Utah rape stats

[_beastie]

Oh, and one more point: I really cannot believe that anyone still actually reads Ms magazine. I mean, in this day and age...

Beastie is going to have a hard road to hoe in demonstrating why, up until the middle sixties and beyond, rates of violent crime, including rape, were far lower than they are today, while society in general was much more male oriented than it is today as far as family life and gender roles.

I don't think patriarchy is the cause as such crimes weren't nearly as prevalent in the first five or six decades of the twentieth century. If you want the real causal factors involved in the present multidecadal rash of increasing violence against woman, including date rape and spousal abuse, you'd be well advised to talk to Hugh Hefner, not GBH.

It has been the objectification of woman and the trivialization and desacralization of human sexuality that forms the root system that holds up the present tree of increased male animosity towards the feminine.

The rates of rape were lower in the past because more women did not report rape. They did not report rape because they knew the legal system allowed their character to be questioned and their sexual past to be explored in open court.

Honestly, I would have expected even you to realize this, but I guess that was foolish of me. But you may be of the Charity mindset, which is if that the woman doesn't want to call it rape, then it isn't rape. How lovely it must be to live in these repressive patriarchal societies where women are never raped!!!

Your theory is powerless to explain why extremely conservative states like Utah and Idaho have higher rates of rape than bastions of liberal sexuality, like California. The one aberration in this pattern of conservative states having higher rates of rape than liberal states is Washington.

[_beastie]

Comparative crime rate, including rape, for 2004:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

[_charity]

A woman is not raped unless she considers she has been. Now do you understand what I am saying? Women acquiese to sexual intercourse for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with a mutually satisfying experience.

How women view their experiences is dependent upon their culture, and whether or not they view themselves as having the right to “own” their own bodies.

In regards to women “acquiescing” to sexual intercourse for a lot of reasons:

A. Woman acquiesces to have sex despite the fact that she doesn’t enjoy it to appease her husband.
B. Woman acquiesces to have sex with a stranger because if she protests and makes noise, people will find out about it. The man may end up punished, which would please her, but her punishment, as damaged goods, will be far worst, in addition to the possible punishment for doing something that “asked for it”, in her culture – you know, like leaving the house alone.

As I have already stated, these events are worlds apart, and to conflate the two in anyway is counter-productive. When you continually remind us that women have sex for many reasons, you are conflating the two. You can't really view A and B as equivalent, or do you?

Where you make the error here is by allowing for only two possiblities. There are many more. And why are you trying to make a "yes" or "no" question out of something much more complicated?

I read the link. I just don't see this as meaning we no longer have a society which isn't essentiallly patriarchal. There have been moves away from the end, but no longer patriarchal? No.

Once again, I’m left wondering if you even read posts you respond to. I suspect you read the first couple of sentences and that’s it.

Here’s what I actually said:

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.

I thought that was pretty much a throw away line. "While women lag behind" is a complete trivialization of the situation. A few bandaids on a system is not going to change the basic nature of the system.

This is why discussing anything with Charity is maddening. You have to spend pages establishing the most basic, obvious, points.

Why discussing something with me is maddening, is because I won't let you get away with NOT establishing the most basic obvious points. When you claim to have done so, and haven't, it is impossible to discuss anything rationally.

You can't establish anything without looking at the "average" incidence. Who is being raped? Who are the rapists?

For instance, the incidence of deaths by gunshot is higher than the average among black men in the late teens-early twenties. So, if you ask the question "Why is it that black men are shot at a rate higher than average in the United States which is predominantly white?" you really need to know that the majority of shooters of young black men are other young black men.

And where, pray tell, am I supposed to find that sort of detailed information about rape? I would definitely be interested in it.

There may not be that kind of data gathered and kept. But when you don't have it, you have to stay out of the argument or else you are just throwing fists in the dark, hoping you will connect with something, anything. This is why I say you don't establish the most basic, obvious points. You just admitted it.

Because there is "extremely" religious and then there is "devout" and never the twain shall meet.

What the heck? Do you have some secret definition of “extremely religious” to which the rest of us aren’t privy?

The word "extreme" should be a clue. Extreme means "of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average." If you are going to place all religious behaviors on a continuum, you would have to agree that LDS beliefs are not anywhere near the extreme end. LDS don't fly planes into buildilngs. Extremist muslims do. LDS don't whip themselves with "disciplines" during prayer to cut their skin and bleed. Some Carmelites do. LDS don't refuse life saying medical procedures on religious grounds. Jehovah's Witnesses do. Capiche?

[_charity]

Well, then maybe I should cut you a little slack. If you don't know how to deal with sociological reports, then you can't be blamed as much.

I do expect more from you, since you have training in sociology and psychology. It disgusts me that someone who has been trained in these fields would make some of the statements you make. For example:

Scenario – Woman walks to a nearby market at dusk alone. A strange man pulls her off the path into some bushes or another hidden area, and has sex with her. He does not ask her permission, is not interested in her permission.

If this scenario took place in the US, the woman would likely label this rape and report it to the police. She would be able to have access to medical care and legal support. It is true that in the US many women would prefer to keep the event secret to avoid being viewed as tainted, or avoid being accused of making the whole thing up and having questionable morals, but generally women at least view this as an option.

If this scenario took place in a repressive patriarchal society, the woman would likely just say nothing about it. She would not have access to medical care or legal support, anyway. If she called “rape” and sought help, the man may well be punished, but she would run the risk of being stoned or lashed herself. In addition, she would be damaged goods with no hope of a decent future.

According to Charity, the exact same act is rape when it occurs in the US, and not rape when it occurs in the repressive patriarchal society that has stripped women of rights.

Talk about straw arguments. Reporting or not reporting is not the defining quality of rape! If the woman in the repressive society considers she was raped, she was. Don't you read my posts? I said nothing about whether it would be legally considered a crime, or what kind of socieetal punishment is handed down to a victim, nothing about that. So your statement above that a crime in one place is not a crime in another is simply not true.

Just so you will understand me, since you seem to have trouble comprehending English using an English language dictionary, I stated "rape is rape IF the woman considered herself to be raped."

Oops. I have to make a small caveat on that. I had a student in one of my human sexuality classes come in to talk to me in my office after the topic of rape was discussed in class. She said, "I think maybe I was raped once. There was this guy and we were just kind of fooling around. I thought he really liked me, but he had another girl friend. If I had known he had a girl friend, I never would have done that. So I think I was raped."

You don't have to respond to the above paragraph, since it is a distraction. But I felt I had to include it as a "truth in advertising" kind of thing. There are some women who will use the word rape injudiciously. So I guess I would have to say I believe in 99% of the cases, the woman has been raped if she considers she was.

[_asbestosman]

Comparative crime rate, including rape, for 2004:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

On the plus side, Utah is 48 / 55 for violent crime total (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). I wonder if that's due to patriarchy too. ;)

No, I'm not saying that makes Utah great. Rape is one of the worst crimes I know. Robbery and aggravated assault don't hold a candle to it bad as those can be too.

[_asbestosman]

You don't have to respond to the above paragraph, since it is a distraction. But I felt I had to include it as a "truth in advertising" kind of thing. There are some women who will use the word rape injudiciously. So I guess I would have to say I believe in 99% of the cases, the woman has been raped if she considers she was.

But in what % of cases where she does not considered that she was, does that mean she in fact was not?

I thought that was pretty much a throw away line. "While women lag behind" is a complete trivialization of the situation. A few bandaids on a system is not going to change the basic nature of the system.

I'm still wondering when women are gonna have sign a card so the military can harass them when they turn 18 like it did to me.

I think our legal system has gender biases, but I'd say that the bias sometimes favors females and sometimes favors males. Overall I'd say it appears that circumstances still favor males (unequal pay, etc.), but I think it would be a mistake to characterize our system as patriarchal. Yes, I think there are some vestiges of patriarchy in the system, but it has changed enough that circumstances are quite different today than they were some decades ago. For one thing, great efforts are being made to make sure women have equal opportunity and power--something a very patriarchal society wouldn't dream of.

[_charity]

Comparative crime rate, including rape, for 2004:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

On the plus side, Utah is 48 / 55 for violent crime total (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). I wonder if that's due to patriarchy too. ;)

No, I'm not saying that makes Utah great. Rape is one of the worst crimes I know. Robbery and aggravated assault don't hold a candle to it bad as those can be too.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an anti-Mormon to say that anything good could come from Mormonism.

[Guest]

A woman is not raped unless she considers she has been. Now do you understand what I am saying? Women acquiese to sexual intercourse for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with a mutually satisfying experience.

How women view their experiences is dependent upon their culture, and whether or not they view themselves as having the right to “own” their own bodies.

In regards to women “acquiescing” to sexual intercourse for a lot of reasons:

A. Woman acquiesces to have sex despite the fact that she doesn’t enjoy it to appease her husband.
B. Woman acquiesces to have sex with a stranger because if she protests and makes noise, people will find out about it. The man may end up punished, which would please her, but her punishment, as damaged goods, will be far worst, in addition to the possible punishment for doing something that “asked for it”, in her culture – you know, like leaving the house alone.

As I have already stated, these events are worlds apart, and to conflate the two in anyway is counter-productive. When you continually remind us that women have sex for many reasons, you are conflating the two. You can't really view A and B as equivalent, or do you?

Where you make the error here is by allowing for only two possiblities. There are many more. And why are you trying to make a "yes" or "no" question out of something much more complicated?

Actually beastie does state that there are "a lot of reasons" and she lists two possibilities. She then asks you if you equate the two. That's a legitimate question since you brought up marital rape, women selling their bodies, women using their bodies to gain power and leverage, and women that do not consider themselves raped. Do you equate A and B above, is the question, charity.

Oops. I have to make a small caveat on that. I had a student in one of my human sexuality classes come in to talk to me in my office after the topic of rape was discussed in class. She said, "I think maybe I was raped once. There was this guy and we were just kind of fooling around. I thought he really liked me, but he had another girl friend. If I had known he had a girl friend, I never would have done that. So I think I was raped."

You don't have to respond to the above paragraph, since it is a distraction. But I felt I had to include it as a "truth in advertising" kind of thing. There are some women who will use the word rape injudiciously. So I guess I would have to say I believe in 99% of the cases, the woman has been raped if she considers she was.

Well that's interesting. Since we're doing story time I have one:

A mentally handicapped women that is sexually assulated by her caretaker, is she raped? A woman in a coma that ends up pregnant, was she raped? A senile elderly person that doesn't even recall, or have the ability to comprehend what happened, were they raped? Are children raped Charity when they don't even understand the concept, or may not even recognize that it shouldn't be occurring? Infants that are violated, are they raped? Just continue the thought to include every person that may not be capable of defining whether or not they were able to give consent or even if that was an option.

The act of intercourse WITH OUT consent is rape, Charity. It has nothing to do with whether the person themselves defines it. If sexual assault occurred when there was not consent THAT is rape.

[_Runtu]

Don't hold your breath waiting for an anti-Mormon to say that anything good could come from Mormonism.

Oh, will you please shut up about how awful we anti-Mormons are? Go ahead and disagree, but stop telling us what we will and won't say and why.

[_asbestosman]

Don't hold your breath waiting for an anti-Mormon to say that anything good could come from Mormonism.

Oh, will you please shut up about how awful we anti-Mormons are? Go ahead and disagree, but stop telling us what we will and won't say and why.

Don't tell me you still like funeral potatos!