An overarching sense of justice runs through Mormon beliefs. “And thus we see” is usually followed by a nightmare scenario for those who weren’t listening to God in the first place. Our young women stand and chant a mantra every week that includes embracing the virtue of “Choice & Accountability.” And if you paid any attention to the comments on Steve Evans’ post about BYU & rape allegations at BCC (which Mike Austin pointed to as to why more women don’t report their assaults) you noticed that quite a few members of the Church think being sexually assaulted is a natural consequence of breaking the Honor Code.
Since medieval times women have typically been represented as two opposite tropes: either the virginal Mary or the temptress Eve (you should read more about this in Andrea Radke-Moss’ post on patriarchy at JI, which you must read, if you haven’t yet). The notion has long been a part of any cultural psyche based on patriarchy.
In our Mormon culture it plays out in various ways, for this post I’ll use the example of our modesty rhetoric. Two years ago Elder Callister asserted, “In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.” There’s a notion that “if you dress like a lady you will be treated like a lady.” I’ve often heard it in Mormon circles as “if you want to be treated with respect you should respect yourself with how you dress.” Implied in that statement is an approval for men to treat women poorly based on how they dress, ie “you have also given up every right to complain if they don’t treat you with dignity” if your dress doesn’t meet some unnamed “standard” that is different in everyone’s mind (see the leggings vs skinny jeans pants debate).
Based on dress, we sort women into a Mary/Eve dichotomy and then have implied approval to treat them accordingly. Culture is saying, “This is your natural consequence for dressing like that/dancing like that/flirting with him/acting a certain way/etc.” Problem is, there is not one woman who is a Mary or an Eve. Every single woman (and man) I know is filled with a mix of good/bad, light/dark, and virtue/vice. There could be a variety of reasons for a woman, for example, to dress less modestly. She may have problems at home & family or in their upbringing, she could be trying to get attention and have low self-esteem, or she may even just be wearing something they think is 
appropriate but you think isn’t (many times this is due just to how clothes fit curvy women). Secular feminists often argue that even if they are walking around naked, it is not reasonable that a natural consequence is sexual assault. In a religious perspective, regardless of the reasons someone dresses the way they do — why would we think that any person “deserves” to be treated with less dignity? If we are all children of God, we all deserve to be treated as children of God – regardless of what we wear (or say or do or act).
I just wanted to make a quick point about what the people speaking up on behalf of victims are attempting to accomplish. For too long sexual violence has been seen as a natural consequence for a woman’s small choices. What advocates are trying to do is shift the definition of natural consequence to the perpetrators. Instead of saying “what did he/she expect” when someone is assaulted we should say “what did he/she expect” when they are punished for the assault. We aren’t saying there should be no consequences for actions, we just finally want consequences to be applied to the greater offense (and really if you understand the emotional/psychological effects of being victimized this way you wouldn’t want a victim to go through further trauma).
Right now at the BYUs we have the unintended consequence of people being able to get away with serial assault by putting others in compromising situations (re honor code). I understand people’s reluctance to give blanket immunity to anyone who reports an assault, but I also think we need to acknowledge that law enforcement often waives their right to prosecute smaller crimes in exchange for testimony against someone who has committed the greater crime. This is industry standard. Knowing what kind of uphill battle that would be, my ideal compromise would be to have the Honor Code office waive any investigation whatsoever on a victim, but to just place a warning on their file. Yes, we should be willing to set aside our ability to seek justice and instead show forth an outpouring of mercy. Radical stuff.
PS An important thing to note in this whole debate is that even in cultures where women are required to or choose to cover up a great deal, there is still an incredibly high incidence of rape and sexual violence.[1]
PPS a next natural step for us to help correct this in our culture is to teach that sexuality isn’t to be feared, it’s natural and completely controllable. It is completely within every single person’s power to stop if they are told to stop – at any point. I know of a Mormon man who sexually assaulted someone I know in their youth said “I had come to believe the feelings inside me were an uncontrollable monster that couldn’t be stopped.”
PPS last thing I promise: many people are just confused by what the definition of rape is – they still think a rapist is only someone dressed in black hiding behind a tree that will jump out and get you. Most people are raped by someone they know and trust – and I’d argue that especially in Mormonism, many men who rape (emotionally, verbally, or physically coerce someone) don’t know that they have done so. So the argument to start teaching men not to rape is a good one, especially because it’s been done in Canada, and it led to a 10% decrease in sexual assaults in one year. Source here.
Wheat & Tares 
…women have typically been represented as two opposite tropes: either the virginal Mary or the temptress Eve…
Men, too — either followers of God or followers of Satan.
Mormon men are already taught not to rape. Generally, Mormon men are not rapists. I think we need to keep a bright-line definition of rape — not a wishy-washy, in-the-mind-of-the-victim subjective definition.
A woman who has been raped has not violated the BYU honor code.
When I read about the BYU honor code and the “law of chastity”, I’m reminded of Jeff Goldblum’s quote from Jurassic Park, “Life… um… finds a way.”
No power on Earth–including the LDS church–is going to stop a bunch of hormone-crazed kids from making out, having sex, masturbating, or doing pretty much whatever they like.
The fact is that the LDS Church’s theology and Mormon culture devalues women relative to men, despite all the patriarchal crap about “putting women on a pedestal” and giving women busy work to make them feel important.
As long as that theology and culture persists, women will continue to be victimized with impunity. Frankly, as ingrained as it is in the church, I have no hope for any fundamental changes. It’s at the core of the church.
The best analogy I heard on this is that calling rape sex is like calling someone hitting you over the head with a frying pan cooking.
The response of the so-called Title IX coordinator at BYU was alarmingly bad. She doesn’t seem to understand Title IX, and she certainly has no empathy for victims of rape. I don’t understand why she wasn’t fired immediately for boasting that punishing Honor Code violations committed by rape victims had a chilling effect on reporting. Victims have claimed that she stated her opinion to them (rape victims) that nearly all rape accusations are made up. Why on earth is anyone entrusting her in this role? Do they want a law suit?
Jezebel did an excellent write up on this: http://jezebel.com/theyre-emboldening-my-rapist-sexual-assault-victims-at-1771222098
Rapists will use whatever they can from the ambient culture to discourage their victims from reporting, including threats of turning their victim in to the Honor Code Office. Why is BYU enabling rapists to do so? Is it because they agree with Westerberg that most rape accusations are fictional? Do they care more about protecting men than protecting women?
@hawkgrrl
The slick looking fake YouTube interview with BYU prez Worthen speaks volumes. Notice how the woman is dressed “modestly” in a pink floral outfit from the 1950’s, speaks in a “primary voice”, and sits in an oddly slouched submissive posture. Meanwhile, the president wears his dark power suit and sits up tall in his chair. Both have exaggerated, fake “concerned” expressions. The softball questions and smarmy answers are mostly designed to deflect a lawsuit and get PR points, not to express any genuine remorse or desire for change.
Great post! Well said.
“a natural consequence of breaking the honor code”
I know that many people believe that such thinking is a form of judgementalism, born of a sense of derision or disdain, and that others believe it is an uncaring response born of callous indifference to suffering consequences.
However, I think we need to understand that, at its heart, such responses are born of a sense of frightening inability to prevent horrific possibilities. Every woman who reads the news fears rape and never feels completely protected from the possibility of it happening to her. Every man who has a sister or mother feels unable to completely, at all times, protect her against that possibility as well.
Normal human response: When something you fear happening to you or someone you love happens to someone else, the brain has three instinctive options. 1. Vindictive rage. 2. Huge increase of fear. 3. False emotional safeguards through the creation of a belief that if you, or those dear to you, do not do something the victim did, you and they will be safe.
Our brains create these responses in all cases of horrible tragedy, not just rape. None of them are healthy responses.
I believe that it is only when we recognize these flawed, instinctive responses in ourselves for what they are (desperate, common, knee-jerk, human attempts to deal with horrifying possibilities beyond our ability to completely prevent) that we are empowered to see them clearly and consciously move from them to compassion and effective, helpful, empowering action.
As long as people are unaware of the root reasons behind their responses and do not address those, it is extremely difficult for them to change their responses. So I believe that teaching people to recognize those in themselves is essential if we wish for people to change.
MB: I recognize that people who think the honor code will protect you from any harm are doing so out of fear and a wish to control horrific events and prevent them from happening. But to a victim of assault, that sounds exactly like victim blaming. If only they had been more righteous, this terrible thing would not have happened to them. That’s one small step removed from “You deserved that.”
“Sexuality isn’t to be feared, it’s natural and completely controllable. It is completely within every single person’s power to stop if they are told to stop – at any point.”
I disagree with this statement. From a male point of view, sexually easily gets out of control. It is, as Alain de Botton described, “an anarchic and reckless power…we will never entirely surmount the difficulties it throws our way.”
If men are violating or raping women, that is obviously the man’s problem. They need to learn how to control the “anarchic and reckless” forces within them. But women should at least recognise that these anarchic and reckless forces are stirred up by their presence.
This should empower women. They should be proud of the fact that they can create chemical fireworks in a man’s brain simply by what they chose to wear, say, or act. It is an amazing and wonderful power. There is nothing more chemically glorious for a man than being in the presence of a beautiful woman who is giving him her attention.
None of this is to say a woman has any blame in a rape. But women should never be so naive as to think that their presence has no chemical effect on a man, or that a male arousal is simply a matter of choice or rational calculation.
Should men also not be naive about the chemical effect of their bodies and attentions on women? Legions of women have done reckless, impetuous things under these influences. Are we really that different?
The conversations and comments revolving around the post at BCC were a not so surprising mixture of enlightened and medieval. I think the church/BYU has a huge problem here, not just because of what Kristine A and hawkgrrrl point out, but because of things embedded in our very core doctrine, as Elder Anderson points out. IMHO, a few things that prevent BYU and the LDS Church from understanding the proper responses to rape and other types of sexual assault are the following:
1. Elder A mentions the law of chastity. Our discourse around sex and sexuality is extremely unhealthy. We’ve got to stop this association of sex with being second only to murder (actually untrue if that passage in Alma is read carefully) and the church should immediately condemn The Miracle of Forgiveness. The way the church teaches/talks about sex (absolute, unwavering abstinence) means that neither our young men nor young women are regularly hearing (unless they’ve got extremely enlightened Mormon parents) anything about what consent is or what sexual assault/rape is, much less any kind of healthy attitudes towards sex or their own bodies. We’re raising dangerously naive young people and that’s clearly having a negative impact, not just at BYU. I teach college and I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that every single one of my students, especially the young women, know more about safe sex, consent, the definition of rape/sexual assault and how to report it than any young person (or, for that matter, any fifty-year old male leader) in our church. That indicates that we’re doing our young people an incredible disservice.
2. The unfortunate tendency to associate black and white thinking with a “higher” morality: I think that’s where we get the “natural consequence” argument that cuts both ways. There are those who believe that following the honor code = not getting raped and those who believe that not following the honor code = an acceptable response to someone who was raped being “well, you’re experiencing the natural consequences of not following the honor code.” This black and white mindset is extremely damaging, I think. It’s especially so when the victim has internalized this notion to such a degree that she/he feels like they can’t report a rape or that it’s their fault. I don’t know how the church that bears the name of Jesus Christ manages to consistently go Old Testament on these matters, but we seem to. Again, to the detriment of our young people.
3. The apparently ingrained notion that all rapists are raving psychopaths dressed as ninjas and all you have to do to avoid them is stay on a well-lit path at night. Somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of sexual assaults are incidents where the victim knows the perpetrator. I think one thing that inhibits the BYU/LDS response to sexual assault and makes victim blaming much more likely in our culture is the bizarre notion of Mormon exceptionalism. Many members of the church believe that we are a “peculiar people” in the sense that we’re different (read: better) than other folks because we have “the truth.” I think there’s a connection between that kind of arrogance and victim blaming that might go something like this: “Oh, we don’t have that problem in our church/at BYU because we’re a Zion people and Zion people don’t do those sorts of things.” I think you see some of this in the crowing some BYU PR people are doing about the low number of sexual assaults at BYU. What they miss is that the “reported” number of sexual assaults is likely nowhere near the “actual” number of sexual assaults.
What’s the solution to all of this? I don’t think there is one. BYU will feel some heat and hopefully change things for the better, but the “law” of chastity will never be changed to the “suggestion” of chastity, women will always be seen as “less than” in our church and we’ll continue, as a church, to not talk about anything that makes us uncomfortable, meaning we won’t bat an eyelash at all of the violence and death in the Book of Mormon, but we won’t want to discuss anything regarding sex unless it’s to condemn anything we see as deviating from the Mormon “norm.” I’m definitely with Elder Anderson regarding the near impossibility of any fundamental changes.
Hawkgirl,
You misread my comment.
I did not said that they were not victim blaming. They are. I merely said that until people recognize that their erroneous thinking that causes them to blame or says “natural consequences” is based on a unrecognized and fierce psychological need to reduce their own sense of vulnerability and give themselves a sense of control over their own safety or the safety of those they feel responsible for. Safety is a primal need.
Rational recognition of why you, personally, independent of any institution or culture you are part of, are engaging in misguided or hurtful responses based on fear or a fear of losing control of a situation, is potently helpful, even essential, in getting yourself to stop responding in that misguided or hurtful way when horrible things happen to others.
The problem is not institution or religion specific. The responses you decry are found all over the world because they are part of universally applied, psychologically derived, responses to ANY horrific perpetration of violence.
Changing institutions may help somewhat. But because the source of the wrong response is seated in personal fear, not dogma, changing institutions or dogma will not be sufficient.
Until people recognize WHY they are blaming, they will not cease to blame, either verbally or silently, no matter how much one rags on them, or an institution preaches to them to shape up and stop it.
@Nate
“Sexuality isn’t to be feared, it’s natural and completely controllable. It is completely within every single person’s power to stop if they are told to stop – at any point.”
Nate, I will take your point even further….
Personally, I wish people would stop thinking rape has *anything* to do with sex. It doesn’t. It’s about power, control, anger, and debasement. Hawk’s frying pan analogy is correct.
@MB
You talk about the “psychological need to reduce vulnerability” and say that egregious behavior isn’t religion- or institution-based, but a universal response to tragedy. Mr. T would say “Don’t give me no jibberjabber!”
Victim blaming is *entirely* within our control. We don’t need to wait for some epiphany about our psychological need to reduce vulnerability. Frankly, that is nonsense.
Victim blaming will stop when those doing the blaming disconnect sexual abuse from sex. It will stop when men and women stop teaching children to view women as inferior, passive, powerless objects. It will stop when we stop victimizing women and girls with ridiculous (and useless) rules about modesty, female roles, and chastity. We are not powerless to fix this. We can start right here and now.
@MB
“Every man who has a sister or mother feels unable to completely, at all times, protect her against that possibility as well.”
Really? I don’t feel that way at all. Ingrained attitudes like this are part of the problem. Why assume that the male role is to protect women? Why wouldn’t women protect themselves or protect men?
This is not about some vague “theory” around underlying psychology. It has nothing to do with understanding the reasons. It has everything to do with a concious and sustained effort to change wrong-headed, archaic attitudes.
“This should empower women. They should be proud of the fact that they can create chemical fireworks in a man’s brain simply by what they chose to wear, say, or act.”
This line of thinking absolutely, unequivocally does not empower women! Telling women that their choices about their own body set of uncontrollable desires in men oppresses women. It tells women that men cannot control themselves, so it is the woman’s job to control them. It tells women that intense sexual feelings are only for men and if they have those feeling, they are wrong. It tells women that men see us for what we look like and wear and everything else is less important. It tells women that if they are naturally sexy and beautiful, they are dangerous to men no matter what they do. It tells women that if they are naturally not sexy that they have no power because sexuality is their only power. I can’t think of a line of reasoning that is less empowering to women. It is only empowering in a culture that refuses to give women any voice, opportunity or power. It is only empowering if the only way for a woman to have any control over her life is to sexually manipulate the patriarchy.
Also, when you teach men that sexuality empowers a woman, you are encouraging them to think that any time they find a woman sexy, she is in control and the man is not. You teach men that when they feel those chemical reactions they are powerless toward women who have all the power. This easily becomes, “any woman I find attractive has the power so when I rape her, she was in control of the whole situation and I was not.” Victim blaming.
While I absolutely agree with much of the concern around this issue and that the compassionate treatment of any victim should be top priority, I am not quite following some of the logic, such as
“Implied in that statement is an approval for men to treat women poorly based on how they dress,”
I don’t see the “implication” there.
We preach the Word of Wisdom, and require it for temple entrance. But if a smoker in the congregation gets lung cancer, people don’t say that they deserve it or treat them and their families with less dignity than any bereaved. People bring casseroles, offer support, and treat them as they would any other member.
Why is there an “implication” with women’s dress but not other things?
And while Justice is important to Mormons, Mercy is even more important.
Of course the men should be punished, first and foremost. But I think there should be room for encouraging women to be wise in their dress while yet NEVER blaming them. It’s not either/or.
Even outside of the church there is discussion of the messages that women send with their dress. BEGIN AGAIN was an R-rated movie, but Greta takes Violet shopping to find a more appealing/modest look.
Nate, I think we can take it for granted that physical attraction has a heavy biochemical basis, but you cannot divorce that chemistry from the issue of accountability. Even Christ admonished men that if they were to lust after a woman in their own minds, they’d commit adultery. There is clearly a difference between attraction and lust.
The relationship you’re describing is one of mutual respect, mutual awareness, mutual attraction. What about when a woman is unaware of the effect she is causing in a man? Is she to be held accountable? What about if a child is unaware of the effect he or she is causing in an adult? Is he or she to be held accountable for their sexual response? At some point you’ve got to recognize that in Western developed nations we now consider it inappropriate to expect a person to consciously worry about the possible sexual responses they are eliciting in others.
You can’t boil everything down to biology because we know that there’s a heavy cultural factor. One of the sticky issues with the current refugees coming into Europe is the cultural differences related to sexuality. Men coming from cultures where women were expected to hide their bodies for fear of arousing men suddenly were dumped in a culture where a woman’s attire was treated very differently… and big problems with rapes and assaults have been reported. When a culture dictates that a woman’s appearance bears the burden for a man’s actions, men are much less accountable. That attitude doesn’t go over as well when they are then dumped in a culture where men are expected to be accountable for their sexual actions regardless of what a woman (or child) is wearing. Culture plays a big role, and our Mormon culture tends to lean closer to that which the refugees are coming from.
“should be room for encouraging women to be wise in their dress”
There is no room for this archaic attitude whatsoever. Both men and women can dress anyway they like within local ordinances. It’s our job as parents and as a society to empower men and women and treat them the same. So long as the LDS Church and Mormon culture perpetuates the stereotypes that women are–in any way–inferior or less powerful than men, there will be men who feel they can abuse women. It starts with the law of chastity teaching young kids that masturbation is sinful, that bare shoulders are immodest, that women and are responsible for moderating male sex drive, that rape is a sex act, rather than an act of violence, and that female rape victims are somehow to blame for male criminal behavior. It continues into adulthood with institutions and culture that give males all the power and gives superficial lip service to empowering women–and that as a grudging concession to societal pressure.
As far as teaching women to be wise in their dress goes, I don’t think there is anything wrong with teaching people to dress appropriately for what they are doing. I’m not going to wear a suit when I’m gardening. I’m not going to wear my bathing suit to work. I’m not going to spend exorbitant amounts on clothing while my kids go starving. These are all fine things to teach children. There are rules about dress and teaching children to respect dress codes is not necessarily a bad thing. But sex and rape should not be tied in with education of proper dress.
@EBK
I understood Naismith’s “dressing wisely” remark to refer to Mormon modesty standards for women, e.g. https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng
I think most kids figure out they shouldn’t wear their nice clothes to play in the mud with very little prompting. This makes perfect sense, and doesn’t need to be taught for the most part.
Mormons *purposely* teach young girls rules about “modesty” as a means of indoctrinating them at a very young age. It’s essentially telling young girls that they are responsible for moderating male behavior. It’s a root cause of the LDS victim blaming mentality.
“Personally, I wish people would stop thinking rape has *anything* to do with sex. It doesn’t. It’s about power, control, anger, and debasement. Hawk’s frying pan analogy is correct.”
Why do I keep hearing people say this nonsense? There are any number of motivations for any crime (or any other action for that matter) and to say that a powerful impulse such as sexual lust has nothing to do with rape is ludicrous. Clearly, sexual lust plays a role in some percentage of rapes.
Hot topics such as rape illicit blanket statements that make it really difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Reasonable people identify them and often decide there’s no point in trying to interact with people who espouse them.
If a US man staggers out of a bar at 3 am in Cartagena, Columbia, and gets mugged in a dangerous neighborhood far from his hotel because he was too drunk to find his way back, what are people to think? Clearly, a person shouldn’t get mugged under any circumstances, and bad neighborhoods should not exist, and most especially people should be taught not to hurt each other. Yet, there’s less sympathy for such a person because he acted against travel advice and common sense. This lack of sympathy is victim-blaming. Perhaps the muggers’ mindsets are similar in that they even justify themselves by thinking such a person is too stupid to deserve to keep his money. But does that mean I’m contributing to crime-culture when I insist to my co-worker that he not do that on his next business trip, or when I don’t have much sympathy for him when he does it anyway and gets mugged? And, I’d probably have even less sympathy if it happened because he was wondering around trying to buy some weed.
But it’s more than that. There are criminals that have decided on a life of crime, and there are criminals who succumb to a moment of weakness. The two criminals can have performed the exact same act and yet not at all be the same threat to society. The justice system (in many places) recognize the different. There’s a concept of “entrapment”, and police departments are sometimes forbidden to practice certain techniques of rounding up criminals, because the system doesn’t want to entice people into criminal acts when they otherwise wouldn’t commit them.
Obviously, all of this relates to the arguments surrounding rape and “rape culture”. I agree that a woman should be able to dance on a table naked and not get raped. And I believe that a rapist is still a rapist even if she was lying on his bed fondling him before it happened. However, I disagree that I’m contributing to rape culture if I have less sympathy for the women in these situations. I also disagree that teaching modesty contributes to rape culture (though sometimes the manner it’s taught might).
BYU’s purported practice of involving the Honor Code Office in rape investigations is bad not because it’s immoral. Women who violate their sworn honor should be disciplined, and the fact that something bad happened to them doesn’t mean they’ve decided to change their character. BYU’s policy is bad because it prioritizes lesser offenses over preventing greater ones, which simply makes no sense.
Martin,
Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but it sounds like you’re implying that women who dress immodestly or go into boys rooms is similar to entrapment. Is that really what you are arguing?
Elder Anderson,
I’m aware that current LDS teachings on modesty are problematic. I just don’t think the solution is to tell people “wear whatever you want and there are no consequences!” There are consequences. The problem comes in when we tell people that rape is one of those consequences. That is wrong. Telling teenagers that they need to follow the dress code at school or they might get kicked out of an event is not rape culture. Telling a teenage girl that she needs to cover her shoulders because the boys can’t concentrate is rape culture.
Mostly I’m just bringing this up because in Utah lately there have been a ton of stories about how unfair it is for schools to enforce dress codes. I don’t think adults should be encouraging teenagers to think that anytime a rule is placed on them that their parents wouldn’t have placed on them, that it is morally wrong to enforce it.
“Why do I keep hearing people say this nonsense?”
People keep saying it to help combat ignorance. Your opinion that it’s nonsense differs from that of mainstream scientists who study it for a living.
Unfortunately for Mormonism and its archaic views on human sexuality, if rape is seen as an act of violence, rather than a sex act, then Mormons can no longer blame rape victims. They’ll be forced to admit that the blame rests squarely on the male perpetrator.
I suppose that explains the LDS church’s resistance.
Dressing immodestly is definitely not entrapment for rape. Dressing immodestly can inspire thoughts and send messages that wouldn’t otherwise be there, though. It’s a continuum, but entrapment is way on one end. Dressing provocatively is also on a continuum, though, and I guess you could put dancing naked on the table toward one end as well.
Everything we do affects someone else, including the way we dress, and therefore it should figure in to how and whether we do it.
Elder Anderson, you speak of ignorance. Google “cause of rape” and you will find that the experts talk about all sorts of reasons which vary from case to case. You sure you’re so educated and not just repeating a mantra?
Martin,
Yes everything we do affects someone else, but not always in the ways we think it will. We cannot predict the ways we are going to affect people, so punishing women for their unknown affect on men is flat out wrong. Expecting women to cater their dress so that they affect the fewest people possible causes more harm than good.
@Martin
“You sure you’re so educated and not just repeating a mantra?”
I am 100% sure I am not just repeating a mantra. I am 100% sure that the expert consensus is that rape is an act of violence and aggression.
I’m finally having time to jump back into the comments and I think I’m going to surprise myself by agreeing with Naismith and Martin (in certain ways):
Naismith: I agree that mercy is important to mormons but because of our focus on choices & consequences, we have a tendency to want to make sure everyone gets their just consequences, and to let “justice” off easy would be to defy a natural law. We often struggle letting mercy trump justice when they’re at odds.
The reason why implied blaming is in our modesty rhetoric and not other situations is bc we have built it to be so, from the top we get statements “most women get the type of man they dress for.” This perception filters down to the masses. Back when I actually posted and discussed things on facebook I was inundated by mormon men asserting their rights to “not respect women if they show they can’t respect themselves” and “they deserve being treated like trash if they dress to attract the pigs.”
I do agree with you that there is not an either/or. There are many feminists that believe modesty shouldn’t be taught at all, I believe it should just be taught differently (agreeing w Martin, our rhetoric contributes to rape culture but not the principle). And yes we should inform women with statistics and probabilities, sure. But that should be 10% of rape prevention compared to 90% working on the cause of rape.
Which brings me to Martin, I also agree with you that rape is sometimes about sex because of the confusion on what the definition of rape and consent are. Let’s say a guy is worked up and in the middle of getting it on when the girl withdraws consent and changes her mind – men often justify the decision of force bc they’ve been taught girls mean yes when they say no, or because they believe the messages they received earlier continue to count as consent (she flirted w me, touched me, took her shirt off etc.) and many people still believe that consent is an accumulation of messages – that’s what we need to change…it doesn’t matter that they’d communicated yes earlier, once a no is communicated (physically, verbally, etc.) anything beyond that point is rape. I think our biggest road block to progress right now is not agreeing what rape and what consent is. When surveys are done specifically about if someone has raped the responses are close to zero, but when the question is have you had sex with someone who couldn’t say yes or no the answers are much higher. I think one survey I read said a question was asked if a girl was passed out and you could have sex wo consent and no one would ever know….35% of respondents said yes they’d do it. But once you label it rape many people say “I’m not that guy.”
So I agree there can be rapists with a variety of different reasons. Serial rapists could have different motives from guys who think they have consent (but don’t). And while I agree that power is a main factor in sexual assaults, I think it comes in the form of entitlement and what they deserve. There are plenty of men who understand what rape and consent are and don’t care.
PS I agree w Brother Sky upthread that many non-mormon youth are receiving this education (what consent is) but ours aren’t – and it will make us more vulnerable to the issue going forward.
“We cannot predict the ways we are going to affect people, so punishing women for their unknown affect on men is flat out wrong. Expecting women to cater their dress so that they affect the fewest people possible causes more harm than good.”
EBK, where do I start? First, to suggest that women dressing immodestly has an unknown effect on men is ludicrous. It clearly has an effect, the effect is well-known, and many women do it precisely to achieve that effect. The fact that it’s an average effect and isn’t the same for any given man at any given time doesn’t diminish it’s reality. Second, who’s punishing women for dressing immodestly? All All I said was that they ought to be taught to do so, and thirdly, that’s hardly the same as teaching them to cater to men.
Women don’t dress immodestly for the same reasons. Some are just clueless (generally younger ones), some are trying to get attention, and some are just more comfortable with less clothing and don’t care what effect it has on others (which can be inconsiderate, but there are trade-offs).
I’m convinced that immodesty creates a rape culture as well. I remember a House episode where the good doctor commented to an intern in a low-cut shirt “Nice breasts”. And then, at her shocked expression, “What? You clearly wanted me to notice or you wouldn’t have put them out there like that”. It seems to me that rape culture consists of the “wink, wink”, boys will be boys, the girl asked for it, and so on, but it also consists of de-humanizing people by reducing them to their body parts. How much easier is it to harm someone and focus on one’s own arousal when their humanity has been reduced in your eyes? Immodesty contributes to this, especially when done intentionally, and it must contribute to the environment and attitudes that lead to and allow for rape.
Martin,
To assume that immodesty leads to rape culture is rape culture itself. In your House example, it wasn’t that she was wearing a low cut shirt that is rape culture. Rape culture is that House thinks that anytime a woman makes a clothing choice to wear a lowcut shirt it is because she wants men to comment on her breasts. That is rape culture, not the low cut shirt.
Also, there are much higher rates of rape in cultures that focus on modesty. So immodesty seems to have to opposite affect on rape statistics that what you site.
The idea that women who don’t fit into your definition of modesty are clueless, attention seeking, or inconsiderate is asinine.
There is no Mormon rape culture. Mormon men are not taught or encouraged in any way to rape, to condone rape, to wink at rape, or anything else along this line. Anyone lies who suggests there is a Mormon rape culture.
Modesty is not taught solely to avoid rape — even where there is zero rape or possibility of rape, men and women, and boys and girls, should be taught to dress modestly. There is something bigger here that many posting here refuse to see.
Everywhere in the world, Latter-day Saints are affected by their broader cultures. But there is no Mormon rape culture.
@ji
“There is something bigger here that many posting here refuse to see.”
What is it?
Ji,
“[Y]oung women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.”- Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Pornography,” Ensign, May 2005 p. 90
This quote, along with many others, embodies rape culture. There is mormon rape culture. If you can’t see that, then you don’t really understand what rape culture is.
EBK, it’s a bit funny that one cannot even mention that immodestly dressed women are a sexual temptation for men without being accused of being part of rape culture. In my comment I said “this is obviously the man’s problem” and “none of this is to say that women have any blame in their rape.”
Yet I’m accused of being oppressive to women simply for pointing out an obvious biological fact. I don’t think anyone here, me or Martin, or any other men really mean to suggest that women are blameable for a rape if they wear a low cut dress. We would not hold them accountable in a court of law, and I don’t think any of us agree with BYU’s Honor Code policy. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Martin).
In fact, I would encourage a more lenient approach to modesty in the church, not because immodesty is not a temptation, but because men need to learn to deal with it as a fact of life. We are not very well inoculated. Utah has the lowest sales of bikinis, but the highest google searches of “bikini babes.” If Utah sold more bikinis, google searches for “bikini babes” would go down in Utah.
Sexual temptation is a biological fact. We can either accept that fact and learn to discipline and control sexuality, or we can pretend that it doesn’t exist, and that is completely unrelated to anything having to do with rape, which is a ridiculous assumption. It IS related. It is the man’s problem ultimately, and it is the man who is accountable ultimately, but how a woman dresses and acts IS related. I cannot understand this obsession with trying to erase sexual attraction from the discussion.
Women don’t have to dress modestly. It’s a free country. They shouldn’t feel guilty for wanting to be themselves and dress and act however they want to. But they should at least be aware of the relation their actions have to the sexual dynamics in relations between men and women.
Nate,
Of course men have a biological sexual response the women or men they are attracted to. I don’t think any comment I made disagrees with that. Your comment seems to ignore the fact that women also have this response. Men are not the only creatures in the world who have to avoid sexual temptation. When was the last lesson you had in church that told young men to dress modestly so as not to arouse temptation in the young women? We are only concerned about being considerate when it is men’s comfort involved.
My number one issue with your comment is that you think that women should feel empowered by the mostly unwanted male lust that is directed toward them. Trust me, it’s not empowering. I’m not denying it’s not a real thing, it’s just not empowering.
You say that women should be aware of the relation their actions have to the sexual dynamics in relations between men and women. Should men be aware of this too? Or is this only a female problem?
OK, EBK, maybe saying “empowered” in the feminist sense of the word was the wrong phrasing. What I meant to say is that sexual attraction is a kind of power, one that women can use to their advantage if they choose to do so. Not that it defines their whole identity, and not that it can’t become distracting and get out of control, but it is real power. It’s like the bird of paradise mating dance. Except in humans it’s not just about mating. Unconscious sexuality imbues nearly all male-female relationships, and understanding that adds richness to human interaction.
And of course men have recourse to similar sexual powers, although women generally respond to a different dimension of that power. Women don’t respond to immodestly dressed men in the same way that men respond to immodestly dressed women. Men and women are not equal. There is a very simple explanation for why pornography use is rampant among men, but not as much for women.
@Nate
Nobody says that dress is unrelated to sexual dynamics. Of course women and men dress so as to attract each other. Nobody would dispute that.
The problem is with Mormon teachings and culture that indoctrinate boys and girls from an early age about their respective roles as adults. It’s undeniable that messages to boys and girls about female modesty affect how women view themselves and how men view women.
What are those views? Men are leaders, earners, and protectors. Women are child bearing nurturers. It’s the responsibility of women to dress and behave so as not to arouse men. Men are not to blame for their lack of self control, and they are entitled to dominate women. Despite all the recent rhetoric to the contrary, that’s the fundamental message.
To assert that the act of rape is about sex flies in the face of current scientific thought. Perpetuating that idea contributes to victim blaming. There is no circumstance whatsoever in which the act of rape is about sex. There are no “shades of grey” where rape is somehow more excusable due to circumstances. It an act of violence, period, and the aggressor is always 100% to blame.
Elder Anderson, where do you get this strange idea that rape has nothing to do with sex? What is the science you are referring to? Everything I hear is that the line between consensual sex and rape is becoming so blurred that college kids these days sometimes take out contracts before engaging in intercourse, and generally try to stick to oral sex just to avoid what has become an EXTREMELY grey area.
@Nate
“Women don’t respond to immodestly dressed men in the same way that men respond to immodestly dressed women.”
Really? So you’re a man, but you’re somehow an expert on the inner sexual life of women and how they respond to women?
…. or perhaps it’s this kind of male presumption that creates the problem.
Nate,
“There is a very simple explanation for why pornography use is rampant among men, but not as much for women.”
I think you and I may disagree about what that simple explanation is.
I vote that it is mostly due to nurture, not nature.
@Nate
“Elder Anderson, where do you get this strange idea that rape has nothing to do with sex?”
Where do you get the strange idea that rape isn’t an act of violence and aggression and that there’s a “grey area” between consensual sex and rape. Your kind of thinking is just plain dangerous. I sure hope it doesn’t represent what Mormons teach their kids.
correction “… respond to men.”
@EBK
As a side note…. I found the bikini comment amusing. Having lived on both coasts, we noticed a distinct lack of beaches during our stay in Utah. 🙂
Elder Anderson, it’s a deal: you give me your science article that says rape has nothing to do with sex, and I’ll give you a link on the grey area between date rape and consensual sex being grappled with on college campuses.
@Nate
How about we each do our own research?
EBK, I would love to hear how your nurture theory accounts for the findings of the Fiske study, which shows that men’s brains (but not women’s brains) respond to images of immodestly dressed women in exactly the same way that they respond to images of tools.
@Nate
As I explained to you before, the study was about male objectification of women. The brain scans did *not* indicate men equated women and tools. The scans indicated that men began planning actions aimed at having sex when viewing women, and this pre-planning was similar to planning how to use tools.
Of course it’s entirely possible that a culture reinforcing objectification of women might reinforce certain brain patterns. Just because it’s a neural pattern doesn’t necessarily mean it’s inborn.
Furthermore, just because men go through planning activity when viewing women doesn’t mean it’s OK for a culture to encourage objectification of women.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/women-as-sex-objects-09-02-17/
Just to clarify my question, if men experience an unconscious biological “planning action” when viewing women, (that women do not experience with men), how can that be explained by EKB’s “nurture theory” which insists that there is no biological difference between the sexual response of men and women with regards to porn?
@Nate
EBK said “I vote that it is mostly due to nurture, not nature.”
That statement does not preclude an innate difference in the response to porn. It allows for both nature and nurture.
Thanks Elder A., I’m bowing out now…happy blogging everyone.
@Nate
Thanks, Nate. I’m gone, too. Have a good weekend.
I really enjoyed the Nate, EBK, EA back and forth and found myself liking some of each commenters comments as I read through the thread! All three present their arguments well!
I think the essence of this disagreement was explained by EBK in #37 My number one issue with your comment is that you think that women should feel empowered by the mostly unwanted male lust that is directed toward them. Trust me, it’s not empowering. Indeed! And the value of point was to his credit acknowledged but apparently not fully understood by Nate in #38.
So While I strongly agree with EBK #37 point I also think that Nate has a very good point and with the exception of the #37 issue argued it well in spite of it’s lacking in PC correctness! So I guess I agree with EBK but kudos to both Nate and EA.
I like sex. I like eating chocolate. I like watching comedies. But… would I like to have sex or eat chocolate or watch a comedy if I had to simultaneously hold somebody down and hurt them in order to do it? Absolutely not! Rape is sex, but it’s not just about sex. To rape somebody, you have to be willing to harm somebody in a very deliberate, physical, intimate, and ongoing way, because you are somehow able to derive personal gratification from that. I wish people would stop acting like rape is the result of ordinary sexy situations that have gone a bit to far. Anyone who can imagine enjoying sex at the expense of an unwilling partner needs some recalibration.
M,
You’re thinking of rape under the old definition. Under the old definition, the rapist knew he was committing rape, as would any objective bystander. Under the new definition of rape, well, it might depend on the subjective after-the-fact feelings of the female participant, and the male participant is sometimes surprised to learn he has been accused of rape. It’s a dangerous situation for a man, but if he keeps the law of chastity and avoids certain situations, he will probably (hopefully) be safe. Regrettably, there are no guarantees.
Rape (old definition) is always wrong. As with all crimes, we hope that potential victims will exercise care in protecting themselves. When a crime does occur, we hope for swift and fair execution of the laws. It’s a dangerous situation for a woman, but if she keeps the law of chastity and avoids certain situations, she will probably (hopefully) be safe. Regrettably, there are no guarantees.
Rape has always been sexual activity when consent has never been given or after it has been withdrawn. Period.
The only thing changing is we as a society are moving towards a higher moral standard where we realize we have to hold both partners more responsible for communicating consent and consequences for those actions. Not only do I want men taught they must stop at any moment, I want girls to know they must be clear in withdrawing consent. I want both parties to know they have the right to change their minds and say no at any moment and for that to be respected.
We are deciding we are no longer going to hold victims responsible. We will no longer tolerate bishops asking people who report: what were you wearing? Why did you choose to be alone with him? What did you do to give the boy the message that’s what you wanted? You need to take responsibility for doing that to that poor boy, what did you expect him to think?
And we won’t tolerate pop songs singing about “Blurred Lines” and how “you’re a good girl, but I know you want it.” If we teach young people to obtain affirmative consent and ever if you are unsure you need to verify. Yes, people are complaining this makes it less sexy, but I just think it makes it more sexy. “Are you sure” or “you still with me” are questions that just gives you an opportunity to show/say “yes I want you.”
And if that is going to cause conservatives to *itch and moan so be it. For too long we haven’t believed victims; very few of them ever come forward because how we treat them, and false accusations are very rare (depending on which study you believe they’re between 2-7%).
So yes, we need to have combined YW/YM activities where instead of saying “don’t get close to the line because you can’t control yourselves” we say “you have the right to say no or change your mind and say no at any time. You must be mindful in the choices you make, if you don’t want to be doing what you’re doing–stop it. You have a right to have that decision be respected”
And if anyone is unsure about what I mean by educating people what consent means, just watch this video. I’m not redefining it into blurry lines. I’m saying there are no blurry lines.
Just like when drinking tea w someone. There are no blurred lines there, either
Thanks, Kristine. However, and unfortunately, in our society the lines might be a little more blurred than you might think. I’ve read that some women say rape is where the woman felt regret, guilt, anger, or embarrassment after having consensual sex. I’ve also read that some women say every intimate encounter is an act of rape. And the states and the federal government redefine rape from time to time.
@ji
Rape is whatever the law says it is in the jurisdiction in which the rape occurs. If the sex was consensual as defined by the law, then a rape did *not* occur. It doesn’t matter whether a man or woman reports an encounter as rape or what “some women think”. There is no “blurred line”, only the law. If someone makes a false accusation of rape, that person answers to the law. If there’s a question of whether a rape occurred, the courts decide yes or no.
No, the government does not “redefine rape from time to time”. Government agencies may broaden the definition of rape for gathering statistics, but these changes do *not* affect local statutes, as explained here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape
There is no circumstance whatsoever where a victim is culpable for a rape. The aggressor is always the guilty party. The so-called “law of chastity” is meaningless in this context. It’s pretty obvious that abstaining from sexual encounters reduces the chance of rape…. not that *anybody* on a college campus is going to obey this “law” as long as they can get away with it.
Considering the law once contended that it was not possible for a man to rape his wife, I’m ok with governments changing the definition of rape when needed. The law also used to contend that it was impossible for a woman to be a rapist. I’m glad that is changing as well. Change is not equivalent to blurred lines. Often a change in laws creates much clearer lines.
@ Nate,
Regarding your question of men viewing women as tools:
I agree with elder Anderson that brain scans don’t equal nature. Nurture changes our brains. That study doesn’t prove nature over nurture. It just proves that something caused these men to think this way.
“like drinking tea w someone”
Iced tea or hot tea? 🙂
If someone makes a false accusation of rape, that person answers to the law.
That’s not true in a Title IX context — in a Title IX context, the “victim” can never be retaliated against, even if the report is proven to be untrue — the “victim” is always privileged and protected in a Title IX context.
@ji
“Title IX context”
Your post didn’t have a “Title IX” context. You said “in society” not “on a college campus”.
Even so, a falsely accused person can absolutely fight the accusation.
http://chronicle.com/article/Presumed-Guilty/148529/
Even in a Title IX case, there’s nothing stopping a victim of false reporting from pursuing a criminal or civil case.
Most importantly, false reports of rape are extremely rare anyway.
@ji
Finally, Title IX protects the victim from retaliation by the *school*. Obviously the accused is allowed to mount a defense against the accusations.
http://knowyourix.org/dealing-with/dealing-with-school-retaliation/