Then they came for the Amish ...

[RZehr]

Along with openly defending, and promoting, and demanding sexual abuse as long as it is dealing any sort of blow against traditional norms and sexuality in the process.

[PetrChelcicky]

Thank you for your response. In light of the last few sentences you wrote, what can be done to ensure this open speech happens? How do we help these women who have to resort to such things like herbal medicines to try and keep rape from happening?

Aren't those the basic questions: 1. How can we persuade ourselves or others that something is a sin (when we didn't know it from the beginning)? 2. If we have persuaded ourselves or others, how can we/they elope the sinful inclination?
Difficult stuff. Perhaps I know even less than Bootstrap about the Amish and the Hutterites. But as I have opened my mouth, probably I have to deliver.
One point: Make sin more horizontal - something between you and your neighbour - and only at second view vertical - something between you and your god. God is involved indirectly insofar as he is the father and the advocate of your neighbour.
Second point: Make sinfulness more normal. Either "everyone is a sinner" or "the church is an institution for sinners, so we in the church are all sinners, and - the other way round - all sinners are possible members of the church". In a way it would be better if Christians did speak more about their sins. (Paul would disagree here and indeed such speech can become a kind of "gloating" about them.) This would make it easier for other persons to open up.
Third point: Of course, "the world" is convinced that one must fight sin by showing moral outrage and branding the sinner as a quite un-normal person. Well, to a degree that works as well as every other kind of intimidation. But at the same time it fosters a tendency with the sinner to save his reputation by keeping everything secret.
Fourth point: Don't set the benchmark too high. If you preach that everything below "purity" is equally bad, people will perhaps conclude that everything below "purity" is equally harmless.
As for clear and obvious rape: Why avoiding force in other matters, when we don't avoid in in a central matter?
As for the more widespread patriarchy/male dominance (traditionalist women believing that they are destined to serve all their husband's needs): Dominance is an inevitable part of life, but the dominant partner has a responsibility for the mental well-being of the submissive one (I think that Paul would agree here).
As for addictive pedophilia, I suppose that Amish have their methods to deal with alcoholics and should apply those methods to all kinds of addiction.
Critical answers are welcome; I am an amateur here. I suppose that from points 2 and 3 you can deduce my early Lutheran background.

[steve-in-kville]

This thread in one picture

(I'm keeping this on file for every other thread that derails and/or becomes a train wreck on fire )

[Heirbyadoption]

This ad is in a current issue of Plain Communities Business Exchange, a magazine primarily dedicated to Plain communities. Old Orders in particular. I assume that Amish are among the groups that typically attend the Anabaptist Symposium on Sexual Abuse. For a long time there has been growing awareness of the problems and solutions of sexual abuse among Amish and other groups, and probably in society generally as well. It's a real problem and it needs to be dealt with. There is a strong need for the church to deal with it properly, practice good prevention, promptly involve law enforcement for all crimes, and utilize the best resources to help victims and offenders. And the fact is that many Amish are very ignorant in these areas. Many of them are working on it, and it's getting better, but there is still significant need for change in my opinion.

Is that the project Steve Stutzman is involved with?

It was. Unfortunately (depending who you ask, obviously), the board was pressured into removing Steve awhile back (I believe the term in the OP was coercion )... For anybody interested, however, the next symposium will be in Goshen on January 27-28. You can find the info at their website: https://www.anabaptistawareness.org/

I realize there are some linguistic/grammatical challenges from the OP, but in regards to the "incestuous" references from the quoted article (and this might be a post of its own), I have at least 3 friends working with the Amish on significant health and genetic issues directly related to their inbreeding in close communities. I realize that's some and not all, but regardless of any perceived agenda from the OP-quoted article, the phrasing is not entirely without merit, fwiw...

[mike]

This ad is in a current issue of Plain Communities Business Exchange, a magazine primarily dedicated to Plain communities. Old Orders in particular. I assume that Amish are among the groups that typically attend the Anabaptist Symposium on Sexual Abuse. For a long time there has been growing awareness of the problems and solutions of sexual abuse among Amish and other groups, and probably in society generally as well. It's a real problem and it needs to be dealt with. There is a strong need for the church to deal with it properly, practice good prevention, promptly involve law enforcement for all crimes, and utilize the best resources to help victims and offenders. And the fact is that many Amish are very ignorant in these areas. Many of them are working on it, and it's getting better, but there is still significant need for change in my opinion.

Is that the project Steve Stutzman is involved with?

It was. Unfortunately (depending who you ask, obviously), the board was pressured into removing Steve awhile back (I believe the term in the OP was coercion )... For anybody interested, however, the next symposium will be in Goshen on January 27-28. You can find the info at their website: https://www.anabaptistawareness.org/

I realize there are some linguistic/grammatical challenges from the OP, but in regards to the "incestuous" references from the quoted article (and this might be a post of its own), I have at least 3 friends working with the Amish on significant health and genetic issues directly related to their inbreeding in close communities. I realize that's some and not all, but regardless of any perceived agenda from the OP-quoted article, the phrasing is not entirely without merit, fwiw...

Yo. There's a significant difference between inbreeding (the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry) and incest (sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry).

[Heirbyadoption]

I realize that there technically is. Having said that, the concept is easily blurred, being separated by a single generation gap or two, the reality of which I was referring to and taking from the language used in the article. Keep minimizing the gene pool by letting first and second cousins marry as happens in some of these tighter communities, and you'll witness similar potential physical issues in the offspring of those kissing cousins.

Steve may need to post his train wreck picture every 10 comments or so at this rate...

[mike]

I realize that there technically is. Having said that, the concept is easily blurred, being separated by a single generation gap or two, the reality of which I was referring to and taking from the language used in the article. Keep minimizing the gene pool by letting first and second cousins marry as happens in some of these tighter communities, and you'll witness similar potential physical issues in the offspring of those kissing cousins.

Steve may need to post his train wreck picture every 10 comments or so at this rate...

No argument from me on the problems of marrying too closely for too long. It's not great.

I know people who are married to their second cousins. I haven't heard of any Amish that marry first cousins. But I will maintain that legally marrying someone that you are related to is still a different thing from incest. I'll defend that point whether they are Amish or West Virginian or whatever.

[steve-in-kville]

Steve may need to post his train wreck picture every 10 comments or so at this rate...

I am mentality and emotionally prepared to do so

Perry County had a derail a few weeks ago at the Rockville Bridge and I am trying to procure a few photos of that to add to my inventory.

[Ken]

I realize that there technically is. Having said that, the concept is easily blurred, being separated by a single generation gap or two, the reality of which I was referring to and taking from the language used in the article. Keep minimizing the gene pool by letting first and second cousins marry as happens in some of these tighter communities, and you'll witness similar potential physical issues in the offspring of those kissing cousins.

Steve may need to post his train wreck picture every 10 comments or so at this rate...

No argument from me on the problems of marrying too closely for too long. It's not great.

I know people who are married to their second cousins. I haven't heard of any Amish that marry first cousins. But I will maintain that legally marrying someone that you are related to is still a different thing from incest. I'll defend that point whether they are Amish or West Virginian or whatever.

The dictionary definition of incest is as follows (from Miriam Webster):

incest (noun)
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry
also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

So, for example, sex between brother and sister, between father and daughter, between grandfather and granddaughter, between an uncle and niece, etc.

In this country marriage between first cousins is absolutely prohibited in 24 states, allowed in 20 states, and in 6 states it is allowed only under certain narrow circumstances. For example, Arizona prohibits and voids marriage between first cousins and considers sex between them incestuous. Yet, the state will retract its prohibition on marriage provided both partners are over the age of sixty-five, or are younger but can prove infertility.

So it would seem that in the US, marriage between first cousins qualifies as incest in 30 states and doesn't qualify as incest in 20 states. The 24 states where marriage between first cousins is always considered incest are: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

It doesn't really seem to be divided by regional lines. California allows it but Mississippi does not, for example. And some states like New Hampshire even prohibit first cousin marriage between adopted siblings who are not genetically related. Here's the complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_ma ... ted_States

[RZehr]

How many states define women as an adult who was born female, and how many define it as something malleable?
I’m really just noting how sometimes we accept the dictionary definitions and sometimes we except them.