Utah rape stats

[_Moniker]

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?

Why is there need for that third category? Does it have any resemblance to rape?

Who is saying "women are powerless and have to have sex because they are without rights"?

WHAT? Beastie is correct. The topic of this thread is rape. Please stick to it.

Sethbag, the high stats also come from the government of Utah which I linked to earlier. Please feel free to search the Utah state health website as well as their criminal justice website and you will see the studies that delved into the high numbers. The Utah criminal justice survey (linked to on page 1 of this thread) found that 1 in 3 Utah women will experience sexual violence during their lifetime. Sexual violence as defined by the survey also included molestation.

[_Moniker]

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

Women are more susceptible to rape when what occurs? When they have an increased ability to fight back this has a positive correlation to their being raped?

[_charity]

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.

I was only responding to the idea that women have sex without it being forcible raped because they think they don't have any power to resist anyway. And the implicaition this should be considered rape as well. I have expessed myself on that idea, and if this isn't brought up again, I won't bring it up either.

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

Then all of the United States, every state in the Union is a patriarchy. So my question of how much a patriarchy is quite pertinent. If you want to make a statement about the causes for rape in Utah, you have to know a lot more than to report a quasi-stat.

[_Zoidberg]

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

Women are more susceptible to rape when what occurs? When they have an increased ability to fight back this has a positive correlation to their being raped?

I think what charity was trying to say is that when women get more power, they start fighting back, whereas before they just submitted unquestioningly to their male owners, which, by charity's definition, is not rape because they weren't forced and no violence occurred.

If only we could go back to the good old times when a guy could just buy himself a wife or two, or stone them if they didn't save the bloody sheets from their wedding night, the prevalence of rape would be truly miniscule.

[_Moniker]

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

Women are more susceptible to rape when what occurs? When they have an increased ability to fight back this has a positive correlation to their being raped?

I think what charity was trying to say is that when women get more power, they start fighting back, whereas before they just submitted unquestioningly to their male owners, which, by charity's definition, is not rape because they weren't forced and no violence occurred.

If only we could go back to the good old times when a guy could just buy himself a wife or two, or stone them if they didn't save the bloody sheets from their wedding night, the prevalence of rape would be truly minuscule.

Ah, well then Charity would be interested in some stats I saw earlier today that most elderly women do not fight back against stranger rape. Perhaps, that's not really rape either? Wish I'd bookmarked the page. Perhaps I'll find the study later and post it.

This thread is so convoluted now!

[_beastie]

I was only responding to the idea that women have sex without it being forcible raped because they think they don't have any power to resist anyway. And the implicaition this should be considered rape as well. I have expessed myself on that idea, and if this isn't brought up again, I won't bring it up either.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. You seem to be saying the following:

In a society where women are completely powerless, and hence, don't even bother resisting unwanted and uninvited sex, those same women can't be raped?

Then all of the United States, every state in the Union is a patriarchy. So my question of how much a patriarchy is quite pertinent. If you want to make a statement about the causes for rape in Utah, you have to know a lot more than to report a quasi-stat.

Eighty years ago this would have been an accurate statement, but it is not any longer. While women lag behind men due to social habits, our legal system is no longer based on patriarchy.

The Mormon church has institutionalized patriarchy.

Patriarchy, of course, manifests itself on a continuum, which you, yourself, conceded by referring to "extreme patriarchal societies". You know, the ones where women can't be raped.

[_charity]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. You seem to be saying the following:

In a society where women are completely powerless, and hence, don't even bother resisting unwanted and uninvited sex, those same women can't be raped?

No. I am saying that most women would not consider that resistance was an option. They do not consider themselves to have been raped.

Then all of the United States, every state in the Union is a patriarchy. So my question of how much a patriarchy is quite pertinent. If you want to make a statement about the causes for rape in Utah, you have to know a lot more than to report a quasi-stat.

Eighty years ago this would have been an accurate statement, but it is not any longer. While women lag behind men due to social habits, our legal system is no longer based on patriarchy.

And just when and where and what was this sea change in the legal system. Reference please.

The Mormon church has institutionalized patriarchy.

Patriarchy, of course, manifests itself on a continuum, which you, yourself, conceded by referring to "extreme patriarchal societies". You know, the ones where women can't be raped.

You haven't come anywhere close to showing that "Mormon church institutionalized patriarchy" causes rape. That is why in my last post, I called for you to back up your theory with real data, real analysis. Since you can't, you really ought to keep off the wall speculations to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Just a few comments. As Monkier said, this thread has become very convoluted. Charity has again demonstrated an inability to stay on the very topics she introduces. Everytime someone answers some vague assertion she herself has brought up ("what about x?"), she then flits off to another vague assertion ("well, what about this?"). Instead of being able to deal with abstractions, she can only generate a proliferation of "local" examples she never works to relate to the "global" concept under investigation. She denigrates conceptual categories (which she calls "definitions" and "theatrical narratives," a garbled version of my description of the conventional courtroom as a "theatre" where opposing narratives assert differing versions of "truth" in a "drama" of persuasion), without realizing that the very kind of studies she valorizes are themselves dependent on foundational categories.

Anyway, a few thoughts:

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

yet later,

Maybe this is a little late in the discussion to call for a definiton of a "patriarchal" society...

So it seems "definitions" are rather important after all.

As for "motivations" and "sociological causes," cultural theories attempt to address the former by examining them in the context of the latter. Thus,

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

is an example of a question which takes as a given something which needs (historical, sociological) explanation: Under what conditions do women do this? This "motivation" does not happen in a historical, cultural and political vacuum. Women can only use their bodies thus when their power and influence has been limited to status as sexual property, when their very identity is predicated on a gendered difference. You know, their "nature" is to nuture: both in terms of pleasure and procreation.

[_beastie]

No. I am saying that most women would not consider that resistance was an option. They do not consider themselves to have been raped.

So they don't "consider themselves to have been raped".

In your opinion, were they raped?

And just when and where and what was this sea change in the legal system. Reference please.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Tell me you're not serious.

http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm

You haven't come anywhere close to showing that "Mormon church institutionalized patriarchy" causes rape. That is why in my last post, I called for you to back up your theory with real data, real analysis. Since you can't, you really ought to keep off the wall speculations to yourself.

I'm simply trying to get some groundwork established. You were the one who insisted we define patriarchy to begin with. I'm still waiting for you to concede that institutionalized patriarchy exists in Mormonism, and with the exception of other extremely religious areas, Utah and other mormon-dominated states are going to have more patriarchy demonstrated than other, nonmormon (or nonEV) states. One step at a time.

[_Moniker]

And just when and where and what was this sea change in the legal system. Reference please.

You can't be serious? Do you own property? Can you inherit property? Can you vote? Can you divorce your husband and retain custody of your children? Can you petition the courts? Can you sue in civil court? If you answer yes to any of the above (and let's hope you realize you can answer yes) then you must admit that these changes occurred when our society slowly shifted away from the radical notion that women were not themselves property of men.