Utah rape stats

[_charity]

I almost said something really sarcastic. You should know about using terminology that they follow patterns. Larger categoies are broken down into smaller ones. Things branch out. They aren't always in a straight line.

I was not using DSM-IV-R, but more common terminology. In the same way I would probably say "adrenaline rush" when we generally use the term epinephrine now, and not adrenaline. But more people are aware of adrenaline and not so many epinephrine.

And now for the Neurotic = depressed. You are so wrong on this. And I NEVER said it. You must have this little glitch in your thinking. Remember: all collies are dogs. But not all dogs are collies.

A person can be neurotic and not be depressed. And a person can be depressed and not be neurotic. Don't try and link the two again, or say that I said it. It will only make you look stupid.

[_Moniker]

I almost said something really sarcastic. You should know about using terminology that they follow patterns. Larger categoies are broken down into smaller ones. Things branch out. They aren't always in a straight line.

I was not using DSM-IV-R, but more common terminology. In the same way I would probably say "adrenaline rush" when we generally use the term epinephrine now, and not adrenaline. But more people are aware of adrenaline and not so many epinephrine.

And now for the Neurotic = depressed. You are so wrong on this. And I NEVER said it. You must have this little glitch in your thinking. Remember: all collies are dogs. But not all dogs are collies.

A person can be neurotic and not be depressed. And a person can be depressed and not be neurotic. Don't try and link the two again, or say that I said it. It will only make you look stupid.

Well you weren't sarcastic but your dig with me looking stupid certainly was charitable. :)

Does depression fit under the term neurosis, Charity? Yes, or no? I recognize there are subcategories of the term neurosis. I think I've stated that approximately FIVE TIMES NOW!!!!!!!!!

What is YOUR definition of neurosis, Charity?

Please explain what TYPE of neurosis (or explain the term neurosis) to define a young woman that is abandoned and seeks love from liaisons with various men -- then explain to me how this is rape when I've clearly shown (REPEATEDLY) that neurosis does not harm ones ability to reason. Thanks.

by the way, why shouldn't I try to link the two? Depression (as well as other disorders) is defined under the broader definition of neurosis. Please explain how there is no link. YOU state that a woman suffering from neurosis is incapable of giving consent and is raped. I mention that DEPRESSION falls under the category of neurosis. Do you get it?

Let's make this simple. Collies fit under the classification of dog. Depression (as well as other anxiety disorders) fit under the term neurosis. Therefore YOU were the one that used the broad term and that encompasses all the things under it. It's as if you saying that "Dogs are stinky" and I reply with "Collies aren't always stinky when they're bathed" and then you saying, "I didn't SAY Collies". Get that?

[_beastie]

You anti-'s keep telling us that nominal church membership does not mean active, committed LDS. So if Utah is 55% Mormon, but less than half of them are active, as you guys often say, then that means that 25% of the state is patriarchal, and the other 75% isn't. So how is a higher than avereage incidence of rape in Utah a statement about patrairchal societies in the first place?

First, I have to get over my shock that you actually made a relevant point. But I must correct you on one point. “We anti’s” (anti=someone who criticizes the LDS faith) keep telling you that the numbers obtained from church rolls also include people who no longer consider themselves Mormon, do not believe in Mormonism in anyway, but haven’t taken their names off the rolls. But this obviously does not constitute the entire number of people who are not active. There are many, many, inactive LDS who still believe in the basic teachings of Mormonism.

Please also notice that I haven’t targeted Mormonism in specific, but rather conservative social attitudes, often stemming from a conservative religion, that are more closely aligned with patriarchal beliefs than liberal areas. Utah, regardless of church activity, falls under this category just like many other red states that share this problem of higher than average rape rates. I would assume you would agree that Utah is a socially conservative state overall, outside of the issue of church activity. It’s hard to deny that, although you have denied some things that I would never have expected anyone to deny, so who knows.

My former comment:

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.

Charity’s off the wall reply:

Marriage rates among Muslims, whom I suppose your would find extremely patriarchal, are higher than in any major western country. The Q'ran teaches that marriage is a ncessity of the faith. Ths isn't infor from western societies.

What in the heck? What in the world does marriage rates among Muslims have to do with my question? You keep telling me you aren’t getting your information “out of ether”, that you have studies you are basing your conclusions on, and that these are sound studies that controlled for unreported rapes. You keep telling me this without providing any of these studies for review. You provided George Mason’s brochure, which stated right on it that “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.”

So I have every right to be suspicious of your claims. The one study you provided did not say what you claimed it said. There was no information on the brochure that claimed it controlled for unreported rape. I want to know what your studies are that controlled for unreported rape in these extremely patriarchal societies, and how they did so, particularly given how difficult it would be for surveyors to access females.

Why is it that you have yet to offer even one of those studies?

My former comment:

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.

Charity’s off-the-wall comment

Beastie, I am only one person here trying to keep up with pages long shotgun posts by you and monikder. If you want me to respond back, post the whole thing. I am not going back over 7 pages to find some small little thing. If you want me to answer, ask the whole question, not just a "what about it" fly by.

Again, I say, WTF? I’m not even asking you a question. I’m pointing out that you don’t even follow your own supposed definition. You don’t really think that the determining factor in whether or not a woman’s been raped is if she thinks she has been raped, because you have mentioned several cases wherein the woman thought she was raped, but wasn’t.

My former comment:

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?

Charity:

Please do not confound things. What is rape and what is provable in a court of law are two different things. Do you think a person is only guilty if the jury finds him so? Sounds like the ditzy student I had who thought O.J. really didn't kill his ex-wife and friend because the jury voted him not guilty. What a laugh.

If the woman knows she has been raped, it doesn't matter whether or not police will prosecute it, or if a jury will convict.

If a woman has lived her entire life being told that something can only be called rape if there are four witnesses, this will color her own definition of the word, and whether or not she will consider herself to have been raped.

You’ve really taught sociology classes? My god.

[_beastie]

This is what you have done consistently in this thread. So now, I have proven to you what you have been doing.

You haven't proven a thing except that you're not capable of even following through on the ramifications of your OWN arguments, and when people point them out to you, you still don't get it. You don't seem to form coherent theories on anything, you respond to the current post in front of you in anyway that seems to refute the post, even if you contradict your comments earlier on the same thread.

I'd really like to know what possible purpose you've had for, throughout this entire thread, repeatedly bringing up examples of false rape charges and now promiscuity.

[_beastie]

Charity doesn't really think that a "neurotic" (her words) promiscuious young woman seeking love through sex is not capable of giving consent. She just put together a very poorly thought out argument that she thought could get her out of admitting that women are sometimes raped and do not know they've been raped, or would not call it rape.

I have no idea why she's so attached to this particular argument, because she doesn't even apply it herself. She keeps referring to women who thought they were raped, but weren't, so clearly the woman's view on the event is not the determining factor Charity is pretending it is.

This is why debating with Charity is maddening. She just thinks of ad hoc on the fly responses without taking care to have an overall coherency behind her argument. Those of us expecting such coherency are constantly confused by her statements, because they don't make sense as a larger whole.

[_beastie]

I almost said something really sarcastic. You should know about using terminology that they follow patterns. Larger categoies are broken down into smaller ones. Things branch out. They aren't always in a straight line.

I was not using DSM-IV-R, but more common terminology. In the same way I would probably say "adrenaline rush" when we generally use the term epinephrine now, and not adrenaline. But more people are aware of adrenaline and not so many epinephrine.

And now for the Neurotic = depressed. You are so wrong on this. And I NEVER said it. You must have this little glitch in your thinking. Remember: all collies are dogs. But not all dogs are collies.

A person can be neurotic and not be depressed. And a person can be depressed and not be neurotic. Don't try and link the two again, or say that I said it. It will only make you look stupid.

LOL!

Well, I'm laughing, but the fact that you teach sociology and psychology courses somewhere is disturbing.

[_Blixa]

If a woman has lived her entire life being told that something can only be called rape if there are four witnesses, this will color her own definition of the word, and whether or not she will consider herself to have been raped.

You’ve really taught sociology classes? My god.

I ceased participating in this thread because of this very problem beastie. charity's arguments depend on what could be called a kind of vulgar positivism: she screams about "data" and "studies," but fails to see that these are dependent on interpretation and in fact are meaningless outside of an interpretive matrix---the "definitions" and "narratives" she dismissed pages ago. Thinking theoretically---addressing the level of explanatory concepts---is not only thoroughly divorced from the empirical level of analysis for charity, its incomprehensible. Of course, its unavoidable, and the return of the repressed---the irruption of the conceptual---is marked in those places where her arguments collapse into contradiction and confusion, places you've very patiently marked out beastie.

Your original question, beastie, about how to account for what seem to be high rape statistics in Utah, remains an interesting one. It might be worthwhile to subdivide various facets of the topic for more individual and focused discussion in separate or separate threads, but that is likely too belabored for message board discussion, too. Either way despite some interesting and insightful individual posts, this thread has become too convoluted to yield much satisfaction to anyone pursuing the OP. I wonder if that wasn't the point of charity's intervention after all.

[_harmony]

Either way despite some interesting and insightful individual posts, this thread has become too convoluted to yield much satisfaction to anyone pursuing the OP. I wonder if that wasn't the point of charity's intervention after all.

I disagree. I think discussion is still possible. All that needs to be done is to cease following charity's rabbit trails, and stay consistently on topic. Otherwise, she has accomplished her assigned task: distort, minimize, redirect, reframe... do whatever is necessary to deflect criticism away from the church.

[_beastie]

I think that the first task is to try and determine whether the higher than average rates are due to higher levels of child molestation or due to higher rates of rapes of adult females, or both.

I haven't had time to read the links given here, yet, but am going ahead and posting it in case others are interested in reading more.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:1F ... d=32&gl=us

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm

[_Blixa]

Either way despite some interesting and insightful individual posts, this thread has become too convoluted to yield much satisfaction to anyone pursuing the OP. I wonder if that wasn't the point of charity's intervention after all.

I disagree. I think discussion is still possible. All that needs to be done is to cease following charity's rabbit trails, and stay consistently on topic. Otherwise, she has accomplished her assigned task: distort, minimize, redirect, reframe... do whatever is necessary to deflect criticism away from the church.

Point taken. And frankly I'm happy enough that the thread has generated some interesting and useful ideas for some people, if not all. That's the best that can be hoped for in any discussion, anyway! Carry on!