Utah rape stats

[_quaker]

Maybe women in Utah just don't want to have sex.

How many students go to USU? 9 rapes reported in the last 3 years? One of eight will be raped while attending that school?

From those statistics (let's say that only 1/20 of the rapes are reported, just to make the numbers somewhat real). Let's also say they attend on average 4 years.

60 rapes each year (3 per year * 20).
240 rapes over 4 years.
1 in 8 female students raped during their stay at USU.
Therefore there must be about 2000 female students at USU.
Therefore there must be about 4000 students total.
I just looked it up. It says USU has 23,000 students (http://www.usu.edu/about/). Let's say that 14,000 are full-timers (it says that 10,000 are not on the main campus).

So it looks like, in reality, only about 1 in 65 rapes are reported.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html
"In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police. (Warshaw 1994)"

In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 "I Never Called It Rape")

After looking through the stats I think that each statistic should include how the survey defined rape. It seems there is a great degree of difference between some definitions than others. In some cases all it takes to qualify a rape is some hesitance (whether known to the rapist or not) on the part of the victim. In my personal opinion I don't think that is deserving of the stigma associated with rape.

In some cases I think the definition needs to be used less generally. I don't think that is a good thing to start to make people connect any type of assertiveness with rape.

[_silentkid]

Rape is about power.

Priesthood power? The power of the priesthood? I know, I know...it's authority. ;)

[_charity]

Rape is a patriarchal power play, charity.

Rape is about power, male power over women's bodies, both individually and collectively. It is not some expression of disgruntlement over "women's lib." Of course, I'm looking at things historically and politically...

The definition of rape which is currently used in western legal systems is a recent invention and one that is the result of women's organized activism around the issue. For example, the idea that a husband could rape "his" wife has only become intelligible recently: the concept didn't even exist until the idea that women are not entirely the legal and moral possession of their "owners" gained currency. How recent? In the U.S., not until 1978 when New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. In 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. I'm not sure what the current state-by-state laws are, its been a while since I've taught a Detective Fiction course, a course I teach as an investigation into the historical variability of notions of crime and the relation between crime and gender (something intrinsic to the detective narrative).

It has been about 7 years since I taught a course in the psychology of violence. Rape isn't about "disgruntlement."

And marital rape is a different dynamic. I come from the state where the first case of marital rape was prosecuted. And saw the woman win her case. And a few years later, retract her charges and state it was just a "disagreement."

We can get into a long discussion about why women don't consider sexual intercourse rape, even if they don't want to participate in the activity. And we would have to bring in the whole issue of how women have viewed sexual access as a saleable commodity, both in and out of marriage.

[_Blixa]

My courses, charity, are all courses in narrative and ideology critique. Its an interesting way to approach the issue of crime, not only because you can pressure individualist and psychologized notions of violence, but also because you can discuss the way the conventional courtroom operates: as a theatre of competing narratives. This is what you left out by only bolding "Detective Fiction" as though your course was something much more, I don't know, real.

Rape isn't about "disgruntlement."

Fine. What is it about and why would you suggest "forcible" rape is higher in "women's lib type societies?" Also what kind of societies are those?

And marital rape is a different dynamic. I come from the state where the first case of marital rape was prosecuted. And saw the woman win her case. And a few years later, retract her charges and state it was just a "disagreement."

What does this have to do with anything. How is it different? Different from what? And what does this particular case have to do with anything other than to insinuate that women "cry rape" and lie? Why on earth would you want to suggest that?

We can get into a long discussion about why women don't consider sexual intercourse rape, even if they don't want to participate in the activity.

What does this mean? That sexual intercourse is rape? Hello, Andrea Dworkin, I've missed you!

And what are you suggesting about "women's" attitudes here? That they don't usually consider unwanted sexual intercourse rape?

And we would have to bring in the whole issue of how women have viewed sexual access as a saleable commodity, both in and out of marriage.

Is this something "women" on their own have come up with? Or is it a result of how they are defined as sexual property in a patriarchal society?

[_Moniker]

You beat me to it Blixa.

Charity,

And marital rape is a different dynamic. I come from the state where the first case of marital rape was prosecuted. And saw the woman win her case. And a few years later, retract her charges and state it was just a "disagreement."

What is the point of this? Please explain how marital rape is different from other forms of rape. Are you suggesting that marital rape is not really rape?

And we would have to bring in the whole issue of how women have viewed sexual access as a saleable commodity, both in and out of marriage.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

If you deem it necessary to discuss women being viewed as sexual objects to be purchased by men please do explain what this power play means for the men and women in these exchanges. Women being purchased for marriage has a long history. Who were selling the females and purchasing them Charity? And, again, what has this to do with anything?

[_asbestosman]

Forcible rape is highest in the women's lib type of society.

Like Saudi Arabia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

I fail to see how that establishes or refutes the idea that rape is higher or lower in a patriarchal society. It does establish that very patriarchal societies still have rape. The frequency of it, however, is not something I can judge one way or the other.

And Nehor, what about this kind of thing? More evidence of "women in power?"

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape/rape2.html

Rape is about power, male power over women's bodies, both individually and collectively. It is not some expression of disgruntlement over "women's lib."

That particular case looks like power of one ethnic group over another ethnic group. However, gender appears to come into play although I would not guyss as to why. Patriarchy may have something to do with it. Or maybe there are many reasons where gender is one part of it and ethnicity is another.

[_Scottie]

Are these statistics for convicted rape, or accusations?

I always hate to minimize the actual victims of rape, but, unfortunately, some girls will cry rape when it was consensual in order to get out of whatever punishments they may have to endure, whether that is by their parents or religious leaders.

It would be interesting to see percentages by age as well.

[_Blixa]

Forcible rape is highest in the women's lib type of society.

Like Saudi Arabia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

I fail to see how that establishes or refutes the idea that rape is higher or lower in a patriarchal society. It does establish that very patriarchal societies still have rape. The frequency of it, however, is not something I can judge one way or the other.

My point, as it were, was about the silliness of statements about "women's lib type societies" when things that could be quite literally called "forcible" rape (putting aside beastie's solid critique of charity's phrase) occur in non-women's lib type societies. Frequency is part of charity's assertion and I have no idea how she would "prove" it.

And Nehor, what about this kind of thing? More evidence of "women in power?"

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape/rape2.html

Rape is about power, male power over women's bodies, both individually and collectively. It is not some expression of disgruntlement over "women's lib."

That particular case looks like power of one ethnic group over another ethnic group. However, gender appears to come into play although I would not guyss as to why. Patriarchy may have something to do with it. Or maybe there are many reasons where gender is one part of it and ethnicity is another.

Its not hard to guess why: to damage their enemies possessions, to hurt, humiliate and insult their enemies (men). Rape only has this "weapons value" in a patriarchal context. It also has a quasi-genocidal meaning in terms of forcing women to bear the children of another "race" rather than their own. Again, this is predicated on a situation where women lack the power and control over their own sexuality to choose abortion: the assumption is that they will bear children.

[_asbestosman]

Its not hard to guess why: to damage their enemies possessions, to hurt, humiliate and insult their enemies (men). Rape only has this "weapons value" in a patriarchal context. It also has a quasi-genocidal meaning in terms of forcing women to bear the children of another "race" rather than their own. Again, this is predicated on a situation where women lack the power and control over their own sexuality to choose abortion: the assumption is that they will bear children.

Quasi-genocide? Maybe so, but rape is a really screwed-up way to accomplish this. Now you've just defiled your own genes by mixing them with the "impure" race. Sorry, but I don't buy it as far as bearing children goes. I can certainly see the insult to their enemies though. Obviously I'd want more studies to actually establish such a hypothesis before accepting it as a good theory.

[_Blixa]

Its not hard to guess why: to damage their enemies possessions, to hurt, humiliate and insult their enemies (men). Rape only has this "weapons value" in a patriarchal context. It also has a quasi-genocidal meaning in terms of forcing women to bear the children of another "race" rather than their own. Again, this is predicated on a situation where women lack the power and control over their own sexuality to choose abortion: the assumption is that they will bear children.

Quasi-genocide? Maybe so, but rape is a really screwed-up way to accomplish this. Now you've just defiled your own genes by mixing them with the "impure" race. Sorry, but I don't buy it as far as bearing children goes. I can certainly see the insult to their enemies though. Obviously I'd want more studies to actually establish such a hypothesis before accepting it as a good theory.

I didn't endorse the idea, but it was current during that war. I agree it "makes no sense" but then does any racialist idea? You don't need "studies" to establish a "hypothesis" about war rape, either: read history. You will find many, many instances.

Are you having flashbacks to the "wade englund/miracle of forgiveness" thread of yore, asbestos? Anyone? I sure am.