Utah rape stats

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I can't believe I lost my calculator. I don't get it. Utah isn't actually that bad. I thought by the way you guys were talking that it was one of the worst states, but it is not.

The figures I've seen - not just for 2003 in the OP - put Utah at higher than the national average.

I was going to calculate the average. In the OP I got the impression people were saying Utah was the worst except Alaska.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

What I find interesting is the increase in rate of crime over the last four decades.

[_charity]

Do you realize you just confirmed my speculation that patriarchy could be a factor in higher rape rates? Patriarchy DOES create feelings of powerlessness in some men. And, by your own admission, that is what drives some sick individuals to rape.

There are men who feel powerless in ANY society. Since there are no matriarchal societies, all socieites are patriarchal to one degree or another.

Those who study psychology and sociology know that there are attempts to deal with underreporting. Random surveys will ask a quesiton, "Were you ever raped but did not report it?" Then results can be extrapolated. That is what I was working with here. I never said that any information I got I picked out of the ether.

I would like to see these studies that led you to claim that forcible rape is less frequent in extreme patriarchal societies. Thanks. [/quote]

Look up George Mason University. I couldn't get the link to copy. But it is www.gmu.edu/factsaff/sexual/brochures

How about the North American rate of 40% vs the Japanese rate of 6%. Brazil 10%. Which of those cultures do you think is more patriarchal on a scale of 1-10.

Moniker's objection is ridiculous. Consent is always an issue. We were not talking about children or mentally or phsyically incapacitated females. We were talking about adult women. You and Moniker may assume that women in extremely patriarchal societies are incompetent. I don't demean them in that way.

No. We are assuming, LIKE YOU DID AND EXPLICITLY STATED, that they know they have no other option.

That is not the same as an infant, or a mentally challenged or medically compromised individual.

Of course, it has to do with what the woman thinks. She is the one giving or not giving consent! You can't decide for her.

Calling it "consent" because she sees no other option is a grotesque distortion on the word. There are young women who put up with incest, and even "acquiesce" without argument, for that very reason - they have no other choice. This is "consent" in your world?

Disgusting.[/quote]

Yes, your attempts to make my argruments look ridiculous by such wide-eyed disingenuity is disgusting. I have said twice that consent is sometimes a matter of age! You can't keep making such mistakes by accident. There has to be purpose. You are not that stupid.

Consent is a choice. I should have stated more plainly, that the "no option" is an option with dire consequences, but it is still an option. An adult woman knows what she will put up with and what she won't.. If her society says she is supposed to acquiese, she can still say she doesn't want to and take the societal consequences. If she decides the social consequences are more than she wants to accept, she can acquiese. But she can still decide to take the consequences. It is deplorable that this is the condition that any woman has to be in.

I guess I just look at women as being more competent than many people do who use the "eternal victim" mentality.

[_Moniker]

Moniker's objection is ridiculous. Consent is always an issue. We were not talking about children or mentally or phsyically incapacitated females. We were talking about adult women. You and Moniker may assume that women in extremely patriarchal societies are incompetent. I don't demean them in that way.

My objection was in response to this post from Charity:

A woman is not raped unless she considers she has been.

This is false. I was merely responding to this assertion. And we were not only talking about women, as the statistics also deal with child rape over the age of 12 where there may be incompetence in regards to consent. It is actually quite possible (as you well know) that there are situations where children (THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS UTAH RAPE STATS) are raped that are not aware they were raped. That was why I did "story time" after your ridiculous little snippet of nonsense about a student of yours having regrets after having intercourse.

My objection stands in direct response to YOUR assertion that a woman is not raped unless she considers herself raped. It is not ridiculous. Your assertion that a woman may acquiesce even when she does not want to have intercourse (let's just deal with stranger sexual encounters to keep this easy) is not rape if the woman doesn't label it as such is ridiculous.

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.

Of course, it has to do with what the woman thinks. She is the one giving or not giving consent! You can't decide for her.

I don't desire to decide for her. YOU were the one that stated that a woman must recognize she was raped to label herself a rape victim. She knows that she didn't give consent (we're assuming for a moment we're talking about adult women) and yet may not recognize that she is a victim of rape. It does NOT matter what she labels it. It DOES matter if there was consent or not. THAT was my point.

[_charity]

It is actually quite possible (as you well know) that there are situations where children (THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS UTAH RAPE STATS) are raped that are not aware they were raped.

, 7/12/03) " [/quote]

These all talk about women, and not children. Please be more accurate.

That was why I did "story time" after your ridiculous little snippet of nonsense about a student of yours having regrets after having intercourse.

My objection stands in direct response to YOUR assertion that a woman is not raped unless she considers herself raped. It is not ridiculous. Your assertion that a woman may acquiesce even when she does not want to have intercourse (let's just deal with stranger sexual encounters to keep this easy) is not rape if the woman doesn't label it as such is ridiculous.

And your ridiculous exercise in rabbit trails was just that. We were never talking about children, mentally ill or challenged or physically compromised. So just drop it.

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.

Of course, it has to do with what the woman thinks. She is the one giving or not giving consent! You can't decide for her.

I don't desire to decide for her. YOU were the one that stated that a woman must recognize she was raped to label herself a rape victim. She knows that she didn't give consent (we're assuming for a moment we're talking about adult women) and yet may not recognize that she is a victim of rape. It does NOT matter what she labels it. It DOES matter if there was consent or not. THAT was my point.

It matter what she thinks, because that determines trauma.

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

[_Moniker]

It is actually quite possible (as you well know) that there are situations where children (THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS UTAH RAPE STATS) are raped that are not aware they were raped.

These all talk about women, and not children. Please be more accurage.

The stats included children. I thought we were talking about the stats for the state of Utah that included victims 12+ years of age.

That was why I did "story time" after your ridiculous little snippet of nonsense about a student of yours having regrets after having intercourse.

My objection stands in direct response to YOUR assertion that a woman is not raped unless she considers herself raped. It is not ridiculous. Your assertion that a woman may acquiesce even when she does not want to have intercourse (let's just deal with stranger sexual encounters to keep this easy) is not rape if the woman doesn't label it as such is ridiculous.

And your ridiculous exercise in rabbit trails was just that. We were never talking about children, mentally ill or challenged or physically compromised. So just drop it.

Charity, do you assume that not one of the victims of rape in the Utah state stats is a child, mentally ill, challenged or physically compromised? Why? I also recognize that there are adult women that are coerced into sex, maybe taken advantage of while they were intoxicated, or other situations where they may not label it rape and yet the law in our country does. Surely you recognize this? Just because a woman does not define it rape does not indicate that she was not raped. It all comes down to consent. I was using examples to illustrate the point that there are many in our society that may not label their victimization rape and yet still have been raped. I am rather shocked you deny this.

This thread is so bogged down that it seems senseless to continue at times.

It matter what she thinks, because that determines trauma.

What do you mean by that? I have no idea what you are attempting to say. If a woman is unsure if she was raped (she was intoxicated --as is indicated in the stats for some cases) and yet did not give consent she was still raped. It matters not what she defines it as. Of course if she is traumatized by the experience it matters what she thinks as for her healing process and ability to cope with the assault. Yet, no matter how she is traumatized by the experience, or thinks of the experience, it does not change the fact that if she was sexually assaulted without consent she was raped -- it's that simple.

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

She has not been raped. I wouldn't consider that the sexual intercourse would cause her trauma if she consented to it. Interesting that you would label a young woman "neurotic" that is looking for love by having sex with multiple partners -- I'd call that pretty much status quo. Do you believe that young woman was raped? If not, why even introduce scenarios that bear no resemblance to rape? There are many instances of individuals behaving in sexual risky manners, or promiscuously and yet they consented (even sought out the encounters) so why would that be a subject introduced in as a possible rape scenario?

[_beastie]

Yes, your attempts to make my argruments look ridiculous by such wide-eyed disingenuity is disgusting. I have said twice that consent is sometimes a matter of age! You can't keep making such mistakes by accident. There has to be purpose. You are not that stupid.

Consent is a choice. I should have stated more plainly, that the "no option" is an option with dire consequences, but it is still an option. An adult woman knows what she will put up with and what she won't.. If her society says she is supposed to acquiese, she can still say she doesn't want to and take the societal consequences. If she decides the social consequences are more than she wants to accept, she can acquiese. But she can still decide to take the consequences. It is deplorable that this is the condition that any woman has to be in.

I guess I just look at women as being more competent than many people do who use the "eternal victim" mentality.

Competent? Competent? Yeah, a woman can go ahead and acquiesce because she doesn't want to be lashed, abandoned, and maybe stoned. You know, "social consequences".

Look up George Mason University. I couldn't get the link to copy. But it is www.gmu.edu/factsaff/sexual/brochures

How about the North American rate of 40% vs the Japanese rate of 6%. Brazil 10%. Which of those cultures do you think is more patriarchal on a scale of 1-10.

These numbers sound like reported rapes - we're not just talking about reported rapes. I stated that:

Women in patriarchal societies underreport rape for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. Yet somehow, you know that in extremely patriarchal societies, there is very little forcible rape, and you know that when men perceive themselves as powerless rape becomes epidemic.

You replied that:

Those who study psychology and sociology know that there are attempts to deal with underreporting. Random surveys will ask a quesiton, "Were you ever raped but did not report it?" Then results can be extrapolated. That is what I was working with here. I never said that any information I got I picked out of the ether.

So what I want is studies that demonstrate how to factor in the underreporting of rape in patriarchal cultures, like Japan. Japan, in particular, with its dread of losing face, seems particularly susceptible to seriously underreported rapes. Show me "what you were working with".

by the way, your George Mason brochure survey states:

The following table represents the percent of women polled in a survey who replied
they attempted to report they were forced into sex, broken down country.

It also offered this observation, which supports my case, which is that rape is seriously underreported in extremely patriarchal societies:

Under Islamic Law, ordinances require women reporting rape to provide a set number (4) of credible
male witnesses to verify the crime. Victims unable to provide these witnesses are often charged
instead with adultery.

So far, "what you were working with" is inadequate in demonstrate the real rape rate in patriarchal societies.

[_beastie]

Some of Charity's comments are beginning to remind me of Spencer Kimball's comments about rape in The Miracle of Forgiveness:

Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no Voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

[_charity]

Charity, do you assume that not one of the victims of rape in the Utah state stats is a child, mentally ill, challenged or physically compromised? Why? I also recognize that there are adult women that are coerced into sex, maybe taken advantage of while they were intoxicated, or other situations where they may not label it rape and yet the law in our country does. Surely you recognize this? Just because a woman does not define it rape does not indicate that she was not raped. It all comes down to consent. I was using examples to illustrate the point that there are many in our society that may not label their victimization rape and yet still have been raped. I am rather shocked you deny this.

This thread is so bogged down that it seems senseless to continue at times.

Pretty much. You keep switching back and forth between peole who cannot consent, and people can. Let's stick to the ones who can. That will simplify it enough.

It matter what she thinks, because that determines trauma.

What do you mean by that? I have no idea what you are attempting to say. If a woman is unsure if she was raped (she was intoxicated --as is indicated in the stats for some cases) and yet did not give consent she was still raped. It matters not what she defines it as.

So, now we have women who were raped and know it, and women who were raped but don't know if they were or not, and women who didn't think they were, but change their minds later on. Can't you see how a "one size consent fits all" won't work?

Of course if she is traumatized by the experience it matters what she thinks as for her healing process and ability to cope with the assault. Yet, no matter how she is traumatized by the experience, or thinks of the experience, it does not change the fact that if she was sexually assaulted without consent she was raped -- it's that simple.

So, one of your male friends gets a little high along with a lady friend and they end up having sex. The next morning, she says, "Hey, wait a minute. I was drunk last night. I didn't tell you in so many words I wanted to have sex. You raped me!"

He is convicted, goes to jail, and when he gets out in 10 years, has to register as a sex offender.
Still think it doesn't matter?

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

She has not been raped. I wouldn't consider that the sexual intercourse would cause her trauma if she consented to it. Interesting that you would label a young woman "neurotic" that is looking for love by having sex with multiple partners -- I'd call that pretty much status quo. Do you believe that young woman was raped? If not, why even introduce scenarios that bear no resemblance to rape? There are many instances of individuals behaving in sexual risky manners, or promiscuously and yet they consented (even sought out the encounters) so why would that be a subject introduced in as a possible rape scenario?

Because neurotic behavior is mental illness when it leads to damage to the person. So, you are okay with women who are engaging in risky sexual behavior due to mental illness just because they want to?

Oh, just to be sure you know. The diagnosis for neurotic behavior is based on what causes the behavior and what the result is. Not on the behavior itself. So it isn't having sex with mutliple partners. It is WHY and WHAT HAPPENS.

[_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.

I can't believe I lost my calculator. I don't get it. Utah isn't actually that bad. I thought by the way you guys were talking that it was one of the worst states, but it is not.

48/55 is good. It means Utah has one of the lowest rates fo violent crime total. I actually misread my spreadsheet though. It turns out that Utah is 43/50 if you only count the states. In other words, there are only 7 states with a lower violent crime rate than Utah. That's pretty good. What's sad is how high rape is in Utah. Utah is on the opposite end of the scale there.