Hearing from women who have been abused

[Calm]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/her-too/

"I tried to throw myself into church, where the Young Women’s lessons seemed either not to apply to me, because they seemed to have been written for some bright-eyed virgin, or they applied perfectly to me, where I learned that I was chewed gum, a licked cupcake, a rotten apple. Every new modesty lesson emphasized that I was in charge of men’s lust, and that I had already failed to keep men pure by the time I was 8 years old.

Each worthiness interview through my 20’s and 30’s started with an acknowledgement that they knew I had gotten married as a pregnant teenager, who was “unworthy”. When my baby son died, the bishop immediately brought up my questionable worthiness, and how that might affect my being able to see him again. In my annual worthiness interviews, maybe because I was marked as dirty or lesser, I was asked if I was wearing my garments enough, if I was wearing them properly, which activities I took them off for. I had to do this while sitting in a small chair on the other side of a large desk, in an office with a closed door, with a church leader with a portrait of the Savior behind him. This well-dressed man that I didn’t know, but who lived in my neighborhood, whose kids knew my kids, to whom I was obligated to somehow please with the worthiness of my body and the correctness of my underwear….the surprising thing is that the debilitating church panic attacks didn’t begin sooner. I knew, from lots of personal experience, that suits meant nothing, that being married stopped no one, and a closed door was the prelude into someone else getting to do whatever they liked.

I’m trying to think of the best way to say this, and I can’t come up with a soft way, so I’m going to give it bluntly: there are many more like me. There are many more who are watching and listening when something about abuse or assault comes up in the news and we see which men ask, “Well, what was she wearing?” Which ones say, “You’re making a big deal out of nothing,” or “you’re oversensitive”.

We remember which ones will use their voice to tell women to be more modest, to be more pleasing, to tell them that they are obligated to subject themselves or their children to being alone with men they don’t really know or feel safe with, because that’s what’s socially expected, or that’s what good church women do. We see which ones believe the abused, and help them; and which ones look the other way when people are made to feel small, or afraid, or helpless; or who pretend nothing happened, or who kindly victim-blame, echoing the same things the demons inside us already shout, every day.

Like a friend of mine says: This isn’t about blame. It’s about a frighteningly large group of human beings saying, “We have been hurt. We have been made afraid. Please see us. Please believe us.” The world is full of incredible men who stand against harassment and abuse. It is also full of good men who do not see that there is a battle in need of fighting. This can be seen as a call to arms, or a call to discomfort. I think the former is more productive.

And, my sisters–I see you. I believe you. I have your back. You are of infinite worth.

Also–I don’t know if this is relevant–but I went to a recovery retreat last Easter. They asked, “How many of you women here have been blamed by a church leader for a husband’s addiction or for abuse by another?” Every hand went up."

-------

add-on many hours later:  I added "women" to the title for what will be obvious reasons later in the thread.  However, if there are men who have been abused or harassed and they feel comfortable sharing, I have no problem with you adding your stories.

add-on and on:  created a different thread for men, it seemed wise given the differences in reactions to abuse (assault and harassment) among other things...

Edited October 21, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

The scariest part of reading her story is I had just heard one very like it from a good friend while standing in my kitchen. It started with her brother and then she was date raped. This sent her down the rabbit hole for awhile before she sought help from her Bishop. We had been friends for years and I would never have guessed she had been a victim. She opened up after I explained my daughter had been raped and also my daughter in law and the struggles each faced overcoming the trauma. Her story included a magnificent Bishop though that helped immensely. If only, that was always the case. 

I can not add a “me too” story but I look around and see how many can and my soul weeps. (Except there was one but It was minor and I ran away...but my sisters got it worse and we never confided in each other for years but we were grateful that particular relative had passed away.)

Edited October 17, 2017 by bsjkki

[Amulek]

Stories like these really show how different life is when it is being filtered through the lens of abuse. 

[Duncan]

Unless someone discloses abuse you obviously don't know that it's happened in people's lives so it's interesting? to know that about someone and to see how many of your friends have been through that experience. Not a ton of people I know put up "me too" but that could be attributed to a lot of things

I clearly remember those object lessons though, I don't know if they still do them though

Edited October 17, 2017 by Duncan

[BlueDreams]

I'll post what I posted on FB:

Quote

 

Me too.

I feel like one of the "lucky" ones when it comes to sexual harassment and assault because the overall effect on me has felt minimal. When I was in 8th grade I had a boy in my school who would sneak up on me between classes and grab at my butt and breasts for months. In high school I had a teacher talk to me inappropriately during class in camaraderie with a male student, discussing my body like a piece of meat to behold. He later walked by and touched my foot with his hand as I sat on my desk talking to friends. I've learned to avoid trucks and construction sites because of chronic catcalling and sexual gestures or comments thrown my way. Unwanted or unsolicited sexual pictures online and from men I had a handful of dates with. I'm weary of certain compliments from men. Of certain men period. And the list goes on. It's never mattered what I looked like, what I wore, what time of day it was, where I was, how I portrayed my self, or who I am. In those moments I've become keenly aware that for some men with no sense of sexual boundaries - and a society that enables them to have few - I am nothing but a pretty face with a figure whose own desires come second to their sexual urges. It is not a compliment. It is not really wanted in the end. It's sexism. It's objectification. It's misogyny. And it NEEDS TO STOP. It needs light and accountability and justice in our communities.

 

 

On the mormon note, for our credit, I've had the least amount of direct sexual harassment in an LDS context. So I generally feel safe at church and completely safe in the temple. The biggest problem I see is blindness to the problem of those who've been abused, understanding what this form of abuse does to victims, and inadvertently enabling the perpetrators of said crimes. Enabling can include justifying their behaviors by blame shifting onto the victims (it wouldn't have happened if she did x,y,z...we women have a responsibility to help or control men's thoughts like their helpless babies to our bodies), it can be turning a blind eye to inappropriate comments, it can be by overextending mercy with little account to justice or accountability (ie. enabling) the perps. Though we have little overtly visible acts of assault and harassment, it means that what does happen remains quiet and behind closed doors. It remains silent. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Avatar4321]

I've been absolutely shocked at the number of women I know who have publicly said they've experienced this. Part of me hopes some are exaggerating just because I am disgusted by the sheer number. It's hard to believe there are so many men that would hurt them like that.

All I can do is pray that the Lord heals all those that have been hurt

[MorningStar]

We're definitely not exaggerating. Unfortunately.  

[juliann]

http://thesaltcollective.org/treated-rape-domestic-abuse-threats-like-terrorist-threats/

Quote

 

It’s Sexual Violence Awareness Month and I can’t help but wonder if we are really putting our all into solving sexual violence. Thousands of rape threats go un-checked on social media, women’s accusations are dismissed on college campuses, and celebrities and politicians are allowed to keep their jobs.

Every 98 seconds an American is the victim of sexual assault. On average, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States.

 

 

 

[juliann]

 

20 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

We're definitely not exaggerating. Unfortunately.  

We have grown up thinking it is just life. It is our job to learn strategies to fend off aggressive men on dates and not put ourselves in situations where we could be assaulted. The onus has always been on the woman rather than the rapist. 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've been absolutely shocked at the number of women I know who have publicly said they've experienced this. Part of me hopes some are exaggerating just because I am disgusted by the sheer number. It's hard to believe there are so many men that would hurt them like that.

All I can do is pray that the Lord heals all those that have been hurt

They are not exaggerating.  I've dealt with sexual harassment in public since i was 11.  Eleven.  Always by high schoolers or grown men.  In school, it was a constant since the 5th grade when I, like most of the other girls, started wearing a bra.  That seems to be the delineation mark.  It was an every day occurrence happening in halls and classrooms, and something that happened so frequently and to so many of us girls that after awhile it stops even registering.  It just is what it is and you deal with it or you don't leave your home. 

And most men don't understand why it's terrifying because most men don't understand what it feels like to be vulnerable to half of the population.  All things being equal (meaning neither person is armed), there is a basic difference between when a woman says something sexual to a man in passing and when a man says something sexual to a woman in passing that men don't often realize.  The difference is that if the man decides he wants to actually do those things he's saying to the girl or woman, he can.

He has the strength and ability to attack and harm, and to take whatever he wants, and the woman won't be able to do much to stop him.  In many instances, the only thing that protects us women are the good graces of the men we come in contact with, and that is terrifying and infuriating because not only can't we tell by looking at you guys which ones are dangerous and which ones aren't, but it also means that we exist and are safe only with male permission.  

That's why us women want men to stop, not just the assaults but the words, the gestures, the tone, the uncomfortable staring and pointing, the lewd whispers and touching.  It all causes significant harm, even without actually being assaulted.

 

 

[strappinglad]

Science tells us that the male of the species is hardwired to be constantly looking to spread his seed as far and wide as possible . The female is hardwired to send signals to attract males so that she can choose the best possible one to produce offspring . To expect any behavior that would interfere with these biological imperatives will always be a losing battle. Over the last few decades the media have pushed sexuality to new heights. Pick up any magazine, newspaper , internet site etc. and more than likely there are images etc. which promote lust and sexual desire. Do we expect all this influence to be totally rejected by our boys and girls , our men and women ? What power on earth or in heaven is capable of overcoming the natural man/woman ?

Note: this post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Science tells us that the male of the species is hardwired to be constantly looking to spread his seed as far and wide as possible . The female is hardwired to send signals to attract males so that she can choose the best possible one to produce offspring . To expect any behavior that would interfere with these biological imperatives will always be a losing battle. Over the last few decades the media have pushed sexuality to new heights. Pick up any magazine, newspaper , internet site etc. and more than likely there are images etc. which promote lust and sexual desire. Do we expect all this influence to be totally rejected by our boys and girls , our men and women ? What power on earth or in heaven is capable of overcoming the natural man/woman ?

Note: this post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster

Yes, I think we do need to expect both men and women to totally reject all actions or words that cause harm to others.  Part of the reason that this problem is so huge is not because men are hardwired to be sexual jerks.  It's because men have been allowed to be sexual jerks.  Society has supported it, both willingly and unwillingly.  Male privilege has supported it, both willingly and unwillingly.  

When we as a culture stop supporting it, it will lessen.

[cinepro]

Sometimes the Onion really does say it best....

Teenage Girl Blossoming Into Beautiful Object

Quote

ARLINGTON, TX—Calling the transformation both delightful and stunning, friends and family members confirmed Tuesday that 17-year-old Ashley Parker was blossoming into an absolutely gorgeous object.

According to Parker’s relatives, in the span of 14 months, the high school junior underwent a staggering metamorphosis from a young girl with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations into a truly stunning commodity.

 

“Ashley has really developed into quite a striking assemblage of physical attributes that are found to be sexually attractive in our culture,” said Parker’s uncle Keith Hayes, expressing astonishment at how his niece had steadily matured from a precocious youth into a shapely, ravishing thing devoid of intellect and personality. “It’s hard to believe that she used to be that little girl [capable of subjective experiences] that I remember. Now look at her—she’s such a lovely vessel for displaced sexual frustration and voyeuristic lust, just like her mother.”

 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are not exaggerating.  I've dealt with sexual harassment in public since i was 11.  Eleven.  Always by high schoolers or grown men.  In school, it was a constant since the 5th grade when I, like most of the other girls, started wearing a bra.  That seems to be the delineation mark.  It was an every day occurrence happening in halls and classrooms, and something that happened so frequently and to so many of us girls that after awhile it stops even registering.  It just is what it is and you deal with it or you don't leave your home. 

 

 

 

I was molested by a male relative as a young child along with my cousins at family gatherings. I loved going to these gatherings, their house was in a rural area with a canal and it was just so much fun that I thought it was just the price that had to be paid.  He would park his recliner near the door and grab the pre-pubescent girls and lay us on top of him. When I told my mother she said he was just being "loving." She apparently also thought I was the price that had to be paid to be included. I'm still mystified how this was allowed to continue with so many adults around. Then there was the time as a new teen that a pervert exposed himself to my friend and I in a supermarket. Then there were the boys on dates who thought they didn't need to ask permission for roving hands. Then there was the guy in an office of a college summer job who gifted me with candy, stared at me, and expected me to go to a motel with him for lunch to "talk." Then there were the bosses who thought off color comments and jokes were real funny. One of the best parts about being older not being targeted for most of this anymore.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Science tells us that the male of the species is hardwired to be constantly looking to spread his seed as far and wide as possible . The female is hardwired to send signals to attract males so that she can choose the best possible one to produce offspring . To expect any behavior that would interfere with these biological imperatives will always be a losing battle. Over the last few decades the media have pushed sexuality to new heights. Pick up any magazine, newspaper , internet site etc. and more than likely there are images etc. which promote lust and sexual desire. Do we expect all this influence to be totally rejected by our boys and girls , our men and women ? What power on earth or in heaven is capable of overcoming the natural man/woman ?

Note: this post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster

This hardwired boys will be boys stuff is merely part of an elaborate apologetic used to protect men from being responsible for their own behavior. It is insidious. I'm glad it doesn't reflect your views. 

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was molested by a male relative as a young child along with my cousins at family gatherings. I loved going to these gatherings, their house was in a rural area with a canal and it was just so much fun that I thought it was just the price that had to be paid.  He would park his recliner near the door and grab the pre-pubescent girls and lay us on top of him. When I told my mother she said he was just being "loving." She apparently also thought I was the price that had to be paid to be included. I'm still mystified how this was allowed to continue with so many adults around. Then there was the time as a new teen that a pervert exposed himself to my friend and I in a supermarket. Then there were the boys on dates who thought they didn't need to ask permission for roving hands. Then there was the guy in an office of a college summer job who gifted me with candy, stared at me, and expected me to go to a motel with him for lunch to "talk." Then there were the bosses who thought off color comments and jokes were real funny. One of the best parts about being older not being targeted for most of this anymore.

When I was in high school my friend was at the counter of a local mini mart paying when the grown man behind her grabbed her butt.  I was standing at the door waiting for her and watched it happen.  She turned around to see who had done it (in shock of course) and he just stared at her.  Then we both just left because we honestly had no idea what to do.  No one else was in the store and the cashier hadn't seen anything.

We both still think about it and talk about it to this day and so wish we could have handled it differently, but at the time, we did not have the skills to manage such a thing.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've been absolutely shocked at the number of women I know who have publicly said they've experienced this. Part of me hopes some are exaggerating just because I am disgusted by the sheer number. It's hard to believe there are so many men that would hurt them like that.

All I can do is pray that the Lord heals all those that have been hurt

It's absolutely prevalent. With men in my office I'm more likely to talk about porn history. With women in my office I'm more likely to hear stories of assault. Harassment doesn't generally register unless it was extremely explicit. I remember from time to time a man with his spouse listening to his wife's tales of abuse. Some of these men, becoming aware of the situations facing women become irrate, horrified and flustered. It's like their world is spinning upside down and their desire to protect their wife driven helpless. The wife and I usually share a knowing glance and shrug. It says welcome to being a woman, you can't protect us from this. Their world turned upside down and dangerous is just the one we've been navigating for ages.

Denial and that hope for exaggeration is one of the reasons I'm glad for this going trend right now. It's not just men who want to pretend this isn't happening. It's women. And it's women who've been victimized. I know because it's been my job, more than once, to help a woman understand that she was assaulted or raped. Most just don't want to believe it. I know because I still have a hard time admitting that I was sexually assaulted when I was 13. I call it "assault light" half the time. More than half the time. Because it doesn't count for "real assault." I didn't have bruises or was battered just chronically leery in hallways all the time. He had more scars from when I'd kick or scratch him (I've always been a fight not flight sort of person). He would call me catwoman and would make it somehow part of his nasty sexual game. But it was still assault. Discrediting just makes it easier to hide from the faults in our society that are pervasive, real, and sick. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

I think that sexual assault is a horrible, evil thing.  I condemn it in every respect.

I am concerned that popular discussions about this topic can create some misleading, or false, impressions.  

See, e.g., here:

Quote

December 15, 2014

We Will Never Know the Actual Rate of Sexual Assault

By Sierra Rayne

I will note at the outset that the primary reason I feel comfortable in posting this link is because . . . the article was written by a woman.  Men don't seem to be welcome to have a voice in this discussion.  It's part of the Culture Wars, you see.  This happens despite the apparent - but socially inconvenient - reality that "that men are often the victims of sexual assault, and women are often the perpetrators."  This is one of the points raised in a fairly worthwhile documentary: The Red Pill (a film which has been the subject of a fair amount of censorship efforts).

The prevailing Women-Are-Victims-and-Men-are-Victimizers narrative is, I think, not very helpful.  Nor is the combination of fearmongering and mob mentality that we run into every now and then (we are presently in the Weinstein-induced iteration).  I am deeply, deeply concerned about the state of things in Hollywood.  Is sexual abuse of aspiring actresses by men in powerful positions an "open secret?"  That is what seems to be playing out.  We'll see.  But the piling-on-the-bandwagon stuff is becoming a bit disconcerting, particularly if men across the board are being presumptively construed as inchoate rapists.  That presumption seems baked into, well, stuff like this:

As I see it, good and decent men are aware that they should not drug women's drinks, and so on.  Good and decent men don't need to be told, repeatedly "not to rape" women.  But we're nonetheless subjected to this incredibly condescending and offensive crap because . . . well, we're men.  And men are inchoate rapists who need to be publicly hectored into not raping women.  It must be part of our nature, or something.

Back to the article:

Quote

The U.S. Department of Justice has released a report entitled “Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013.”  In light of the Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham controversies, the DOJ report is getting some media attention.

But the report simply does not answer the question at hand, nor can it.  Nor can any report.  The public and policymakers are going to eventually need to understand that we will never, ever know the real rate of sexual assaults in any demographic group, never mind among the populace as a whole.

"The Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham controversies" are, I understand, references to stories of sexual assault that were exaggerated or fabricated (and in Lena Dunham's case, she appears to have been given a pass despite having publicly described her incredibly inappropriate - sexually abusive? - interactions with her toddler sister).  But there really isn't much of a widespread narrative about women who misbehave sexually, is there?  No snarky lists directed at women - qua women - to not sexually abuse toddlers.

Quote

The DOJ report is both unscientific and irresponsible in its reporting.  The report's language does not appropriately address the uncertainty in the underlying data.  Witness the first paragraph of the report:

Quote

For the period 1995-2013, females ages 18 to 24 had the highest rate of rape and sexual assault victimizations compared to females in all other age groups. Within the 18 to 24 age group, victims could be identified as students enrolled in a college, university, trade school or vocational school or as nonstudents. Among student victims, 20% of rape and sexual assault victimizations were reported to police, compared to 32% reported among nonstudent victims ages 18 to 24.

Words such as “alleged” and “claimed” should be embedded throughout this report.  Unfortunately, they are not.  The paragraph above is written as a statement of fact.  It should not be.  The data within this report are – at best – very approximate estimates whose errors may be massive.

This is a fair point about an important topic.  

Quote

The second paragraph in the report describes the methodology:

Quote

This report describes and compares the characteristics of student and nonstudent female victims of rape and sexual assault, the attributes of the victimization, and the characteristics of the offender. The findings are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older. Rape and sexual assault are defined by the NCVS to include completed and attempted rape, completed and attempted sexual assault, and threats of rape or sexual assault.

The NCVS is a voluntary survey whose responses are not verified, nor are they generally verifiable.  In this dataset, there will be false positives (i.e., individuals who claim they were raped or sexually assaulted but who were, in fact, not raped or sexually assaulted) and false negatives (i.e., individuals who claim they were not raped or sexually assaulted but who were, in fact, raped or sexually assaulted).  It is impossible to determine the magnitude of each of these errors, or the net direction of error.  There is also no reason to assume that the errors cancel each other out, and that the reported rates are accurate.

In other words, the NCVS data is . . . very poor.  But challenging or questioning may be seen as not "hearing those who have been abused."  Indeed, the article raises this point:

Quote

It has become unfashionable to even discuss such concerns over accuracy in the context of sexual assault crimes, but rigorous science does not seek to be politically correct – or to concern itself with “feelings.” Rather, rigorous science – both the social and natural sciences – concerns itself only with reality.  In short, accuracy is the only goal.  Nothing else is relevant.

I am glad that a woman is saying this, as I am not sure a man could (in some environments, anyway).  

Quote

Sexual assault is defined very broadly in the survey:

Quote

Sexual assault is defined across a wide range of victimizations separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks usually involving unwanted sexual contact between a victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes grabbing or fondling.

Given that sexual assault includes perceived “attempted attacks” that “may not involve force” and “includes grabbing or fondling,” the alleged statistics for this offense should be used with extreme caution because of possible positive bias.

Yep.  The data here is profoundly flawed.

Quote

Rape is defined as follows in the survey methodology:

Quote

Rape is the unlawful penetration of a person against the will of the victim, with use or threatened use of force, or attempting such an act. Rape includes psychological coercion and physical force, and forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, ****, or oral penetration by the offender. Rape also includes incidents where penetration is from a foreign object (e.g., a bottle), victimizations against males and females, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Critical readers will note the extreme subjectivity in these definitions, which highlights a fundamental flaw in the methodology and reporting.  According to this definition, the verbal threat of rape is classified as a rape, as are attempts.  (More precisely, a verbal threat of rape is considered an attempted rape, which in turn is considered an actual rape.)  In other words, this survey definition of “rape” is far too broad.  It is simply inaccurate, rendering the survey results themselves inaccurate.

Consider that again.  "Verbal Threat of Rape" = "Attempted Rape" = "Actual Rape."

Put another way: "Verbal Threat of Rape" = "Actual Rape."

Should a survey with such horrible methodology be relied on?  At all?

Quote

Even with these extremely subjective, entirely unproven, and overly broad definitions of rape and sexual assault, the report concludes that “the rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for nonstudents (7.6 per 1,000) than for students (6.1 per 1,000).”  These translate into rates of 0.76 percent and 0.61 percent for nonstudents and students, respectively, far lower than the rates of 20 to 33 percent being thrown around all too casually in the mainstream media.

That said, the rates presented in this DOJ report may be either significant under- or over-estimates...

I think the entire article merits a read.  It concludes as follows:

Quote

The phrase “trust but verify” was used in the right-of-center media over the past few days with respect to sexual assault allegations.  This, too, is not the correct approach, as it indicates an initial presumption of guilt against the accused coupled with an investigatory approach by authorities that seeks to prove guilt.  Instead, we must always presume innocence and design our investigatory mechanisms so that they objectively seek to find the truth, whatever that truth may be.

Western civilization was founded on the concepts of due process and the presumption of innocence within the overarching fabric of the rule of law.  We must never forsake these principles, especially in light of very dubious statistics.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, juliann said:

We have grown up thinking it is just life. It is our job to learn strategies to fend off aggressive men on dates and not put ourselves in situations where we could be assaulted. The onus has always been on the woman rather than the rapist. 

I hear what you are saying, but I do think it is the unfortunate but necessary onus/burden of the woman to protect herself and avoid potentially unsafe situations.  We can (and should) do all that we can to teach men not to assault women (and vise versa), but it is unrealistic to expect it to always work.  There will always be perpetrators.

This is not to say that women should be made to feel guilty or responsible/accountable for being a victim; but simply to say that we should do all that we can to be realistic about the threat and prepare our daughters to fend of aggressive men if necessary, and to avoid dangerous situations.  I think that is the reasonable and responsible approach.  

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that sexual assault is a horrible, evil thing.  I condemn it in every respect.

I am concerned that popular discussions about this topic can create some misleading, or false, impressions.  

See, e.g., here:

I will note at the outset that the primary reason I feel comfortable in posting this link is because . . . the article was written by a woman.  Men don't seem to be welcome to have a voice in this discussion.  It's part of the Culture Wars, you see.  This happens despite the apparent - but socially inconvenient - reality that "that men are often the victims of sexual assault, and women are often the perpetrators."  This is one of the points raised in a fairly worthwhile documentary: The Red Pill (a film which has been the subject of a fair amount of censorship efforts).

The prevailing Women-Are-Victims-and-Men-are-Victimizers narrative is, I think, not very helpful.  Nor is the combination of fearmongering and mob mentality that we run into every now and then (we are presently in the Weinstein-induced iteration).  I am deeply, deeply concerned about the state of things in Hollywood.  Is sexual abuse of aspiring actresses by men in powerful positions an "open secret?"  That is what seems to be playing out.  We'll see.  But the piling-on-the-bandwagon stuff is becoming a bit disconcerting, particularly if men across the board are being presumptively construed as inchoate rapists.  That presumption seems baked into, well, stuff like this:

As I see it, good and decent men are aware that they should not drug women's drinks, and so on.  Good and decent men don't need to be told, repeatedly "not to rape" women.  But we're nonetheless subjected to this incredibly condescending and offensive crap because . . . well, we're men.  And men are inchoate rapists who need to be publicly hectored into not raping women.  It must be part of our nature, or something.

Back to the article:

"The Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham controversies" are, I understand, references to stories of sexual assault that were exaggerated or fabricated (and in Lena Dunham's case, she appears to have been given a pass despite having publicly described her incredibly inappropriate - sexually abusive? - interactions with her toddler sister).  But there really isn't much of a widespread narrative about women who misbehave sexually, is there?  No snarky lists directed at women - qua women - to not sexually abuse toddlers.

This is a fair point about an important topic.  

In other words, the NCVS data is . . . very poor.  But challenging or questioning may be seen as not "hearing those who have been abused."  Indeed, the article raises this point:

I am glad that a woman is saying this, as I am not sure a man could (in some environments, anyway).  

Yep.  The data here is profoundly flawed.

Consider that again.  "Verbal Threat of Rape" = "Attempted Rape" = "Actual Rape."

Put another way: "Verbal Threat of Rape" = "Actual Rape."

Should a survey with such horrible methodology be relied on?  At all?

I think the entire article merits a read.  It concludes as follows:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think the 'not all men' mantra is part of the problem right now.  It's used to deflect and we don't need more deflection on this topic.

It's also very similar to the 'what about men who are abused' mantra that we often hear about when this discussion comes up.  Like someone else said, it's not appropriate to got to an event about breast cancer and start yelling 'what about prostrate cancer?!'.  Most people inherently seem to understand that.  But what some people don't seem to get is that it's not appropriate to get into a discussion about sexual abuse suffered by women and bring up 'what about the men'.  

No one is discounting the men, but they aren't the subject being discussed right now and that's o.k.  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hear what you are saying, but I do think it is the unfortunate but necessary onus/burden of the woman to protect herself and avoid potentially unsafe situations.  We can (and should) do all that we can to teach men not to assault women (and vise versa), but it is unrealistic to expect it to always work.  There will always be perpetrators.

This is not to say that women should be made to feel guilty or responsible/accountable for being a victim; but simply to say that we should do all that we can to be realistic about the threat and prepare our daughters to fend of aggressive men if necessary, and to avoid dangerous situations.  I think that is the reasonable and responsible approach.  

 

It is very sad that women must treat every man we come in contact with when we are vulnerable as a predator that means to do us harm, but like you said, that is often the only reasonable and responsible approach.  

That kind of mentality has it's own negative consequences though.  It's emotionally difficult to live in that world, for example.  It's mentally painful in many ways and a burden in it's own right.  But, better than being assaulted, like you said.

[Calm]

When a junior in high school, I went on one date with a senior (not a member).  I was an idiot, naive.  We went to his work office, which was of course empty.  Thankfully he only turned the lights out and put his arms around me 'playfully'.  I thought he was joking and responded accordingly, so he pulled back.  Looking back I lucked out he was apparently wanting a real relationship because he had boundary issues.  When I turned down a second date (didn't think it was fair to him because I was only interested in being friends, he was brilliant and I loved talking with him, but no spark), he came to my work (public library) and pulled the carburetor out of my car so it wouldn't start and I would have to talk to him.  We were the only people in the parking lot after dark...and I still wasn't afraid of him though I remember thinking if I have to scream the police station is right there so they should hear me.  Such an idiot. I should have just gotten out of my car, pushed him out of my way and started walking towards the police, but I was too passive back then.  Eventually he got the message (I told him my parents wouldn't let me as he wasn't a member since he wouldn't take "no" from me), restored the car and I went home.  My parents were clueless as well.  Never got a safety talk from them, even after this.  Said hardly anything beyond 'why would you talk to him?'  No reassurance that they wouldn't have blamed me if I had locked myself in the car and he had walked off with the carburetor and they had to not only come get me, but fix the car.

Seriously, why would a highly intelligent human being think he had a right to force someone to talk to him who didn't want to?  And yet I can imagine guys thinking he was being romantic and that should be appealing to a girl rather than leave her thinking of what were the options if he tries to rape her.  He certainly seemed to have the impression I would think it was cool when I was actually angry and trying not to show it.

Got the usual cat calls walking down the street.  I may have lucked out at school except for being given a few gifts and being asked out by guys I had just been nice too.  It was probably my cluelessness to some extent, the gift stuff made me feel weird rather than obligated thankfully.  Being terminally shy had its benefits looking back.  Couple of situations at BYU I got into because again guys had boundary issues and apparently didn't think it was necessary to make sure I was equally attracted or even attracted before asking me to marry them.  Being nice and paying attention to people as individuals has its drawbacks at times in male-female situations.

.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are not exaggerating.  I've dealt with sexual harassment in public since i was 11.  Eleven.  Always by high schoolers or grown men.  In school, it was a constant since the 5th grade when I, like most of the other girls, started wearing a bra.  That seems to be the delineation mark.  It was an every day occurrence happening in halls and classrooms, and something that happened so frequently and to so many of us girls that after awhile it stops even registering.  It just is what it is and you deal with it or you don't leave your home. 

And most men don't understand why it's terrifying because most men don't understand what it feels like to be vulnerable to half of the population.  All things being equal (meaning neither person is armed), there is a basic difference between when a woman says something sexual to a man in passing and when a man says something sexual to a woman in passing that men don't often realize.  The difference is that if the man decides he wants to actually do those things he's saying to the girl or woman, he can.

He has the strength and ability to attack and harm, and to take whatever he wants, and the woman won't be able to do much to stop him.  In many instances, the only thing that protects us women are the good graces of the men we come in contact with, and that is terrifying and infuriating because not only can't we tell by looking at you guys which ones are dangerous and which ones aren't, but it also means that we exist and are safe only with male permission.  

That's why us women want men to stop, not just the assaults but the words, the gestures, the tone, the uncomfortable staring and pointing, the lewd whispers and touching.  It all causes significant harm, even without actually being assaulted.

As a husband to a wonderful woman and a father to two wonderful daughters, I am appalled that this sort of thing happens.

That said, I am bewildered at the sentiment here.  Because I am male I have more muscle mass than most women.  Because I have more muscle mass than most women, I have "the strength and ability to attack and harm, and to take whatever {I} want, and the woman won't be able to do much to stop {me}."  And because I have this strength, I "{can} actually do those things."  And because I "{can} actually do those things," ("to attack and harm {women}"), I - based on nothing more than existing and breathing, am "terrifying" to some women.  What conclusion am I supposed to draw, except that some women are "terrified" of me because they think of me - and all men - as potential/inchoate rapists?

Terrorists murder people by shooting them with guns and, more recently, mowing them down with vehicles.  I have a handgun, and I have a car.  Does that make me an inchoate terrorist?  Because I can do horrible things, I am presumed to be a horrible person?

Isn't that where the rubber hits the road?  That's where the "terror" lies, in the implicit notion that all men are rapists?  That they "can" do something bad, so they should be feared for nothing more than that capacity?  Hence statements like "In many instances, the only thing that protects us women are the good graces of the men we come in contact with."  Huh?  So not only am I an inchoate rapist (by virtue of . . . Breathing While Male), but the only thing that keeps me from acting out on my rapist propensities is . . . "the good graces" of other men?  Say what?

And it doesn't even stop there.  Even then good and decent men who keep the rapists at bay are "terrifying and infuriating" to some women because . . . women "can't tell" the rapists apart from the good guys.  So the good guys end up being part of the problem ("terrifying and infuriating") as well ("it also means that we exist and are safe only with male permission").

What on earth am I reading here?  How are men supposed to function if they are, simply by existing, presumed to be "terrifying," barely-constrained rapists on the prowl?

I think I'll log off for a while.  My wife and daughters love me.  They do not think of me in such a horrible, horrible way.  I am, frankly, disturbed to read that my fellow Latter-day Saints think of me this way.  I am "terrifying" to them.  I am an inchoate rapist to them.

Yeah, I'll log off for a while.

-Smac

[Jeanne]

I haven't read anyone's replies yet...I am crying...my heart breaks for those who have been affected by such pain.

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that sexual assault is a horrible, evil thing.  I condemn it in every respect.

I am concerned that popular discussions about this topic can create some misleading, or false, impressions.  

See, e.g., here:

I will note at the outset that the primary reason I feel comfortable in posting this link is because . . . the article was written by a woman.  Men don't seem to be welcome to have a voice in this discussion.  It's part of the Culture Wars, you see.  This happens despite the apparent - but socially inconvenient - reality that "that men are often the victims of sexual assault, and women are often the perpetrators."  This is one of the points raised in a fairly worthwhile documentary: The Red Pill (a film which has been the subject of a fair amount of censorship efforts).

The prevailing Women-Are-Victims-and-Men-are-Victimizers narrative is, I think, not very helpful.  Nor is the combination of fearmongering and mob mentality that we run into every now and then (we are presently in the Weinstein-induced iteration).  I am deeply, deeply concerned about the state of things in Hollywood.  Is sexual abuse of aspiring actresses by men in powerful positions an "open secret?"  That is what seems to be playing out.  We'll see.  But the piling-on-the-bandwagon stuff is becoming a bit disconcerting, particularly if men across the board are being presumptively construed as inchoate rapists.  That presumption seems baked into, well, stuff like this:

 

As I see it, good and decent men are aware that they should not drug women's drinks, and so on.  Good and decent men don't need to be told, repeatedly "not to rape" women.  But we're nonetheless subjected to this incredibly condescending and offensive crap because . . . well, we're men.  And men are inchoate rapists who need to be publicly hectored into not raping women.  It must be part of our nature, or something.

 

 

Oh for HEAVEN"S sake. It was a satire of what women are routinely told and that you do not get that at all sort of ends any discussion.  And we aren't talking about "good men" by any woman's definition. But that is part of the problem....men are still considered good when they harass or rape is called a "mistake."  That is why we inevitably hear concerns about a young rapist's future being ruined...or my fav, what if a man is falsely accused. Well, men should receive the same advice women do....never place yourself in a situation where you might be falsely accused! Problem solved....right?

And here we have yet another example of men who will not allow a discussion about women without making it all about men.

Edited October 17, 2017 by juliann