Utah rape stats

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:21 am

by the way, stats from various sources have discrepancies because of differing methods regarding collection and definition.

But, like others, I'm confused as to why charity thinks stats from 2006 contradict stats from 2003. I also couldn't find any information on her linked site explaining where the information was obtained. Could anyone else find it?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:25 am

I'm curious as to why rape would have been so high. Bankruptcy I largely know why.

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:26 am

It's the atheists.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:29 am

I'm curious as to why rape would have been so high. Bankruptcy I largely know why.

My impression is that rape is born out of a couple of things - partly loathing women and deeply resenting the sexual power women have, and viewing them as usurping rights and privileges they should not have. Of course, it can also come from just viewing women as inferior objects to be used at will.

While I don't expect believers to agree, I think the ideas of patriarchy could, in individuals with certain predispositions, encourage and foster such sick ideas.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:09 am

I've felt for years that the sexual repression fostered by Mormonism is unhealthy for this exact reason. It doesn't surprise me in the least. Let the boys masturbate, for god's sake! (Or at least, quit making them feel so freaking guilty about it).

by the way, it also wouldn't surprise me if Utah has a much higher rate of underreported rapes, given how the church has a culture of taking care of discipline "in house." That's just speculation, of course, but it stands to reason.

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:47 am

I think it says something to realize that there is a ministry out there keeping track of Utah rape statistics. I bet they would however be totally unconcerned about those same statistics elsewhere.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:55 am

beastie wrote:While I don't expect believers to agree, I think the ideas of patriarchy could, in individuals with certain predispositions, encourage and foster such sick ideas.

I'm not very convinced by your speculation because it doesn't account for Washington state in the link Charity provided. Also, why is Idaho worse than Utah on that list? Patriarchy or the church may contribute, but it certainly isn't clear from the data provided. Now if it is indeed parthiarchy that contributes, perhaps it would be fruitful for some organizations to do studies on men's attitudes to women and to correlate that with the region's rape statistics. In other words, I would accept your theory if i had better supporting evidence.

I can't dismiss any possibility that the church may have an influence in these statistics (albeit indirectly since the church preaches heavily against rape), but I can't really accept them without better evidence either.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:59 am

I think it says something to realize that there is a ministry out there keeping track of Utah rape statistics. I bet they would however be totally unconcerned about those same statistics elsewhere.

All they did was report a statistic that had been reported on elsewhere. That hardly takes a great deal of time. Do you really think that these same people don't care about women being raped in other states?

I'm not very convinced by your speculation because it doesn't account for Washington state in the link Charity provided. Also, why is Idaho worse than Utah on that list? Patriarchy or the church may contribute, but it certainly isn't clear from the data provided. Now if it is indeed parthiarchy that contributes, perhaps it would be fruitful for some organizations to do studies on men's attitudes to women and to correlate that with the region's rape statistics.

I agree that nothing is completely clear from the stats. Just speculating.

I'm betting such studies may have been done, but don't have time to search tonight.

Patriarchy being involved does not automatically disqualify other contributing factors which could explain Washington.

Maybe Idaho is worse because it has more Mormons. ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Post by **_charity** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:01 am

The ignorance over the causes and motivations for rape is pretty heavy over here. Suppositions about patriarchal societies and repressed sexuality among them.

Most rape is not about sex. So repressed sexuality doesn't even get into the picture. Rape is about power. Men in societies where they have the power don't generally rape. Most fordible rapists have sexual realtionships with wives or girl friends.

(Of course, if the society is extremely repressive, women will allow men to have sexual access without protesting, becaues protesting doesn't do any good anyway.) So in extremely patriarchal societies, there is very little forcible rape.

It is when men perceive themselves as being powerless that rape becomes epidemic. Rape is about getting revenge, on humiliating, not about sexual gratification.

The attempts to link rape stats with societal conditions as presented in earlier posts is completely erroneous.

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:05 am

Charity,

Once again, Ms. Strawman strikes.

Patriarchy is about power.

This is particularly strange:

(Of course, if the society is extremely repressive, women will allow men to have sexual access without protesting, becaues protesting doesn't do any good anyway.) So in extremely patriarchal societies, there is very little forcible rape.

So if a woman doesn't protest because it doesn't do any good, it doesn't count as forcible rape?

Why do "extremely patriarchal" societies end up with this result? Would "less extremely patriarchal" societies have negative effects on a lesser scale?