. Please read- teenager. You know why? Most are just parroting what their parents have taught them & haven't yet had the opportunity to test these 'ideals' independently under the leading of God's Spirit.

Thank God - God is your Healer.



Submit My News Click here to submit my news to the LFCA

A Cloud of Words

Wordle: Princessjo

Anniversary Countdown

Daisypath Next Aniversary Ticker