Thursday, January 11, 2018

Jules Woodson Sexual Assault Allegation against Andy Savage

This is a public statement of a sexual assault made by Jules Woodson, 17 year old high school senior, against Andy Savage, then a college student and youth minister, alleged to have happened in 1998. 

This week,  Media has followed up on the case in which Savage acknowledged  consensual sexual contact and stated regret.  

For analysis:  Does the subject truthfully report a sexual assault?

For Analysis the question:

Is this a reliable statement of Sexual Assault or does the subject indicate that it was consensual, and not sexual assault? 



Statement Analysis discerns between truthful statements and deceptive statements.  In the context of sexual assault, we have covered many such statements allowing for examples from which to learn from those who are truthful in reporting and those who are dishonest. 

 Is Jules Woodson truthful in reporting sexual assault?  

Analysis to follow 




One evening, in the early Spring of 1998, I was hanging out with my youth minister, Andy Savage, at my church, Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church located at 10801 Falconwing Drive. I was 17 years old at the time and a senior at The Woodlands High School. There had been multiple kids there at the church after school, but as the night got later I was the only student left, alone in the church with Andy. I did not have a vehicle at the church, so Andy offered to take me home to my Mom's house.

It was dark outside. As he was driving me towards my home, he passed the turn he should have made to go to my house. I asked him where he was going. I don't remember his exact response, but it was something along the lines of ‘you'll see’ or ‘it's a surprise.’ I know for sure he did not tell me where he was taking me. I remember feeling special and excited, as in my mind, he obviously wanted to spend more time with me before taking me home. I assumed we were going to get ice cream.

He turned onto a dirt road and continued to drive. There were trees all around. I could not see the main road anymore, from which he turned from. I asked what was back here. He told me they were building a church. I thought, maybe that’s what this was about, maybe he has some secret to tell me, like perhaps he was moving to another church. We reached a dead end and he turned the truck around before putting it in park. We were stopped, and he turned the headlights off. Suddenly, Andy unzipped his jeans and pulled out his penis. He asked me to suck it. I was scared and embarrassed, but I did it. I remember feeling that this must mean that Andy loved me. He then asked me to unbutton my shirt. I did. He started touching me over my bra and then lifted my bra up and began touching my breasts. 

After what I believe to have been about 5 minutes of this going on, he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees. I quickly buttoned my shirt back up and got out of the truck. Now I was terrified and ashamed. I remember him pleading, while he was on his knees with his hands up on his head, ‘Oh my god, oh my god. What have I done? Oh my god, I'm so sorry. You can't tell anyone Jules, please. You have to take this to the grave with you.’  He said that several times. My fear and shame quickly turned to anger. I had just been manipulated and used. I swore to him I wouldn't tell anyone just to get him to stop. We both got back in the truck. As he drove me home, I don’t remember there being any conversation. I was in shock. 

As soon as I got home, I went straight to bed. I couldn't fall asleep fast enough. Please God, let this all be a bad dream, I thought. Yet the hurt I was beginning to feel soon snapped me back into reality. This was no bad dream, this was a living nightmare. The secret quickly began to eat away at my soul. I couldn't concentrate at school. I couldn't think about anything else. The fear, shame, anger and hurt consumed me. As embarrassing as it would be for me to tell all the ‘dirty’ details of this horrible secret, I had no other choice. What happened to me was not right nor had it been my fault. I had to report this. Little did I know, the very people I was about to entrust to protect me and help me would not only victimize me all over again but would also engage in a cover up to protect my abuser and the image of the church.

Larry Cotton was the Associate Pastor of Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church at the time. Steve Bradley was the head pastor. I mustered up the courage to go tell them what happened. For some reason, Steve wasn’t available, so I only spoke with Larry. I remember asking him if I could speak privately with him and he said yes. I started out by saying something awful had happened to me. I was already crying. Somehow, I felt brave enough to tell Larry every detail of what had happened with Andy. I was mortified but I thought I was doing the right thing as both Larry and Steve were over Andy in the church and I was way too embarrassed and scared to tell anyone else, especially my own parents.

Just as I had finished telling my story, Larry immediately spoke up and asked me to clarify. He said something to the effect of, ‘So you’re telling me you participated?’ I remember feeling like my heart had just sunk to the floor.  What was he asking? More importantly, what was he trying to imply? This wave of shame came over me, greater than I had ever felt before. I had just gotten done telling him everything that Andy, my youth pastor, asked me to do. I didn't say that I screamed no, jumped out of the car and ran into the dark forest because I hadn't. I told him that Andy had asked me to perform oral sex and unbutton my shirt and I did. Every ounce of courage I had gathered, to walk in there and tell Larry the truth about what had happened to me, left in an instant. Not only did I suddenly feel this immense guilt for doing what Andy had asked me to do but I also started to feel that this was my fault somehow because I didn't stop him. 
As you might imagine, I was beyond overwhelmed at the myriad of emotions I was feeling. I remember Larry telling me that he would have to share with Steve all that I had told him. I asked what was going to happen next and he said that him and Steve would be talking to Andy and that the church would be handling the situation. He told me not to speak with Andy and said that he would be telling Andy not to speak with me as well. Through the tears, I told him that I was too embarrassed to tell my Mom what had happened. He said not to worry, that they would talk to my Mother as well. He then told me not mention anything that had happened to anyone else.  It was very clear to me that I was not to say a word to anyone.  
As days passed I remember feeling more and more hopeless. I was confused as it seemed that Andy got to go about his day to day life, within the church and outside of it, as though nothing had ever happened. In fact, he led a 2-day event at the church, known as True Love Waits, promoting sexual purity not only in abstinence from intercourse before marriage but also abstinence in any physical contact, actions and thoughts which might lead to sexual arousal. The irony had not been lost on me. Yet, here I was sinking deeper and deeper into this pit of depression. I had no where to go, no one to talk to. After all, I was given one job by the person I had sought help from (Larry,) and that was to keep my mouth shut.
Not long after, I was meeting at the church with my all female discipleship group. I hadn’t had much interest in even being at church since everything that had happened but, deep down, I think I was just seeking some sort of solace in my faith for all the pain and hurt I was going through. Something came over me that night. I remember feeling disgusted and frustrated. What happened to me was not right! Why were my pastors not listening?! As if a final breath of courage filled my lungs, I opened my mouth and began to share some of what had happened to me. Looking back now, I know without a doubt, it was a cry for help. Tears ran down my cheeks. I remember feeling a slight sense of relief as this was no longer just a secret between myself, Andy, Larry and Steve. However, I too remember feeling as though I had just played my last card. I knew I had broken the rules of silence and that there would be consequences to my actions.

Word got back to Larry and Steve, almost immediately, that I had shared some things with my discipleship group. Now they had to do something. The youth group had a ski trip coming up and they announced to the families that Andy would not be going. Rumors were starting to spread that something had happened between myself and Andy. People thought/assumed that we had exchanged an ‘innocent’ kiss. The church, however, never came out with an official statement addressing what had happened and/or what was being done about it. Instead, they held a going away reception for Andy at the church in which he was allowed to simply say that he had made a poor decision and that it was time for him to move on from our church. Many people came to love on him, support him and say their goodbyes. There were hugs shared and tears shed. No one truly knew why he was leaving except myself, Andy, Larry and Steve. The gossip amongst my church family only continued to flourish. No one could imagine Andy doing anything bad or immoral, much less illegal, and so, it somehow became my fault that Andy was leaving. 

I couldn’t have been more grateful that it was the spring of my senior year as all I wanted to do was to leave town and get away from everything and everyone. I had basically shut down.  I felt so alone. It wasn’t until much later that I would realize that no matter how far away I moved nor how much I tried to move on with my life, that I could never truly escape what had happened to me. For example, when I found out that the church had contacted my parents, years later, and asked their permission to bring Andy back on staff, it brought back a whirlwind of emotions. Of course, my parents said NO, but even learning of this was traumatizing. I am a grown woman now and although it’s been almost 20 years since everything happened, it still affects me to this day.  There are triggers that take me back to that night, there are nightmares that haunt my dreams. 

My hope in finally coming forward with my story is not only that I can begin to get closure and healing for all that has happened to me, but more so, that my story might have a positive impact on others and effect positive change in how these types of situations are handled within the church.

To anyone who has suffered from sexual abuse in the church and the subsequent cover up and pressure to remain silent, I want you to know that it is not your fault. Most importantly, I want you to know that you are not alone.

121 comments:

ima.grandma said...

This was so hard to read, I'm flooded with flashback memories, emotions and pain. I need to step away from this article. I believe every word she wrote. I make this statement without any analysis as of yet. SA principles immediately distracted me as there are sensitive instances of "change of language, etc but I'm not ready to analyze. I need to process.

Lucia D said...

I may get blasted for this, but I do not think she reliably reports a sexual assault. She was "feeling special and excited" to spend time alone with him and thought he was taking her on a date, so to speak. "To get ice cream". She was not upset when he drove past the turn to her Mom's house. She has a need to persuade us that she "knows for sure" he didn't say where he was taking her.

There is a temporal lacunae after he parks the car and turns off the headlights, an indication she has withheld some of what happened (my guess is consensual kissing). It is "suddenly" that he unzipped his jeans etc. Being a naïve 17 year old she thought he loved her, I believe her when she says that. Then another TL, "suddenly" pops up again in her language for a second time, during their physical contact. She didn't get angry until it became clear that he considered what he had done with her was a mistake, not a date.

I also wonder about her use of the pronoun we, after the alleged assault. Seems unexpected because it indicates closeness and unity. There is no question in my mind this guy used his position in the church to take advantage of her. But her words make me think the sexual encounter was consensual. She only decided it was assault when she realized he was not wanting a relationship with her.

Hey Jude said...

After the alleged sexual assault, she said, "We both got back in the truck" - which indicates unity.
She said she allowed herself to be manipulated, which is not sexual assault.
She referred to what happened 'with' her and Steve, rather than what he did to her, which would be more expected of a victim.

As a youth pastor, he breached trust, but the sexual activity was, by her own account, consensual, and mutually regretted.

Anonymous said...

Yep, it was hard to read. I picked up 17, it's dark out, he passed the turn off to my house, I didn't know where we were going....

Hold the phone!

At 17 my first thought would have been to kick the shiftier and grab the keys out of the ignition if someone did that. Not once would I have believed in fairy tales such as a ice cream shoppe in the darkened woods.

But, I'll reread and try to be more professional acting.

Hey Jude said...

Also it was a secret to her by which she was hurt, rather than an assault - she was hurt by his falling to his knees in 'repentance', rejection, and manipulation. At the time, she did not see it as an assault, though she obviously felt used and humiliated by the encounter.

Was it a pattern with him?

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
Also it was a secret to her by which she was hurt, rather than an assault - she was hurt by his falling to his knees in 'repentance', rejection, and manipulation. At the time, she did not see it as an assault, though she obviously felt used and humiliated by the encounter.

Was it a pattern with him?


Is it a pattern by her ??

Anonymous said...

Oprah 2020? Good or Bad?

Lucia D said...

General, touché!

Hey Jude said...

I don't know General - she stayed till last, and she didn't hesitate to do what he asken- she might not have been a stranger to such things. Though only seventeen. I can't see why she was terrified of him falling to his knees in faux-repentance. Too tired to look more now - I will be interested to see the comments made here by tomorrow.

Buckley said...

She is truthful, it is not criminal sexual assault, though his church may be right to feel it is inappropriate behavior for what to her was an authority figure.

There is "we" before the incident, no "we" after the incident, but a "with Andy" after it in the narrative, so I guess it's fair to ask if she "felt" violated.

Buckley said...

Why does she give the address of the church? Impending legal claim?

Dawnabelle said...

So true. Her story is so true. It is a blessing to share these stories and know that we are not alone. We can learn to feel safe and supported. Divine guidence will support us all on this path toward healing.

Buckley said...

Whether she stayed to be last, whether she was"used to" such activities are irrelevant. Does the law allow her to consent and did she? I believe through her actions, she did consent and when it appeared she changed her mind, he stopped.

Anonymous said...

Blogger anonymous said.....
Oprah Winfrey for president? I say she is very smart and hard working.

Anonymous said...

Oprah owns a tv station i think. And she seems like a a very creative woman. Did you ever notice her company name is HARPO? The name is oprah spelled backwards.

Buckley said...

Though I'll add, that his first "move" being unzipping his pants and asking her to go down on him (as opposed to kissing her first and seeing her reaction) is incredibly creepy and immature; it reeks of him abusing his authority over her.

Anonymous said...

That very first paragraph is bizarre for someone who is out to help others. She states she was LEFT (comma)alone and Andy offered to drive her to her Mom's house (wasn't it her house too?)She had a vehicle, but not at the church (hmmmm). Everyone else had left (apparently they had vehicles too) and there she was-alone and friendless at church in broad nighttime.

That change of reality that is a constant makes it difficult to understand. It makes it worse when you try to force yourself.

But, you have to consider this dastardly church with all it's dirty little secrets is seated in Texas with only 3 employees so you lay your ears back and try to wade through it once more.

I'll try again later.

Buckley said...

We were stopped, and he turned the headlights off. Suddenly, Andy unzipped his jeans and pulled out his penis. He asked me to suck it.

Missing info?

Also, found this on a blog about the case:

Texas Penal Code Chapter 5. (22.011)
Title 5. Offenses against the person.
Chapter 22. Assaultive Offenses.
Sec. 22.011. Sexual assault.
(b) A sexual assault […] is without the consent of the other person if: […] 10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser …


Not sure if a youth pastor is considered clergy, technically.

Anonymous said...

Her story of what happened is valid to the degree it was a sexual encounter, but she didn't see it as an assault until he told her not to tell what happened and didn't want to continue a relationship with her. I never willingly entered a room with my abuser again. She didn't go to her parents. She went to the people that would punish him. I would be interested in her background. I find these things telling: She was excited that he was paying special attention to her. She thought he would tell her a secret. She was 17 years old. She complied. Yes, he was grossly inappropriate but at no point did he exert control over her. She could have said no, left the truck, etc... I think this "me too" climate, where it is now popular to have a story, is going to create many of these stories where women that were complicit in the event suddenly wave the banner of victim. I have a story. I was raped. I can't even see men who look like my rapist without having a fight or flight response. Posting about it to strangers for headpats would do nothing to help myself or others and it isn't healing. This is the dumbest movement that makes victims out of everyone and just keeps crap all over the media.

Buckley said...

I was wrong. I said there was no "we" afterwards...

We both got back in the truck.

Hey Jude said...

Buckley, after the encounter, she said: "We both got back in the truck. " - there is a 'we' indicating unity.

I can't see where she appeared to change her mind, on the contrary, it appears he changed his mind, and got out of the truck to take a repentance break.

He asked her to do what she did, and she freely engaged in sexual activity with him.

As a youth pastor, he should not have taken her off into the night, exposed himself, or the rest - it was all inappropriate. You could say as a student himself, he should not have been placed in the position of youth pastor, and these may have been two kids 'hanging out' who fancied each other, and who went for a drive - she stayed till last, accepted a lift home, youth club was over, he maybe no longer considered himself 'on duty' as a pastor.

She was seventeen, he didn't force her, she says he asked her. She felt hurt, embarrassed, ashamed, and she sought revenge because he did not want to continue what they had begun, and had got out of the vehicle and repented (against her?). She says it was a 'secret' and 'my story'. Hypocritical of a youth pastor, yes - we don't get the whole story - he was perhaps more a peer than a pastor. Some will see any abuse of authority or impropriety as sexual abuse, but the question is, Does the subject truthfully report a sexual assault - Does the subject indicate it was consensual? I do not believe the subject truthfully reports sexual assault - there are indicators that the engagement was consensual.

ima.grandma said...

Silence is the sexual abuser's friend. For change to come, silence has to be broken. 

Bobcat said...

There was no assault. Imo, if this woman really wanted to make a difference - other than attempting to destroy a man for using her inappropriately 20 years ago - she would focus on youth protection standards.

If two deep youth protection standards had been in place at the church at the time, she would never have been alone in the car with the youth leader. IMO, this is where the discussion should be. Two deep protects not only youth, but leaders from false accusations.


Focusing specifically on SA principles, she does not report an assault, and they are still a "we" after the "event".

Buckley said...

Jude- Agree about him changing his mind. I was thinking she changed her mind by buttoning her shirt back up, but I guess his getting out of the car was a sign he was stopping it.

Bobcat said...

^^ Also, she is attempting to destroy church leaders, when the story she relays sounds like they handled the incident appropriately and with discretion.

Hey Jude said...

Buckley at 5.18 - I agree. Would exposure be categorised as sexual assault if she didn't anticipate him doing that ?- I think there has to be contact to be a sexual assault? Assault on the sensibilities doesn't count .Well, exposure- but in context, she engaged, so IDK.

Buckley said...

Disagree, Bobcat. Larry should not have told her to keep it a secret, not his call. Larry and Steve seemingly did nothing to Andy until she told others. She doesn't tell us (though she could be withholding) that Larry or Steve got counseling for her, as she was clearly upset about it, and I'd think based on their emphasis on abstention, she should have been given help.

On the other hand, the more I read it, the more it seems to be perfectly setting up a legal claim against the church, so perfect in fact, that I'd want to know how much hand a lawyer had in preparing the statement.

Anonymous said...

He abused her trust and his position in the church, he was the adult but chose to manipulate the situation for his gratification. I consider her statement to be truthful and not malicious in any way.

Anonymous said...

Though I'll add, that her first movie The Colors of Purple really shows her versatality. And she is billionairess too!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I believe this was consensual, not a sexual assault. The 'victim' herself does not refer to the encounter as a sexual assault and I cannot say it for her.
She states that she was 'hanging out with' her youth pastor rather than the 'multiple kids' who were there earlier. This implies that she went to the church specifically to see Andy. The informal phrase shows that she saw him as a buddy and an equal rather than someone in a position of power over her. She stayed late at 'night' until there were just the two of them. She knew she had no vehicle so I think she did this deliberately so that he would give her a lift home.
The language seems to draw out the passage of time as she refers to him driving towards and then past her house. There are a lot of unnecessary words / information such as it being dark outside and she reports in the negative that 'I don't remember his response' and 'he did not tell me where he was going' and she knows this 'for sure.' This seems very sensitive to her and she has a need to convince the reader that she didn't know his intentions. Coupled with the slowing of time I think they had a conversation about where they would go as they approached the house and she 'for sure' did know where they were going. Hence her feeling excited and special. Why would she say she assume they were going to get ice cream. Is this something they had done before?
Suddenly he got out his penis...more missing information? Then he 'asked' her to suck it. He also 'asked' her to take off her bra. She uses the word ask when she reports the incident to the church leaders. This is not the language of sexual assault. He did not 'force' her to or even simply 'tell' her to. To ask is very mild and polite, it is to invite someone to do something. And by her own admission she agreed 'I did it.' She thought it meant he 'loved her.' I don't think a sexual assault would be mistaken for love. She does admit to being 'scared' and 'embarrassed' but any sexually inexperienced teenager would have these feelings in a consensual situation. I don't think victims of sexual assault primarily feel embarrassed whilst they are being abused. I would expect stronger language such as being terrified, panicked, disgusted etc. Only when he stops does she 'now' begin to feel terrified. After he asks her not to tell anyone only then does she realise she has been used. Again she reports what she 'doesn't remember' i.e. Conversation driving home.
She then says how the 'secret' ate away at her soul, that seemed to cause her 'fear' rather than Andy himself. I think she felt guilty about what had happened and was obviously scared her parents would find out. Perhaps this motivated her to cast him as her 'abuser'. Larry understood that she participated after she had 'done TELLING him what Andy had ASKED me to do.'
She didn't tell Larry she 'screamed no' because she didn't. She gives a very clear and strong statement which I believe 'I told him that Andy had asked me to perform oral sex and unbutton my shirt and I did.' I believe her, she consented to giving Andy a blow job when he asked for one.
I do believe that what happened that night has caused her a great deal of shame and has blighted her life, clearly the encounter has had a very long lasting negative impact on her, however I do not believe that Andy 'abused' or sexually assaulted her. He took advantage of her feelings for him perhaps and then rejected her. It seems he also regretted the encounter and it had repercussions for his life too according to her account.
Unfortunately there are many serious and horrific cases of sexual abuse and coverups by church leaders, I do not believe this is one of them.

Jupiter said...

She uses the pronoun We after the event took place... she says we both got back in the truck. she says he asked me not he told me or he demanded..... she also gives Andy a full social introduction after the event.. she says Andy, my youth pastor... she is not distancing herself to Andy afterward.... she uses his first name many times after the event took place.

Lucia D said...

I agree that she seemed to want revenge on Andy. Hell hath no fury. . .

Buckley said...

Why would she say she assume they were going to get ice cream.

I don't know, but the effect is it makes her seem more young and innocent.

ima.grandma said...

...so Andy offered to take me "home" to my Mom's "house".

Setting up scene: "It was dark outside."

Change of language: my "home" as she is in safe and secure mode changing to my "house" once she is in suspect mode.

"As he was driving me towards my "home", he passed the turn he should have made to go to my "house."

I asked him where he was going. 

Red flag: "I don't remember" his exact response, but it was something along the lines of ‘you'll see’ or ‘it's a surprise. (I believe this is missing information: when mutual flirting is occurring, perhaps both verbally and via body language, wink, etc.)

I know for sure he did not tell me where he was taking me. 

Signaling suppressed memory: "I remember" feeling special and excited, as in my mind, he obviously wanted to spend more time with me before taking "me home".  Reverting back to "home" feeling special and experiencing good feelings.

I assumed we were going to get ice cream. (I don't know what this is about unless she is portraying herself with youth and naitiviety)

ima.grandma said...

Buckley, I see you had already gone there about the ice cream. great minds...lol

Trigger said...

She says that she was "alone in the church with Andy." This indicates closeness on her part.

She kept saying "we" in all her statements as she described what happened between herself and Andy.

She didn't feel bad until Andy indicated that he was "sorry" for his part and asked her to keep it "secret", then she felt "manipulated and used."

She obviously had romantic designs on Andy, until he made her feel "used" then she felt compelled to tell the head pastor.

It is not unusual for a teenage girl to get a crush on her male teacher, pastor, or trainer. He knew this, but he went ahead and ignored good judgement.

I'll wager that she had no father living in her home, only her mother.

If she was a minor, at the time, why didn't the pastor call the police and let them handle it? He is a mandatory reporter.

I have heard many similar versions of this kind of abuse story from women who liked the abuse because it felt good at the time.

Anonymous said...

The irony was not lost on her that he began teaching a class on abstinence while she, the truthful one, was cast in shame and despair in her senior year of high school.

The senior year...think about it...proms, ball games, and other social events. Wouldn't she look good with a college student on her arm?

He did, in fact, deceive if he intentionally bypassed her home in lieu of a deserted road. He was the "Youth Leader" and had already read up on abstinence and sex related issues prior to teaching the class I'd assume.

Gossip is a major point in one paragraph of hers. She knew how to use it appropriately...like his lack of knowledge of directions.

Lucia D said...

I agree with Trigger that she was in a home without her father, Going to "my moms house " is the language of a minor whose parents have split. There is also her Dads house somewhere. I disagree that the Pastor should have reported it to police. I'm sure Andy told him that it was consensual, and she was old enough to give consent. I think a lapse of good judgement occurred, not a crime.

ima.grandma said...

Her words don't represent the language of a passive victim mentality. The first thing I noticed was how very consistent the use of the "I" pronoun is placed within her narrative. Like Buckley said "almost too perfect". Her beginning of her account begins by calling out the youth pastor by full name, followed by the name of the church with the address (most revealing) indicating one of the possible motives and agenda is to initiate legal action.

Buckley said...

The main reason I think it is setting up a claim against the church lay in several things: the strength of the verbs, especially the assurance of Steve's involvement even though she didn't speak with him, the repetition that she told Larry everything (juxtaposed with the detail she told her women's group "some" of what happened), the second social introduction of Andy as youth pastor, the following passage which is inserted prior to the actual "what happened":

Little did I know, the very people I was about to entrust to protect me and help me would not only victimize me all over again but would also engage in a cover up to protect my abuser and the image of the church.

ima.grandma said...

Her language is dripping with one of the strongest emotions affecting mental health and personality disorders, Shame. The self-shaming appears in her language immediately after the "event" and remains the focus of the prologue.The gossiping is sensitive because of the shame. If this article is written out of revenge, it is because she blames him and the church for the shame she has deeply carried leading to dysfunction in so many areas of her life.

Buckley said...

Total words: 1922

Intro (to "turned headlights off"): 285 words/ 15%

Event: (to "I was in shock.") 226 words/12%

Conclusion: 1411 words/ 73%

ima.grandma said...

Thank you Buckley for delineating form. It's a great guiding tool for analysis.

Buckley said...

You bet, Ima! I agree. I think it's clear her main purpose is how church officials dealt with the incident much more than the incident itself. To be fair to her, I don't think she means to hide that fact.

ima.grandma said...

This may be insignificant but she uses the word "truck" several times while describing that night. Yet, later on while telling the church leaders she said:
I didn't say that I screamed no, jumped out of the "car" and ran into the dark forest because I hadn't.

Nic said...

This was consensual.


Not only did I suddenly feel this immense guilt for doing what Andy had asked me to do but I also started to feel that this was my fault somehow because I didn't stop him.


She refers to Andy as "he" up to when she gets to the part where she is assaulted in her story - when he was taking his penis out for her to give him oral sex. Then she becomes familiar rather than distancing by switching from "he" to a more familiar and intimate name: his first name. If this was not consensualcexpected would be a derogatory term. Not his given name.

Something came over me that night. I remember feeling disgusted and frustrated.

Frustrated is an unexpected emotion to associate with being sexually assaulted. Frustrated implies not satisfied and wanting more.

However, I too remember feeling as though I had just played my last card

Playing a card is equivalent to playing a game, manipulating. It is also being strategic. Assault victims don't associate their coming forward and reporting their assault with a card game

Buckley said...

Well, she's telling what she didn't say.

Nic said...

Not only did I suddenly feel this immense guilt for doing what Andy had asked me to do but I also started to feel that this was my fault somehow because I didn't stop him.

She says that he didn't tell her/demand her to give him oral sex. She said he "asked" her. Soft speech.

Embedded consensual statement in free editing:

"I didn't stop him."


Buckley said...

I still think it's highly prepared and not free-editing, but, still, great point, Nic.

Nic said...

Blogger Buckley said...
Whether she stayed to be last, whether she was"used to" such activities are irrelevant. Does the law allow her to consent and did she? I believe through her actions, she did consent and when it appeared she changed her mind, he stopped.


Actually I believe he was the one who changed his mind (and asked for forgiveness). Afterwards she remembers feeling "disgusted and frustrated". But it wasn't until he got out of the truck to be with him she felt terrified and ashamed (probably because of his realization regarding age of consent/his position to her within the realm of the church. Moreover, people only feel used if they are short-changed (their expectations aren't meant). jmo

he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees. I quickly buttoned my shirt back up and got out of the truck. Now I was terrified and ashamed. I remember him pleading, while he was on his knees with his hands up on his head, ‘Oh my god, oh my god. What have I done? Oh my god, I'm so sorry. You can't tell anyone Jules, please. You have to take this to the grave with you.’ He said that several times. My fear and shame quickly turned to anger. I had just been manipulated and used. I swore to him I wouldn't tell anyone just to get him to stop. We both got back in the truck.


Nic said...

I assumed we were going to get ice cream.

Alright, I'm going "there"

This is a statement reported in hindsight. Going for ice cream (as in an ice cream cone?)

Ice cream evokes feelings of pleasure and you lick it.

Leakage?

ima.grandma said...

Nic, I was hesitant to go there, but I immediately had the same imagery. I keep up with teen trends to stay aware and prudent re: my granddaughters' and the reality of teenage dangers of peer influence. I've heard about the rainbow BJs, etc. It's frightening! Thank you for saying what I was thinking...

Another observation:

I was 17 years old at the time and a senior at The Woodlands High School. There had been multiple kids there at the church after school, but as the night got later I was the only student left
...
The youth group had a ski trip coming up and they announced to the families that Andy would not be going. Rumors were starting to spread that something had happened between myself and Andy.
...
and so, it somehow became my fault that Andy was leaving. 
...
I couldn’t have been more grateful that it was the spring of my senior year as all I wanted to do was to leave town and get away from everything and everyone.
...

She is sure to include specific details re: her high school including the name and year of graduation. She is speaking directly to those church friends and peers that were aware of the rumors. All of my kids were heavily involved in church "youth" groups, they loved their group leader, the leader was respected and looked up to because of the age and relatable factor. I can imagine the "rumors" and the youthful immature blaming of a group member betraying their beloved leader, taking him away from them. Kids this age can be so mean. Remember this was 20 years ago, before the anti-bullying campaign.

The writer is attempting to restore her reputation and self respect through her cathartic narrative.

Nic said...

Blogger Buckley said...
I still think it's highly prepared and not free-editing, but, still, great point, Nic.

I agree with you that it is prepared. But it is free editing because no one asked her the question, "did you try to stop him", etc. This is a statement reflecting words she chose without prompting. She is bringing forth this statement of her own volition 20 years after the fact.

Chris said...

Whether or not a Youth Pastor is considered to be 'clergy', the person is certainly considered to be a person in a Position of Trust in the eyes of the law.
If this situation involved a Student Teacher during an extra-curricular activity, the result would still be inappropriate and criminal.

ima.grandma said...

Sexual "abuse" in any form isn't about sex. It's all about power!

Nic said...

ima.gramma said:
and so, it somehow became my fault that Andy was leaving.

She is speaking directly to those church friends and peers that were aware of the rumors.


And she was the one who started the rumour mill in the first place out of retribution. She is the one who said she felt manipulated and "used". Pay back!

" I hadn’t had much interest in even being at church since everything that had happened but, deep down, I think I was just seeking some sort of solace in my faith for all the pain and hurt I was going through. Something came over me that night. I remember feeling disgusted and frustrated. What happened to me was not right! Why were my pastors not listening?! As if a final breath of courage filled my lungs, I opened my mouth and began to share some of what had happened to me. Looking back now, I know without a doubt, it was a cry for help. Tears ran down my cheeks. I remember feeling a slight sense of relief as this was no longer just a secret between myself, Andy, Larry and Steve. However, I too remember feeling as though I had just played my last card."

Nic said...

I stand corrected on "frustrated". It wasn't in context of being sexually frustrated. It was in the context of retribution. She didn't get what she wanted which was for Andy to be punished.

ima.grandma said...

Payback is a bitch! You're right Nic.

Nic said...

Chris said...
Whether or not a Youth Pastor is considered to be 'clergy', the person is certainly considered to be a person in a Position of Trust in the eyes of the law.
If this situation involved a Student Teacher during an extra-curricular activity, the result would still be inappropriate and criminal.


I agree. He also agrees, which is why he came to his senses, albeit late.

For analysis: Does the subject truthfully report a sexual assault?

Anonymous said...

Oprah is a popular media personality. She is not a political pundit.
She gives a good speech, but what of her stance on the issues of government?

But I am a robot! said...

It reads like a basically factual account, but with a lot of emphasis on her victimhood, helplessness and inexperience.

He clearly behaved horribly, and if age of consent and/or his position of authority qualify the incident as rape, then he certainly did.

But a forced sexual assault, no. Not by physical attack, threat of harm, intimidation, he didn't even lie to her in this account; he just politely asked.

Absolutely there is missing time/facts, most likely about consensual making out and groping; otherwise the naive, inexperienced girl she portrays would have freaked if her sweet,kind, charming youth pastor just pulled it out and asked for a hummer.

On that TMI note, for an innocent 17-year-old girl who participates in a program of abstinence from any physical intimacy whatsoever (as contrasted to just no-intercourse), she didn't seem to need any instruction or explanation on how to give one.

If she'd never even seen a man's penis, especially when fully erect, no way would she just swoop in and start gobbling, much less know how.

He obviously treated her horribly, and the manipulation immediately after is even more reprehensible and disgusting, but calling it sexual assault is harmful to actual assault victims such as the posters above who are severely triggered just reading an account like this or seeing a man with similar features as her attacker(s).

I do believe she's convinced herself it's sexual assault and is still very hurt and humiliated at being so naive -- she reads as more emotionally damaged and embarrassed than vindictive.

Lucia D said...

Andy knew his behavior was inappropriate and could cost him his position and reputation. It was not criminal in the sense he could be charged with a crime, or that angry young woman would have gone to the police. Age is everything in this type of case and she was old enough to give legal consent.

Another point I would make is teen girls may have been jealous of her for being close to Andy. Have you heard the Police song "Don't Stand So Close To Me"? So I believe she was punished by the rumor mill of envious girls. Slut shamed. Not solely because Andy had to leave. There is that old double standard for women caught in a compromising situation.

ima.grandma said...

For analysis: Does the subject truthfully report a sexual "assault"?

No.

But I am a robot! said...

Lucia D, excellent point about the many double standards regarding sex. (great song, too!)

However, this explains why we also need to lose the assumption that horny teenaged boys aren't victims and cannot be emotionally damaged by a similar situation.

Many men seem to think only of the meaningless, no-risk, no-commitment hot sex fantasy and "Dear Penthouse: I always thought these letters were fake, until..."

But the laws which should apply to both genders are specifically about the lack of experience, disparity of experience, that convinced her this was deep love.

Teenaged boys are just as likely to mistake sexual attention and intensity as love, where the more experienced partner can much better read the signs, interpret the other person's feelings and behavior and protect their own hearts.

ima.grandma said...

 
I waited over 35 years to finally tell my ? about "our" family secret. My ?'s were with me at my request. The "secret" had made us all so sick. I somehow managed to painfully let the words come out. My ? looked at me with unbelievable pain and tears in ? eyes and said "if you didn't tell me back then, then you should have taken it to your grave".  My ?'s stayed silent. No one spoke a word while we all sat at the table for quite some time, all of us in silent tears rolling down our faces. None of us have ever spoken of it again. That day was over 30 years ago.

Nic said...

ima.grandma said:
"if you didn't tell me back then, then you should have taken it to your grave".


I'm sorry you were not validated, ima.grandma. For what it's worth, I don't believe time would have made any difference. "?" would not have done anything about [it] "back then", either.

I'm saying a prayer for you tonight.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you Nic.

Anonymous said...

Orpa is a big celeb. And media likes most celebs. Silly tho.

Anonymous said...

It appears the penal code you cited was not in existence 20 years ago and thus wouldn't be grounds for charges at the time of this event.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

It sounds like he manipulated her and took advantage of her which is NOT okay! In my book, that should be illegal!

Unknown said...

It sounds like he manipulated her and took advantage of her which is NOT okay! In my book, that should be illegal!

Lars Bak said...

She “remembers” a lot, she reports a lot about how she felt and thought during the incident. She speaks extensively in the negative and uses passive language. Apart from that she gives us herself her view of the event:

"He asked me to suck it. I was scared and embarrassed" – where is the assault in that

"I remember feeling that this must mean that Andy loved me" – rather unexpected during an assault

"My fear and shame quickly turned to anger. I had just been manipulated and used" – not assaulted

"As soon as I got home, I went straight to bed. I couldn't fall asleep fast enough." – her hormone level doesn’t seem to have been that high

Anonymous said...

- Willow -

Thank you ima.g, others. Words escape me.

Nic, say one for me, too.

Anonymous said...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4766305/

Abstract
The Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) is a verbal veracity assessment method that is currently used worldwide by investigative authorities. Yet, research investigating the accuracy of SCAN is scarce. The present study tested whether SCAN was able to accurately discriminate between true and fabricated statements. To this end, 117 participants were asked to write down one true and one fabricated statement about a recent negative event that happened in their lives. All statements were analyzed using 11 criteria derived from SCAN. Results indicated that SCAN was not able to correctly classify true and fabricated statements. Lacking empirical support, the application of SCAN in its current form should be discouraged.



No scientific basis?

Lars Bak said...

This is how it was done:

After participants finished their stories, these were analyzed by four raters. One rater completed the three-day SCAN course. The other three raters received a 2-h training about SCAN, using the SCAN manual (Sapir, 2005), given by the SCAN trained rater. Moreover, they received the appropriate pages of Vrij (2008a) about SCAN (Chapter 10; 282-287). During the training all 12 criteria were discussed separately and examples of the specific criteria were presented and discussed. Next, raters received two practice statements of one page each, and were asked to analyze these statements. After all raters analyzed these statements, their analyses were discussed and questions they still had about SCAN were answered. When the training was completed, raters started analyzing the statements.

So all you can conclude is that a three-day SCAN course or a 2-h training about SCAN won't do. It is a mystery why it was necessary to do an expensive experiment to establish that.

First time for everything, Anonymous for a reason said...

Robot at 10:28

You are mistaken about what she would or would not do. I haven't thought about this in decades, but a young man asked me for a similar favor once, surprising me with his bold presentation, and I went for it. We were both under eighteen.

Lars Bak said...

To clarify:

"Results indicated that SCAN was not able to correctly classify true and fabricated statements."

The conclusion is not sound, since it concludes about SCAN and not about the capability of persons who have had a lecture on the principles of SCAN. To make a conclusion about SCAN the test persons should have been trained analysts.

Anonymous said...

The conclusion is not sound? But you think statement analysis is sound?

(BTW, you non-thinkers need to follow the link and READ.)

Lars Bak said...

No
Yes
I did

Lars Bak said...

“I did not have a vehicle at the church, so Andy offered to take me home to my Mom's house.”

““I did not have a vehicle at the church…” is a hina clause. It is highly sensitive to her, why Andy had to drive her home.

I wonder if it has to do with the start: “I was hanging out with my youth minister, Andy Savage, at my church…”; it is incongruent with just being the last one and hence in need of a lift. Had Andy already offered to drive her home, so that they could “hang out” alone?

Hey Jude said...

'We were stopped, and he turned the headlights off. Suddenly,'.

That's a good example of the association of lights going off in a statement with negative or unsatisfactory sexual activity.

---

The results of that experiment would have been different if they had used raters who were certified analysts with ongoing use of SA, rather than novices. What was the point? That conclusion is like saying brain surgery should be discouraged in its present form because not all surgeons are brain surgeons.

Anonymous said...

If the writer were attempting to restore her reputation she'd bounce it off a good friend before making it public. Someone who isn't exactly like herself. Maybe even seek the opinion of a male friend to get a different point of view.

20 years is a long time for OTHER people to dwell on something so insignificant that did not happen to them personally. I doubt they ever give it a passing thought.

However, the damage done by making the issue public today is immense. The youth pastor of yesteryear is probably married today and has a family. He may also have a church family in which the gossip will now swirl about the walls and pews as they once did in that church in Springs Texas.

I feel her pain and struggle with the issue at hand- though I don't think it was an assault- and that issue is keeping her mouth shut! That's the main point that jumps out at me.

It's about secrets!

She thought he'd tell her one but instead made her promise to keep one.

Hey Jude said...

For all it's finery, as in the attempt to blind the reader with science and to persuade as to the scientific basis of the experiment, the emperor has no clothes - as in certificated and experienced analysts as raters. The conclusion is as flawed as the experiment. The author is maybe relying upon the reader assuming that the raters were up to the task, while they had only a perfunctory introduction to the principles, and no experience in the application of SA.

If I were a skeptic, which I sometimes am, I might see that experiment as an attempt to discredit SA rather than as an impartial effort to demonstrate its efficacy, or otherwise.

Conclusion: The funding, conduct, and publication of the results,of flawed experiments should be discouraged.

Interesting, though. As in why would a university in the Netherlands, or anywhere, fund an experiment that was fundamentally flawed?
Why conduct an experiment using only raters who are novices, rather than invite raters who are experienced practitioners of SA?

Anonymous said...

OT
Below is a link to an article about the sentencing of boys who gang raped a 15 year old girl if anyone is interested. The sentencing is outrageously light, imo,as they only go 5 years probation for the violent assault. What's worse...the judge was a woman!


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/boys-given-5-years-probation-for-sex-assault-of-girl-broadcast-live-on-facebook/ar-BBIdAOg

Bingo said...

I am an SA novice although trying to get past Blackburn case and learn more. On a non-SA point,consensual or not, he committed a crime. She was 17, he was 23. It was criminal. You can't move past that fact. What is the answer for the church so some of this lewd behavior can end? It has to be criminally reported. It can't be covered up anymore, it needs to be reported and the person should never be able to work in church leadership again. That is a strong opinion I know. I believe in forgiveness and grace but if the law applies to the average, not pastoral citizen, it should most certainly apply to the church leadership. Hopefully he repented and has never engaged in such an action again. However,let's face it, when it comes to predatory behavior, (popping out your penis on a dark deserted road for a 17 yr old to engage in oral sex is PREDATORY) most of the time it becomes a troubling pattern. Churches need to start to protecting children and applying state laws to their own people.

Anonymous said...

I am an SA novice although trying to get past Blackburn case and learn more. On a non-SA point,consensual or not, he committed a crime. She was 17, he was 23. It was criminal. You can't move past that fact. What is the answer for the church so some of this lewd behavior can end? It has to be criminally reported. It can't be covered up anymore, it needs to be reported and the person should never be able to work in church leadership again. That is a strong opinion I know. I believe in forgiveness and grace but if the law applies to the average, not pastoral citizen, it should most certainly apply to the church leadership. Hopefully he repented and has never engaged in such an action again. However,let's face it, when it comes to predatory behavior, (popping out your penis on a dark deserted road for a 17 yr old to engage in oral sex is PREDATORY) most of the time it becomes a troubling pattern. Churches need to start to protecting children and applying state laws to their own people.

January 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM

It was a crime? In Texas? In 1998? Are you certain?
Have you considered the population of the town and it's proximity to larger Houston? The fact she attended public school...in Texas...in '98...probably watched public TV with HBO...read Vogue, Seventeen,and more.

She wasn't a member of a Mennonite sect secluded in the darkened forest with the only ice cream shoppe in town!It wasn't 1958! Or even 1978!

Perhaps one church that is run by the church like the Church of England is what you are proposing?

What she is proposing is her version of #MeToo@14 without recognizing her part in the ordeal. There's a difference in age disparity between the two and cultural difference, too.

Anonymous said...

You are totally incorrect. She was passed through age of consent and she wasn't attacked or assaulted. She was not a child. She participated. No crime committed.

Anonymous said...

The age of consent law in Texas is gender neutral and applies the same to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct. Like many other states, Texas does not enforce harsh penalties for individuals who has sex with someone under 17 as long as that person is not more than 3 years older than the minor.

If she was 17, it would have been okay, as long as he was 20 or under, which he was not. TECHNICALLY it was statutory rape, but it is pretty clear that, had this continued to become a "romantic relationship" she would not have felt "used".


ima.grandma said...

This is interesting. The article presents additional quotes, links to applicable videos and blogs, made by several parties affected including the church.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/memphis-pastor-admits-sexual-incident-teen-20-years-ago-gets-n836511

Anonymous said...

more fuel for church haters

Anonymous said...

It sounds more like she and her Youth Pastor had a thing going on for a while and that it was a regular occurrence for her to stay behind with him after everyone left as, per her story, the others left without a second thought and she did not even have to ask for a ride from the Youth Pastor as it was a given she was going to ride home with him already, hence, the fact that she had not driven herself to Church and that it seemed to be a habit.
'Ice Cream' could be either a code word, some sort of innuendo, an attempt to illustrate her own innocence and naivete, or both, possibly both as is in keeping with the main point of the original post... Revenge.

To me it almost seemed as though the Youth Pastor was manipulated into this, had second thoughts, and then decided to stop, which seemed to really piss her off more than anything else.
She was frustrated, ashamed, she expressed that she was scared, but it seemed more like the fear of doing something one had never done before or maybe nervousness being with someone that a person really liked, more than likely the latter as seventeen year olds in the nineties were far from innocent, whether they be boys OR girls.

There is A LOT missing from her side of the story... He seemed to feel embarrassed, truly ashamed, and likely felt that he should have been stronger willed.
I feel he may have been strung along by this girl and when he suddenly stopped she was not getting what she wanted, she became frustrated and, by his display, angry, she then realized the power she had over him and sought to get revenge by spreading it around where it mattered most to HIM.
She clearly knew how to use the rumor-mill to her advantage, what if this is not the first time this has happened? I assume she is the child of a single-mother? Where is her father? He likely was not involved, maybe she witnessed this behavior from her Mother on numerous occasions, maybe she has even done this before herself... That is purely speculation, but it seemed that she knew what she was doing in order to ruin this guy.

This is the sign of a very devious mind and this is why people need to be careful with this #metoo thing, because we have people like this in the world, manipulators, vindictive types who will do anything to get what they want or hurt people that don't give them what they want.

The real question is, who is the abuser in this instance. Him? Her? Seemed more like she was the one in control, especially by what was omitted. They were in that car for a while and you are telling me only a few words were exchanged? Also, the feeling of excitement is telling.

mom2many said...

How does statutory rape fit in? How would that reflect in the language 20 years later? Perhaps at the time, the "we" afterward would remain because of mutual participation, but does the adult brain, having processed the situation as one having been taken advantage of, as having been victimized by age-disparity, or abuse of authority, does that turn "we" into he, and familiarity into distance over time?

I remember being a teenage girl with an infatuation with a student-teacher. Given the opportunity, I may have responded to special attention willingly. But as an adult, I recognize that had that happened, it would have been an abuse of his authority. I would be angry for the immature me, misled by an authority figure.

But I am a robot! said...

ima.grandma, I am so sorry for what you've gone through, from the original incident, throughout your life, to the attempt to get some needed feeling from ?, to now.

We can tell you a million times it was NOT your fault, and you know that on an intellectual level, but how do we ever get it through your heart??

Your ?? was terribly selfish to not only give you zero support or validation, but to make ?-self the victim.

You probably do know from your career and other life experience that weak, selfish cowards always blame the victim to avoid having to take any action, and to reassure themselves that it can't ever happen to them.

Anyone who would want for even a second you to "carry that to your grave" as if you were the one who caused pain and shame, just to avoid having to know and maybe change some family dynamics, make inconvenient choices is pathetically weak and selfish, and the random Anonymous is spot-on who said ? would've done nothing back then, either.

This ? would have found another weak, cowardly excuse to do nothing and compel you to unjustly feel the guilt.

It takes all of my restraint to not totally unload on ? with stronger, more descriptive language, only because it reads like ? is still in your life for whatever reasons and I don't wish to add to your pain.

It was NOT your fault; you have nothing to "take to your grave."

I would type that 3,000,000 times if I thought it'd help. And if your assaulter wasn't a trusted family or friend, ? committed a far worse harm and betrayal as someone who should have protected you, supported you.

But I am a robot! said...

And the hugest kudos ever to ima.grandma and the others in here who are fighting through the pain, memories and triggers here to help the rest of us process and analyze these stories.

Regardless of Jules' level of participation, trauma, however that awful encounter happened, the situation must be deeply painful and triggering to anyone who has ever been a victim of some feces stain's selfish perversion.

I commend and thank you all, but please, please step back whenever you need to do so, and please don't feel obligated to do anything that will add to your pain.

Anonymous said...

This was not simple infatuation, nor was it assault, the pain the accuser feels stems from not getting what she wanted and a deep rooted need to really hurt this person for such a horrible rejection years ago.
This is not the same thing as assault and, as far as statutory rape, the girl was seventeen, well beyond the age of consent is 17, which means this was a legal act and the people involved were of consenting age, and did consent... This was not assault, so one needs to differentiate right there.

The fact that the girl sought to destroy the man's career within the Church as revenge is a give-a-way for her true motives and the Church's actions when she did tell them the story, that it was consensual, is simply them taking what actions they could... Not a cover up... It was legal and, by her own admission, consensual.

Now that the Pastor in question is a successful Pastor of a Megachurch and still doing okay, it seems the accuser is still holding a grudge, so she is going to great lengths to get at this guy and the #metoo movement is giving her the tools and the voice to do so as they tend to accept these things WITHOUT QUESTION, even when what is posted is CLEARLY consensual.

ima.grandma said...

Yesterday was very difficult. After reading the article, I immediately sprang into action, walking aimlessly about my home performing meaningless mundane tasks, anything to not think, to not feel, to not cry. My home was immaculate by the time my family finished their day and arrived home. Inspiration from my now sparkling clean oven, I threw myself into preparing a great meal. Our family joined together at the kitchen table. We enjoyed our evening together and all participated playing the "Game of Life" after the dishes were done. My granddaughters kept asking "Grandma, why are you in such a good mood tonight?" I smiled at their enthusiastic faces.

It was only after I lied down for bed, the feelings came and I made the post about my personal experience. Remarkably, I slept peacefully through the night.

Robot, your words are insightful, compassionate, and comforting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

The person who posted the previous thing about age of consent in Texas being seventeen, you are correct, the age of consent is seventeen, but the 3 year law only applies if a person is under the age of seventeen.
Texas does not enforce harsh penalties for individuals who have sex with someone under 17 as long as that person is not more than 3 years older than the minor.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
The person who posted the previous thing about age of consent in Texas being seventeen, you are correct, the age of consent is seventeen, but the 3 year law only applies if a person is under the age of seventeen.
Texas does not enforce harsh penalties for individuals who have sex with someone under 17 as long as that person is not more than 3 years older than the minor.
January 12, 2018 at 1:08 PM


The poster may have an agenda.

One of the things that the legal system will generally do (practice) is seek to learn if the two actors "perceived themselves as equals" in such cases.

As someone else wrote, had things not turned sour, these two may have gotten married. Her linguistic disposition towards him is favorable.

Quite.



Peter

Lucia D said...

I agree, or that she manipulated things so that she ended up being the last kid there, with no ride.

rob said...

I'm afraid girlfriend maybe was a vixon and the young man may be the victim.

rob said...

Quote: However, I too remember feeling as though I had just played my last card."

That says it all for me.

But I am a robot! said...

Very Valid And NOT Random Anonymous, I am sincerely sorry for any additional pain I caused. I didn't intend to doubt, belittle or dismiss your experience and should not have made my comment general, which did include you. I'm truly sorry.

I should have kept it specific to the case, and clearly expressed my doubt in her version of events.

Your encounter here reads like two inexperienced kids already engaged in consensual behavior. Jules portrays herself as a naive girl with zero sexual knowledge, much less sexual experience, who was systematically groomed but her description of her actions indicates more experience (with or without Andy) than she describes.

And to be clear, regardless how regretful, foolish, embarrassed, etc., you might feel, you also did nothing wrong, and have zero for which to feel any guilt or fault.

I truly hope it was a consensual, non-exploitative encounter between two young adults, not the blatant manipulation and using that took place here.

Again I am sorry; I didn't mean to dismiss or invalidate your experience.
Thanks for your bravery in reliving it, and putting it out there to better educate us on these complex matters.

But I am a robot! said...

Excellent analogy! (from a grateful brain surgery patient who wouldn't be here without a highly skilled and ballsy neurosurgeon or two).

Is this the same random Anonymous who uses this blog's admittedly novice posters' learning errors as evidence against the overall veracity of SCAN and its principals?

Yeah, OK...

Seriously, I am as cynical as they come and I've learned a lot here. Even now my doubts as to individual elements, "that could be because..." fall off one by one:

Jules' complete social introduction, I thought here could be her giving a statement.

Keep reading, and she continues granting that respect and importance.

Minister vs. pastor, I know different churches use different terms -- keep reading, and even the higher authority Larry and Steve are pastors while RandyAndy is a minister or pastor according to context.

Conclusion: Always, always keep reading and listening regardless of which "obvious" conclusions you're drawing about the individual statement or the SCAN concept itself.

But I am a robot! said...

Huge hugs and thank YOU for all you contribute, and it's a lot.

Hope you won the game, your dinner was delicious, and that somebody else did the dishes.
(and that ? gets rampant, explosive diarrhea while stuck in traffic, sitting in ?'s own car.)

First time for everything, Anonymous for a reason said...

"But I am a robot! said...
Very Valid And NOT Random Anonymous, I am sincerely sorry for any additional pain I caused. I didn't intend to doubt, belittle or dismiss your experience and should not have made my comment general, which did include you. I'm truly sorry.

I should have kept it specific to the case, and clearly expressed my doubt in her version of events.

Your encounter here reads like two inexperienced kids already engaged in consensual behavior. Jules portrays herself as a naive girl with zero sexual knowledge, much less sexual experience, who was systematically groomed but her description of her actions indicates more experience (with or without Andy) than she describes.

And to be clear, regardless how regretful, foolish, embarrassed, etc., you might feel, you also did nothing wrong, and have zero for which to feel any guilt or fault.

I truly hope it was a consensual, non-exploitative encounter between two young adults, not the blatant manipulation and using that took place here.

Again I am sorry; I didn't mean to dismiss or invalidate your experience.
Thanks for your bravery in reliving it, and putting it out there to better educate us on these complex matters."



There's no need to apologize to me. You're projecting a negative encounter onto me in error. "Reliving" the memory is more amusing to me than anything else.

That Jules went public with her make-out session years later on the heels of the #metoo hype is truly pathetic, imho. I don't *kiss* and tell.

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks, Justified Anon -- that's exactly what I inferred from your second description; I just didn't want to again dismiss any horror that may have happened especially while apologizing for my original.

I get now that it was a harmless, humorous-in-retrospect encounter, and it does read like you were on more equal experience levels and impressions of each others' feelings and intentions.

(i.e.; your response was less "how romantic; he must really love me!" and more "WTF?!? ... wow, not bad... but WTF?! ... aw, whatever, why not...")

First time for everything, Anonymous for a reason said...

Peter speaks often about human nature. What about the nature of humans to "do/explore what comes naturally"? I understand teaching abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy etc. but to expect youth to publicly commit to no physical contact is against human nature and only teaches them to have unrealistically perfect images to uphold, or to "do/explore what comes naturally" in private and then lie about it.

Robot - it was decades ago. I might have forgotton if it wasn't for Jules' kissing and telling. From what I remember, I think my initial reaction was "I can't believe he's showing me that in broad daylight!" I was mostly surprised, amused, and curious, but never felt trapped, scared, coerced or threatened. Beyond that, I won't *kiss* and tell.

Lucia D said...

I agree this many years later it is pathetic that she still has this need for revenge after a youthful , consensual encounter. It really says something about her self worth.

tania cadogan said...

off topic

DALLAS – The father of a 3-year-old girl adopted from an Indian orphanage was indicted on a capital murder charge Friday, nearly three months after the girl's body was found in a culvert near their suburban Dallas home.

Wesley Mathews, 37, has been jailed on a lesser charge in Dallas County since shortly after his daughter, Sherin, was found dead. Prosecutors said the murder charge, which could carry the death penalty, was filed after an autopsy determined the girl died from "homicidal violence."

Mathews initially said his daughter disappeared after he sent her outside as punishment for not drinking milk around 3 a.m. on Oct. 7. But after her body was found, he told police she choked to death and that he removed her body from the family's home in Richardson, about 15 miles (24 kilometers) north of Dallas.

Authorities haven't said what they believe happened to the girl, and court documents only allege that Mathews caused his daughter's death using a deadly weapon "by a manner and means unknown to the grand jury."

"We have some information in terms of what might have happened, but we are still investigating," District Attorney Faith Johnson said during a Friday news conference, adding that her office had not decided whether it would seek the death penalty.

A phone message left by The Associated Press seeking comment from Mathews' attorney wasn't returned Friday.

The girl's mother, Sini Mathews, hasn't been charged in the death but is jailed on a separate child abandonment charge stemming from when she and her husband left Sherin home alone — the day before the girl was reported missing. Her attorney has previously said she played no role in Sherin's death.

Johnson said evidence in the case was still unfolding but that there was no indication anyone outside of Sherin's parents was involved in the death.

Wesley Mathews was also indicted Friday on charges of abandoning a child and tampering with evidence. He was initially charged in late October with felony injury to a child and his bond was set at $1 million.

He reported his daughter missing on Oct. 7, sparking a broad search involving numerous law enforcement agencies before her body was found on Oct. 22. The local police chief said it's been an intense case for his officers.

"There is virtually no employee in the Richardson Police Department who has not been involved in this case," Police Chief Jimmy Spivey said Friday. "I am happy we are in a place where we can bring justice for this child."

In his initial report to police, Wesley Mathews said he waited several hours to report the girl missing and had done laundry as he waited for her to come home. He told investigators the girl had developmental disabilities and was malnourished.

He described a special diet regimen in which she had to eat whenever she was awake in order to gain weight. Workers at the orphanage where the girl had been living before her adoption in June 2016 disputed the child was malnourished.

Weeks later, when a search dog found the girl's body in a pipe that runs under a roadway, Mathews came to the police station in Richardson to change his account. According to court records, he told police he had been helping the girl drink milk when she choked, and when he eventually felt no pulse, he believed the child had died. Investigators wrote that he "then admitted to removing the body from the home."

The affidavit does not say whether Mathews administered any medical aid to his daughter.

___

Associated Press writer Claudia Lauer contributed to this report from Dallas.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/12/texas-father-charged-with-murder-in-death-indian-orphan.html

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the ministry attracts so many perverts,freaks, misfits and pedophiles

tania cadogan said...

If the catholic church allowed its priests to marry as it once used to, then i suspect that rates of sexual abuse would drop as would cases of many priests leaving because of relationships with women or men, leaving to marry or having illegitimate children.

it would also help priests help their congregation with relationship and marital issues if they knew what it was like to have a relationship or be married.
How can someone advise on marital issues if they have never married or had a relationship?
How can they advise on sexual matters if they have never had sex?

It would be in the church's interests to allow priests to marry, heck even nuns and monks to marry.

But I am a robot! said...

Another random Anonymous, the ministry attracts predators because they see a lot of potential victims to exploit in their various ways.

That doesn't make the ministry in general any more creepy or suspect than predatory perv coaches and teachers make those professions creepy and suspect; they just share the misfortune of being used as a pool of potential targets.

tania, you're spot-on about allowing any church folks to marry and have relationships.
It all goes to the creepy, oppressive "sex is sinful, dirty!" controlling b.s. They can't claim it's awful if Jesus couldn't exist without it; they couldn't claim it's evil and whorish if his mother did it.

You know how coffee came to be a delicious beverage when properly made?

Back in the the fifth century, a goatherder noticed his goats getting all happy, energetic and playful after eating the coffee cherries (that the beans grow inside).

He tried a few with the same great effect. Soon, word spread about the pleasant, beneficial effects and coffee cherry eating was becoming popular.

Next step -- yep, you guessed it, some church leaders declared coffee cherry consumption a sin and immediately set about trying to make them illegal.

Priests, nuns, whoever, would be a lot happier, healthier, more well-rounded and knowledgeable to serve their congregations if they weren't compelled to stifle such major aspects of experiencing life and love in exchange for devoting their lives to serving and helping others.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...
If the catholic church allowed its priests to marry


I do not think that would change things. that is like saying married people don't sexually assault people.

if the priesthood is a commitment so is married life. it is a strawman.

CptKD said...

THIS was a CONSENSENSUAL Encounter!
And there is NO Mistaking that!

He MAY Have been older!
However;
She WAS OF AGE!

Both participated & Agreed to the 'Act' (s) being Participated in!

There IS NOTHING 'Criminal' in this encounter between the two!
As he was not an 'Ordained' Minister, Priest, Pastor, Father, Etc.
For had he BEEN - He'd have been ABSOLVED OF HIS DUTIES IMMEDIATELY &
FIRED FROM THAT VERY MINISTRY!
THAT VERY DAY, Upon receipt of her Report & Further Investigation into the said ALLEGATIONS!

NTM - There would have been RULES & REGULATIONS Implemented from the outset, prohibiting this behavior between Parish STAFF & It's MEMBERS!
ESPECIALLY, Those of 'Minor' or Impressionable AGES!

This Young 'Lady' (Ugh)
Allow me to change that HERE to;

This Young Woman,
Is NOT doing anything purposeful, positive, or RIGHT . . .
For ANY OF THE ** T R U E **
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT & BATTERY!
For, With each one that comes 'Forward' with a FALSEHOOD' - She HAS 'Flushed' BACK!
Further into the SILENCE OF SHADOWS! Another, WHO SO DESPERATELY 'NEEDS' TO BE HEARD!

Who so, as IMMENSELY & INTENSELY, Requires that Very 'VOICE' To be Magnified!
NOT Stifled back, in to the QUIET of Ridicule & Silent, devastating RAGE!

CptKD

CptKD said...

I was just going to say that VERY same thing, Lucia D!

"Great Minds, My Friend! Great Minds!"
&
YES!
THIS Time!
I Tip My Hat, to The General!
He NAILED IT, With that one line!

BRAVO! Fine Sir!
" B R A V O - General P. Malaise!"

CptKD said...

I'm glad that you returned to correct that, Buckley! 😉
I was on my way to do just THAT! Lol!

*IT was, one of the 'Many' things to JUMP OUT at me!

I sensed that you'd 'catch' it on a reread . . .
Or that another 'Regular' would soon enough, be 'Flagging' it for You!!

It's not that she's not 'Believable' - It's more-so her 'age' - willingness to 'appease' (for lack of a better word) - the drive in the dark, is so 'self-serving' as we all know at 17! THAT there are no ICE CREAM SHOPS, On dirt roads in Rural areas, or Counties! Especially 'OPEN' later at night & It's only AFTER the 'consensual' Acts where he's now on his knees, BEGGING to be forgiven - Does she suddenly introduce having a bad feeling, yet "WE GOT BACK IN THE TRUCK" ... (This may be in paraphrase)

And I am, being tender & jostling with you in friendly jest! 🎭

🇨🇦 CptKD

CptKD said...

So VERY True, ima.grandma!

That said, however;
THAT which IS spoken - MUST ABSOLUTELY BE THE * T R U T H *

Falsehoods, Fabrications & LIES!
GROSS MISCOMMUNICATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT & BATTERY
ONLY Serve to SILENCE THE TRUTH!

Furthermore,
THEY cause Even MORE LOSS OF TRUST & Singlehandedly, SILENCE THE VOICES OF TRUE VICTIMS!
Those DESPERATE To be HEARD & DESPERATELY NEEDING TO BE HELPED & FURTHER *PROTECTED* !!!

SILENCE MUST BE BROKEN - AS DO The Salacious, Sin-Filled, Fabricated Stories, 'Used' to Prosecute WRONGLY, for Fame & Financial Gain!

SILENCE MUST BE BROKEN!
SO AS,
TO RELEASE - THOSE KEPT HARBOURED & KEPT HUSHED!
THE TRUE SILENT VICTIMS, BEING USED, PASSED AROUND & KEPT AT HOME, AT EVERY COST!
KEPT FROM THEIR FAMILY! NO LONGER HAVING FRIENDS - NO Control of a single moment, only KNOWING 'Being' USED & ABUSED!
From Dusk until Dawn - BODY, MIND & SPIRIT GONE!

YES!
For THEM - SILENCE MUST BE BROKEN!
&
IT CAN'T HAPPEN SOON ENOUGH!

🇨🇦 CptKD

Barbara said...

Remember, she’s only telling what she wants you to know, I’m sure it started with kissing and progressed to other things, she doesn’t want to bring any attention to her shame!!! Only she knows the truth.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Barbara said...
Remember, she’s only telling what she wants you to know, I’m sure it started with kissing and progressed to other things, she doesn’t want to bring any attention to her shame!!! Only she knows the truth.

yes. she left out things that would show her desire to be there. and possibly the initiation of the event.

Anonymous said...

You people are such minions....sycophants....with preconceptions of what you think is Peter’s take on the accounting of the alleged incident.

Your purpose from the first comment to the last appears to be manipulation of “analysis” to prove the girl guilty rather than honestly apply SA to discover truth.