Spiritual Self-Defense: Make Your Plan - Part Two

I believe that the Botkin Sisters have succumbed to a terrible unintended by-product of Purity Culture or Emotional Purity: they believe that they are worthy of love and respect from a good man only because they are virgins. I think it is this belief more than anything that leads them to the strange standoff they are in now where victims are not to be blamed for being raped while still holding beliefs that if women just do everything right they will not be raped.  The Botkin Response to sexual threats runs a disturbingly high chance of escalating a dangerous, but survivable situation into a situation where the victim ends up dead or in the ICU.  The only way that risk is acceptable is if the Botkin Sisters believe that being raped is a fate worse than death - and that's a terrible way to go through life.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to be alive.  I've got a son who I would like to see grow up.  I don't want my husband to be a widower.   I'll do whatever I think is the best option for getting me home alive and safe - including not screaming like a stuck pig if I know there is no one to hear me.

Digital or analog clocks that are broken are still right twice a day - and given enough time the Botkin Sisters and I will agree in broad terms.

Decide before you’re in an emotionally volatile situation what you will and will not allow in the way of physical contact, one-on-one time, verbal affection, emotional bonding, etc. – and be ready to stop any interaction in its tracks if it steps over the line, no matter how much you love or trust the person doing it

That's solid advice.  Hell, it's the overarching theme of "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte.   When I was dating, I consciously decided what level of physical contact I was comfortable with based on the status of the relationship.   This never felt like a ground-breaking idea to me - but after reading so much Botkin drivel I need to state it again.  I make decisions based on how actions fit within my moral understanding of the world.  I've never phrased it - even in my head - as what it is ok for a man to do to me - but rather what I was ok with happening.

The Botkin Sisters and I divulge on making decisions about one-on-one time, verbal affection and emotional bonding, I suspect.  I have a loose set of boundaries on each of those for men who are not my spouse or a close relative to reduce the risk of falling in love outside of my marriage.  My guidelines aren't like the Pence Rule, though, because I trust that as long as I stay within the bounds of basic professional behavior I'm not going to end up in dangerous territory.    Really, that standard makes decision-making easy.   I've gone to dinner with male colleagues because I do that with female colleagues as well.  I don't use verbal affection unless standard workplace praise counts.

I'm really curious about the emotional boundaries part.  I get physical boundaries.  I get how to set boundaries around time or activities.  How do you set boundaries around feelings?  Equally important, how do you prevent crossing that boundary?

The next quote shows how being raised in a cult can lead to surreal spiritual beliefs:

All boundaries should start with a strong internal sense of how much God values our safety, our holiness, our sexuality – and a willingness to create sensible barriers to keep these things safe from trespassers.

"God values our sexuality" is a phrase I've never read, heard, or thought before.     God values so much about us: our sacrifice, our helpfulness to others, our praise of God, the way we care for ourselves, others and the world, our ongoing efforts to overcome our faults, our efforts to reform the world.... the list goes on and on!   Thanks to a K-12 Catholic schools, I've learned that God's Plan seems to get done in spite of humans' best efforts to thwart it.  The Bible records Tamar's bravery and wiles when she gets pregnant by her father-in-law after he refuses to marry his son to her in violation of Levirate marriage rules.  If God valued sexuality above everything, Tamar should have been struck down or punished in some way.  Instead, she gets pregnant with twin sons - and survives a nasty nuchal arm breech birth!  Bathsheba - derided as a fallen women by conservative Christians - is the mother of Solomon.

The next paragraph I've quoted is mostly written in sentence fragments.  Since God appreciates our charity towards others , I'm going to assume that was a decision by the Botkin Sisters to emphasize the myriad of ways you can set up boundaries.

We can’t tell you what your specific boundary lines should be, but we will say that a lot of unnecessary pain and regret is avoided by keeping a distance from danger zones. Making restrictions for being around certain people alone, or allowing certain kinds of physical contact, or going to certain parts of town alone at night. Setting guidelines for how much interaction we have with someone (over any medium), how intimately we talk with someone, how dependent we let ourselves become on someone or vice versa, or how exclusive the relationship is. Maintaining borders around kinds of interactions that really do belong inside the marriage covenant. Putting barriers around our time, our emotions, our bodies.

"I don't want to tell you what to do, but here's what to do..."    *giggles*

 Look, I don't think most of those ideas will work out as easily as the Botkin Sisters think they will.   Oh, people certainly have the right to set whatever boundaries they like - but there are always unintended consequences.  To me, the Botkin Sisters have given up adulthood in exchange for a fleeting sense of security surrounding sexuality.   I grew up in an area of town that the Botkin Sisters wouldn't visit at night alone.  It's the same area I taught in for years.  I am deeply certain that the Botkin Sisters would never be alone with most of my male coworkers - which is a shame.   The funny bit is that those down-trodden rough around the edges areas of town are generally pretty safe for the people who live there - but learning that requires moving out of the Botkin Family home.    Yup, the Botkin Sisters will be pretty darn safe from willingly falling in love if they never allow themselves to be open with unrelated males.  It's a pretty effective way to remain single as well....

The next quote is oddly framed due to a long, rambling sentence/paragraph that I cut in the middle.  This is the second time the Botkin Sisters decide to mention tonic immobility in humans - and I think the subject deserves more discussion.

And when we’re startled or frightened, we’re also up against the brain’s hard-wired responses to stress or danger, which can include freezing. Freezing is not a sin, or a sign of weakness; it’s part of the body’s “defense cascade,” and we should expect to encounter it. But it’s also something that can be overcome.

Soldiers train to be able to control freezing under stress, ...

Tonic immobility is a real defense mechanism that humans share with a whole lot of other animals.  The best local example for me of an animal that uses tonic immobility is an opossum.  Opossums play dead when threatened - but "playing dead" implies that the opossum has far more control over their reaction than they do.  Tonic immobility literally overrides the ability of the opossum to move while flooding the mammal's body with painkillers to reduce the likelihood of shock killing the animal.   We had a half-grown labrador retriever that managed to corner an opossum in our backyard one day.  Instead of leaving the possum alone when it "died", she started nudging it happily with her nose and trying to flip it over.   My mom and I rushed outside, corralled the dog and moved the opossum to the relative safety of our enclosed compost bin filled with fallen leaves.   It took the possum a good 20 minutes to be able to get up and move after my mom and I went inside with the dog in tow.

Why do I bring this up? 

Well, the Botkin Sisters are mixing up tonic immobility in dangerous situations with the momentary freezing response that many people have when a sudden, potentially dangerous situation occurs. 

The momentary freezing response has happened to me when I was in a car accident, when faced with a pop quiz, when I see a person injured, and when I saw some campers climbing over a fence into an area where tall weeds hid sharp, rusty metal.    The difference is that training - or a clear command - or a few seconds - is generally enough stimuli to break someone free of a momentary response.  When I froze at camp, I snapped out of it when the whistle I was wearing thumped my chest.  I grabbed the whistle, blew it three times (which is the US is used at camp pools to signal "Get out of the water and buddy up!"), and belted "Freeze!" to get all the campers to stop moving.   My whistle and yelling "unfroze" several other counselors who grabbed the kids in danger and pulled them to safety.

The fact that the Botkin Sisters mention soldiers training to avoid tonic immobility is ironic since it is because of the military that psychologists understand that tonic immobility cannot be entirely prevented by training.  No matter how realistic training is, a certain percentage of people will have tonic immobility triggered by warfare. 

And really, that makes sense. 

We discuss "fight or flight" but the actual response in nature is "hide-or -fight-or-flight".   Fight or flight both assume that the victim has a decent shot at fighting off or running away from an assailant.  Hiding - or even pretending to be dead - is generally the best option for women or children as well as men who are not evenly matched.   Tonic immobility allows a person under attack to play dead effectively; they cannot voluntarily move. 

There is a downside to tonic immobility; people who have that reaction show much higher rates of PTSD after the event.  We don't know yet how the two are connected - but the Botkin Sisters are not doing anyone any favors by pretending that living at the gun range and "hating sin" will prevent tonic immobility in rape victims.  A far kinder message is that your body was trying to protect itself; you might wish you had screamed or fought - but your body recognized on an unconscious level that the attacker would become dangerously violent if you resisted - so your body prevented you from doing that. 

 (On a random side note, there's a Canadian reality show known as  "Mantracker" where a trained wilderness search and rescue guide pairs up with a local guide to see if they can locate and capture two contestants who are heading for an unknown endpoint before the contestants get there.  The main "tracker" admits that he has a much harder time with female contestants because male contestants consistently run when the tracker approaches them on horseback.  Female contestants, on the other hand, hunker down and remain stationary until after the tracker decides he must be in the wrong area and leaves. )

The Botkin Sisters eventually get around to rehashing their favorite Biblical duo of Abigail and Bathsheba.

David’s reputation as man “fighting the battles of the Lord” seems to have reached Abigail prior to the news that he was on his way to kill all the men of her household, but rather than assume that this godly man “must know what he’s doing,” Abigail confronted God’s warrior with what she could see and he could not. Bathsheba – perhaps in awe of David, perhaps in desire to please him, perhaps in fear of disobeying him, perhaps trusting that he knew best – ultimately abetted him in making the worst mistake of his life. Abigail, in keeping her spiritual senses turned on, drew him back to the path instead.

I'm always baffled that the Botkin Sisters think the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba are substantially different from each other.    Here's my understanding of the two stories: 

• David wants Nabal's food and drink for one hell of a party in spite of the fact that Nabal needs that food to fulfil his obligations under the Law to his workers.  Nabal says "no". David comes to destroy Nabal et al., which Abigail prevents by giving David what he wants and flattering him.  Nabal has a stroke when he realizes what his wife has done.  David married Abigail.
• David wants to have an affair with Bathsheba after he breaks the  Law by spying on her while she's undergoing a ritual washing at the end of her period.  Bathsheba - who we can assume realizes David is as crazy as Abigail did - complies by having sex with David.  When Bathsheba finds out she's pregnant, David doesn't want to get caught so he tries to get her husband Uriah to sleep with her to mask the paternity.  He refuses because there's a war going on and he's a good commander.  David has him killed.  David marries Bathsheba.

If women need a take-away from those stories, a good one is that God won't hold it against you if you placate a warlord to try and save your family.   Hell, God must like Bathsheba on some level; her second child with David is Solomon.  CP/QF preachers always leave that tidbit out - but God gave Solomon to Bathsheba, not Abigail. 

Most disturbingly - the Botkin Sisters are so wound up in how Abigail and Bathsheba affected David that they miss the horrific tragedies of the two stories.  Abigail manages to placate David only to have her husband die within a short time.  Nabal sounds like a jackass - but he was a fairly wealthy landowner whose wife had a certain level of freedom and respectability.  When he dies, Abigail becomes one of David's multitude of wives...which may not end well for her as an old woman if she didn't bear David a living son.   Bathsheba is stuck between a rock and a hard place; David is capricious and violent.  Having an affair with him was probably the safest option - and we'd have never heard of her if she hadn't had the bad luck of getting pregnant.  David has her husband killed - and then the child that she conceived died after an illness.

Just to be clear, I don't want any woman to have to make the choices Abigail and Bathsheba did - and I'm aghast that the Botkin Sisters can hold them up as simple black-and-white examples of morality.

The last quote is creepy in terms of how shallowly the idea that victims aren't to blame for rape has actually percolated into the Botkin Sisters' brains.

Specifically, have good relationships and communication with wise, mature people who could help you. Don’t wait until there’s an emergency to try to find people like this, establish your own credibility and integrity, and build good lines of communication.

Question: Why do young women need to establish their credibility and integrity with people prior to a sexual assault?    Young women are not asking the "wise and mature" people to act as a prosecutor, judge and jury after an attack; they are asking simply to be believed and supported.    There's a wide gulf between the level of evidence required to convict an accused person of rape and the level of evidence needed to connect a friend with the local sexual assault support services. 

I'm glad the Botkin Sisters are starting to look critically at their previous views on sexual assaults - but there's still a lot of room for them to grow.