|
Post by mdm on Mar 17, 2015 22:35:32 GMT -5
I find it disheartening that a member of the church would be questioning the behavior of the alleged victim of sexual harassment, but refrains from saying that the behavior of the minister is inappropriate and warrants removal from the ministry (especially celibate ministry). Also, that such a person would not be asking questions of the ministry as to why LW was allowed to remain in the ministry in spite of many known allegations against him. This is why such things are allowed to keep happening - it is easier and more convenient for people to put the blame on the victim than on the perpetrator if the perpetrator is being protected by the ministry. This particular lady was labeled as "troubled," while LW was sent to yet another field/state, free to keep repeating the same behavior. What does this mean? "It seems to me there were a lot of common sense interpersonal boundaries crossed by both parties." How successful have you been at changing the behaviors of adults? I've found that changing the behaviors of adults is rarely successful. I don't think you have been very successful at it either. Since changing another adult's behavior is rarely successful I believe in a prevention/education effort directed at empowering individuals. Educated and empowered individuals can prevent the victimization from happening in the first place. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm advocating empowering individuals so they don't become victims. Think circles of prevention; the individual should always be in the center of the circles of prevention. The most effective prevention is at the very center. Placing 100% of the blame on the other entity will never teach empowerment to the individual or help anyone to learn how to not be a victim. Doing that is ignoring the circle of prevention closest to the individual. That is why placing 100% of the blame and responsibility on the aggressor entity is not, and will never be, a root cause cure. Aggressor types have always been with us and will always be with us - so the only logical way to attack the problem at the roots is empower individuals. That's what Sharon means by the power of saying NO! My wife scolded me recently saying that when it comes fixing personal interaction problems "all men want to is analyze and fix things". It was about a situation where I thought more personal responsibility and objective self analysis would be a huge help and would have prevented a lot of problems. I don't know how else to look at these types of situations. My focus, at least here and now, is not abuse prevention in general, but how the church deals with ministers who have engaged in sexual immorality and/or abuse.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Mar 18, 2015 0:42:30 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. Of course they get a far lower rating. For a start, divorce and remarriage only affect the rank and file. So any breaking of the rules can be used to keep people in their place. Divorce and remarriage also does not affect the workers as they are single (other than the usual clandestine arrangements) As for sexual abuse and fornication this also does not affect the workers as they are Christs younger brothers and how dare you suggest that they would engage in such naughtiness.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 18, 2015 1:03:52 GMT -5
Reading through these posts I get an impression that within the fellowship sexual abuse and fornication get a far lower rating than divorce and remarriage by those in authority; and yet the scriptures speak out against both sins. Am I correct or am I missing something? Is divorce and remarriage far more offensive than all other forms of sexual abuse including CSA.? Enlighten me please. Remarriage to another after divorce is seen by some/many in the fellowship as a constant and willful and unrepentant state of sin. There are different reasons why people divorce and remarry some go through unbearable situations in their life and can't take anymore. CSA is on a another level! To put innocent children through that is disgusting! They don't have a choice and the person doing it should be put away and not let out again to hurt other children! If I found out someone in our meeting was doing this I'd go straight to the police. I wouldn't think twice!
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 18, 2015 8:48:01 GMT -5
You do realize that applesandbacon is referring to a different woman don't you? Regarding the tongue in the throat, yes. Regarding the conversation that took 5 hours to discuss - no. No, it means a closed mouth makes it difficult to put your tongue in someone's mouth. And if it is there uninvited 50 pounds of force will make it clear that it is time to leave. If someone decides to greet or say good bye to someone with a platonic kiss do you start with an open mouth? The story doesn't, as they say, have legs. I don't think anyone is saying that LW has not acted inappropriately many times over a long period of time. I am not sure who is trying to blame anyone. It is a matter of taking responsibility for one's actions. LW visited a married woman multiple times and carried on explicit sexual conversations. If it happened one time the explanation that the victim was taken off guard and, in the spur of the moment, responded. But that argument doesn't work when there were multiple visits with contemplation time between the visits. And somehow LW knew when the husband was not going to be home. Do you think LW had a copy of the husband's calendar? How many people would have known when the husband was going to be away? No one has mentioned how LW was found out? The wife told the husband? The husband returned home early? This type of abuse does not happen in a vacuum. As mentioned, LW called at least a women to try to set up a meeting. To stop issues like this from happening over and over more has identifying an offender and, after years, moving/demoting/etc. the person. Removing IH, for example, did not eliminate sexual abuse. In the situation I know about, LW showed up unannounced. He was certainly aware of the husband's comings and goings, and was in a position that made it difficult for the woman to refuse his visits. Any more information would potentially violate her privacy, so I will not give any more.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 9:15:01 GMT -5
I am not talking about 'rumors.' I have talked personally to the couple in Chicago who wrote the letter to verify what transpired there and have talked to a senior worker who himself confirmed some things, corrected one thing on the list of reported offences posted by Scott (it wasn't 5 but 2 SW's who complained to LS about LW) and even told us the details of one offence we weren't aware of. Also, several people have told me of members of their family or close friends who were either in an inappropriate relationship with LW or who were harassed by him. This is a small fellowship and it isn't hard to find out at least some facts if one puts an effort into it. Oh, and I personally know two (alleged) victims of LW. Again, it's a small world, and even smaller fellowship. I find it odd that after stating that there was no need to know that you took the effort to indeed find out more details. Again, I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that LW was inappropriate and should have been removed from his position. It is a small world and for that reason the gossip and rumors are even more rampant. It is clear that you have talked to a lot of an inappropriate relationship with LW..." which would lead one to believe that this is not always a case of people being harassed by LW against their will. Even in the case(s) where the individuals were in a relationship with LW it, from my standpoint, seems unethical and, based on the supposed status of the workers (celibate), unacceptable. Again, I am not sure anyone doubted the veracity of the letters/email that was posted but he question was were all of the facts present. Phrases like "...several people have told me of members of their family or close friends..." are not the phrases that facts are built on. There is a reason why this sort of thing is almost always inadmissible in courts. The fact that you know some of the victims also does not add anything to the completeness of the matters being related. Think about the situation where LW visited the woman, only when the husband was not home, multiple times. Why was this allowed? How would LW know the husband's schedule? If it was indeed an awkward situation and one to be avoided why stay home on the days when the husband was going to be away? As I said - there was part ofthe story presented but I do not believe all of the facts are on the table.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 9:27:35 GMT -5
In the situation I know about, LW showed up unannounced. He was certainly aware of the husband's comings and goings, and was in a position that made it difficult for the woman to refuse his visits. Any more information would potentially violate her privacy, so I will not give any more. This raises the question of how LW would know the husband's schedule. Why would that information be shared with LW? She did not have to refuse his visits, she could simply go out and not be at home. Or not answer the door. If women, or anyone, are led to believe that if a man, or anyone, drops by unannounced at their home that they do not have right to say "This is not a good time, please call and we can set up a time for you to visit." then these events will continue to happen. Perhaps not with LW but with the next offender who sees that there is no restriction on visiting. Accepting responsibility for your actions is not saying you were at fault. Too many people are willing to play the blame game. It is the traditional way to shift responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 18, 2015 9:29:03 GMT -5
Maybe the husband worked And he came when he was at work.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 9:32:18 GMT -5
My focus, at least here and now, is not abuse prevention in general, but how the church deals with ministers who have engaged in sexual immorality and/or abuse. You have been very clear about this. Of course, if the abuse was prevented there would be no need for the church to deal with the ministers.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 9:33:59 GMT -5
Maybe the husband worked And he came when he was at work. It could very well be the case. Do you know the hours he worked? The days? Days off? Lunch hour? Why did LW know?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 10:23:17 GMT -5
He just had to ask. He no doubt talked to the husband sometimes. Most people work in the day time. Not all but most. Your right. I wonder how that would go. "So Bob, what time do you leave for the office? Do you get home for lunch or do you eat at your desk? Do you have to go in every day?" Maybe I am just the skeptical type. But you are right - LW could just ask what his schedule was.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 18, 2015 10:35:42 GMT -5
Here most people who work in an office, work in the day time Monday to Friday. Very few people come home for lunch as their whole lunch time would be spent traveling home.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 18, 2015 10:38:02 GMT -5
I'd like to step back for a moment. Do you have any wisdom you would be willing to share about how to raise a girl to have a healthy self esteem and good interpersonal boundaries? How about wisdom on how to raise a healthy, self-respecting and respectful boy...also with strong interpersonal boundaries? We know that boys can be at risk as well. Back to when my children were young? I have no magic incantation that will do the above. However, we did strive to keep communication very open and non-judgmental. The children knew that they could approach us with anything and it would not be held against them. We often talked about what were appropriate boundaries - both physical and intellectual. We also taught them that they were responsible for their actions and therefore they needed to consider their actions in light of that fact. They knew they had the right to say "No". This is more important than it seems. It is also a burden on the parents who have to deal with children saying "No"! A lot of time spent in discussions where they would try to explain the logic of their choice. The tough part is sometimes they were right and mom and dad had to back down! It empowers the child. It might have been easier for us because there were no individuals in their lives that could be considered to have a higher moral ground. No workers, priests, etc. There were relatives but they did not seem to have any problem in speaking their mind and holding their own. I know my dad was often amazed at the thoughts his granddaughter would share. He often attributed it to our medical backgrounds. It also illustrates that there were no topics that were off limits. At times the discussions had to be postponed from the dinner table but all questions were answered as honestly and thoroughly as possible. Not sure if that answers your question. I think being involved in the children's lives, respecting them as individuals, and providing education when ever possible is what it takes. Thanks for your answer....if what you say is true(!) ;-) it sounds like your kids were lucky to have you as a dad! I must say that I have a hard time imagining this: "The tough part is sometimes they were right and mom and dad had to back down!" It seems almost implausible!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 11:00:26 GMT -5
Thanks for your answer....if what you say is true(!) ;-) it sounds like your kids were lucky to have you as a dad! Nope. I made it all up. The kids are all institutionalized and the grand kids are being raised in there as well. Hey, were were parents, like many others, that did not get the parenting manuals in the mail. We were probably a little better prepared because we worked with examples of what happened if you did all the wrong things raising children. We were both fortunate to have been raised by parents who also did their jobs well. I know. It was the sad times of my life! My daughter still remembers an argument we were having in the car and she bet $50 (a lot of money in our family) that she was right. She was probably about 10 or 12 years old. I thought it would be good to teach her a lesson so I took the bet. Then she had me take her shopping to spend her winnings! There certainly was a lesson to be learned!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 18, 2015 11:18:50 GMT -5
I am not talking about 'rumors.' I have talked personally to the couple in Chicago who wrote the letter to verify what transpired there and have talked to a senior worker who himself confirmed some things, corrected one thing on the list of reported offences posted by Scott (it wasn't 5 but 2 SW's who complained to LS about LW) and even told us the details of one offence we weren't aware of. Also, several people have told me of members of their family or close friends who were either in an inappropriate relationship with LW or who were harassed by him. This is a small fellowship and it isn't hard to find out at least some facts if one puts an effort into it. Oh, and I personally know two (alleged) victims of LW. Again, it's a small world, and even smaller fellowship. I find it odd that after stating that there was no need to know that you took the effort to indeed find out more details. Again, I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that LW was inappropriate and should have been removed from his position. It is a small world and for that reason the gossip and rumors are even more rampant. It is clear that you have talked to a lot of an inappropriate relationship with LW..." which would lead one to believe that this is not always a case of people being harassed by LW against their will. Even in the case(s) where the individuals were in a relationship with LW it, from my standpoint, seems unethical and, based on the supposed status of the workers (celibate), unacceptable. Again, I am not sure anyone doubted the veracity of the letters/email that was posted but he question was were all of the facts present. Phrases like "...several people have told me of members of their family or close friends..." are not the phrases that facts are built on. There is a reason why this sort of thing is almost always inadmissible in courts. The fact that you know some of the victims also does not add anything to the completeness of the matters being related. Think about the situation where LW visited the woman, only when the husband was not home, multiple times. Why was this allowed? How would LW know the husband's schedule? If it was indeed an awkward situation and one to be avoided why stay home on the days when the husband was going to be away? As I said - there was part ofthe story presented but I do not believe all of the facts are on the table. My point was that there is no need to know more about the alleged victim of harassment in order to make a judgment on LW's suitability for the ministry since this is not the only allegation against him - there are many. I did not make an attempt to find out 'details' about the visit between LW and this lady, but about the efforts of the couple who supported her in going to workers about it, who were present in their meetings and later wrote the letter Scott has posted, and about how their efforts were received. The purpose of this attempt and some others on our part was to find out what is really happening in the church we belonged to. I am not building a court case, but answering your accusation that my judgment is based on mere rumors and gossip.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 18, 2015 11:50:49 GMT -5
He just had to ask. He no doubt talked to the husband sometimes. Most people work in the day time. Not all but most. Your right. I wonder how that would go. "So Bob, what time do you leave for the office? Do you get home for lunch or do you eat at your desk? Do you have to go in every day?" Maybe I am just the skeptical type. But you are right - LW could just ask what his schedule was. Ummm...seriously? I'm quite sure that every worker (or any other houseguest) I've had in my home knows my schedule, just from idle questions asked around the dinner table. And I don't mind them knowing, because I have nothing to fear from most of them. If I've allowed them to spend the night in my home, my schedule isn't such a big secret.
The main issue is the power inequality that makes it so hard to refuse without big repercussions. The woman and her husband did get out of the situation, but not without personal sacrifice on a number of different levels.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Mar 18, 2015 12:03:43 GMT -5
He just had to ask. He no doubt talked to the husband sometimes. Most people work in the day time. Not all but most. Your right. I wonder how that would go. "So Bob, what time do you leave for the office? Do you get home for lunch or do you eat at your desk? Do you have to go in every day?" Maybe I am just the skeptical type. But you are right - LW could just ask what his schedule was. Workers do know the friends' schedules inside and out. There is lots of time around the dinner table to ask about jobs and life, and they need to know, really, for their own scheduling purposes. Well, maybe people don't have to offer up info about whether they will be home for lunch, but it would probably come up. Especially if someone DOES have lunch at home, in the case of workers staying overnight...it would be asked if they would still be around for lunch or if they were going on to the next place before then. But they know where people work, and commute time is often discussed. As far as all the facts being on the table, it could be very helpful to hear more of what was said and felt on her side. But poor woman...being grilled on that would be humiliating and painful. I'm also in the camp that people shouldn't need to know, however, it seems like people actually do. The more light is shed on how a victim becomes a victim and how they react and why within a cult or any relationship, the less victims will be blamed. It does seem odd, initially, that so many questions were asked, but totally plausible. It is veryvery difficult to challenge a worker of any level of power at all, on any subject, no matter how much you've mentally prepared for it in advance. I can easily imagine being completely at a loss for how to handle LW in that situation. More women are more prepared when they read this stuff, so that's good. It has to be learned in adulthood for many, as they were taught to trust people "in the fold," especially the "shepherds." And they really DO trust. It takes stepping back and getting away from a conversation and thinking about it a bit before you can get a grip on what you should have said/done. Appropriate reactions don't happen easily when your naive reality is totally shaken up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 12:42:00 GMT -5
My point was that there is no need to know more about the alleged victim of harassment in order to make a judgment on LW's suitability for the ministry since this is not the only allegation against him - there are many. Again, I do not think anyone is disputing this fact. I know. As you said, the details, other than allegations against the workers, are not of interest to you. I assumed that you were looking for facts regarding the situation. In that light - have you gathered any information directly from any of the victims or the offenders?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 12:50:19 GMT -5
This is hearsay to any reading this. However it is true testimony of my lovely Late wife Ylva to me of her own experience with Henry Hanson, the worker who brought the 2&2 ministry doctrine to her mother as a very young woman, causing Gulli Carlsson to become estranged from her parents and family for many years. So much for the history behind the account.
Ylva told me of Henry catching/trapping her going down on the stairwell in their family home. She was an early developing 8 year old tiny (full grown was only 4' 10.5" tall.) He caught her, began fondling her and kissed her, pushing his tongue past her closed lips and into her mouth. She reported to me that she managed to escape, by twisting away, never allowing him to get near her alone again. She told me this account after my excommunication, and her eventual understanding on her entire own, that we had been taught lies from our very conception. When her mother came to visit after her Father's death, her mother queried me as to why, despite my believing in my Lord and Savior why I did not believe in his only true servants on earth?
Relating I just knew of too many instances where knowledge proved they simply were not such people as a whole, she asked for instances which I began relating one by one from my own first hand 40 years knowlege (at that time) without giving names. To help her understand such was not only my impression of them as a whole, I began relating Ylva's experiences, and upon reaching this account of Henry Hanson without mentioning him by name, Gulli turned to Ylva and asked very quietly if that person were Henry Hanson, and having Ylva respond in the affirmative she turned again to me, weeping, asked me what are we to do? I told her I have not the least right in answering that question for another. As for myself, I would simply continue to believe in Yah'shuah as my Lord and kinsman redeemer, worshipping Him as such until no longer mentally able to do so. Thus He is my Absolute.
PLEASE NOTE! It has come to my attention here now, that another posting to this forum, is a 2&2 ministry worker, obviously continuing to believe and post a cunningly devised fable. There is nothing new in that, as words attributed to Peter clearly reveal. This is to encourage that person to remove the blinders (as worn by horses so they can be better controlled by man) so that the mind might truly investigate all options, including non-belief as clearly chosen by some posting here. Just as I do not attempt to impose my beliefs on others, I resist those of any persuasion attempting to force me to live by theirs.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 12:52:36 GMT -5
Workers do know the friends' schedules inside and out. There is lots of time around the dinner table to ask about jobs and life, and they need to know, really, for their own scheduling purposes. That may indeed be the case for some but I know it is not a universal truth. I can see how this would make sense. It would be good to be able to separate the facts from trying to place blame. This is where the education of parents and children needs to be improved. We are talking about adults in these situations. I understand that the workers have been placed on a pedestal (and in some cases workers have climbed up there themselves) but is someone asks you if your husband gets an erection how high can that pedestal be? A good argument to have the facts all on the table so there is no doubt regarding what happened and no reason to ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 13:06:15 GMT -5
Ummm...seriously? I'm quite sure that every worker (or any other houseguest) I've had in my home knows my schedule, just from idle questions asked around the dinner table. And I don't mind them knowing, because I have nothing to fear from most of them. If I've allowed them to spend the night in my home, my schedule isn't such a big secret. I have misjudged what people are willing to share with the workers and the fact that my schedule, and the schedule of many of my peers, is not something that could be planned for more than a week in advance. It would not have been possible for the husband to approach LW and voice the fact he was uncomfortable having LW visit his wife while he was away to discuss the intimate details of their lives and ask him to stop? Or did this take place and LW ignored the request?
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 18, 2015 13:24:23 GMT -5
Ummm...seriously? I'm quite sure that every worker (or any other houseguest) I've had in my home knows my schedule, just from idle questions asked around the dinner table. And I don't mind them knowing, because I have nothing to fear from most of them. If I've allowed them to spend the night in my home, my schedule isn't such a big secret. I have misjudged what people are willing to share with the workers and the fact that my schedule, and the schedule of many of my peers, is not something that could be planned for more than a week in advance. It would not have been possible for the husband to approach LW and voice the fact he was uncomfortable having LW visit his wife while he was away to discuss the intimate details of their lives and ask him to stop? Or did this take place and LW ignored the request? The husband did do a variation of this eventually, and it came at great personal cost as I mentioned. To explain why would compromise privacy, as I also mentioned. Ideally, a woman should be able to say no to sexual advances without anyone else going to bat for her, and without any repercussions, period.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 18, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5
Workers do know the friends' schedules inside and out. There is lots of time around the dinner table to ask about jobs and life, and they need to know, really, for their own scheduling purposes. That may indeed be the case for some but I know it is not a universal truth. Do you mean that some workers don't know the friends' schedules? Don't sit around the dinner table? Don't ask about jobs and life? Don't have scheduling purposes? Or is the universal truth you refer to something else?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 14:50:44 GMT -5
That may indeed be the case for some but I know it is not a universal truth. Do you mean that some workers don't know the friends' schedules? Don't sit around the dinner table? Don't ask about jobs and life? Don't have scheduling purposes? Or is the universal truth you refer to something else? I don't really have the time to parse out this for you in detail but let's look at a quick cut: The pronoun 'that' was referring to the fact ( Workers do know the friends' schedules inside and out.) presented in the post to which I was responding. The phrasing of the fact in that post ( Workers do know the friends' schedules inside and out.) has no restriction and implies that it is a universal situation - workers know the friend's schedules inside and out. My response was to indicate that I had knowledge that this was not a universal fact. I know - I perhaps I shouldn't have used the pronoun 'that' to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis but I did to save the time required to type out the actual phrase and now I am paying the price.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 18, 2015 15:03:18 GMT -5
This raises the question of how LW would know the husband's schedule. Why would that information be shared with LW? She did not have to refuse his visits, she could simply go out and not be at home. Or not answer the door. If women, or anyone, are led to believe that if a man, or anyone, drops by unannounced at their home that they do not have right to say "This is not a good time, please call and we can set up a time for you to visit." then these events will continue to happen. Perhaps not with LW but with the next offender who sees that there is no restriction on visiting. Accepting responsibility for your actions is not saying you were at fault. Too many people are willing to play the blame game. It is the traditional way to shift responsibility. Rat, I think you have forgotten the mindset (if you ever did know it). From my experience, though it varied with geography and time period, you were expected to greet drop-in company with a smile no matter when they showed up. You answered the phone when they called. You re-arranged your schedule when workers said they were going to visit, regardless of the personal inconvenience to you. You answered pretty much any questions they asked you. Workers lived in your home for a week or more at a time, so of course they knew your schedule. Now, I was a more independent thinking type, but I still more or less followed the above. In instances where I did not, I was the subject of intense shaming from some of the workers and friends. (Funny, I tend to think I don't have many residual issues with 2x2ism, but as I typed the above, I started striking the keys with more force.) I remember the moment when I took my power back. I remember exactly where I was, I remember exactly what I did. It was a moment of such calm and such clarity, and I have never forgotten it. No one has shamed me for anything since.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 15:20:31 GMT -5
Rat, I think you have forgotten the mindset (if you ever did know it). I was raised to respect the workers but they were not on a pedestal. I am sure things are different with the introduction of cell phones, common email exchanges, etc. My wife lived in the same house with me but she was not always aware of my schedule. Perhaps I was oblivious to the shaming. Dropping in without calling in our house was unacceptable and considered rude. Just start walking and don't look back!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 18, 2015 17:02:35 GMT -5
Think about the situation where LW visited the woman, only when the husband was not home, multiple times. Why was this allowed? How would LW know the husband's schedule? If it was indeed an awkward situation and one to be avoided why stay home on the days when the husband was going to be away? As I said - there was part ofthe story presented but I do not believe all of the facts are on the table. Are you suggesting the victim should have left her own home to avoid this worker's advances?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 18, 2015 17:30:34 GMT -5
I remember the moment when I took my power back. I remember exactly where I was, I remember exactly what I did. It was a moment of such calm and such clarity, and I have never forgotten it. No one has shamed me for anything since. Just start walking and don't look back! Yep. It’s almost 20 years later and I’ve never regretted it, not even for a second. As usual, my friend Rumi has something very apropos to say: “Start walking…Your legs will get heavy and tired. Then comes a moment of feeling the wings you’ve grown, lifting.” Or, if you can’t manage that: “If all you can do is crawl, start crawling.” ~Rumi
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Mar 18, 2015 18:15:39 GMT -5
Think about the situation where LW visited the woman, only when the husband was not home, multiple times. Why was this allowed? How would LW know the husband's schedule? If it was indeed an awkward situation and one to be avoided why stay home on the days when the husband was going to be away? As I said - there was part ofthe story presented but I do not believe all of the facts are on the table. Are you suggesting the victim should have left her own home to avoid this worker's advances? I was wondering the same thing.
|
|