Because moniker claims that if a woman gets tipsy and gives consent for sex, she really didn't give consent after all and it was rape. Why don't you ask Monkier why she brings up false rape charges?
This is a fine example of your primary technique, which you have repeatedly demonstrated on this thread. You have extremely selective reading comprehension. You tend to alter the arguments of others. This is why you are called Ms. Strawman.
Here is what moniker actually said:
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.
Moniker did not say a woman who was “tipsy” gave her consent. Moniker said that the women were “taken advantage of while they were intoxicated”.
Moniker can correct me, of course, but I seriously doubt your rephrasing of his/her comments was correct. An individual can be “tipsy” and still maintain enough faculties to be able to give consent for sex. But there reaches a point of intoxication where the person is incoherent or even unconscious, and at that point the individual is no longer capable of giving consent due to mental incapacitation.
Besides, I wasn’t just talking about this example. You have
repeatedly brought up false rape charges, in which the woman
thought she was raped, but clearly she was not. I do not understand your point, since you keep arguing that the sole definition of rape is whether or not the woman
thinks she’s been raped.
Well, I take that back, I do understand now why you’ve been doing this, and will explain shortly.
Women are part of the culture, too, and will have bought into the cultural defintions. In amny instances where a more enlightened society would consider an event rape, the culture they live in does not define it as such, and neither do they. This is what you do not see. Of course, there is still rape by strangers. But the rate is lower because in such a society men guard their possessions jealousy. Do you know that even in the US today, rape is considered a crime against the state, and not against the woman?
Oh. My. God.
Now it’s clear that all along you’ve understood that when you throw out assertions or stats that demonstrate patriarchal societies have less rape than liberal societies, you have
understood all along that the pollution of cultural definitions impacted the discussion.If this is how you teach sociology to your students, you ought to be fired.
Any cross cultural study of the incidence of one particular phenomenon should control for the impact of varying cultural definitions. In other words, you have to have an accepted standard for comparison, even if that requires not accepting the culture’s own definition. I did not major in sociology, but took enough basic courses to know THAT.
So if we’re comparing the incidence of rape in the US to an extremely patriarchal Islamic society, we must recognize that their reporting of rape will be affected by their cultural definition, ie, four witnesses are required otherwise it’s adultery. So we can’t just use the numbers obtained by the unique cultural definition to compare to a different country with an entirely different definition.
Sure, it makes an interested conversation to explore how different cultures define a particular phenomenon, but if one wants to compare the rate of incidence of one phenomenon in particular, one must provide one clear definition and find ways to obtain information about that
one particular phenomenon.In other words, it’s meaningless to use stats from an Islamic society that only calls something “rape” if there were four witnesses to compare to US statistics – which is what you are trying to do.
In regards to this particular conversation, the topic was the rape rates in Utah. Utah is part of the US, so we are using the definition of rape as we understand it in our culture. This is clearly what those of us who have been arguing against you have been doing, and you have tried to change the conversation to something entirely different.
Why? Because you wanted to be able to assert that rape is less frequent in patriarchal societies, and the only way you can make that assertion is if you use data obtained using the patriarchal societies own definition of “rape”.
To make the problem clear, if a society declared that rape only occurs if the perpetrator actually has a gun held to the victim’s head, we certainly can’t use the reporting of rape in that society as a measure against the reporting of rape in our society. And by reporting I mean either reporting to authorities or identifying the incident as rape to oneself or a pollster.
You asserted that you had access to information that controlled for underreporting, although you have yet to support that assertion. Once you share that information, I want to know how they controlled for the variant definitions of rape.
There is also another factor to consider. Who is it the powerless men consider to be their oppressors? Those become the targets of revenge and reprisal if there are opportunities. In the extremely patriarchal society, the women are not seen as the opporessors. The more powerful men are. The opportunities to get back at them are extremely limited however.
It’s already been demonstrated that one of the ways they get back at their oppressors is to defile their women. But you have conveniently chosen to ignore that tragically obvious reality.
In the "liberated" socieities, where women are gaining power, they are seen as the cause of the powerlessness of the man. Men who could have had a position of some power are being displaced by women. He didn't get the foreman's job and to compound the injury it was a woman who got the job. She becomes the focus of his anger. And he takes it out on a woman, probably not her, because of the power she has over him, but a displaced target.
Yes, but once again, you ignore the fact that in a patriarchal society, women are seen as possessions of men, and one way to attack powerful men is to defile their women. Kind of like how someone in our society may “key” someone’s car.
I fail to see the logic here. If women are put into the power heirarchy, then more men end up at the bottom. So the liberal society has more powerless men, logically. In an extremely patriarchal society, all men come ahead of all women. In the liberal society they are intermixed.
And where is your data on this "mixed answer" for Utah? What studies are you referencing?
You fail to see the logic because you fail to take other factors into consideration, such as the defilement of the woman as possession. That was discussed at the very beginning of this thread, but you refuse to factor it into your considerations.
The article I read wasn’t about Utah in particular. I’ll try to find and link the article again. In the meantime, how about some of your studies that I’ve repeatedly requested?
My earlier comment:
I read a comment in a paper that made sense, which stated that the societies that actually seem to be the worst at creating a climate in which rape escalates is one that mixes patriarchy with liberal values. So the men are being exposed to the idea that sex can and should be happening to them, but yet, due to their patriarchal system which is linked to a sexually conservative religion, it is not. Then their rage and frustration escalates. That sounds a lot like the situation would be in states like Utah.
Charity:
Except that you forget rape is not about sex. It is about power. Also you forgot that most stranger rapists have wives or girl friends. Sex is happening for them. They don't rape because they aren't getting enough sex.
Except that you forget that sex is also power. I also seriously doubt that you have actual studies that demonstrate in that, in extremely patriarchal societies, most rapists have wives and girlfriends. I doubt you can demonstrate it because I doubt that information is even accessible from these societies, which, as you admit, use their own specialized definitions of rape in the first place. I suspect you are using information obtained from Western societies to draw conclusions about extreme patriarchal societies, which is flawed methodology.
I did not insinuate anything. I asked for data. Information upon which to base ideas. You see to want to just jump out of the airplane without your parachute.
Who gets raped? And who rapes? Those are essential questions. I worked with criminal justice programs in two colleges and absorbed quite a bit of ciminal investigation protocols. You always have to know who the victim is, and that doesn't just mean the name. And you have to know the demographics of the perpetrators. If you were to be able to show that the number of individuals who raped were disproportionally represented in one population or the other, then you might be able to start the discussion you have thrown out here. But until you have those numbers, you can't make any such statements.
Baloney. Each time you respond that not all of Utah is Mormon, you are insinuating that the high stats are due to nonmormons, as you insinuate when you emphasize the need for details about the rapists. If we’re talking about whether or not Mormon patriarchy could possibly be a factor in high Utah rape rates, and you respond that Utah is not all Mormon and we don’t know details about rapists, you are insinuating that we might find that the majority of rapists are nonmormons.
I made no such claim. And the worst serial killer in Oregon killed over a dozen prostitutes. He had a foot fetish and kept the shoes of his victims, with their feet still in them. He was a member of a specific church, which was often paired with his name in news reports. (Not LDS) It should be obvious that this person's actions do not reflect back on a church which does not teach people to kill prostitutes.
See above.
I'm going to repeat this post because I want an answer:
Another interesting element in Charity's examples of false rape charges:
Charity keeps insisting that the crucial determination in "rape" is whether or not the woman thinks she's been raped. Yet she then tells stories in which the women clearly thought they were raped, but they were not.
So what's the deal, Charity?
1- Why are you not willing to use your own litmus test in those scenarios?
2 - And why would those women think they were raped when they were not?
If there is some social environment in the background that allows women to think they were raped when they were not, is it possible that some social environment in the background also allows women to think they were NOT raped, when, in fact, they WERE?
Such as, perhaps, a religious law that says rape can only be demonstrated if there were four witnesses, otherwise it's adultery?