Protection & Propriety

Statistically, if you attend Christ Church and particularly if you board Wilson’s seminary or college students, your children have a high-ish likelihood of being molested or otherwise preyed on by adult men in completely inappropriate ways. Wilson knows this is true, because, as he’s so fond of saying, he “covers sin up for a living.” But even given this statistical chance of molestation, it would not be true if I claimed “people who attend Christ Church tacitly agree on the propriety of having their children raped.” See the difference now? Nobody “tacitly” agrees on the “propriety” of being raped by failing to do something, whether you fail to leave a church hosting known rapists or you fail to walk around with a man on your arm at all times.
Katie Botkin

6 Comments

  1. Well, it’s not rape at all if it’s a “relationship” or a “courtship” — especially if those are “parent approved” but kept “secret” from Doug!
    A few days ago, Ulysses wrote,

    “If Mr. Wilson had not pressured Natalie’s father into going easy on Wight, and if Mr. Wilson had not injected his false “secret courtship” narrative into the testimony…”

    And I happened to be reading comments by an anonymous blogger from 8 years ago, and this reminded me of Natalie’s father — it could be talking about someone else, of course:

    “(I think his is the most tragic case yet and when he gets a platform to tell his story, the party will be over for Wilson; but as of yet Wilson is holding his wife and children hostage.)”

    Which reminded me of Doug’s Mablog comment of 09/11/15 in response to Katie Botkin posting his 09/05 letter to Gary:

    “Sarah Anne, I tried to reply at that blog but could not. I will say it here. She says that Gary and Natalie both gave permission to print that letter. If she posted that in writing, with permission from Gary, Pat, and Natalie for me to answer questions about the letter, I would be happy to do so. Delighted in fact. Just be prepared — it will shut down the party, which you might not want.”

    Eventually Doug’s reply appeared on Botkin’s blog:

    “Katie, I will state here what I said in the comments on my blog. If you post a release in writing from Gary, Pat, and Natalie, giving me permission to answer the question posed by this letter — e.g. why did we say Gary failed to protect his daughter — I would be delighted to answer the question.”

    Later that day, Doug commented to Natalie on the Mablog:

    “Since all along my refusal to speak about this has been in order to respect your family’s privacy, I am happy to continue to honor you all in this way. I can say that there is an answer, and that in my mind, it is a compelling one. But I care enough about you, and your mom, to continue to be abused as a skunk and a scoundrel — I would rather that continue than to violate a trust. If you are curious about what I could possibly say, I would be very happy to get together with you and explain it. I would not withhold anything from you, in other words. You can ask me anything you want.
 I am very sorry about the sins that were committed against you, and I wish you well. God bless.”

    
And finally to Gary:

    “Gary, you are welcome to tell this story here, and I appreciate the calm way you are approaching it. I am very sorry for the grief you have gone through. But please keep in mind that you are getting to the parts where I will not be able to explain our actions in response to what happened. I would be willing to do this if the affected members of the Greenfield family all agreed to let me answer questions about it. But since that is not in the cards right now, I will be remaining silent. But please know that my silence is not convenient for me, quite the reverse.”

    So — to 4 people, Doug said or implied that he couldn’t say all the good stuff he was itching to say BECAUSE he wants to honor them and respect their privacy and Mom hadn’t given the OK yet. So. . . . Between then and Doug’s Jezehellsbells article and HOH meetings did he get Mom’s permission and forget to mention it? Or is there still more good stuff he wants to share once he gets agreement from all the family members?
    Sorry for the long tangent — but have been curious. . .

  2. “But I care enough about you, and your mom, to continue to be abused as a skunk and a scoundrel — I would rather that continue than to violate a trust.” Golly, he’s swell…..

    1. So far as I can tell, he was willing to be “abused” (poor fellow — kinda like turning the other cheek) for about a month before he began violating a trust and making accusations — with the purpose of punching “back twice as hard” at Natalie and Gary.

    2. and after all that, never explained a single thing. Just threw out the red herring that Gary supposedly abused his family.

      No one in Gary’s family has substantiated that. Doug simply decided to make hay out of Gary’s mental breakdown for which he (Doug) was partially responsible.

      This was an EXTREMELY low blow on Doug’s part. It was a) not relevant, and b) patently false. But . . . what else was Doug to do when he was so being “abused” by the public.

      I noted at the time, he used the word “abuse” for what he received from the internet world for this mess, but what Jamin did to Natalie was not “abuse;” that was a “relationship.”

    3. and I hope it is understood that I use the words “mental breakdown” without any disrespect intended towards Gary.

  3. Now here’s some disrespect, from Doug in “Jezehellsbells”:
    “And now, ten years later, Jezebel is attacking us for our “patriarchalism,” when what we were actually doing was disciplining an out-of-control patriarchalist.”
    Wow — Patriarchalist — glad you’re not one! Sounds bad! But that out-of-control guy — wherever did he get it from?

Comments are closed.