The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Repeated Requests for Phillips to Stop Masturbating and Ejaculating on Her’

Posted on | April 16, 2014 | 89 Comments

Doug Phillips and his wife Beall (left); Lourdes Torres (right)

“This kind of behavior is so bizarre — no matter which version of the story you believe, even if you take Doug’s own version of the story — it’s so bizarre and inappropriate that he needs to get his life in order and not be thinking about how quickly he can come back into leadership.”
Michael Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association

Doug Phillips is an attorney by training and you might suppose he would have considered a settlement at any price preferable to the detailed lawsuit filed this week by Lourdes Torres-Manteufel.

Last fall, when Phillips confessed to an “inappropriate relationship” with his family’s babysitter, and resigned from the Christian homeschool non-profit Vision Forums Ministries, I wrote that “her identity must already be known by everyone who knows the Phillips family,” and predicted:

So she will no doubt eventually step out of the shadows and tell the whole sordid tale.
Or maybe collect a large payment to keep her mouth shut.

Let’s be honest, OK? There must be a lot of publishers who would pay good money for a Shocking Sex Scandal story like this, and if you don’t want to see the Sympathetic Victim crying on TV while she’s interviewed about her tell-all book, you gotta pay.

Alas, the same arrogance that made Phillips think he could get away with his double life — hypocritically posing as a “family values” spokesman while sexually pursuing this young girl — now evidently leads him to think he can escape the obvious consequences.

The woman was 15 when she met Phillips in 1999 through her parents’ involvement in the homeschooling movement. She was 23 when she said the relationship became sexual. She recently married Nolan Manteufel. In response to an article published at WorldNetDaily, Phillips’ attorney sent an e-mail that blamed the victim:

While it may be true that Mr. Phillips had an intermittent relationship with Mrs. Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, they never had the physical intimacy of touching and/or the exposure of genitalia, nor did the intermittent relationship escalate to sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates the relationship was consensual and often initiated, encouraged, and aggressively perpetuated by Mrs. Torres-Manteufel. It was welcomed, consensual and one in which Mrs. Torres-Manteufel repeatedly requested money, trips, jewelry, and numerous special favors from Doug Phillips.

The attorney’s e-mail said the accuser’s claims are “false, defamatory and made with malicious intent to destroy Doug Phillips, his family and his ministry.” And yet Torres-Manteufel makes these claims in a lawsuit, which suggests she intends to prove them in a court of law. Do I claim to know what transpired between her and Phillips? I do not. But I can report what she alleges in her lawsuit:

Douglas Phillips used Ms. Torres — against her wishes and over her objections — as a personal sex object. Douglas Phillips repeatedly groped, rubbed, and touched Ms. Torres’s crotch, breasts, and other areas of her body; rubbed his penis on her; masturbated on her; forced her to watch him masturbate on her; and ejaculated upon her. This perverse and offensive conduct repeatedly took place over the course of several years. . . .
Douglas Phillips — standing in a position of influence and prominence within patriarchy — methodically groomed Ms. Torres so that she would eventually participate in illicit sexual rendezvous with him promising that she could one day marry him. This grooming began when Ms. Torres was a fifteen-year-old child. . . .
Phillips promised Ms. Torres that he would marry her and that she would be the person who would have the great privilege of being his wife. . . . Phillips repeatedly told Torres that this was possible because his wife, Beall Phillips, was going to die soon. . . .
While Ms. Torres was living with Douglas Phillips and his family in October of 2007, Douglas Phillips entered Ms. Torres’s bedroom and without her consent began touching her breasts, stomach, back, neck, and waist. Phillips then began to masturbate and ejaculated on her. Ms. Torres asked Phillips to stop and broke down crying. Despite Ms. Torres’s repeated requests for Phillips to stop masturbating and ejaculating on her, Phillips proceeded to return and repeat this perverse and offensive conduct. Each night that Phillips returned, Ms. Torres requested that he stop. Defendant blatantly disregarded her requests but continued to masturbate and ejaculate on her each night.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think one request — “Hey, Mr. Phillips, stop masturbating and ejaculating on me” — should be enough.

How do we weigh her claims against the assertion by Phillips’ lawyer that this relationship “was consensual and often initiated, encouraged, and aggressively perpetuated” by the girl? Does it make any sense that she would have “initiated” this kind of behavior?

Despite the effort by Phillips’ attorney to intimidate reporters by labeling Torres-Manteufel’s allegations “false, defamatory . . . malicious” (implied: “Don’t report her claims or we might sue you”) she had been telling her tale privately for months before she sued. And from versions of the story that have emerged online, we can get an idea of how the situation was handled:

In 2007, illicit relationship became sexual…the victim began spending more time in the Phillips home and with the Phillips family. She was considered a close family friend…Phillips employed Victim to write Jonathan Park radio drama scripts with his daughter in an effort to spend more time with her. This was a paid position and provided Doug more opportunities to spend more time with Victim in his home after his children had gone to bed.
In 2009, Victim’s mother caught Doug Phillips and Victim having sexual-based chat sessions in the middle of the night. Doug, his wife, Beall, and Victim’s parents met. This was the first time Doug and Beall and Victim’s parents met together. Doug confessed to having romantic feelings for Victim, but there was no acknowledgement of any sexual impropriety.
In October 2010, Beall Phillips was made aware of the adulterous nature of the relationship when Victim’s mother informed her that Doug and Victim had been kissing.
Summer 2011 Doug told Victim they were soul mates. He told her he loved her and had promised they’d eventually get married and have children together.
In December 2012, Doug’s double life began to unravel when he was caught trying to climb in Victim’s bedroom window…followed by another private meeting between Doug, Beall, and Victim’s parents. They agreed to keep things quiet.

That is a secondhand version of the story and I cannot vouch for its accuracy. However, if it is true that the girl’s parents became aware of the problem in 2009, that his wife knew about it in 2010, and if Doug Phillips was caught trying to climb through the girl’s window (!!!) in 2012, then the specter of this sordid sex scandal has been looming like a shadow over him for at least five years.

Perhaps this train wreck could have been averted, but the same arrogance that originally caused Phillips’ behavior also caused him to think he could somehow keep the whole thing from becoming public.

And now that it has become public, Phillips has his lawyer sending threatening letters to journalists who report on the story?

“Hey, Mr. Phillips, stop masturbating and ejaculating on me.”

He should have listened the first time.

 

Comments

89 Responses to “‘Repeated Requests for Phillips to Stop Masturbating and Ejaculating on Her’”

  1. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

    Carrying on a multi-year affair with someone half your age is repellent, but color me skeptical that this woman was not a willing participant. Wagers her lawyers (and her girlfriends) are telling her something she’s happy to hear: it’s all the fault of the Big He.

  2. Mm
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

    If these dates are correct, she wasn’t a “girl” when he allegedly tried to climb in her window. She was 28. In 2009 when the woman’s mother caught them allegedly having a sex-based chat, the “girl” was 25. I am unclear why her mommy and daddy had to meet with the guy and his wife. This whole thing reeks of weird, and very odd family dynamics on both sides.

  3. kbiel
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

    At this moment it’s he-said/she-said, but the dog whistle “patriarchy” makes me more than a little suspicious of the innocent victim show she’s putting on.

    Regardless, he’s a cad who deserves divorce and destitution.

  4. robertstacymccain
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

    “This whole thing reeks of weird”

    To say the very least.

  5. texlovera
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

    Yes, something definitely smells about her story, particularly regarding her parents’ behavior. If I knew somebody was trying to pull that crap with one of my kids, I’d beat the hell out of him.

    But, this guy is still an absolute crapweasel who most likely used his position to satisfy his horndog urges. What’s the over-under on how long until he offers the “Devil-made-me-do-it” excuse?

  6. RS
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:55 pm

    The fact of the matter is, as weird as it sounds, Phillips placed himself in a position where something like this could happen. The truth will come out, I hope. But Phillips would not be the first person who attains influence to attempt to use his position in order to satisfy illicit desires. The fact that he may have done so to the detriment of the case against public education makes my blood boil.

  7. Mm
    April 16th, 2014 @ 3:59 pm

    There is no way I would have gone to mommy and daddy AT THE AGE OF 25 for help with “dating” problems.

  8. Let’s Not Forget Hillary’s Role | Regular Right Guy
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

    […] ‘Repeated Requests for Phillips to Stop Masturbating and Ejaculating on Her’ […]

  9. sarah wells
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:17 pm

    If you are not familiar and/or part of that variety of heavy on the RAWTHER unhealthy style of patriarchy, this would seem unbelievable. The girl in this case – and I say girl, not only because she was when he began cultivating his crop, but because that particular culture that he was a head of, infantilises women… while demonizing them and making them completely responsible for male transgression at the same time. Being made an honest woman by marriage to a leader of the church would have been strong inducement to SHUT UP – She is farging trapped until the sad day comes that all is exposed. And then, its all her fault. She is a half-eaten candybar, a cup of spit; she is done, God is done with her, and her family, and they are non-persons after that.

  10. sarah wells
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

    Yes she was. Not by law of course. Not by any definition of adulthood that normal people use. But in that church movement she’s subject to both her parental authority, and HIS. She’s supposed to suppress her judgement and be guided by that of others. In that sense, dependent, and child-like.

  11. sarah wells
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

    You said it.

  12. sarah wells
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

    Except it’s not really a dog whistle in this case. It’s for reals. It’s the backbone of that movement, not to be compared to the stupid meaningless epithet of a PIV “victim”.

  13. Stanley
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:44 pm

    We are supposed to believe that there was recalcitrance in the relationship for FIVE YEARS?

    Hmm…

  14. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 16th, 2014 @ 4:48 pm

    Of course she was a willing participant. That said, she may very well found repellent having Phillips go “Pee Wee” on her.

  15. robertstacymccain
    April 16th, 2014 @ 5:14 pm

    The ideals of Christian family life encouraged by Vision Forum were admirable, if a wee bit too stereotypical for my tastes.

    The problem, it seems, is that Doug Phillips is a narcissistic sociopath — that later phrase a direct quote made elsewhere on the Internet by someone who knew him pretty well. And if you look at what Michael Farris has said, you get the idea that Phillips’ egotism was recognized as problematic even before he started Vision Forum.

    OK, so if the Wolf begins rounding up his own herd of Sheep, doesn’t it make sense that he’s not going to choose Sheep with a lot of discernment? That is to say, if anyone picked up on the hints that Phillips was a Wolf, that person’s suspicions would cause them either to leave on their own, or else cause Phillips to cast them out. And so there were a lot of very naive Sheep around Phillips, which is how this particular Lamb strayed into his vicinity.

  16. BeccaLeigh
    April 16th, 2014 @ 5:47 pm

    “Phillips’s patriarchal movement teaches that men are, and should be, in the absolute control of women. Patriarchy considers women to primarily exist for the purposes of producing children, caring for the men, and rearing the children. Females in the patriarchal movement are discouraged from attaining higher education of any kind and are told that their sole purpose is to marry a man within the movement to meet the purposes described above.”

    This sounds more like a cult than anything else…..they even have their own court system made up of all men!! Cult leaders are usually narcissistic sociopaths (which I have to agree that this creep is exactly just that) and the fact that his wife put up with this and didn’t kick him to the curb speaks volumes about how this behavior is viewed in their community!!

  17. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

    No, he deserves neither divorce nor destitution. In a well-ordered society, this sorts of behavior does generate public humiliation and shunning. Part of that has occurred as his ministerial enterprise has imploded. He needs to be off-stage doing humble and humbling things. There is no need for his wife to abandon him.

  18. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:22 pm

    I do not recall that my patriarchal grandfather was in the business of heavy-petting with the younger generation of family friends. I do not think patriarchy implies sexual transgression.

  19. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

    He’s a sexual transgressor, and his list of conquests may not extend past this one woman. He could conceivably be a narcissist or a sociopath, but its not a certainty.

  20. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:26 pm

    She was 23 when she took up with him. Stop making excuses for her.

  21. Zohydro
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:28 pm

    Any word if Phillips has enrolled in an Episcopal semenary yet?

  22. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:30 pm

    You’re quotation came from Norman Lear’s “People for the American Way”, specifically their ‘Right-Wing Watch” website. Do you think just maybe that source might be manned by people who lack the ability or interest to do anything but caricature others? (Cue Jonathan Haidt). Better sources, please.

  23. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:30 pm

    Stop it.

  24. Mike
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

    Now…if only you could find the Florida angle to this story!

  25. kbiel
    April 16th, 2014 @ 6:53 pm

    I chose my words deliberately. Divorce and destitution are the natural consequences of his actions. That his wife may choose to show him mercy has no bearing on what he deserves.

    As to whether she has a need to divorce him (it’s not abandonment if he is an adulterer) is between her and God. From a purely secular perspective, she may need to divorce him to avoid more caddish behavior, venereal disease, to protect her children from a man who allegedly abandoned his marriage for a 15 year old girl, etc. That is for her to decide with more information than we will ever have, but that does not change what he deserves or whether she has the moral or legal right to divorce him.

  26. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:00 pm

    For once this case really did involve the “patriarchy”

  27. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:01 pm

    Ouch! Of course he would have to be hitting on the lads to be a real Episcopalian (either that or a Catholic priest).

  28. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:02 pm

    Ironic that sunshine is the best disinfectant given the stuff that comes out of the Sunshine State.

  29. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

    The term of art is grooming.

    Does Doug Phillips deserve to pay $$$ to this plaintiff girl? I do not take a position on that (the evidence will support that or not). Does Doug Phillips deserve to be severely horsewhipped by an Indiana Jones like guy paid for by his wife? Most certainly.

  30. Mm
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

    Or a public school teacher.

  31. Art Deco
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

    Again, that is an understanding very local to contemporary secular practice or to certain protestant dispensations. In the lightly protestant suburban world I grew up in, this sort of thing might generate a divorce suit, but it would have done so likely coincident with other factors. (e.g. a series of such transgressions over time, a history of abnormal domestic friction, &c).

    It is also completely at odds with a Catholic marriage canon, where separation is tolerated only in select circumstances.

  32. kbiel
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:30 pm

    Divorce in the case of infidelity is not limited to the secular world or “certain protestant dispensations”. That the Catholic Church has a problem following Jesus’ plain words when he said that divorce is detestable *except* in the cases of adultery and abandonment still has nothing to do with what the man deserves.

  33. sarah wells
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:31 pm

    It’s the truth, so, no.

  34. Zohydro
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

    Well… He would be seem to be particularly skilled at annointing the penitents!

  35. richard mcenroe
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:35 pm

    “Call me old-fashioned…” You know, I’ve been making the same request of the White House for several years now. Hopefully the outcome will be the same.

  36. Zohydro
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:43 pm

    I’ve heard that some pastoral perpetrators of this sort of thing convince the victim that it’s a “secret ritual” reserved for the select—a special kind of “unction”, as it were…

  37. Anon Y. Mous
    April 16th, 2014 @ 7:48 pm

    How do we weigh her claims against the assertion by Phillips’ lawyer that this relationship “was consensual and often initiated, encouraged, and aggressively perpetuated” by the girl? Does it make any sense that she would have “initiated” this kind of behavior?

    If I was a smartass, I would answer this question by quoting RSM himself.

    Oh, who am I kidding? I am a smartass.

    As remarkable as Tarzan’s passion seems — what is it about the mere sight of Jane that arouses this urge in him? — science must go to extraordinary lengths to explain why Jane does more than comply with Tarzan’s sexual demands. Indeed, she takes pleasure in the sensation of being overpowered and dominated by him. Jane is herself aroused by the knowledge that she has aroused Tarzan. A man’s sexuality provides a woman unmistakable confirmation of her own desirability. It is not entirely in a spirit of reluctance that Jane submits to Tarzan’s animal urge. Jane has urges of her own, urges she is powerless to resist, even were she able to resist Tarzan’s superior masculine strength. Far from resenting his greater muscularity, and the forcefulness it implies, Jane is thrilled by the strong embrace of Tarzan’s sinewy arms. Perhaps science can explain why Jane wants Tarzan as much as Tarzan wants her, so that she craves this experience of being wholly possessed by him.

    I don’t know what happened between those two, but it is possible she was a willing participant in the described activities, as icky as they may be.

  38. badanov
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

    Advanced Family Strategies, 101: How to keep your scrotum and your family while boning a 20 year old.

  39. Julie Pascal
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

    She was 23 when they had intercourse. She wasn’t anywhere close to 23 when she “took up with him.”

    It’s like a frog in hot water, you know, and yes, she should have put an end to any working with that family, any babysitting, anything at all, the first time he skeeved her out. But what happens In Real Life is that you question your own reactions and feelings. This is a man who is respected by everyone. It was your imagination!

    And then, eventually, it turns out it’s all her fault and no making excuses for her!

    Used to be that the word “seduction” meant predatory coercion to have sex… promises of marriage, but also small sins first, so that it’s always the fault of the prey rather than the predator.

  40. Julie Pascal
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:05 pm

    You would beat the hell out of him if you *knew*. If you knew something was off, but you weren’t sure… it’s really easy not to be sure… And it’s really easy to believe excuses that are made because the truth is so different from the public face… you might not beat him up.

  41. DavidD
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:06 pm

    “He should have listened the first time.”

    She should’ve left after the first time–or, certainly, after the second time–and then sued.

  42. Anon Imus
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

    The church has lost its ability to discern. And it now full of men like this, and women who are willing to do anything to see their men succeed, even at this price.

    I have seen “Christian leaders” behave in unbelievably un-Christian ways. And I see the church so frequently fail to rein in such behavior. “Authority” is one of evangelical Christianity’s greatest problems. Far too many pastors and leaders assume a mantle of authority and even infallibility as they lead organizations. Most often such abusive tendencies worsen until they self-destruct just like this man. There is a long, long list of this in just the past few years.

    The truly humble “servant-leader” is increasingly rare in a world filled with televangelists and self-proclaimed prophets. And the church lacks the discernment to send these wolves-in-sheep’s clothing packing in time to avert the worst of the damage and suffering.

  43. Julie Pascal
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:12 pm

    She should have done. She shouldn’t have continued working there.

    But consider this… she’s 15 or 16 and she’s got a job with someone that everyone in her community looks up to and admires. She hears people talk about how great he is every single day. Perhaps she even hears how lucky she is to have a job with him because he’s such a godly man.

    And then he does something she thinks might be inappropriate… maybe she sees him looking at her *ss or maybe he touches her back just a wee bit too long. And it makes her uncomfortable…. what is she going to say? Mom, I quit my job taking care of those kids because I probably totally imagined this perfect man, Doug Phillips, was looking at my butt, which no one will believe because I’m 15 and I’m not sure I believe it either and probably I’m imagining things.

  44. Anon Imus
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:12 pm

    First, I doubt my 25-year old daughter would want to be living at home. Secondly, if I found a 45 year old man climbing through her window, I wouldn’t have had a discussion with him until I had reloaded my second magazine.

    It is possible that everybody is in the wrong here. And that everyone has far too many neuroses to deal with.

    I have seen some awful stuff done by supposed Christian leaders…

  45. Anon Imus
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:14 pm

    Nail on the head! The gullible are far more likely to get fleeced. And the wolf would have run off anyone who challenged him at the first opportunity.

  46. Anon Imus
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

    Yes, FIVE YEARS does not indicate sincere repentance…

  47. Julie Pascal
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:17 pm

    As far as his excuse that she was pursuing him… he didn’t fire her, quietly or otherwise.

  48. RS
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:44 pm

    My quibble with your comment–and I agree with the vast majority of it–is that it’s not The Church which lacks discernment, but individual Christians. The Church (capital “C”) is ordained by Christ. We individual Christians are called to test what we see and hear with reference to God’s Word. My denomination practices congregational polity with out reference to any supervisory diocese or organization. This means that we, the members, are responsible for making sure that the Pastor preaches the Gospel and does not bring disrepute upon Christ. The problem is that too many Christians are willing to be led by men without being willing to immerse themselves in the Word to determine if who they’re following is leading them down the path to perdition.

  49. RS
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

    Bingo. As my mother was wont to tell me as I was growing up, “Avoid the very appearance of evil.” Ditto placing yourself or allowing yourself to be in situations where you are tempted.

  50. Kirby McCain
    April 16th, 2014 @ 8:55 pm

    As a young man I went to visit a friend. His wife answered the door and said he wasn’t home yet. Then she asked if I would like to come inside and wait. I politely declined and said I would call back later. I’ll be damned if I’m going to be in that man’s house alone with his wife when he comes home. Sadly, there are too few young people who understand this sort of sensibility.