OK, I apologize in advance for this question, as I know it will be offensive to most everyone, including me, as I have teen aged daughters myself.

If Ms. Smart were a faithful Latter-day Saint child, why is she alive? Per Spencer W Kimball, it is better to die while defending your virtue. She obviously did not.

Or, has church doctrine/policy/opinion changed on this?

By the way, I personally think Kimball was a nut job. I have told my daughters I want them ALIVE, no matter what. I think they call that unconditional love.

She probably was to young to read "Miracle of Forgiveness" Here in CA. after SWK died I did not hear it talked about much in church anymore. So maybe she did not either

And they don't hold up in real life situations, fortunately.

that pos when I was in HS. And I remember it being quoted multiple times over the pulpit. I was sexually abused by a neighbor and it fueled a level of self-loathing and self-blame I couldn't get away from until I realized tscc is not true and SWK is just a hateful idiot who purposely damages people as a way to control them. Just like any abusive relationship. :P

How can she keep a straight face as a missionary for a church founded by a guy who took fourteen year-old girls as plural wives?

I doubt that Elizabeth Smart even has the first clue about the REAL Joseph Smith and his child brides.

While the pine box crap is aweful, I referring to the SWK quote regarding rape and dying before giving up your virtue without a fight. So, be definition, if you are a living rape victim, you gave up your virtue.

Please excuse me while I go vomit.

is that women somehow provoke their own victimization by how they dress, how they act, or where they were. It's really disgusting trying to convince an ignorant TBM male that rape is about power and not about sex when the only education they've received on the topic comes from church lessons or books.

Maybe that explains this?

http://health.utah.gov/vipp/rapeSexualAssault/overview.html

"Rape is the only violent crime in Utah that occurs at a higher rate than the rest of the nation."

vhainya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's really disgusting trying to
> convince an ignorant TBM male that rape is about
> power and not about sex when the only education
> they've received on the topic comes from church
> lessons or books.
>


I'm kind of one of those guys to some degree. In a college course I battled the professor on that, and I'm sure most of the class left thinking that I was a rapist.

It seems to me that it is about both power and sex. In some situations it more of one than the other, in other situations it's a lot more of one than the other.

If it was just about power, it seems a lot of rapist could get what they wanted (power and domination) with a lot less of a jail sentence if they were to just assault the woman non-sexually. They could beat the woman short of attempted murder and really show their power, and never have to be on a sex-offender data base. But they would have still gotten the point of having power across. It doesn't seem like just a coincidence that sex is involved.

There are times where it's even more about power, and sex is used as the most cruel form of power on purpose. Soldiers do that one a lot. Raping the enemy's women is just another way of dominating the enemy in a way that they will remember. It has always been such, and continues happening by our soldiers even now. I can see that one being less about sex, and more about power.

I've interviewed rapists at length, and they wanted sex. Having the power to take it was for sure part of it, but punching a women in the face wouldn't have satiated their desire. They wanted sex too.

I'll probably get flamed for this post, but whoever started the myth that it's just about power, and not about sex, is just plain wrong. You would hear in the news a whole lot more about a female jogger getting beat up, but not raped, if rape had nothing to do with sex.

Testosterone gives men and women their sex drives. Men have a lot more testosterone. Both sexes like to control and dominate and have power, but the vast majority of rapes are done by males. Women slash tires, key cars, light houses on fire, empty bank accounts, kill the spouses children, etc. etc. But they don't rape much. Could be a sexual thing. But both sexes find ways to use power and domination to inflict pain.

A crime should be defined based on the victimization, not the perpetrator's motives.

Uh.. the impact of being raped is much more damaging and long-lasting than getting beat up. Most people would rather be beat up than raped. The violence of a rape is unquestionably worse than any other kind of assault. Most people can get sex if they want it, barring being totally impotent or incapacitated. The target of a specific attacker is often based on an archetypal female whom they visualize as having power over them. This is why serial rapists will go after women who look like their mother, sister, or some other women who emasculated them in some way. These motivations are entirely subconscious and not something they'd directly voice if asked.

If rape were about sexual attraction where are all the women taking their rape as some sort of compliment? You think the rapist thinks the woman should feel complimented for finding her attractive or that he necessarily finds her attractive at all? That you interviewed rapists who found some way to justify his actions and twist their motives into something acceptable after he used his penis as a weapon to dehumanize another person is kind of inconsequential to his actions. You don't see something wrong with that?

Maybe you're just confusing the two very different acts of "using sex as a weapon" and "having sex for pleasure."

Sorry, but it's not an opinion based on a few interviews by one person or started by rumor. This is based on peer reviewed scientific research.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.795

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4j54g0h6t426x42/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4602T2X-5K&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1986&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6fa0f44563eb91d5884028432d74aa4f&searchtype=a

I realized I was gender specific in my post. I know rape can happen to men as well and actually occurs quite frequently although it is underreported.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 02:44PM by vhainya.

vhainya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If rape were about sexual attraction where are all
> the women taking their rape as some sort of
> compliment? You think the rapist thinks the woman
> should feel complimented for finding her
> attractive or that he necessarily finds her
> attractive at all?
>


That is a strange argument. I never said that women who are raped should feel sexually attractive, and that is so off the charts that it can't be used to further any understanding at all, it's seems to be used just to discredit me by making it seem as though it was my position. Not sure why you would do that.

To be fair, one person claimed that rape is about power, not sex. I said it's both. Additionally, I think it's mostly power. But I think that it's unrealistic to think that it doesn't involve any sexual motivation at all.

Your second link (they only bring up abstracts unless you pay to see more) says, "The inference typically drawn from these observations is that this hostility generates a significant component of the motivation of some males to sexually agress women"

So from your link we find that hostility is a significant component of the motivation, which I agreed was the case. If it's a significant component, not the only component, there must be other motivations. Might one of them be sex?

I didn't pay to read the rest and find out.

Just to clarify some of your strange logic, just because a rapist might find a woman sexually attractive, and therefore target her over another woman in the area, doesn't mean that the woman has to feel complimented by his attraction. I don't have any idea what that was brought up for at all. It's absurd.

Once more to clarify. The claim was made that it's about power, not sex. My claim is that it is both.

not the motivation of the perpetrator.
What angers some of us is your insistence on "understanding" the motivations of the perpetrator.
We don't need to "understand" rapists. We need to execute them.

I agree with you, but understanding the motivations keeps people from using misguided fallacies to somehow justify the actions and helps convict rapists at a higher rate and gives them more severe penalties for the crime.

Is a rape so bad if it was motivated by sexual attraction? Did he rape that woman because she was wearing something sexy, or was it purely out of rage toward the victim? Unfortunately the rates of conviction are based on if people have an attitude that somehow places a portion of the blame on the victim.

vhainya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is a rape so bad if it was motivated by sexual
> attraction? Did he rape that woman because she was
> wearing something sexy, or was it purely out of
> rage toward the victim? Unfortunately the rates
> of conviction are based on if people have an
> attitude that somehow places a portion of the
> blame on the victim.

We are veering off subject, but I'll respond anyway. Rape is rape whether it is motivated by a need to dominate and hurt along with a sexual repose on the part of the rapist, or just a desire for power.

If a woman was naked in a bar gyrating on the counter, she can still so NO at anytime. Is it wise of her? Perhaps not, but saying no at any point means don't touch me. Touch anyway and it's rape.

I fully support that there is no point at all that can be drawn where a person forfeits the right to say no. No can be said at any point, no matter what preceded it.

If I were a judge, it wouldn't matter what preceded saying stop. Force a woman to have sex with you would be a crime no matter what, even if she was sexually desiring you minutes prior. There was a prosecutor running for office in my state that didn't prosecute a date rape because he said that she, "Just had buyers remorse." The guy even made incriminating statements about it in a taped phone call. I didn't vote for him, and the majority of voters last week didn't either.

But what I was talking about was the rape you hear about most on the news, the stranger forced rape. Even in that violence, I thought that there was at least a partial sexual motive. It's violent, horrible, disgusting, and should be very harshly dealt with. Even if the rapist's motivation was power, domination, and a little bit sexual.

Once again, I didn't pick the subject. I just responded to the claim of another.

BadGirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not the motivation of the perpetrator.
> What angers some of us is your insistence on
> "understanding" the motivations of the
> perpetrator.
> We don't need to "understand" rapists. We need to
> execute them.


Hey I didn't pick the subject, I just responded to another posters claim.

That poster was talking about the rapist, and TBM's perceptions of them. She wasn't talking about the victim. I was responding to that post, and put part of the reply quoted so that all would know what I was responding to.

No matter how violent or sickening the act, we must try to understand, so we know what we're up aganist. Motivation, childhood. it's not for the rapists' benefit - it's for our benefit.

from the male point of view.
What good does it do to know that some sick males are sexually aroused by controlling and brutalizing others? How does that help us? How does that prevent rape? I'm saying it doesn't.
And I don't believe these people can be "fixed" either.

When the attitude of the public is based on a healthy perspective through education then the rates of rape go down and the men who pose a risk to society are removed before being given the opportunity to hurt multiple people. The attitude that women are somehow less than their male peers, or deserve their attack on some level is one reason why Utah has the highest rape rates. That attitude is VERY prevalent there and actually preached to people over the pulpit.

Explain that one?
Do we give them a psychological test and them lock them away???

Even though I'm a woman, I actually do aree on this. I think that at least some of rape (and in a few cases, most of rape) is about sex.

I think the reason they say "its about power" is because that's the only way they can block people from blaming the woman.

But you know what? It doesn't have to be about power, for the woman to be an innocent victim. Even if it is 100% about sex, all the time-- still, nobody wants rape to happen. Nobody asks for it.

There is no reason why it can't be about sex, AND the women be innocent victims, at the same time.

the perpetrator experiences it.
What it truly is, is the perp treating the victim as subhuman.
That's it in a nutshell.
It makes no difference whether it's for a sexual reason or for any other reason.

Dang. And I thought my suggestion that LDS, Inc., was in part responsible for Ms. Smart going out the window and not attempting to escape was offensive . . .

My daddy taught me a very useful trick-- when I was a teen, he said,

"If anyone ever tries to kidnap you-- advise them that you have severe panick attacks, and then just act like you fainted out of fear. Go totally limp and pass out on the ground. They know they can't threaten you any further if you are unconscious. Limp, dead weight is a lot harder to kidnap. If you're a teenager, or an adult (or even a little overweight), they're just gonna have to go, and leave you there-- because that's too much to carry.

Also a limp body is 10 times harder to pick up than a moving body. A tense moving body will lift and balance its own weight in many ways. Make it as difficult for them as you possibly can."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 05:03PM by melissa3839.

Always carry a loaded pistol and be ready to use it.

"So from your link we find that hostility is a significant component of the motivation, which I agreed was the case. If it's a significant component, not the only component, there must be other motivations. Might one of them be sex?"

Well looks like you found out first hand that if you even discuss sexual assault in a public place someone will twist what you say to attack you. Much like when discussing sex offender laws, people will accuse you of "defending child molesters" no matter what you say.

Psychology degree person here, I read up quite a bit on rape when I was still in school. I always found the whole thing interesting just because I don't understand it at all. Rage and Anger is a big component in rape but as a male myself it is paradoxical to me because I cannot feel sexually aroused when I am angry, anger kills sexual excitement for me. A lot of rapists also frequent prostitutes. Something I am proud to say in the 29 years I have been alive I have never done, find the whole concept revolting.

One Case Study I read in college was about a man from a very poor working class family that was extremely abusive. He grew up in New York City where class differences can be very stark. As a teenager he attempted to date well dressed upper-middle/upper class woman and was always shot down. He chalked this up to being poor and based off of sex/dating research I have read he is right on the money(nice pun eh? :))

Woman tend not to "date down" meaning it is extraordinarily rare for a upper class woman to date down to middle class, or a middle class woman to date lower class. Try and find a female doctor dating a male teacher, good luck with that.

He targeted woman wearing nice clothes with refined appearance and would insult them throughout the attack calling them "rich bitch" or other kinds of names. He was basically getting revenge for what he saw as woman looking down on him.

I guess I just really don't understand your stance, DNA. Sex is about pleasure and rape is about using the other person's sexuality to degrade and dehumanize them. The level of violence can't be substituted any other way.

I've had very close dealings over the past decade of my life with various men who have been incarcerated for sexual crimes, and the one thing that stands out to me about every single one of them is their means of referencing a woman. They would always refer to their victim as "that bitch" or any of another wide variety of non-repeatable expletives. Without fail, even if the person was repentant of their actions, there was still an underlying anger at the victim.

People who respond this way, who insist on asserting their power over another person (man or woman) in this fashion are not normal. I would go so far as to say that they are emotionally primitive, incapable of fielding the normal range of human emotions that have evolved in our society. As such, they revert to the most primitive form of expression: sex. I would say that the level of sexual satisfaction would be less than that of masturbation for the attacker; they simply have no more sophisticated means of expressing their frustrations.

I say all this to say that the sexual gratification aspect of rape is nearly non-existent. From the dawn of human existence sex has been used as a tool for domination and these people with primitive emotional capacities fall back on the basic assertion of dominance that's been ingrained into the collective human experience.

It's important that this be understood because, quite frankly, if you're not part of the solution you're a part of the problem. If someone stands to the side and says "Well, the woman was dressed in a provocative manner so she deserved it" or "Well, she must have done something to draw his attention" then they're just as guilty as the rapist because they've done nothing to further the understanding of the situation. With understanding comes liberation, and anyone who would stand against that stands against the very nature of the universe.

If we can understand that rape is an aggressive form of domination then we can take steps to prevent it. If we can't grasp this and we simply assume that rape is a man searching for sex who can't get it anywhere else then we're guilty as well. And finally, if we view rapists as normal human beings with normal thought processes and a normal range of human emotional coping, then we underestimate the situation and we're guilty.

I don't think its rude at all. I think it makes a very good point.

Why did the people back then act like if a woman fought a rapist, she would win??? I mean how dare they make it sound like its YOUR fault for getting raped, because you didn't fight hard enough. I'm sorry, but you can fight all you want-- if a man is sick enough to decide that he's going to have have his way with you no matter how you feel about it, nothing can stop him. Men are bigger and stronger. All they have to do is hold you down, or tie you down. Or they can beat you until you until you can't fight anymore, because you are barely conscious. No matter how hard you fight, rape can (and does) still happen.

That part of the gospel should just be erased. And furthermore, I too feel that my LIFE, or the life of a woman I care about, is far more important than some pathetic scum bag getting his rocks off.

that SWK comments were complete bullshit.

People, including LDS leaders, who have never been in Elizabeth Smart's position (raped/molested under threat of death) should just shut the F up.

In cases like this you can only rationally be thankful for the few that live to tell their tale, mourn the loss of those who do not and hope that something can be done to keep more of these things from ever happening again.