Utah rape stats

[_asbestosman]

I agree it "makes no sense" but then does any racialist idea?

Quite true.

You don't need "studies" to establish a "hypothesis" about war rape, either: read history. You will find many, many instances.

I thought that had more to do with a humiliating and subjugating one's enemy--not genocide but slavery. It was also my understanding that war rape was possibly a natural (if terrible) way for genes to propogate. Anyhow, I'm not much of a history buff. My dad was the one who told me about the horrors of war rape as well as "comfort women".

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

I'm afraid I don't recall that one. Maybe I've repressed it.

[_Moniker]

Duty, Honor, Rape: Sexual Assault Against Women During War

http://www.bridgew.edu/SoAS/jiws/nov00/duty.htm

Sudan

Darfur: Rape as a weapon of war: sexual violence and its consequences

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540762004

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.

Or you've defiled the genes of your enemy by mixing them with yours? You've stopped the lineage. You've created a social schism. You've wrecked the society by killing the men and impregnating the women.

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.

A good theory? The theory is you kill your enemies, capture the women (property), rape the women to ensure that the women have your children to destroy the lineage of your enemy. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[_charity]

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.

Not more real. Real. Motivation. Sociological causes. Not definitions and theatrical narratives.

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?

Forcible rape is higher in societies where women have more economic, occupational and political power. Those kinds of societies.

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?

Because of the implication that women in patriarchal societies are raped within marriages because they do not feel they can complain. And yes, there are instances when women "cry rape."

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!

Hello, yourself. This again goes back to the idea expressed that women may not resist sexual intercourse, even when they don't want to participate, because they feel they don't have the right to say no. And the idea that this is still rape. I dispute that.

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

No, women often don't consider unwanted sexual intercourse as rape. Many women aren't "in the mood" and accomodate their partners, anyway. That isn't 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?

You don't really need to be given the whole history of women using their bodies to gain power, wealth and influence, do you?

Maybe this is a little late in the discussion to call for a definiton of a "patriarchal" society. Actually, there are very rare societies which are matriarchal. The question would have to come down to something like "How patriarchal is this particular society compared to this other one?"

[_beastie]

Before this conversation proceeds any further, we need to clarify that the difference between 1) a woman agreeing to have sex to please her partner, when she's not really in the mood, and 2) a woman who "agrees" to have sex with a man demanding sex because she is so powerless and without rights that to protest is useless is so vast that the two should not, in any way, shape, or form, be conflated.

I would suggest that we do not focus on 1, and focus instead on 2.

Agreed?

[_Gadianton]

Not more real. Real. Motivation. Sociological causes. Not definitions and theatrical narratives.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what Blixa was trying to say, that her knowledge of sociology comes exclusively through reading fiction.

And why do you think definitions aren't relevant?

Forcible rape is higher in societies where women have more economic, occupational and political power. Those kinds of societies.

Why? Because those women deserve it for not obeying the prophet and staying in the kitchen?

Because of the implication that women in patriarchal societies are raped within marriages because they do not feel they can complain.

And they can complain? Do you really feel the chances of being raped in a marriage are really higher in the Northeastern States than Afghanistan? Or is yours a tit-for-tat logic?

No, women often don't consider unwanted sexual intercourse as rape. Many women aren't "in the mood" and accomodate their partners, anyway. That isn't rape.

But then there are times when they are forced, and that is.

You don't really need to be given the whole history of women using their bodies to gain power, wealth and influence, do you?

I think the issue is how your history links to women being raped more frequently as their ability to fight back increases. Are you going to explain this at some point?

[_Sethbag]

So much gullibility here. You just all accepted beastie's stats. You didn't even ask if they were accurate or not. Shame on you all.

I'm very late to this thread, but I have to say, I think that 1 in 5 women having been forcibly raped is eye-poppingly high, and I have a very hard time believing it.

[_charity]

Before this conversation proceeds any further, we need to clarify that the difference between 1) a woman agreeing to have sex to please her partner, when she's not really in the mood, and 2) a woman who "agrees" to have sex with a man demanding sex because she is so powerless and without rights that to protest is useless is so vast that the two should not, in any way, shape, or form, be conflated.

I would suggest that we do not focus on 1, and focus instead on 2.

Agreed?

Then how about a third category. Women who "agree" to have sex with a man (when they have no interest in sex, or at least sex with him) so they can have position, power, money and influence?

And then lets don't just say that women are powerless and have to have sex because they are without rights?

[_charity]

Forcible rape is higher in societies where women have more economic, occupational and political power. Those kinds of societies.

Why? Because those women deserve it for not obeying the prophet and staying in the kitchen?

No woman deserves to be raped. The answer to your question is because some men are so immature and incompetent that they can't compete with women who have power over them, so they try to defend their egos by humiliating women. Got it now?

Because of the implication that women in patriarchal societies are raped within marriages because they do not feel they can complain.

And they can complain? Do you really feel the chances of being raped in a marriage are really higher in the Northeastern States than Afghanistan? Or is yours a tit-for-tat logic?

This is a good illlustration of why we needed to know exaclty what "patriarchal" society Bestie was talking about. She was obviously talking about a Mormon patriarchal society. The patriarchal societies which use rape as a political weapon between warring groups is obviously not what she was referring to, so this is irrelevant.

You don't really need to be given the whole history of women using their bodies to gain power, wealth and influence, do you?

I think the issue is how your history links to women being raped more frequently as their ability to fight back increases. Are you going to explain this at some point?

I didn't say women have an increased ability to fight back.I said their susceptiblity to be raped increases.

[_Zoidberg]

Having read all of that, I have to express relief that charity did not get licensed as a therapist and has not counseled any victims of sexual abuse.

[_beastie]

beastie:

Before this conversation proceeds any further, we need to clarify that the difference between 1) a woman agreeing to have sex to please her partner, when she's not really in the mood, and 2) a woman who "agrees" to have sex with a man demanding sex because she is so powerless and without rights that to protest is useless is so vast that the two should not, in any way, shape, or form, be conflated.

I would suggest that we do not focus on 1, and focus instead on 2.

Agreed?

Charity:

Then how about a third category. Women who "agree" to have sex with a man (when they have no interest in sex, or at least sex with him) so they can have position, power, money and influence?

And then lets don't just say that women are powerless and have to have sex because they are without rights?

Beastie now:

What in the HECK are you talking about??? Is it even POSSIBLE for you to actually remember the topic of a thread and stick to it?

The topic of this thread is rape, and why rape is higher than average in Utah, and if the patriarchal culture of Utah may have something to do with that.

You were the one who started talking about women who have sex with their partners to please them for some bizarre reason in the middle of this thread. It has begun to sound as if you are minimizing rape, which I cannot believe, even about you, the queen of pretzel logic.

I am asking you to please try to control yourself and talk about the actual topic of the thread. Now you want to talk about how women use sex to get position, money, power, influence??

Start your own bleeping thread about it.

And here's your definition of patriarchy, which really isn't complicated:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/patriarchy

1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power