Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from madly Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Rainy, I thought this article was kind of interesting. It pertains somewhat to our discussion. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, May 02, 2007, 03:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. It's written by a good friend who doesn't frequent here anymore.(reply to this comment)

from anovagrrl Friday, January 03, 2003 - 00:22 (Agree/Disagree?) When should people take responsibility for their choices? 1) When they're made to do so by a power greater themselves, or 2) when they become aware of alternatives, and 2.5)the pain of staying the same is greater than the fear of change. I can only take responsibility for the things I have the power to change. If I am ignorant and don't know that I'm ignorant, where do I find what is needed to change my situation? If I prefer the evil I know over the evil I do not know--perhaps because I have adapted and learned to cope with my situation--where do I find the courage to change? (reply to this comment)

From Heather Saturday, January 04, 2003, 02:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Anovagrrl, just curious if you're in a 12 step program?(reply to this comment)

from JoeH Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd just like to say that I'm completetly disgusted by this person calling himself "Wondering", and that his views by no means reflect those of the rest of us "younger" SGA's. His apologism and attempts to lay equal blame on the innocent children who knew nothing else but the line of BS that TF fed us makes me sick, and I'll gladly turn over all the money from my therapy fund so he can get deprogrammed! (reply to this comment)

From Prisma Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. I’m also younger than both Lucidchick and Jules – however, I am not in denial and I know for a fact that children younger than I (24) were prey to terrible actions by FG adults. I don’t know where this “Wondering” person is coming from but, he or she does not speak for me or my younger friends who know all too well that terrible actions were not isolated incidents occurring only to our older brothers and sisters – they undoubtedly had it worse in most cases but that does not mean it didn’t happen. I’m especially disgusted with the inclination that some of us “allowed ourselves to go through” actions of abuse or harm. (reply to this comment)

from Prisma Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 01:05 (Agree/Disagree?) This is a very difficult issue to deal with especially for second-generation children that were abused by other children. I personally know of two girls who are very close to me that were abused by second-generation boys. One boy was about 10 years old and molested a girl when she was 4 yrs old and another boy was about 14 years old and molested a girl when she was 9 yrs old - both of these incidents happened in Japan in two different homes. Of course, I didn’t know about either of these incidents until years later and was appalled when I heard of this. There is however documented evidence from many Psychologists that most children who abuse other children have been abused themselves, obviously not all abused children become abusers but this is something to remember for those who were victimized by other children or young second-generation adults. I don’t believe that because these second-generation children or adults were victims themselves excuses their actions by any means and these boys who are now adults must be fully aware of what they did as children. As a matter of fact the 14-year-old boy wrote a letter of apology to one of the girls years later and expressed how remorseful he was for what he had done – he was in his late twenties when he wrote the letter of apology. The family situations where also quite a bit different then - 12 or more years ago – then they were 6 years ago. For one, this was pre-charter and pre-removal-of-child-sex-literature – during that time it was still thought of as “ok”. I see two sets of arguments that appear relevant to this discussion: 1. I don’t know that I could seriously hold that 10-year-old boy accountable for what he did if a) He was victim of abuse as well and b) He grew up in a completely sheltered cult society that encouraged child-sex. 2. On the other hand, it is society’s responsibility as well as ours to hold people accountable for their actions even if they were not introduced to “normal” values and “normal” right and wrong. An action of murder by a child would not go unpunished even if the parents were violent and negligent and in the same vein an action of child abuse should not go unpunished even if it was seen as “acceptable” by the perpetrator. I don’t know guys, I still feel a bit torn on this issue. I have sympathetic feelings for children who have been abused even if they do go on to abuse other children; however, I think I would really like to see justice served if was the victim in this case – even if the abuser was abused. Victims should not have to suffer for the abusers misfortunes or psychological problems – this does nothing to solve the deep-rooted problems of the abuser. I’m open to other opinions on this topic and as I stated earlier although I am torn on this issue I still firmly believe that justice above all else should served and perhaps if these children were accountable for there actions there would be less children abused to this day. (reply to this comment)

From Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 00:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Prisma, I agree with most of your points. However, I think you have to differentiate between sexual contact and sexual abuse. With an adult, you can easily say any sexual touching with a child is abuse, but with child-child sex cases it's not always that simple. The cases you mentioned about the 10 and 14 year old boys, you are not quite clear about what the "molestation" entailed. In the Family sexual contact was quite normal, if not always between adults and kids, then with kids and kids, and adults and adults. Most of us thought nothing of "sharing" with with our peers. However, although we may not have known better about promiscuity, we DID know that it was wrong to rape or hurt another person sexualy. I'll give the Family credit for teaching us that much I know our upbring left us disadvantaged moraly, but seriously folks we do know better than to rape. If that is what these boys in fact did, then yes, regardless of whether the victim was an adult or child they should answer for it. On the other hand, if you mean they just touched them sexualy and it was consensual, well that's not good, but that was pretty normal for the family. I remember many times in my childhood when some adult would organize a "Play Sharing party" and everyone would partner up and have "Love Up Time". We didn't actualy have sex, just kissed and cuddled, and it was definetly consensual. I think, as with most issuses involving teen sexuality, you have to judge it on a case by case basis. Inter-child sexual relations are not always wrong or always right. (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, December 30, 2002, 05:10 (Agree/Disagree?) From my rememberance I was under the impression that rape wasn't as bad as, for instance, the sin of self-righteousness. In IRFers Beware we were taught that the woman was raped (and murdered) in punishment for leaving the Family and that we should sympathise with the poor rapist. If anyone remembers the FFing letters that got purged in the early 90s, one of them covered an incident where Maria was in an elevator and got raped by one of the waiters. If I remember correctly, though it was tramatic for her, Berg still seemed more to sympathise with the rapist rather than the victim, blaming her for flirting too much, or something, or excusing it that guys just needed sex and would get it somehow, someway. I have hazy memories of a Bible class of Berg's which covered rape and how he said that in ancient Israel rape wasn't considered a terrible offence, and if you raped someone's daughter you were to either marry her or pay her family for the crime. And of course there is Heaven's Girl in which MC was gang raped by the soldiers. This taught us to accept rape and allow it to happen and not to defend our rights against it, in other words, going to the authorities, reporting it. As a matter of fact, I don't seem to recall any teachings in which we were instructed to go to the authorities if someone had committed a crime. Perhaps in more recent days the Family has made an effort to state rules concerning their law of love, in other words, it MUST be consential, it must be done in love... but when I was a young adult single woman, though I was admittedly never physically forced to have sex with anyone I didn't want to, the pressure was there that if you didn't 'share' and have sex with whoever asked it of you, you were selfish, immature and a child in the spirit. Though I hated the label of immaturity, this was one area I could not bring myself to 'yield' in, and so continued beating myself up as being a spiritual child for not having sex with that guy who was asking it from me. But I do agree that this subject is much to complex to make a black and white statement on, there are many grays to it, such as environment, upbringing, morals, etc..(reply to this comment)

From Question to Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 09:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for this thought-provoking comment, pd. That part about their "Law of Love" requiring that it be done in love...well, that is so misleading to outsiders who don't know that "love" in the realm of sexuality has an entirely different content in TF, including notions that if one has real love one will not be withholding and "give him not those things which are needful to the body" (hazy memory -- James verse?). Love in TF as I learnt it excluded love for oneself. In fact, oneself was to be as tiny as possible "He must increase but I must decrease..." "the less there is of you the more the light shines through." Die Daily, take up your cross and deny yourself. Love in TF meant utter selflessness and even self mutilation. Religions where not every single person who happens to be born there has to be a "vicar of Christ" are smart for that point.(reply to this comment)

From Prisma Monday, December 30, 2002, 01:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I apologize for the ambiguity. In both these incidents with the 10 and 14-year-old boys it was NOT consensual. It was unwanted sexual advances and forcing of these girls to perform acts that they did NOT want to perform. I do know that sexual activity at a young age was common among peer age groups however; this was unfortunately not the case. (reply to this comment)

From Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 01:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the clarification, I now agree with all your points. ;-)(reply to this comment)

From Question to Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 01:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I am confused about the following statement: "However, although we may not have known better about promiscuity, we DID know that it was wrong to rape or hurt another person sexualy. I'll give the Family credit for teaching us that much." When I was growing up the adults were allowed to sexually use children. Certainly this included "rape" and "hurting another person sexually," so I am having a hard time squaring what happened to me with that statement of yours. Are you only saying that the second generation was taught that those things were wrong? Any clarification you could give would be appreciated.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, December 30, 2002, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Personally I disagree with Questioner's statement that the Family taught that rape was wrong. It has probably been a long time since any of us have read what Berg wrote about rape, I scanned this in tonight with OCR, so I had to go through it and spell check (yes Joe and Jack I spell check) it, and I was shocked and very disturbed by this material. I did not remember the specifics of this document, but I first read it when I was about 7, and read it many many times in the Family. It actually explains a lot about my attitudes towards sex, aggression and why it has taken so long for me to stop being a victim. In light of legal action against the Family and the reticience of us all to take this step until now, the threats within this publication are very interesting. Here it is: http://www.movingon.org/documents/rape.dochttp://www.movingon.org/documents/rape.doc>http://www.movingon.org/documents/rape.doc>(reply to this comment)

From Auty Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 16:25 (Agree/Disagree?) How aweful is that letter! Geezus! I remember that letter as a child & teen . . .perhaps this is why I never forcefully yelled & kicked & screamed when Newheart (Justin, Robert) was going at it, I don’t think I even cried most of the time, I buried myself in my own mind. The conditioning of all of us was for the women to consent and the men to take advantage, regardless of age. One comment in this ML that really was a slap in the face was: "SOME WOMEN PUT UP A SHOW OF FAKED RESISTANCE in prudery or "morality", trying to pretend "I’m not that kind of woman !--I want to be treated like a lady"--Even though she is actually not a lady, she still wants you to treat her like one! So a lot of women hypocritically do that to save face and pretend they don't want it when they actually do. So it's sometimes hard for a man to tell phoney resistance from real resistance." You take the above paragraph & then put in the “Flirty Little Teen” letter & you have a situation where rape was really not rape . . .because the Flirty Little Teen wanted it, even if she resisted, because she wasn’t really a “lady.” So if I resisted Newheart’s advances (besides the fact that he would beat me) he assumed that I was having a “phoney resistance” scenario & chalked up my crying as fake morality. Oh my god! We just couldn’t win anyway you look at it. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Monday, December 30, 2002, 20:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a few questions. Were you forced to read this "rape" material at such a young age (7)? Or, was it, something you like many kids wanted to read because it was really "adult stuff". - Kids are generally little inquisitive agents of their own devices. If a "normal" kid was to find porn magazines littered through-out their house, showing bondage, rough sex or weird shit should their parents be prosecuted for negligence or abuse? – I suppose the answer may partly be relative to the country, it’s laws & the extent of proven abuse. Do you think all, many or most children in “The Family”, or more specifically perhaps mainly those over 20 years old would have thought that rape was ok when these incidents happened? In society, if rape occurs (even among adolescents) do we say they’re blameless because their parents were into weird magazines & allowed their kids to be exposed to it? Are, or were the 20+ exfam SGA’s born without a conscience? – Or is it possible that in reality the amount which actually did rape represent a percentage of a society who are criminally natured? (In saying that it is noted that promiscuity and sexual deviance from an ordinary perspective were significant influences in childhood nurture in the family & therefore the level of “sex crimes” from an ordinary view would be higher. Could some of Bergs teachings on the subject have been designed as a mental defence mechanism as if to say invincibly, “nothing can hurt me”, because in reality he had already stripped away not only their dignity but any self-defensive instincts they may have had. - Berg taught beliefs which went against basic instincts, yes, but if you say a kid from the family is not responsible then wouldn’t the same consideration would need be given to suicide bombers & possibly a large majority of deviant criminals in society. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, December 30, 2002, 22:47 (Agree/Disagree?) The thing is that this material was not "adult stuff". It was considered the Word of God. There was no debate on it. Not even the slightest criticism was allowed. These were not just books to read or porn materials to sneak, they were manuals on how to be an adult in the Family. It's not being born without a conscience, on the contrary, I think the older SGs are very conscientious and because of that a lot us actually internalized "Family values". If the teen training hadn't seemed to have worked with us, the later victor programs would have never been instituted. I don't know the answer to the question of how reponsible SGs are for abusive acts they committed as children. I am not excusing anyone as the results of abuse are the same, no matter who the perpetrator is. I've been through some very unpleasant things at the hands of other SGs and it's something I still don't really know the answer to. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 00:11 (Agree/Disagree?) To begin you say "this material was not 'adult stuff'". While I completely agree with the fact that it was presented as the "Word of God", if my recollection is correct there was generally always a distinction between "Adult" & "children's" reading materials. I know in my family, “Adult” materials were actually pretty well hidden from us kids, generally it seemed most exposure was a side effect of parents being unable to cope with an out-of-control maniac controlling his followers by fear of divine retribution if complete self-sacrifice was not made. The exposure, if you think about it would have been caused more by a failure in our parents in being able to distinguish when a child was actually grown up and a failure to protect them from sexual predators until they were of legal age. I’m not disagreeing that child-fondling was condoned by “The Family”, it was, but the issue of “complete and utter self-sacrifice” was really, to my recollection meant to be an “Adult” thing. So rape as it was by the FGA’s was a conscious decision to see a child as an adult & then pretend to themselves that the child had made this “complete and utter self-sacrificial” decision, which of course they had not, and then expect them to behave as if they had, punishing them like children (because they could) if they didn’t. By the time “Flirty little Teen Beware” came out the distinction of Child/ Adult was already blurred to such an extent that it was actually the Teen’s fault for somehow not knowing an Adult’s proper boundary. Still though I believe that something within us tells us when we are violating someone else’s rights. My argument also would be that if the family had included military practices or financial/ business management as part of their religious teaching curriculum that offences committed would have also been along the lines of violence, fraud, theft & corruption. Similarly, if my parents were Mafioso’s or Mobster’s my stance on violence undoubtedly would be different from what it is today. Since leaving “The Family” & even whilst in I have seen non-Fam parents try to encourage their female children to be prostitutes if they know it will benefit them in some way. The practice is not uncommon, it is however generally reserved for the lowest classes of society who have no other option, or for those who choose it as an alternative & don’t want to face the distain of their children who when growing up will realise what level their parents stooped to by choice. As far as I can see, our parents wanted to make us like them to try and escape the disdain which they had already gotten from their parents, friends & society, & were desperately afraid would be their undoing, the proof that they are imbalanced and harmful. One thing though Jules, did Berg or any “Family Publication” actually say “you should rape”, “it’s good to be raped”, or “children should be raped”? – To my recollection the answer is no. You may like to say it was as well as implied, however, in general “The Family’s” doctrine is meant to be one of non-violence (except for spanking the hell out of their kids & cursing anyone who disagrees with them), so in reality, I really can’t remember where it was actually condoned to force sex on someone. What is the issue is the “complete and utter self-sacrifice” mentality mixed with the intentional blurring of the “age of consent”, at which time “complete and utter self-sacrifice” was expected. It may have been that when reading the “rape materials” that you were looking at it as “manuals on how to be an adult in the Family” however I think we must question whether these materials (except HG which didn’t actually depict rape as being a good thing anyways) were actually intended to be the “manuals” you think (or thought) they were. While I agree they were “Adult materials” written as the “Word of God”, the question is weren’t they designed at the time of writing to be as noted earlier a sort of “mental defence mechanism”, designed primarily at keeping the FGA’s women as “Hookers for Christ” at a time when many were afraid and should have rightly run away, back to the relative safety of reality. – But no, so many of our parents defiantly bought it hook, line & sinker to prove their distorted mentalities and religious views wouldn’t die, because they were invincible. I suppose my question Jules, is do you think the earlier writings (about rape) were intended to be directed at the children?(reply to this comment)

From Commenter Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 18:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Wondering, I want to show you something from a Family pub written FOR CHILDREN. I bring this up because you stated: "the issue of “complete and utter self-sacrifice” was really, to my recollection meant to be an “Adult” thing." I on the other hand recall it from the beginning of my life as an-ever present subtext (when it was not being emphasized, which was frequent) on which that whole life was based. This is from GN 430 DO, June 1990, which directs adults to "Please make sure you read "Informing Our Children" first before reading this article to your children." I quote from "Don't Be Ignorant of the Devil's Devices" which is entirely written in a very "kiddy-patronizing" tone (asterisks enclose words underlined in the article): "11. Grandpa explained the difference between love & lust this way: "Lust is just to satisfy your *own* selfish hunger, like eating a meal...But if you are taking the food off your own plate & *giving* your own meal to satisfy & feed someone else who is hungry & starving, then that's real *love.*"(reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 11:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucidchick is right. These publications were not designated “adult” materials. That first TK book that was designated adult only was called The Love of God, and that one we did sneak to read. The rest of these were not only accessible, but encouraged reading. Even when the Kidz MOPs, LWG etc. did come out, things that were distinctly adult only materials were clearly labelled so. About the only one I remember was the “Liberty or Stumbling Block” document, which is another one I snuck. What Berg taught about rape is a bit complex. I tried to sum it up in my article Everything I Need to Know About Life I Learned in the Family as “You’ll never be raped if you never say no”. Berg himself defined rape in the document I posted as “sex without consent”. I think the publication that most vividly illustrated his views on non-consensual sex was The Girl Who Wouldn’t. “(Maria: …like some of our FFers with some ‘beasts’, you might sometimes be revoluted by the idea, but when you do it, the Lord gives you the grace and love and the want to.) … It just makes me furious to think that … she had the nerve to withhold herself from you and be that selfish, self-righteous, hard, cold and cruel. If she’d done that to me just one night I would have thrown her out. … Even if it rubbed her the wrong way and she didn’t like it at all, she should have gritted her teeth and borne it. … You believe the letters as much as you practise them! You believe God’s Word as much as you do it!” Women and children did not have the right to their own bodies. Any adult could take us and hit us for having the wrong attitude, talking too much or not smiling enough. In a climate where women supported their families and The Family through prostitution, any man could use their body for (unprotected) sex at any time. Whether you said yes or no, whether you were crying or not, whether your body was resisting or not was irrelevant. I agree that adults knew that abusing children was wrong, even in this environment. With most of the incidents that I know of the perpetrator tried to do what they were doing in some level of secrecy, which indicates a (certainly warranted) level of guilt on their part. If they really were just misled by Bergs writings, they would have been much more open about the abuse. As for these being manuals for us, I was actually pretty shocked re-reading the Rape document to see how much of what was in that particular letter went into the Heaven’s Girl story, which was most definitely a manual for us children on how we should be as teenagers in the End Time, and clearly identified as such. (reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 01:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Wondering, maybe theres is an age difference coming into play that explains the difference in your experience and the experience of people my age (almost 30) and Jules' age (28 per her profile). There were few children older than me in the Family, and TF back then proudly trumpeted the fact that they were raising us in an utterly different and unprecedented manner. I can say this under oath, Wondering -- in fact, I have said it under oath: the Davidito book was NOT "adult only" material when it was published nor in the ensuing years! Much less were the ML volumes. True, there were few children when the very first ML volumes were published, perhaps nobody even thought to designate those very first books as "adults only." However, the letters became more and more sexualized with each volume, and simultaneously the population of TF children grew, and the oldest TF children grew older; still no "Adults Only" designation. My experience, unfortunately, was that the material I had for "Word time" (an absolute requirement, of course) was the adult ML volumes and publications. No effort was made to shield me from the explicit writings or from drawings like that of a woman nailed through her genitals to a bed, or pierced through her torso by a giant fishhook and about to be swallowed by an oversize goldfish. Rather, I was knowingly given those books to read. And they constituted the only reading material available to me besides some cherished ladybird books. The first TF pub that I recall to bear an "AO" (Adults Only) designation was the FF COMIC Book (pdoll, Jules and others the same age please contradict if you remember differently). This came along relatively late in the day, maybe 84 on the early side, and since it was the first book so designated (or one of the very first), all that came before was for all "disciples." We were simply "knew" disciples, via the vaunted "birth canal" (anyone remember? we'd never know school, jobs...) The other point I wanted to make, Wondering, is that I am glad for you that you did not feel you were required to be utterly self-sacrificial as a child. My experience was that I was, to the same extent as the adults. Of course the form of self-sacrifice might take different shapes, such as my having to leave my only doll behind when moving to a new country because there was no room in the suitcase after the Mo Books were packed. If subsequent cohorts of kids were allowed some exemption from selflessness, they indeed grew up in a world I would scarcely have recognized as the COG or the Family of Love (yes I was around then). I would have a real problem with something you say to Jules, but I think you must be of a younger age group. The statement I refer to is this: "It may have been that when reading the “rape materials” that you were looking at it as “manuals on how to be an adult in the Family” however I think we must question whether these materials (except HG which didn’t actually depict rape as being a good thing anyways) were actually intended to be the “manuals” you think (or thought) they were." [only somebody from as wacko a background of ours could minimize that way about HG!] My experience echoes that of Jules in this regard. if you are younger than us (even by a year or two; that would make a difference as TF started to have such organized age categories), please disregard what I am about to say, as I cannot say that it was not different for you. If you are our age and were not in a "special situation" (say with powerful relatives outside of TF who made it so that you had a "TF lite" experience, so to speak --I am aware, for example, of one family whose kids got to go to system school b/c of an influential grandfather), all I can say is that you have learnt well from the TF experts to blame the victims. You say "she" regarded those books as such, "she" thought they were manuals for being an adult. Well, I thought the same thing, and why? Because that is what I was taught by the adults, including my so-called parents. How were isolated TF kids to learn anything but what they taught us? Do you not relize that? If you do, how can you be making comments that seem to say it was something about Jules? That is a shocking attitude. It was not her at 7, nor me at 5,7,9 etc. It was TF adults. They always said a child is like a blank computer into which they could program whatever they wanted exclusively. I repeat: I can, and have, sworn to all of this. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 01:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucidchick, Obviously I've hit a nerve. If you accept the fact (even in part) that SGA's were/ are responsible for their own actions then you have to accept that at some point you actually made a decision to go along with what your parents told you because you (like every other kid) wanted to be grown up and the only role models (or any models at all) were practicing this self destructive "ultimate unselfishness on behalf of Christ". Fine, you are older than me, agreed, but isn't this really about children (you, me, Jules & any other SGA) wanting to grow up as soon as they could, probably so they could be treated with more dignity (they hoped) then they were as a child & only being given one alternative of what to be as an adult, along with of course sexually predatorial adults eagerly agreeing that yes, you (girls in particular) were grown up at 12, in fact as early as you wanted to, the only catch was....you had to do all the “adult” stuff too. I think a lot of it boils down to the individual adults or parents involved, I’m sure many didn’t expose their kids to all the adult stuff and many did. My question Lucidchick is because you had parents or knew adults who did, does that mean that you speak any more for “treatment of kids in the family” than someone who didn’t. No, I didn’t have any rich granddad or relative to ensure I got special treatment, I experienced a bullshit “family” upbringing like everyone else, but neither I nor any of my friends in “the family” ever thought rape was condoned or allowed. My question is why are you making excuses for them now, just because they’re SGA’s, I don’t think the harm you allowed yourself to go through because of what you were taught is on the same level as harm inflicted by rape which really wasn’t taught as right. (reply to this comment)

From Nan Thursday, January 02, 2003, 20:22 (Agree/Disagree?) "I don’t think the harm you allowed yourself to go through because of what you were taught is on the same level as harm inflicted by rape which really wasn’t taught as right." I just gotta jump in here because I smell something rotten! The line above is case in point. "The harm you allowed yourself to go through." I've said this over and over, even out loud because it is simply the most ignorant thing I think I've read on this website. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to this person "Wondering," but it's just not coming. I want to think this person is young and naive and doesn't know what he/she is saying, but as he/she argues, time to take some responsibility. Wondering, did you really mean to imply that Lucid or Jules or any other woman who suffered rape, molestation, medical neglect, physical abuse and exploitation as a CHILD "allowed" themselves to go through it? Lucid and Cherish L. and I and many, many other women raised in this cult ran away when we were 17. We left at the first opportunity. I know Lucid and I never "allowed" anyone to molest us. I never "allowed" anyone to beat me or abuse me. I fought back. I said no when the "Home Shepherd's" husband molested me at 17. I told my mother, against the CRO's orders not to tell my parents what he did to me. Then, I ran away. And many, many others did the same. I know Lucid did. She ran away in the middle of the night. So, take your ill informed, ignorant small minded comments and stick them. You're offensive to the women who have suffered rape on this website. Further, the law does not recognize consent from a minor. It's called statutory rape. Because minors, who are any child under the age of 17, are vulnerable to coercion and fraud by manipulative adults, not to mention a whole cult of them, the law does not recognize the consent of a minor. Therefore, even if a girl of 16 or 17 did not fight or even if she said okay, the law still calls it rape. It is a strict liability crime, meaning there is no defense or excuse. And the last part of your inane comment is even more offensive! You presume to tell any woman who endured such torture as those raised in this cult that what she endured was "on the same level as harm inflicted by rape." You're a fool! You're not even a well spoken fool! You do not know of what you speak, but yet, you seem to have such a strongly held opinion. Nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause! And I expect you to reply with some ridiculous comment like "I seem to have hit a nerve." DAMN RIGHT you did! Before you try to tell me or Lucid or Jules or any other woman who endured the molestation and rape which was inflicted on us by that sick cult when we were defenseless children that it "wasn't on the same level" as rape, you need to have experienced it. Try having the "home shepherd" push you into the bathroom and lock the door. Try having him pull off your pants and stick his fingers inside you. Try having him put you in a choke hold with his arm around your neck while he jacks off behind you and comes all over the back of your legs. Then, come back, Wondering and tell us that it's not "on the same level." You're a juvenile ill informed pompous idiot! I commend Jules and Lucid for being so patient with your stupidity. I, however, could not find the same patience. Your opinions are ipso facto repulsive to the law and to justice and the innocence of children. Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself! (reply to this comment)

From Mir Monday, January 13, 2003, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said Nan. I bet you ladies any money that "Wondering" is a guy...(reply to this comment)

From Twat? Monday, January 13, 2003, 18:05 (Agree/Disagree?) What fucking difference is that supposed to make?? - ALL women are such pillars of wisdom!! - Yeah right!!(reply to this comment)

From Heather Saturday, January 04, 2003, 02:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Nan, Thank you, thank you, thank you! You said everything I wanted to say and more when I read Wondering's comments!(reply to this comment)

From Wondering Thursday, January 02, 2003, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, if you read my reply in clarification of my point (further down) you may understand & may I put to the record for yet another time I DID NOT mean to state or insinuate that blame lied with any victims of rape (or ANY form of abuse) for what they went through. You, Nancy are a fool for not reading ahead & seeing where I had clarified my remark prior to spouting your verbal gesticulations of hysteria. What I meant to say with that remark was to draw reference to "the family" environment which actually tried to force people to accept this as normal, & has I'm sure succeeded in some cases. I'm sure there are still SG girls in "the family" who have been raped who have possibly not even yet expressed outrage because of their forced conditioning to accept it. Now Nancy run along & take your hysterical reactions with you to your next Latin linguistics class! (reply to this comment)

From Heather Saturday, January 04, 2003, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) No! Why don't you run along and take yourself off this website!(reply to this comment)

From orangutan Saturday, January 04, 2003, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Or at least my cousin could get his accusations right! T'aint Latin linguistics, its a legal term of art that happens to be in Latin.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I had to read this over a couple times and although I think I understand your point, I am still pretty shocked by your insinuations to Lucid. Part of my point in my comments is that when you grow up in such an isolated environment, I think it’s impossible not to internalize the culture and values of that environment, completely oblivious to the fact that you have done so. Your comment I think illustrates this quite well. I’m going to make a bit of a leap here, but what I am hearing from you is “I am not a bitter ex-member. I don’t blame my upbringing in the Family for my disadvantages now, and am proud of taking responsibility for my own life. I am sceptical of people who speak out about the Family, and question their motives and their truthfulness.” What you may not realise is that this is exactly what the Family has tried to instil in their young people now. The revisionist version of events and their own history was initially concocted for outsiders, but it seems to have worked for some of us who are too young to remember what actually occurred. Parents now are held responsible for their children by the Family, a change which took place after the UK court case and the charter. That was not the case when we were children. It was One Wife, we were everyone’s children. Many of us were “forsaken” by our parents at young ages. Berg’s writings growing up were never ever to be questioned. I can personally attest to a great deal of “re-training” because I would question some of the drunken nonsense. The denunciation of his writings on abuse of children occurred only because the judge in the UK forced the Family to do this. Zerby and Kelly would have never done this on their own. I think taking responsibility for our own lives is something we all do. However, to blame a child for what occurred to them in the Family is so wrong. No one is excusing SGs who raped. We are talking about FGs here. I think a lot of us are very hard on ourselves, and perhaps that’s why there are a lot of successful driven people. It is quite painful though to see us be hard on each other as well, when there is no one who can understand our lives more than those who share our upbringing. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) PS: Just as a test of what I am saying here (that this is an internalization of the Family's own beliefs), try explaining what you said on abuse to children being "harm people allowed themselves to go through" to someone, anyone, who has never been in the Family, and see what their reaction is. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Thursday, January 02, 2003, 00:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, As already said to Lucidchick, I apologise for the lack of clarity in my comment leading to an obvious misinterpretation of my intended point (backwards in fact). To clarify your leaping assumption on my position, I’m sure many of us are bitter about a lot of our upbringing, I know I am, as much as I’m told its unhealthy, it’s just too much to ask to part with; I do blame “The Family” for my disadvantages now, every damn day; I’m proud of taking responsibility of my own life, just that I haven’t actually established what exactly “my life” is yet, - too much yet to understand & experience; I’m not sceptical of people who speak out against the family any more than I am sceptical of myself and own opinions, I speak out against “the family” myself; I do think I have a right to question what others have to say about “the family” should something not be clear or when something said conflicts with my own experiences. What exactly you mean by my having “internalized the culture & values of that environment”? It appears that when my comment was not easily understood your automatic reaction was to jump on your high (& fairly well flogged) horse of insinuations that Berg rhetoric was now so fully incorporated in my personal opinions or ideals as to make it indistinguishable from my own. – That is what having internalized something is, isn’t it, or am I missing a deeper definition? For the record I AM NOT blaming anyone for abuse inflicted upon them as a child, why would I. The question is the level of blame to be attributed to those responsible for inflicting abuse on others in an environment where they knew they would get away with it. As far as FG’s go they have NO excuse, I won’t even debate that, prison or psychiatric care depending. Jules, I know full well what it is to have been “forsaken” by parents, & empathise as I would my own pain, but I think its going too far to say in order to understand & empathise that you should tolerate rape or other abusive behaviour. – Does society let street kids run wild & rape just because their parents have “forsaken” them? (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, January 02, 2003, 08:14 (Agree/Disagree?) If I misread you than I apologise. What I was trying to say is that your aggressiveness in your previous posts seemed to be much more about you and your feelings/beliefs about yourself than Lucidchick or myself. My statements about internalization, (which yes I did mean as “Berg rhetoric was now so fully incorporated in [our] personal opinions or ideals as to make it indistinguishable from [our] own”) is something I believe to be true for all of us on some level, including myself, as I have previously said. Self-awareness is an on-going process, I believe. Open discussions on topics such as these have been very helpful to me in understanding where I still retain beliefs that are the results of Berg’s and the Family’s teachings, rather than conclusions I have come to through my own reasoning. Perhaps being more specific with details would have made this clearer, but it is difficult sometimes to post such personal things in a public forum. Regarding your question: “is the level of blame to be attributed to those responsible for inflicting abuse on others in an environment where they knew they would get away with it?” I agree with you that not only are people responsible for their own actions, this is also, IMO, the primary reason in most cases for these actions. I have personally experienced rape by SG males in the Family however, and having been there as a victim, I think I have the right to come to my own conclusion in my own time on my own experience. I have not reached a conclusion on this yet, and it is something I am still working through. In the case of the 18 year old who raped the 13 year old that I mentioned below, this young man was (and is) a bastard. He is the same individual who used a horsewhip on his young charges in the victor program in the UK. I have known him since we were both 4 and I am certain that he is simply a sadist. However in my case it was not so simple. For a number of reasons I do not wish to expound on the details, but as I said, I am still working through what I feel about it. One of the things I have internalized from the Family’s teachings is to primarily blame myself when unpleasant things happen. Even though I can now just act as though I shrug things off, there’s still the fear sometimes that it happens because of some deep fault in me. The thing is that even when we consciously understand something logically, emotional reactions are still difficult to shake.(reply to this comment)

From Wondering Thursday, January 02, 2003, 22:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "How exquisitely the individual Mind to the external World Is fitted: and how exquisitely too - Theme this but little heard among men - The external World is fitted to the Mind." - Wordsworth Internalization is an individual thing which I don't think you can properly gauge. Just because one is brought up a certain way doesn't mean they can't establish individual beliefs/ ideals or opinions. Although my opinions about rape are not about me (I've never been raped) I don't see what your issue is with me expressing my opinions/beliefs/ideals/ etc. If I took offence to what you/ Lucidchick were saying then of course it was about "my opinion/belief/ideal" which appeared different to yours, but what difference does that make.- Or am I missing the point, what was "about me" which shouldn't have been? As for the quote above, well it speaks for itself, but if your going to continue to hold yourself to blame because of some "deep fault" in you, then IMO your "Internalization" will continue to have you excuse those who committed the violation giving them complete resolution while you continue to go on with the pain & guilt of blame. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, January 03, 2003, 18:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Well perhaps you are just a sadistic and insensitive person, though from everything you have ever written on this site I don't think that is the case. The things you say however, are often extremely unkind. In almost every discussion you have had here you seem to struggle with thinly veiled rage and rather than take the bait you keep swinging out there and let you attack and/or hurt me as you have done to a number of other people here, I would rather remember that (as with us all) your behavior is the result of your own issues, and has nothing to do with me. My personal views you can take or leave, and I hope I have always been clear that I respect your opinions borne from your experiences as I expect you to respect my own. I think we all strive to distinguish our own views from those that were forcefully pushed on us. However, I think that leaving is a process, thinking for oneself is a process, and I guess it’s all part of maturing. Of course we can develop individual beliefs, what would be the point of leaving otherwise. I believe though that this is also a process. To be free from the legacy we have to be continually be brave enough to do what our parents and other FGs were not, and that is to open the closets, face the monsters under the bed and ask ourselves and others the tough questions, which I agree you have every right to do. To me, that means facing my own demons as well as those around me. Again, that is a process. I am embarrassed by what I believed one year ago, and I hope next year I will also be able to look back and see how different I am. Of course you are right about the harm that I can perpetuate (even if only to myself) by not putting the responsibility for harmful actions on the perpetrators. However, I am not ready to make my mind up about this or my particular situation. Let me ask you this. You said that you think it’s going too far to tolerate abusive behavior out of empathy. There are things you and others have said here on this web site that I would consider “abusive behavior”. How do you justify your cruelty to Lucid here in this thread, while at the same time demanding that SGs must be accountable for things they have done? IMO, what really and truly perpetuates the harm is when instead of supporting and respecting each other, and our right to disagree and work through things in our own time, we take out our anger and pain on each other. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Friday, January 03, 2003, 19:38 (Agree/Disagree?) No Jules, I'm not a sadist!! Is that your way of discrediting someone who is trying to sort through this shit & understand? - Slur & label them a sadist. Does that solve your problem? Disagreeing or disapproving a concept or idea is not abuse! Where have I been abusive? I did say something which unintentionally was easily & completely misinterpreted. I have tried my best to explain what I meant by my comment, which in no way was to put blame on the victims of horrible criminal acts. - How dare you try to discredit me because I choose to show no empathy on the criminals who perpetrated or committed vile acts. - That’s what I'm arguing here. The very concept or idea which I am trying to express I am also trying to deal with & because I'm hotly debating the concept with myself I hotly debated with you & Lucidchick. I’m completely open to retorts on an equal level, matching my own aggression which in part you have rightly assumed was more about what I was sorting through myself than something intended to be directed at you, Lucidchick or anyone else for that matter. For the record, I understand & completely respect your right to hold opposing ideas, ideals, beliefs, notions or opinions. I was simply arguing mine & like I’ve tried to explain the ideas are hotly debated within myself & perhaps (I believe) for that reason the hot debate turned outward, though not intending to attack an individual or cause harm but to express a point. So as for your idea that I am (or was) abusing Lucidchick, please, this is a topic of debate, I don’t hate Lucidchick or you or intend any harm besides where having to defend myself from slants, misinterpretations & complete assassination because you don’t grasp or understand a concept someone is trying to express. As clearly expressed to Lucid in a comment yesterday (& previously to you in other conversations), I wish to support & respect your opinions as well & agree that is the civil, constructive & ideal way to discuss these topics. I won’t however sit still, smile & nod while you’re insinuating or calling me a sadist and/ or otherwise intentionally discrediting me for trying to express a complex issue. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, January 03, 2003, 23:32 (Agree/Disagree?) My friend, you discredit yourself because you often choose to show no empathy for anyone at all. This is not the first time you have thrown something like this at Lucid. Of course you are open to comments matching your aggression. Sometimes picking a fight seems to be exactly what you are angling for. I was being facetious with my “sadist” remark. I do believe you have the capacity for empathic, reflective dialogue and are obviously extremely intelligent and thoughtful. I do understand the points you have addressed. However sometimes people do and say things without being aware of the effect they are having on others. Often the things we do and say have more to do with our own inner demons than with intentionally hurting others. Can you not consider that some SGs in the Family perhaps might have been struggling with these things as well? You have every right to your anger. No one has the right to tell you how to react or that you should forgive or empathise with those that have hurt you. You also do not have the right to tell me or anyone else how to react to the things we have experienced. This is what I take exception to. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Saturday, January 04, 2003, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Lets see, Jules you say, "You also do not have the right to tell me or anyone else how to react to the things we have experienced", & yet I have just finished saying, " For the record, I understand & completely respect your right to hold opposing ideas, ideals, beliefs, notions or opinions. I was simply arguing mine...". - Tell me Jules, how many times do I have to say it again for you I'M NOT BLAMING THE VICTIMS here. What I take offense to is (already well spelt out) the level of empathy you seem to allow to perpetrators of RAPE & other ABUSES which your following comment bears out entirely: "However sometimes people do and say things without being aware of the effect they are having on others. Often the things we do and say have more to do with our own inner demons than with intentionally hurting others. Can you not consider that some SGs in the Family perhaps might have been struggling with these things as well?" - Jules what you have just said either represents that a (SG) rapist would rape "without being aware of the effect they are having on others", because according to you has "more to do with their inner demons than with intentionally hurting others" - THERE YOU GO AGAIN, EXCUSING THE RAPIST!! -(reply to this comment)

From Jules Sunday, January 05, 2003, 02:16 (Agree/Disagree?) My empathy is mine to give. Perhaps one day you will agree with my reasoning, or perhaps I will come to agree with yours. For now let us leave this be. You have said your piece and I have said mine. There seems to be nothing gained from continuing this. I wish you well my friend, and I hope this new year is kind to you. You will always have my support. I do think of you often, and hope for myself, and if I may, for you as well, that we will know our own strength and come to find peace. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Sunday, January 05, 2003, 23:27 (Agree/Disagree?) One thing can be agreed for sure, and at no small relief (considering) that your empathy is certainly yours & yours alone to give. No one has a right to tell you whether to empathise/sympathise/agree or disagree with something, I suppose someone thinking they did would portray an ignorant & arrogant person with a well-fostered "family" upbringing. As to whether I'll agree with your reasoning I believe I already do. I'm not so (not entirely so that is) conceited as to not consider the equal validity and relevance of diametrically opposing concepts/ideals or beliefs. No one has more right (IMO) than the victim themself to empathise with their assailant, but I will not be one to offer empathy on your behalf. I assume the circumstances of your experiences have led you to different conclusions/ perceptions than myself. As each victim is an individual, so is each assailant & I do admire with incredulousness your apparent ability to be both victim & empathiser. I believe you have a very big heart, I hope you find it sustainable. Wishing you a great year 003 as well!! – Keep up the prose/ poetry. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, January 06, 2003, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I realised that I should clarify a couple of things for anyone reading this thread. For the record I do not excuse rape or abuse and will always side with the victim. In this particular circumstance since I was the victim, and there were other mitigating factors, I am still working through it all myself. I was also not a minor when this happened to me. Thanks for your comment above and for your discussion on this with me, Wondering. You have given me a lot to think about on both sides of this issue. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Saturday, January 04, 2003, 19:04 (Agree/Disagree?) continued from above.... - Either that Jules or are you in some way equating this heated debate, where heated or unintentional things may be said due to the severe sensitivity of the topic or the personal issues involved, to me now in your logic now being EQUATED with a RAPIST? - First a sadist (an accusation which you now withdraw as having been a (cute) facetious comment), & are you now labeling me such an abuser as to be a rapist because of my strong & differing opinions? FOR THE RECORD, Jules, whatever it is that I have said to Lucidchick on this thread that is so abusive & for which I have not entirely tried to make amends of/ offer explanation for, please, tell me, cut & paste each & every comment which was hurtful, harmful or unclear & I swear to take each & every word back. (reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you missed a big point of what I was trying to say, which is not that I was speaking any more for treatment of kids in the family than you, but that I was speaking more fro the treatment of kids my age than you, and I think I made it clear that I accept that you might speak more for the treatment of kids your age; only someone else your age can contradict you on that, but by the same token, you really are not in a position to speak about what kids my age were treated like. I do, however, agree with your point that it was entirely possible that the parents involved could make implementing of Family ideals more or less thorough, at least during the time when you still lived with them, until age 12 in my case. Mine were thorough. Lastly, when I talk about the selfless ideal of TF I am talking about my entire life, including when I was 4-5 and singing on the street for donations and litnessing and being told if I ever balked at getting someone "saved" that their blood would be on my hands. Frankly, its bullshit to blame CHILDREN anbd say what they went through is for "wanting to grow up." IMO that reflects remainders of TF's discipline and their putting all the blame on the child. Inc case it helps you understand how much I bought into cult ideals, I ran away just after turning 18 in a country where I was still a minor. I went rhough hell to get away from there, and I almost did not survive. If you knew my story, I don't think you would have made that particular comment. Lastly, my issues with your last statement: PART 1) "My question is why are you making excuses for them now, just because they’re SGA’s," I did not make excuses for them, please go back and read my post if you think I did. You must be thinking of somebody else's post. PART 2) "I don’t think the harm you allowed yourself to go through because of what you were taught is on the same level as harm inflicted by rape which really wasn’t taught as right." The harm I ALLLOWED MYSELF TO GO THROUGH? Please do not say something like that without knowing my story. It happens to be totally off, again, reflecting TF shifting blame for the abuses of helpless children. Plus, it's plain twisted. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Wednesday, January 01, 2003, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucidchick, I hate disagreeing with people whose opinions I respect & value. What I'm trying to express surely requires a greater amount of clarity, please bear with me while I try to make understood what I am actually trying to say. I have not intended to say that you "allowed yourself to go through" what you went through in the context of what it appears you have taken it, far from it in fact. I’m trying to relate the fact that the acceptance level to rape or sexual harassment by persons (particularly in reference to SG females in “the family”) would not have been in line with an “ordinary” acceptance level in greater society. What seemed “normal” conduct (generally but particularly sexual conduct) in “the family” wasn’t “normal” by regular society’s standards. So wouldn’t it be a reasonable to assume that you and probably most other SG females your age (& even younger) would have “allowed yourself to go through” a lot of improper conduct without even knowing or realising? I’m not at all intending to portray you (or any SG female) as having been responsible for the misconduct and rape which happened to you (or them), which agreeably “the family” uses as a ploy to level blame back on the victims. I apologise if my comments were understood that way. What I’m pointing at is much of the damage was done in mentally conditioning (forcing) an acceptance of the misconduct and even rape well prior (in most cases) to the actual violating acts themselves. What I’m actually saying is that the level of outrage, anger and even hurt in reaction by those violated was incredibly stifled and almost nullified because of the mental conditioning which had forced them to accept these acts. However, the very fact that you (& other SG’s) knew that the rape was inexcusable, shows that (IMO) there is a breaking point where human instincts kick in, regardless of what self-destructive conditioning was forced on us & tells us what it is which separates us from the animals (if even animals treat each other with such cruelty). I am trying to say with “my question is why are you making excuses for them now, just because they’re SGA’s” is hinged in a large way on this very fact, and is borne out by the fact that we as humans must know instinctively at some point where it is that we are being violated, and yes, when we are violating others. What I find harmful in your comments and opinions is the misguided notion that SG males are somewhat less responsible for themselves with regards to sexual misconduct and rape because of their upbringing. What you are really saying is that a SG male knows no better than to treat women (and children) criminally, with disdain & severe disrespect. What you are saying in excusing them (SG males who have raped) is accepting that a SG male is in extremely high risk of becoming an abuser, rapist because he has apparently been conditioned to do so. What you seem to be implying is that a typical SG male is (or were) so conditioned as to not know that rape and sexual harassment are inherently wrong and criminal. On behalf of most decent SG males I beg to differ with your implications. Stop excusing SG rapists just because they are SG’s! Along with that stop excusing SG’s who violated any persons rights just because they grew up in “the Family”. The reasoning is simple, while it is true that people (in particular females) in “the family” were forced to accept behaviour which violated them, how you can say that males were forced to be violators. – Males were not forced to be violators, that was product of conscious choice by an individual. You may decide to blame poor role models & destructive teachings of the cult and a lack of deterrent by threat of legal prosecution for people engaging in these crimes as contributing factors to a degree depending on the incident. My argument however is that rape was not actually taught to be engaged in, that is one was not taught to be a rapist, however agreed a victim of rape was taught (in as much as it was implied as well) to accept it. Because of this mental conditioning to accept rape & sexual violation, and because of “the family’s” inherent distrust (& hatred) of society, the government & law enforcers it doesn’t surprise that as there is/was little or no deterrent for this kind of behaviour it was as much as encouraged. Still I find it impossible to excuse one whom would rape as not being responsible for their actions, at least they would be inherently flawed or require medical assistance. In reference to your previous comment about the “Davidito Book”, I agree that it (along with the ChildCare Handbooks & other dubious materials) was considered a manual to raise children in “the family” with (though whether it was intended as children’s reading is debatable). However I was specifically referring to whether “rape materials” were intended to be “manuals on how to be an adult in the family” & to my recollection the “Davidito Book” is/was not “rape material”, & therefore really had little to do with my argument. Additionally to remark on your comments regarding the HG (Heaven’s Girl Series), tell me how a story about being raped on top of a lions den (before getting thrown in) would have been something to “depict rape as being a good thing”. Wouldn’t that be more something to have caused nightmares? I’m not wanting to demean the horrible influence suffered by people upon reading & having this material read to them as kids, but did you also think you had supernatural powers, wasn’t that all a part of this whole horror-fantasy story? Plenty of kids have read Superman comics (& worse), but not many decide to jump from a building with a towel pegged to their shoulders. (reply to this comment)

From Nan Thursday, January 02, 2003, 20:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucid has only take your words for their plain meaning, as any reasonable person would. It is you who have made offensive statements. Maybe you should try to get yourself straight before you delve head first into such a discussion. You should also consider your audience. Further, you need to pay your intended recipient the same respect she has paid you, don’t twist her words or impute ideas or opinions to her that she has not made or hold. Just some free advice from a legal professional. Next time, it won’t be free. And as far as Jules’ metaphorical high horse you imputed to her, I’d try pulling your head out of it first. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Friday, January 03, 2003, 19:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Trying to picture your beautiful little metaphor here Nancy: Jules is on this great big horse, flogging it no doubt with a whip (possibly wearing a matching dominatrix outfit to suit), & there's a person with their head stuck in the horse's ass (either desperately trapped & trying to get out, or maybe their enjoying it). Really Nancy, you impress, actually I'm starting to like you for your pictorial conceptualizations, almost artistic (in a sort morbid, expressing-the-sexually-sadistic sort of way). Just wondering though is this an excerpt of a satirical cartoon or just a rip-off of an elaborate Dutch porno? Who’s sadistic you ask? (reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Wednesday, January 01, 2003, 21:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Wondering, thank you very much for taking the time to reply and for clarifying your views. But please try to point out where I (not another poster) said the following and you will find that I said no such thing: "...notion that SG males are somewhat less responsible for themselves with regards to sexual misconduct and rape because of their upbringing. ...Stop excusing SG rapists just because they are SG! Along with that stop excusing SGs who violated any persons rights just because they grew up in 'the Family'." You are reading things into my viewpoint that are just not there! I want you to know that I ran away when they were starting to put SGs in charge of others. As it happens, that very night they had told me that despite my refusal I had no choice but to be an overseer of the JETTs who worked in the kitchen with me. I wanted no part of that. I also ran away for me, but part of running away "for me" was not wanting to have the act of having joined the oppressor on my conscience. I had no desirable choice, as the following months of danger proved, but for myself I find that I could not have in conscience not risked my life to avoid going to the other camp. When I write I mean only what I say and not whatever a far-flung reader may also think my given opinions indicate about my entire world view! If I don't write that I disagree with X, but I do write that I disagree with Y, you cannot correctly say that I because I have said that I disagree with your statement Y I therefore disagree with your statement X. (reply to this comment)

From Wondering Thursday, January 02, 2003, 01:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucidchick, I won’t try to “point out where you (not another poster) said“ what was referred to above, because you came out in gung-ho support of persons who did portray that NOTION (notice NOT word for word) without clarifying what (if any part) of their opinions you agreed/ disagreed with. What was emphasised was the importance to disagree with what I’d said, aligning yourself instead of establishing an independent perspective. (reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Thursday, January 02, 2003, 06:17 (Agree/Disagree?) No, Wondering. You MAY NOT fairly conclude that I was "aligning" myself with any person or opinion in addition to what I was saying! This is not personal; nobody has license to do that. If you could, I would not post on this board because then every single reader could attribute to me something they decide to based on where they are coming from, or just conclude that I adopt every opinion on a given page (or is it the whole board you add as exhibits to my posts?) said by someone who said something I agreed with or backed up, or what such persons appear to you to be saying. I cannot be held responsible for each individual's riff on my posts, certainly not when, as in this medium, I do not even know all my readership in advance. It does become rather tempting to stay away and instead communicate only with people who share the communication culture I have acquired, when people show from their replies to me that they read me in a radically different manner from that in which I have been trained to read and write. You say I "came out in gung-ho support of persons who did portray that NOTION (notice NOT word for word) without clarifying what (if any part) of their opinions you agreed/ disagreed with." Wrong. 1) I can only speak for myself, but wholesale ANYTHING is NOT included when I write an opinion that happens to overlap or clash with someone elses. My post was not intended as gung-ho support of anyone, just as a post of whatever my post contained -- as much as anyone posting in this discussion may or may not be my friend and as much as I may or may not agree with more or less of what they say. 2) I DID clarify what I was agreeing/ disagreeing with in my post (as opposed to in life in general). That would be: what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less than what I posted. Anything else I did not choose to address. I do completely understand that you could have FELT reading my post (since I was pretty pointed in tone) like the "importance" was "to disagree with what [you'd] said," and thus because of my tone or something conclude that I disagreed with every single thing you said, because I did in fact strongly disagree with certain things you said, namely, those that I took issue with in my post (any other things you said I may or may not have disagreed with). But please try to read what I wrote when you respond to me, and not only respond based on how my post makes you feel. To conclude, in my earlier posts I had taken great issue with what I understood to be your suggestions that Jules took certain Mo Letters much more seriously than they were intended to be taken (remember Berg saying "let the letters be the leaders?" etc., etc., I won't get started there, but the letters WERE and CREATED and KEPT the machine going and trampling children), then with what I understood to be the suggestion that we, as children (I repeat, when we were children), made deliberate choices (as if from among alternatives) to "buy into" Family teachings and "let" ourselves be abused. I never went into the issue of SG accountability for their violations of people's rights, and I reserve the right to not have beliefs ascribed to me that I do not claim (BTW, in case you missed it, Jules has said more than once that she does not know how to feel about what SGs did to violate her rights. I do not remember her ever saying how other SGs should feel about SGs who violated their rights.)(reply to this comment)

From Wondering Thursday, January 02, 2003, 21:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucidchick, I don't intend to digress from my intended point into debating whether you were or were not "aligning" yourself with any person/reader/commentator/patron/subscriber or what have you, of this site. If my perception was wrong I'm happy to take your word on that. I do disagree that issues discussed are "not personal". It must be difficult as to almost impossible to be truly objective about the events circumstances & pains of ones own life. It’s hard to imagine anything more personal than discussions of the direct experiences of an environment which took up every living (& often thinking) moment for in most cases 10 – 20 years of our young lives. We are discussing personal issues & people do often align themselves (particularly when it is in their greater best interests to do so) without necessarily showing as much in the way of actual debate of a topic as expressions of outrage toward having disagreed with a particular person(s). When you say “FELT” I agree that part of the reaction was directed at the tone of the reply but also the nature of topic, and urgency of it not being misunderstood which I considered an important issue. I agree with the fact that the “Letters” were the “life blood” of the organisation by which practically every action could be defended or attacked depending on ones cleverness at applying it. Primarily though a person with a position in “the family” would be able to “interpret” the letters at their discretion to allow them a large amount of control over those “below” them. Politicking & the need of “friends in high places” was almost a survival requirement, & I think (IMO) this was a major contributor to the overall environment which fostered & allowed this behaviour & the criminals who committed the crimes. So while I’m sure the actual written words of the “letters” were responsible for much, the individual choices made by those who interpreted the “letters” to get away with even more abuse than was already being clearly allowed. Look, my main argument is that each individual in the “family” is as responsible as anyone else in society to keep its laws & the basic human rights it guarantees, & my argument was against those who wish to hide behind “brainwashing” or the “letters” as reasons for being abusers or rapists. (reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Thursday, January 02, 2003, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) What I was saying is not personal, i.e. not limited to you, is my expectation that people not add to my post any old thing they wish, hence I said: "You MAY NOT fairly conclude that I was "aligning" myself with any person or opinion in addition to what I was saying! This is not personal; nobody has license to do that." Now I tire of being misread.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, December 30, 2002, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Admittedly no, I wasn't 'forced' to read any of the above mentioned materials. But when I was 7, which was back in the mid-'70s, the ONLY reading material I had, besides ladybird readers, was the first 3 volumes, and admittedly, Letters which covered sex topics were fascinating, there was the whole letter in there which detailed the female and male sex anatomy, giving detailed comics on how to have sex and where the sensitive areas are, (Revolutionary Marriage was it?), letters such as 'The Goddesses', 'Flirty Fishing', 'Mountain Maid', etc. Then the FFing volume came out, volume 4 was it, another good book to add to my child's library. To give my Mom credit, she did break the rules and bought me some Penguin versions of classics such as Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Moby Dick. Most normal children are not limited to such a tiny amount of reading materials. They grow up on manga, or Superman comics, Peanuts, and their local and school library, CS Lewis, Madeleine Le'Engle, Dr. Seuss, many of those books were labelled as ungodly and unnecessary for the Family children. LWGs didn't come out until I was 15. At least I had a 7 year reprieve from the group and a chance to read foolish, time-wasting materials and educate myself about Superman. But kids who were not able to have that 7 year break from the group were limited to a very small literary choice, most of which were Letters written strictly for adults. When my father rejoined there was still hardly anything for children which was 'Family' material. There were the True Comics, which is great, but most were laced with sex and sexy women, and can one volume of comics keep up with a voracious reading appetite. When we were told, 'It's Word time, go get something to read!' we had the entire adult library at our disposal, and this didn't change until a decade later, when the purges came along and the Family began to realise it had screwed up. So, the FFing volume, the Davidito volume, letters such as IRfers Beware, Girl Who Wouldn't and even Homos, not to mention King Arthur's FFing story and all the other exciting FFing adventures, way more exciting to read than say a 10 page dissertation on 'Prayer for Love and Mercy' for the 25th time, were for the most part our sole reading materials. In a normal home, chances are, though a parent may have porno mags around, and my parents had them around during our 7 year reprieve, it is not the only reading material available to a child, neither are they required to have their 'Word time' on a daily basis with those magazines part of the choices. Parents would normally keep such magazines at least partially hidden under their pillows or deep in their drawers. Heaven's Girl came out when I was 16 or 17, we read it unitedly before bedtime at TTC, our dream was to be Marie Claire, our goal was to live at Berg's, at least for us girls, not speaking for the boys. Silly as it is, HG was exciting and wonderful and fun and gave us something to look foward to in the next mailing, cause it was an approved reading material designed for us, to instill in us Family values in a format we would enjoy. I don't think we were born without a conscience, but there are many many factors to take into consideration before you deem someone as guilty, and again, my main question is this: At what age do Family born children take responsibility for their own choices of being in the Family? (reply to this comment)

From Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 19:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Let me clarify something here: The difference between "sexual abuse of a minor" and "rape of a minor" is really just a matter of classification, maybe it would be better if I referred to them as "Coersion-rape" and "Violent-rape". They are both criminal and all we are arguing about is which slot the police report goes into. Secondly, when I said: "I'll give the Family credit for teaching us that much." I should have been clearer. I meant the Family members as individuals and the prevailing attitudes that I encountered. I am speaking, of course from a Family teen's perspective, I don't know what the adult men may have believed. I do know that all through MY teen years I had no doubt that if I grabbed one of the other teen girls and forced her to have sex, I would get in HUGE trouble, not to mention her father or brothers might try to kill me I did not mean to imply that Berg or Zerby were opposed to it. I had not read that letter before, just saw the cover, I must say it's pretty bad, that IRFs Beware letter too. It is obvious that Berg had some seriously screwed up attitudes towards women. (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, December 30, 2002, 23:31 (Agree/Disagree?) On the issue of fathers or brothers who would interfere if someone did rape or behave unseemly towards their sister/daughter-- What about 'Flirty Little Teen Beware'? The title alone suggests that the girl is at fault if she is treated unseemly by an adult male. Though the Letter says the male will have to bear the responsibility of excommunication, the Letter was written to the young teen girls about not flirting and behaving in a way that may provoke a man to take advantage of her. But on the other hand, what could you expect from teen girls who were brought up in an environment of 'gypsy night', 'Mountain Maid', the Davidito Book, etc, as well as seeing their mothers going out 'Flirty Fishing' and using their female charms to attract men. Once again, the playacting comes into the picture, girls who were playacting what was laid out for them their whole lives are suddenly being blames if an adult man is too foward with them. As for fathers and brothers defending their sisters/daughters, although I'm sure they would be pissed as hell, whatever leadership deemed as correct is what they would do while in the group because the goal of being a good disciple was to be yielded to leadership, and when your feelings were in opposition to leadership's, you were then 'out of it' and in danger of being 'put on the bench' or demoted, publicly exposed,... I once raised my voice in anger to my shepherds over one of the Jetts in my care who had been sexually molested in the night, and I got talked to about not being self-righteous. There were obviously worse crimes in the leadership's eyes than molesting a minor. My sister was raped by an adult male in the Family while she was under his authority (her story is also on this site), when she told our father his basic reaction was just in line with the latest counsel, 'Well, you are a flirty little teen...' (to give my father credit, he has since renounced that opinion and is very morose about it, as well as putting the individual in question on his personal hit list, but we are of course no longer in the Family and so are allowed some ungodly anger). My own shame is that I myself had the same inital reaction to hearing about her experience. Perhaps since I had previously been in trouble for having a SR attitude about a case of abuse, I was in fear of having the wrong attitude, and so laid blame on my sister. I have to carry the shame of that with me, and if there is one thing I could redo in my life, it would be that particular moment, when I should have been hopping pissed mad and screamed about it and made a big scene until some action was taken. But, like the good disciple I was, I didn't put my family first, rather the group and leadership's decisions. That's a long-winded response to fathers and brothers sticking up for you, and maybe in the group today it would happen, but I highly doubt it would have happened a few years back.(reply to this comment)

From lucidchick Monday, December 30, 2002, 23:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Porceleindoll, I just wanted to say how brave I think you are to look at all these things. I have found this whole thread based on your article very therapeutic, even if it revisits the difficult territory of my memories of having been raped as a child by my supposed caregivers. I just wanted to thank you for the online therapy I have received as a result of your courage in asking the original question, in your honest follow-up discussion, and the discussions you prompted from others. A few days ago I found out that an "uncle" who molested me severely when I was 12-13 (so around 85-86) --not the same one who raped me -- went on, years later, to molest a 10-year old girl, and was excommunicated for a few days or so. I wonder how many other children "Tio Lazaro" abused. He was also an area shepherd for a long time. This was very depressing to hear, although it seems to indicate that rather than what my childish mind feared, i.e., that something was wrong with me, was not as valid as the fact that something was seriously wrong with that creep (can you even call such a creature a man? -then again, I am not sure I really know what a man is supposed to be).(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) How do I say I'm glad this discussion has benefitted you Lucidchick without sounding corny? Guess I can't so yes, I'm glad it's benefitted you and anyone else. :p It benefits me too to get things out in writing, it's the easiest way I express myself and once it is on paper I can begin to sort it out. What is a man supposed to be? Hmmm, a gentleman of course, Carey Grant, Gregory Peck, Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins, a man who is honorable and considerate, who is calm in the face of adversity and strong in the face of defeat, who wouldn't take advantage of the weak or stomp on the disadvantaged. A man who would allow himself to be mistreated before he allowed a weaker or younger one to be. Men as you mentioned are lowlifes, and one thing I cling to is that life catches up to you in one form or another, how you live will eventually make itself up to you and you will reap the consequences, good or bad. The Family often 'exommed' a man for sexual abuse on paper only. In other words, for a day, for a couple weeks, letting him loose on society, or allowing him back in and around their children. I know a leader who was put on babes status for one day, all done in secret, for molesting a pre-teen girl, and this was back at the HCS when the group was supposed to be getting past all that. My brother who was a VS was disgusted with the way the Family handled such cases, often excomming a guy for a short period and allowing him back into the group on babe's status, then of course, after 6 months he was free to be a full-time disciple again. The group will pay for this and the individuals who performed crimes against persons such as yourself and my relatives and students and many here will pay, someday, somehow. But most of all, I want to see them pay for their hypocrisy, deceit and coverup of things such as this crime and others.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, December 30, 2002, 22:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I think this is a complex issue. A lot of us didn't have fathers or brothers around, or if we did, they didn't give a damn. The thing is that when an religious organization publishes documents like this "Rape" letter, and puts them on the same level as the Bible, these extreme misogynist attitudes become a part of the culture of that organization. As young girls I think we internalized these attitudes ourselves, and it takes time to get past that and come to terms with things that happened. In 94 I was visiting the media home in the UK and while I was there an 18 male raped a 13 old girl. She said she had "sex" with him, but she was covered with bruises and cried for days. The only thing anyone seemed to care about was the age difference between them. (reply to this comment)

From Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 01:35 (Agree/Disagree?) A good question. I think here you have to clarify the meaning of the word "Rape". This word gets overused in our modern world. Not every case of child molestation involves rape, many times molesters use coersion and persuasion to get children in bed with them. Unless a person uses physical violence or the threat of phyisical violence to obtain sex, then it's not rape. That doesn't mean it's not still wrong, for example, sexual harassment is wrong, but it is not rape. That other term you quoted: "hurting another person sexually" that would be more the correct term for what we went thru, in my opinion. Now there are some people on this site who were actually raped, in the "Classic" sense. Most of us however were not. I experienced a number of sexual encounters with adults throughout my youth, but since I was never actualy threatened with violence I would not call any one of them rape. That doesn't mean it wasn't wrong or that I'm not mad about it, I feel that I was abused, even badly abused, but I wouldn't call it rape. I guess we're just arguing over semantics here, words mean whatever you want them to mean. My point was I have very little sympathy for someone who tries to claim that due to their Family upbringing they didn't know it was wrong to force sex on someone. (reply to this comment)

From Question to Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 01:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I have some more comments on your remarks. You stated that: "the correct term for what WE went thru, in my opinion...there are some people on this site who were actually raped, in the "Classic" sense. MOST of US however were not." (capitalizations are mine) From where do you get the data on OUR experiences? Don't forget about statutory rape, either. A full grown man with a 12 year old woman...that is rape no matter what in most countries. I also think I have a different opinion than you with respect to any abuse TF children may have gone through that did not involve overt threats of physical violence. You stated that "Unless a person uses physical violence or the threat of phyisical violence to obtain sex, then it's not rape. That doesn't mean it's not still wrong, for example, sexual harassment is wrong, but it is not rape." However, I would point out that we were raised in an isolated society where terror was instilled in us against being a selfish, systemite "girl who wouldn't" (and perhaps you are not female -- I suspect having your body invaded as a female is not something many men necessarily understand). That could get you severe and public torment. In TF, the leaders had utter control and could make your life miserable when they decided to. This is a kind of threat that when you have no alternatives, no possible escape route, and on top of it you are a child, becomes a violent threat for all practical purposes, especially when you consider that disobedience to leaders could get you physical punishment; any purportedly "peaceable" or non-resistant compliance in such a context is of a very different nature than it is for someone outside of such a group. To compare accross the board a TF experience with a non-TF experience when it comes to sexual predation creates a misleadingly distorted picture. Then again, perhaps you have older victims in mind than I do.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Sunday, December 29, 2002, 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I often think of what Auty wrote about 'what is normal', how growing up with certain morals instilled in you is what is normal until you have a chance to compare those morals with society around you. Someone who grew up as a cannibal, for an extreme example, wouldn't realise cannibalism is not considered normal by the rest of society while that person is living in his jungle tribe in whereever, but once that person interacts with society, then they can compare the morals they grew up with to that of society and make their choices. In the case of the 10 year old, I don't know, personally I wouldn't hold them fully responsible for the act until it comes to a point when they are fully aware that it was wrong and are able to decide if they themselves consider it wrong. The hard thing is the aftermath though, the person who is the victim is the one who truly suffers for the wrong action of another 'victim' (in this case the 'attacker' who perpetrated the crime), but the deeper connection is the parents or the input the child was receiving. I do believe though that at an older age kids should know that certain crimes are wrong, unless they are constantly in a situation where such crimes are the normal part of their life and they are play-acting what they see around them. On the topic of children being held accountable for their actions, in order for that to happen, it must be agreed upon by the society they are a part of that such deeds are indeed crimes. If the society they are part of doesn't consider them crimes, then how can they in turn be held accountable? In Holland it is legal to have sex with an adult at age 12, as well as to buy hash and marijuana in cafes, in Thailand or Malaysia you would be put to death for the drugs, and in the US you'd probably be sent to jail for the sex. One point I find confusing about the Family is that many times the 'rules' changed without a clear and definite line made to make it clear that the rule had changed. Or the rules changed so quickly or reversed on themselves that you didn't know when or what had happened. Does anyone else remember being at the HCS when first sex was being encouraged, Word Dates and all that, then suddenly sex was off limits, then suddenly there were mini-orgy sort of happenings in the teen wing, then it was teen marriages, all within a few month's time? That was confusing.(reply to this comment)

From Prisma Sunday, December 29, 2002, 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, the real offenders in cases of children abusing children are of course the original abusers, which we can assume in the family were definitely adults. It’s hard to determine the correct age when a child would recognize right from wrong especially being brought up in a different society. As you mentioned in your article you knew quite a bit less at the age of 23 then say your brother did. I’m sure there are many of us who have said and done certain things as children and as teens that we didn’t come to discover of our own minds. I remember being approached at about the age of 12 and people asking me “are you really happy doing this – being a missionary?” My answer was of course not by my own discovery - it was always a robotic “yes, of course.” You also made a very validate point about the family constantly changing “the rules” about what was acceptable and what was not. Those “rule makers” (leaders) are the ones who should be held accountable – they set the standards for what was right and wrong; they permitted and in many cases encouraged the behavior that lead to abuse of children. This dilemma goes back to holding the leaders responsible for their actions, unless the children who abused other children go on to abuse as adults – even so, their actions were taught. (reply to this comment)

from Mercy22 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 22:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I think we should be held accountable at the same age when the rest of the world's adults are held accountable (most civilized nations anyway). And that is at the age of 18. Yes we were fed a lot of garbage growing up, and yes we lived sheltered lives, but somehow I had it in me to know what was right and wrong for me. I started making my own decisions right around 18. I was self aware by 16. I knew what I was doing. I was a conscious human being regardless of my upbringing. If someone was raised with their father always beating their mother does that give him an excuse to hit his wife? After the age of 18 we have no excuses. What we do with our lives is our decision. And if you are still having other people make your decisions for you, it's immaturity as opposed to upbringing. (reply to this comment)

from Auty Monday, December 09, 2002 - 11:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Good article. Just off the top of my head I would have to say that education & children has a lot to do with SGAs still in TF. The lack of education (with multiple kids) forces a single mom (or 2 young people) to need the support of TF. It's a scary thing being responsible for someone else's life! Thankfully I didn't get PG in TF or I it would of taken me many more years to have the courage to pack it up, especially considering I had no formal education past the 5th grade (when my father rejoined). As far as accountability, it's a tough call, if one is born in a social structure like TF, breaking away from it is difficult. They do not realize that the acts of TF are wrong. Everything is justified via Zerby's writings or the twisting of the Bible to suit the situation. It is interpreted accordingly. It almost falls on the line of nurture vrs. nature, IMO. But then again, perhaps a scholar on this board could expound a little more. When I left TF I sat in front of the TV for hours, trying to educate myself on the social environment which I was in. It was fascinating. And only after being "educated" did I come to the conclusion that TF was a CULT! And that what I went through as a child was WRONG! Very odd perception, considering that while I was in TF, it was just "normal." I don't know if this has anything to do with the main point of your article, but it's something I was thinking about. (reply to this comment)

from thepersoniamnow Monday, December 09, 2002 - 11:56 (Agree/Disagree?) The thing with the fam is that, if your in it, you have already chosen to some extent to swallow what comes your way. Also because of the restrictions you have to believe that your doing it for a good reason...a better reason than everyone else has to do the opposite. Talking to teens still in the fam now they often proudly state their stance on life and how they have "made the choice for themselves." -This is coming from someone whos not allowed to take a walk by himself and is 17 years old and yet cannot watch "The King and I" because its for "YAs". Like in the letter from a family girl I posted a couple days ago, its much easier to accept what you`ve been fed your whole life than it is to challenge everyone and everything. we all look back and laugh at what we used to accept and believe in, but you still have to admit that it took a turning point in your life to get you on the right track. PTL? (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, December 30, 2002, 05:20 (Agree/Disagree?) That's the thing, at what point do we sa, 'Yes, they are most definitely accountable for their action and choice of living in the Family and if they choose to leave they have no right to come whining on here about how mistreated they were...' If someone leaves at 18 for instance because they finally came of age to make that choice, then they may have more leniency in being able to be mad and bitter and all that, but if someone leaves at 23, do they hold the same rights to complain, or shouldn't they be able to say, 'I made the choice to remain, I am responsible for that decision and so must be mature about my past and leave it behind...' We all have gone through the anger part (some still doing it), but I personally feel that I cannot put as much blame on my parents for my life in the group after a certain point as say my sisters could. I left at 30, they left at 17. Though they had a much wider input of information at a younger age than I, I still feel that I must bear some of the responsibility for the choice to remain in the group for so long and so I can't continue on 'holding it' against my parents or the Family itself. It doesn't mean I don't have issues, there are things I have to come to terms with and morals I have had to readjust, and in order to do that I've had to dig into my past to figure out where those ideas or morals or thoughts come from before I can 'forget' them, and I do to some extent feel I can blame the Family for certain things, but not perhaps as much as someone who is leaving at the age of 17, 18,19.(reply to this comment)

From Question to Questioner Monday, December 30, 2002, 09:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Why can't you give yourself a break and --just to use your own timetable -- retain the right to nurse your wounds sustained through age 17? Then you were just as much a trapped child as they! Sometimes we are so hard on ourselves, always giving TF the benefit of the doubt. Also, as somebody who escaped young and a long time ago, I suffered trying to survive out there and I suffered harshly in TF before running, so this might be the case for lots of those who left young, we have terrible scars from the things that pushed us out. Some people now say "you're so lucky, you have an education, no kids, a career." But it was blood, sweat and rivers of tears, and it is balanced out by the indelible things I experienced in TF that were bad enough for me to break out when it was so dangerous.(reply to this comment)

from PompousJohn Monday, December 09, 2002 - 08:58 (Agree/Disagree?) First off I'd say that anyone who abuses someone weaker than they are is responsible regardless of their age. I understand where you’re coming from though, I left on my 26th birthday, which was about the time I realized that they were all full of shit. I was pretty immature at that time, I mean for a 26 year old I was a fuckin’ baby. As far as abusive individuals go, I never quite made (accepted) the connection while in the group that the sexual abuse was a real and common issue. I remember a conversation I had with Sara Davidito when I spent a while at the studio home, she came around to talk to the teens and make sure we understood that Adult/child sex had never happened (wink, wink) and bla bla bla…any questions? I was totally not getting it and I asked her what about the numerous first hand reports that I had heard from teen girls, and why did every single one of them that I knew have some story about an “uncle pervy” who used to put his… And what about the reports I had passed on in various OHR’s about situations I knew about that were ongoing and that I had reported because I was concerned about the teens involved, and other situations I had written directly to Zerby about, since I couldn’t go to local leadership because they either didn’t believe me, didn’t care, or were the actual perpetrators. (Of course Zerby’s remained silent, and I never even received so much as confirmation that my reports had gotten through) She looked straight at me, and it took me years to understand the strange look on her face when she rattled off a vague and nervous answer about how “well, you know we can’t be sure about every single case, and how do you know that those girls are really telling the truth…” Now I know what that look on her face was, and I didn’t recognize it then because it was the last thing I expected to see, but I translate it now as something like “you dense little shit, you just don’t get it, do you?” Well I was a true believer at the time, and I “wrapped it up in a bundle of faith” I was sure some day I would understand, but I was also sure that the explanation I had just been given was NOT going to satisfy my conscience. Well I fuckin’ understand it now. OK, I do believe I’ve wandered way off the point of your question. Fortunately for our siblings I don’t think they will have the opportunity to perpetrate the same kind of abuse that our “uncles” put over on us, so IMHO it’s really not such a big concern. I did hear about a few incidents involving SGA’s and teen girls before I left and since, but these usually involved an age gap of 3 years or less, and were dealt with by immediate partial or total excommunication, generally the incidents were not even illegal in the countries they took place in, but just in violation of the charter’s very conservative restrictions. In short, I don’t think our generation would do this, and if they do, I for one will go after them (legally) more intensely than I would the older generation. I don’t even know why, it would just piss me off even more if it was “one of us” doing this kind of shit. Yes they are accountable, hell fucking yes. Everyone is accountable for their own actions. Always. As far as being responsible for their beliefs, hell, they can believe whatever they want; they just can’t abuse others because of it. Just like Jews can be Jews and believe the Old Testament all they want, but they can’t go around stoning kids to death for badmouthing their parents or doing human sacrifices, (things they wisely choose not to do anyway). (reply to this comment)

From cyborcosmic Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 05:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Its easier for conformed people like that to deny their choices and actions than it is for us to do so. The difference is in the moral ethics we learned and our inborn axiology which is opposite to Berg's teaching. We are not neccessarily 'believers' but we have our own principles and our generation is very autonomous and will avoid their twisted, feared version (s) of conformity. We chose for our own way (as long as its far away from them sick fucks!) Our actions are who we are and we are accountable 100% for our own actions , I agree with you Pompous. It seems to me they abused us because they could and their belief system has huge holes in it which they try to cover with false smiles and fake hope. Of course this leaves room for manipulation and abuse and the chance of them getting off without confrontation. But WE would never force our beliefs on others, because like you said , you can be free to believe what you want!!!! I heard David Berg was Jewish and had first hand experience in all perversions from the Catholic Church and other religious groups. He abused his knowledge, using it to manipulate and create his own version of a church , The House of Love, his own Kingdom etc. His Jewish beliefs would explain a lot about the rules in the cult. (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 16:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I agree that a person is responsible for certain choices at any age. I heard about gang rapes by 17 and 18 year old males in the Family, and I don't think there's any excuse for such an activity no matter the morals of the group or how we were raised. Neither do I believe that physical abuse can be excused away. There are definitely certain 'sins' that are yours and yours alone to be accountable for.(reply to this comment)

From JP Magero Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Gang rapes? Are you serious? I am not doubting your word, I am simply shocked that something like that would happen. As fucked as the family was, that is simply the most disgusting thing one could do to another human. They deserve to have their d**k's cut off.(reply to this comment)

From xhrisl Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 02:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Let's just say that it happened in TF and I am personally acquinted with victims of such incidents. (reply to this comment)

From Heather Saturday, January 04, 2003, 02:50 (Agree/Disagree?) So am I! It did happen!(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 07:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Gang rape? But by FGA's or SGA's? what the fuck? Heaven's Girl or no, anybody who gang-rapes anybody is definitely responsible for their actions, regardless of their age. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done about it (legally)unless the victims come forward and lodge formal accusations, and for some reason I am feeling that this is unlikely. What are the chances of the victim coming forward in this case?(reply to this comment)

From Bella Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it really so shocking when you consider that our bed-time stories consisted of "Heaven's Girl" getting gang raped on top of the lion's den? (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:13 (Agree/Disagree?) in my recollection, they didn't rape her, she FF'ed all of them, which would have made it more of a gang-bang.(reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:16 (Agree/Disagree?) your recollection is wrong. She did get raped by the side of the lions den, she was only "ffing" the one top guy. jeez, didn't you at least pay attention to the more exciting word classes??(reply to this comment)

From JoeH Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:17 (Agree/Disagree?) okay, but she got "raped willingly" right? and isn't that kind of an oxymoron?(reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:20 (Agree/Disagree?) well actually (if my recollection is right)this was the one time where she was not that willing but then again...the voices in my head seem to agree with you about it.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Just for the record, I have the document here: http://www.movingon.org/documents/heavensgirl_lionsden.pdf This is very disturbing material under any circumstances, but I just wanted to put a disclaimer to anyone reading this to not download this document if it will bother you--and you might not want to do it at work. (reply to this comment)

From xhrisl Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 02:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, Once again you absolutely amaze me! Where on God's green earth do you come by this stuff? With your acess to some of this elusive pubs the case against TF strengthens every day. I've been working on compiling stuff for awhile myself but you take the cake with the "gems" you've managed to save from the sherder. If Enron had you working for them they'd be in a worse pickle than they are now.(reply to this comment)

From Bella Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 23:06 (Agree/Disagree?) GROSS!! -- Even the font type brought back creepy memories! I am truly amazed that we all came out pretty darn "normal" considering the disgusting set of values we were all raised on! Good on US!(reply to this comment)

From Ian Saturday, December 14, 2002, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) No shit girl. I had the exact same reaction, creepy font type. Seriously, the way my computer downloaded it I could see the copy before the pictures, weird shit. "Another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 19:48 (Agree/Disagree?) yeah.. thats the end of that.(reply to this comment)

From TimR Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 20:04 (Agree/Disagree?) What was the names of those two soldiers who "helped" her escape? (Awfully generous of them) I remember they had an Uncle "Louie" who was a fat jerk until he was saved.(reply to this comment)

From AHHHHHHH Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 01:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I was just an OC when Heavens Girl was burned, but the 2 soldiers who helped her escape were Ben and Chou, dang, the crap U remember. I remember the teen girls reading it to us for bed and we'd be asking their "expert" 14-yr-old opinion on what all the sex terminology was and why it was harder for a girl than a guy to be "satistfied" in bed, I had all these strange misconceptions about when I was 8 about how it a guy had to really work at it to make a girl feel good, I guess if they had to do every guy in the house 20 yrs older than them, it would be a little hard though.(reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 02:21 (Agree/Disagree?) where's the misconception? we do have to work really hard to make you bitches feel good sometimes!(reply to this comment)

From I wanted to forget Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 22:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Right, but he wouldn'e get saved until he'd been good and screwed, then he was receptive. Ugh, to think that when I was a little girl I was supposed to aspire to that role model "Heaven's Girl!" Wretch, hack, puke.(reply to this comment)

From unscrupulous Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 04:45 (Agree/Disagree?) way off the subject matter and yet related. Can you please explain in more detail what you mean by "First off I'd say that anyone who abuses someone weaker than they are is responsible regardless of their age" Now that you "fuckin' understand," does that mean you now take full responsiblity for your actions? (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 08:49 (Agree/Disagree?) You asked me two questions, As to the first, I meant what I said. If you could explain what part is unclear, maybe I can clear it up for you. And as to the second, I have ALWAYS taken full responsibility for my actions. Now it is painfully obvious that you are setting me up for some accusation, so let's have it. I don't see any "unscrupulous" listed in the user directory though, so I will ask you to identify yourself, as I have.(reply to this comment)