The idea of that deperate perverted old man ramming is poor wife in a wheelchair at Susie and her daughter makes me want to both laugh and cry. It's real slice of high drama in the mormon wardhouse.

I put aside personality when I read these fantastic pieces on RfM.

I've been here long enough to see a pattern with this particular tale. It incites an uproar every time it's told and I want to find out why.

My ideas:

1. It's embarrassing to those who favor mormonism or who still feel connected to it.

2. The mormon way of thinking is often to blame the victim. So I guess it's to be expected that some unrecovered posters would blame Susie and her daughter for not hiding in their stalls to adjust underwear and check hems which is not feasable without a mirror.

3. Mormons often fall into the trap of claiming it's weak and morally suspect to voice preferences or have personal boundaries. This flies in the face of cultism which is all about building the organization and minimizing individual needs.

4. Some poster likes to bring up a charge of gender bias over having separate restrooms for males and females. This makes no sense to me since I've never seen joint johns where everyone uses the same stalls and sinks shoulder to shoulder. In Europe certain countries are much more open and less modest and self conscience than American. Still, men, women and children don't freely mix in a communal washroom with shared urnals or sinks and wait for stalls. Male/female facilities are usually one room with a lockable entrance like in most of our homes, not a large room with swinging doors. At least not in my experience of traveling in 22 European countries.

5. Repetition of this and other stories doesn't bother me since I see them differently as I reach increasing levels of recovery and because we always have new posters. Also, anyone who isn't interested doesn't have to click on the story.

6. I'm stymied by the idea that being old makes it more acceptable to be a pervert. Yuck! No, it's as invasive and repulsive for an old guy to covertly peer at partially undressed women and children as a young one.

Maybe guys are jealous that this guy got a free pass to hang up in the girls bathroom and they didn't?

I think you hit the nail on the head with number 3.

Mormons do feel it is weak and suspect to voice preferances or have personal boundries.

It is a cult with a "proud pioneer heritage" of giving away young girls just for the asking......or even your own wife.

How much more of a display/example could one ask for? Mormons are nuts because they try to defend the crazy patricharcal society that Joseph Smith started and perpetuate it.

as there are always new people here and even if Susie can be controversial (like we all are at times)--if you've been here long enough, you know that Susie didn't leave the LDS church over being offended.

I think it is an important story that needs to be told. If stories didn't need to be told and retold--then why make the exmormon stories, etc.?

All our stories are a testimony AGAINST mormonism.

This guy was obviously a pervert and, having dealt with mormon leaders, the response was more than typical.

If Poster "X" said: "A Mormon once ignored me!" they would reply: "Oh, how horrible! How DARE they be so CRUEL?"

But if Post "Y" said: "A Mormon once punched me in the eye!" they would reply: "Ah. What the Hell. You probably deserved it."

Where can we read this story?

And TR below.

I appreciate the help.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 11:25AM by Cheryl.

Type in SusieQ#1

Look on yesterday's posts, The man in the women's restroom - the last straw.

Dummy me, I don't know how to link. Sorry.

Susie posted the original discussion. Now, this seems not really like an extension of that discussion, but a discussion of that discussion, or what we might call a meta-discussion.

If this meta-discussion at some point becomes the subject of a discussion, would that be a meta-meta-discussion? And, does my bringing up this one point in the meta-discussion convert it to a meta-meta-discussion?

So much work to do . . . how will we ever find the time?

And, for Susie, yeah, you got it. I guess I probably should have put in a few more clues for the others. (I thought the "please don't post this where Mormons can read it" was enough of a clue, but apparently I CAN be too subtle sometimes.)

Sometimes the absurdity of religion isn't quite absurd enough for me, and I just try to crank it up a bit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 11:33AM by Flat Lander.

I've spent many a post disagreeing with SusieQ#1 over the years, but I can't find anything objectionable this one. She is right on.

A man occupying the ladies' room while peeping at unsuspecting women as his wife eats crackers during sacrament meeting, is um, not okay. A wife's disability doesn't give a man license to perv with immunity. A male nurse as caretaker wouldn't have been excused for behaving that way-- he would have been fired three times-- first for not taking measures to respect the privacy of other bathroom users, second for hanging out in the ladies' room, third, for being aggressive after being caught.

I can't believe people defend this man. Maybe it's a cultural thing-- but where I come from, dirty old men don't get a free pass just because they are old, or in the service of a wife who inexplicably "needs" to eat her crackers in the mother's lounge.

What they were doing was dismissing Susie's experiences in a sardonic way reminiscent to what she does to others. What I found interesting about her story was that she and her daughter had an encounter with a man being inappropriate in a place where he didn't belong which was exacerbated by the utter dismissal of their feelings of being violated. But even after a personal experience like that Susie sees nothing wrong with dismissing the feelings of discomfort by two teenage girls approached in public by a middle aged man who they said they didn't know. She has, in short, acted just like those who treated her and her daughter badly.

But I could be wrong.

I think there is some truth to this though I would say it in a different way.

IMO, there is a lot of heavy prejudice against Mormons and Mormonism on this board. Granted much of it is warranted and many posters have suffered great abuse at the hands of Mormons.

However there are a number of comments and threads that are overly generalizing, stereotyping, etc.

I see SusieQ as trying to challenge this prejudice and stereotyping and looking at Mormons as just other humans.

She does this at the cost of getting flamed like crazy on this board - it's not a very popular viewpoint.

Just the post about the teenage girls is an excellent example. She dismissed them in a very cavalier fashion as "just being teen girls" -- completely invalidating their obvious feelings of discomfort. Furthermore, her attitude of dismissal is exactly what opens up young people to being molested because they get the message that their feelings are not valid but just silly.

I don't disagree with someone trying to strike a little balance but Susie's comments often go far beyond striking a balance to making excuses -- particularly with her "tribe" and "culture" excuses. Makes me wonder if she thinks female circumcision -- another "cultural norm" -- is also acceptable.

Edit - (When I say "generally" I mean, in my opinion. I don't stalk Susie's posts so I don't actually know if this is as common as it seems to me or if I only notice Susie's posts when I find them offensive.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 12:12PM by Rebeckah.

I don't tell anyone they must think like I do about the mormon church. Doesn't seem fair that anyone says I must give the church a break or discount my own feelings and perceptions in favor of theirs.

If someone wants to be prejudiced against Mormons it's their right to be prejudiced against Mormons. However, there may be some irony in that since one of the biggest complaints against Mormons is their prejudice towards others.

For me being prejudiced is not part of recovery. I see it as an impediment to true recovery. To me there are plenty of accurate substantial problems with Mormonism without the hyperbole. In my mind the hyperbole waters down and discounts the valid problems.

I've read these accusations for years that no one can generalize about cult members. There's nothing wrong with making generalizations if they're based on overwhelming evidence and not mere speculation as in done by TBMs about worldly gentiles and evil apostates.

The people in the mormon church generally mean well but are brainwashed by the mormon system and many in the leadership. Brainwashed people don't think or observe rationally. Those are the facts.

Don't expect me to offer praise for still believing in your one truth and no other supposition. You can say this is my experience or this is how I see it. But you can't control others using shame and overly generalized accusations.

That doen't make sense to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 12:54PM by Cheryl.

I didn't post this for your benefit. I knew perfectly well I was going to get flamed. Frankly I don't have the stomach for it that Susie does on an ongoing basis. However I wanted her to see that some people on here see her viewpoint and understand and appreciate what she is trying to say. I agree she doesn't always say it perfectly effectively who does? I suspect that there are many lurkers who feel the same way I do.

This is the second time you've gone "personal attack" on me where I've simply stated an alternative opinion to yours and/or asked why you see it differently.

ronas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If someone wants to be prejudiced against Mormons
> it's their right to be prejudiced against Mormons.
> However, there may be some irony in that since
> one of the biggest complaints against Mormons is
> their prejudice towards others.
>
> For me being prejudiced is not part of recovery. I
> see it as an impediment to true recovery. To me
> there are plenty of accurate substantial problems
> with Mormonism without the hyperbole. In my mind
> the hyperbole waters down and discounts the valid
> problems.

Thank you for those statements. I have made the same observation. I agree 100%
You seem to understand my position. Thank you!

Discount the beliefs as unacceptable as believable, but recovery in my experience means we let go of the prejudice. That is one of the ways I make my marriage make.
Otherwise we are doing exactly what we dislike the most when others do it.

People who are fortunate enough to not have TBMs in their life probably have more of a luxury to hold on to the prejudice without it causing problems for them.

ronas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I see SusieQ as trying to challenge this prejudice
> and stereotyping and looking at Mormons as just
> other humans.
>
> She does this at the cost of getting flamed like
> crazy on this board - it's not a very popular
> viewpoint.


YES! It's my analysis and conclusions of observations, and research and study of humanity, and my personal experiences of over 70 years on this earth. Those are my conclusions. I don't care of they are popular here. I know there are plenty of other places they are accepted and understood anyhow. :-)

Particularly because it is relayed from a very specific and narrow point of view.

For all we know, the guy was dutifully attending his wife when Susie, uniformed and mistaken which is not at all unusual, opted to make a mountain out of a molehill.

SQ#1 writes:

"When we came out of stalls and were washing our hands and had pulled up our dresses to adjust our underwear, she saw a man in the double mirrors! She alerted me while quickly putting her dress down."

There's no mention that the man in the mirror was lustfully staring at Susie and her daughter, just that daughter saw a man in the mirror. Likewise there's no telling what Susie actually said to the guy, but given the frequency with which she pisses-off people in this forum, I highly doubt it was just a simple "it's inappropriate for you to be here."

By her own admission, Q and daughter weren't attending church regularly so they likely had no knowledge of the situation:

"I had convinced my inactive daughter that going to church would never hurt you and we ought to go once in awhile."

So what did Q and daughter really know about the situation? Not much would be my guess. Given the one-sided view, its quite possible that the man's presence in the ladies' restroom was not at all inappropriate and that Susie simply reacted out of ignorance and arrogance which is consistent with her MO round these parts.

"He went ballistic, got right in my face backing me up against a wall as he said he had PERMISSION as he always came in to help his wife."

Again, given Q's condescending arrogance, I don't find that at all hard to digest, particularly the part about the guy having permission.

"He maintained that his wife would only let him help her in the restroom. His wife was in a wheelchair and they were in the nursing room area that is adjacent to the wheelchair access toilet where she was eating a cracker and they had the sound up on the piped in Sunday School Lesson."

Funny, but that just doesn't seem to be consistent with a perverted old man staring lustfully at two women in the ladies restroom mirror. I submit that Q over-reacted, but I'd like to hear the pervert-in-question's take before choosing sides.

The rest of the story is pure speculation and conjecture with a more than fair amount of unnecessary drama:

"When we came running and yelling out of the bathroom, a "sister" told us that this was the Lord's house and we needed to be Reverent! I could not believe my ears. In her behalf, she had no idea what had happened."

Why am I not surprised by the running and yelling over such a ridiculously trivial matter?

Here again, clear admission that the two victims-in-question were and likely still are completely out of touch:

"The women and men of the church said that it was just fine for that man to be in the woman's restroom. He was there to help his wife. And besides, he would never LOOK ... This man had access to the women's restroom anytime he pleased, he was NOT helping his wife, she was having a snack in the nursing mothers area taking up all the room so others could not use the room."

Now, maybe its just me, but it seems quite obvious that Q had no idea what was going on at the time and, to this day, still hasn't a clue. Just another in a long series of knee-jerk reactions for which she is famous. Perhaps having the snack in private was part of the deal. Maybe his wife had stomach problems and didn't want to spew in front of the whole congregation. Who knows? Point is, Susie didn't bother to find out and even went to far as to reject any and all information that eventually came her way.

Had this story been relayed by anyone else, Susie would have "gone ballistic" on that person with her usual myriad of excuses as to why its quite alright for mormons to do and say stupid s**t. Because it happened to her, however, it is a drama of the highest degree.

You know, if I had to attend my wife in the ladies’ restroom at her request and had made prior arrangements to do so and was then lambasted by some ignorant fool for doing so, I would probably go ballistic on that individual too.

I place no credence in this story and never have. Pure drama queen bulls**t in my mind.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 12:04PM by Timothy.

I love you to death.

I can see where you're comming from. We just see this story from different perspectives. Thanks for explaining.

But no gentleman would ever enter a ladies restroom! ;o))

... we're talking about an elderly gentleman who, according to people in the know (active ward members), had access to the restroom in question for very good reasons.

SQ#1 writes:

"It is important to note here that this man proclaimed himself as his wife's sole provider and been taking care of her for over 20 years. I knew others had helped her in the past in the restroom. He could easily have asked one of the ladies."

I'm guessing that option wasn't in the cards on that particular day. It would be wise for the poster in question to recognize that most folks simply don't go out of their way to accommodate her arbitrary expectations.

Susie likewise could have just as easily excused herself and placed the matter in proper hands. Instead, she opted to come "running and yelling out of the bathroom" which only served to make matters worse.

That would be the difference between how an adult and a child react to given situations.

Beloved spouse of 33 years has endured two major surgeries. When it came to convalescing, and the associated care, she wanted only me at her side. I wouldn't hesitate a moment to help her at her request no matter what the circumstances. I also wouldn’t hesitate a moment to tell some nosey old biddy to mind her own business whilst in the process of doing so.

Again, Susie’s reaction to the incident was of the knee-jerk variety. She’s always quick point out the faults in others, real or imagined, but will never admit to making even the smallest mistake. I don’t believe for a second that the old man was taking advantage of his wife’s condition to sneak a peak. I do believe, however, that Susie made and continues to make a mountains out of a molehills for the sole purpose of garnering attention.

This story has more holes in it than an round of Swiss Cheese.

Timothy

Thank you Cheryl for continuing this.
You make some excellent points.


The thread closed and I could not clear up a few things.

A little more clarity from me.

I had many odd, strange experiences in the LDS CHurch but none of them rose to the level of this particular one. That is why it is "the last straw". I've shared many of them in the past. One is a list that includes temple experiences that were weird that I have not shared lately. I also had odd, strange personal experiences with other people in work, and school. The principle behind the human behavior, in my experience and analysis is always the same. I have often observed: the personalities, and behavior is the same, just the faces change! :-)

Yes, ronas hit on a point of my experience: Mormons are people like most other people. Some are great, some are rotten to the core! :-) And everything in between.

Also: Important to remember, one of my adult daughters and a grand child was with us. He not only traumatized me but he nearly ran over my daughter's foot, and scared my grand child with his aggressive rocking of the wheel chair to get through the double doors which I had backed out of so he would not injure his wife. My daughter stayed close enough by so she could catch her if she fell out. I don't tell much of that part in the general "telling" as I keep them out of it for the most part.

It makes no difference if anyone agrees with me about anything. Certainly not strangers on the Internet. They will bait people, bully them, insult then, stalk them, and go on and on about how they know what and who you are, making it up as they go along. Happens all the time. Usually I snicker and have a good laugh at such creativity and absurdity trying to destroy other people's credibility. But, that's just people. They do it all over the Internet. No one has the power to offend me. I don't allow it! :-) (Even if they are offensive --) That's part of my belief in owing your own power. Try it! It works! :-)


I am long past needing anyone's approval for my opinions. Heck, my hubby doesn't agree sometimes! I don't agree with him sometimes.

This is a story that could be told in any woman's restroom. It just happens to have happened in an LDS Stake Center in So. CA.

A little about me: I've always marched to that different drummer. I hear a different beat that many times, others don't understand. That's OK. I'll continue to express my opinions and ideas anyhow! :-) It's one of the RIGHTS I value.

So voice your opinions.I'll continue to do the same. I have a philosophy I live by that I will share that works for me, and if it doesn't appeal to others, they can certainly ignore or reject it.

For the record: I don't hate anyone. I don't hate Mormons. The ones I know and live with and are my loved ones... I love ..and always will. They are good, decent, people.
Other people's religious beliefs are fine with me. I don't have to believe or accept them to love the people.

Some people have a difficult time understanding me and constantly find fault or try to discredit me. I have no idea why that is important to others. But it is. I'm just me. :-)

I'm passionate about our RIGHTS as human beings. The RIGHT to believe in any religion is one of them. Civil Rights is included.

Enough for now.. I think I have covered some of the points I want to make. (Still sleepy!()

There's no way everyone who happens to attend that church would know about this special privilege without having it posted on the door in the form of a warning telling females they could use another restroom.

One thing that does bother me is your repeated mindreading act which assumes so many posters unlike you are full of unjust anger. That assumption is unsubstantiated and distasteful. Attacking unstated motives isn't logical or fair minded.