Results of BYUs climate survey

[bsjkki]

Here is the report. https://news.byu.edu/sites/default/files/Campus Climate Report_F2017.pdf

Of survey respondents, 67 percent of sexual assault victims did not report their assault to any authority.  3.7 percent of survey participants reported unwanted sexual contact. Alcohol was only a factor in 2 percent of the cases when used by the victim.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like some "climate" change is called for.

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Of survey respondents, 67 percent of sexual assault victims did not report their assault to any authority.

I wondered if there were any national statistics, and I found this.

Quote

The A.A.U. survey found that even in the most serious assaults, those involving penetration, almost three-fourths of victims did not report the episode to anyone in authority, let alone law enforcement. The reason victims gave most often for not reporting episodes was that they did not think the episodes were serious enough to report; others said they felt ashamed, or did not think they would be taken seriously.

There were other reports that cited similar results.

It seems that not reporting sexual assaults is a national problem. Hopefully BYU can do its part to find solutions.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Thinking

[bsjkki]

I can’t seem to copy it in but Figure 5 is interesting. It shows 67 percent of victims report problems with their religious or spiritual life after the assault. That is alarming. I hope now there is an awareness of this, the church figures out effective ways to mitigate this.

Edited November 19, 2017 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can’t seem to copy it in but Figure 5 is interesting. It shows 67 percent of victims report problems with their religious or spiritual life after the assault. That is alarming. I hope now there is an awareness of this, the church figures out effective ways to mitigate this.

I think past statements from church leaders may play a role. Such as chastity is to be prized even over death, to avoid it being taken. They feel ashamed and in the wrong.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think past statements from church leaders may play a role. Such as chastity is to be prized even over death, to avoid it being taken. They feel ashamed and in the wrong.

It's more complicated than that. Largely tied up in the fact that most forms of sexual assualt happen in dating relationships and there is confusion about what even constitutes rape or assault. I call it my "not-really-rape" cases. Not because they're not really rape, but because the victims have a hard time calling it such even if it fits the legal definition of it.  Because sexual assault also has a picture of something that's immediately violent from a stranger and with some form of obvious threats of bodily harm (you can blame TV for that). It's hard to picture what rape usually looks like. It can entail a slow coercive push toward more and more sexual acts they don't actually want but comply to for fear of losing the relationship, angering their partner, or hurting their feelings. When it's like that, there's often a lot of self-blame and shame already stirring in their hearts. Society can be just as caustic as feeding these voices as they interact with victims. And without careful questions, some coming in for repentance may unintentionally reify their guilt as equal to their perpetrators.   

And a hundred other problems that go with it. Some more uniquely mormon. Most unique to the overarching cultures. As is being pointed out in droves right now, sexual harassment and assualts are a common experience that our society has enabled or turned a blind eye to for generations. It crosses all lines of society: rich or poor, old or young, republican, or democrat, and country. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It's more complicated than that. Largely tied up in the fact that most forms of sexual assualt happen in dating relationships and there is confusion about what even constitutes rape or assault. I call it my "not-really-rape" cases. Not because they're not really rape, but because the victims have a hard time calling it such even if it fits the legal definition of it.  Because sexual assault also has a picture of something that's immediately violent from a stranger and with some form of obvious threats of bodily harm (you can blame TV for that). It's hard to picture what rape usually looks like. It can entail a slow coercive push toward more and more sexual acts they don't actually want but comply to for fear of losing the relationship, angering their partner, or hurting their feelings. When it's like that, there's often a lot of self-blame and shame already stirring in their hearts. Society can be just as caustic as feeding these voices as they interact with victims. And without careful questions, some coming in for repentance may unintentionally reify their guilt as equal to their perpetrators.   

And a hundred other problems that go with it. Some more uniquely mormon. Most unique to the overarching cultures. As is being pointed out in droves right now, sexual harassment and assualts are a common experience that our society has enabled or turned a blind eye to for generations. It crosses all lines of society: rich or poor, old or young, republican, or democrat, and country. 

 

With luv,

BD

So agree, thanks! My scenario was too cut and dry. I totally believe someone could be coerced into having sex for fear of losing a relationship. I think women also just want to be loved and they don't see the big picture or the real intentions of their boyfriends.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[smac97]

From the report:

Quote

Of the 12,739 students who answered the survey question about experiences of unwanted sexual contact, 475 (3.7%) had experienced some form of such contact while enrolled at and attending BYU during the 12 months prior to the survey.

I wonder how this compares with comparable surveys on other college campuses.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think past statements from church leaders may play a role. Such as chastity is to be prized even over death, to avoid it being taken. They feel ashamed and in the wrong.

Elizabeth Smart has done a good job of showing how self-defeating and idiotic that idea may be.  It isn't only LDS tradition which has taught to prize female virginity, but many cultures do that.  I recall our reading Scott's "Ivanhoe" in English class in High School in which the Jewish girl threatens suicide by leaping to her death if the predator-knight comes any closer (Elizabeth Taylor played her in the movie).

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

... Icall it my "not-really-rape" cases. Not because they're not really rape, but because the victims have a hard time calling it such even if it fits the legal definition of it.  Because sexual assault also has a picture of something that's immediately violent from a stranger and with some form of obvious threats of bodily harm (you can blame TV for that). It's hard to picture what rape usually looks like. It can entail a slow coercive push toward more and more sexual acts they don't actually want but comply to for fear of losing the relationship, angering their partner, or hurting their feelings...

What the legal definition for rape is in our country varies state by state but isn’t the “universal” acceptance of what rape is is when sex is foced upon another person without that other person’s consent? So, if the other person “complies”, even though he or she does not really want to, is that still legally rape? 

[kiwi57]

37 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

What the legal definition for rape is in our country varies state by state but isn’t the “universal” acceptance of what rape is is when sex is foced upon another person without that other person’s consent? So, if the other person “complies”, even though he or she does not really want to, is that still legally rape? 

In your hypothetical, is the other person merely reluctant/ambivalent, or is s/he actually being coerced?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Here is the report. https://news.byu.edu/sites/default/files/Campus Climate Report_F2017.pdf

Of survey respondents, 67 percent of sexual assault victims did not report their assault to any authority.  3.7 percent of survey participants reported unwanted sexual contact. Alcohol was only a factor in 2 percent of the cases when used by the victim.

Most people don't report crimes, same is true for non-sex related crimes. It is a problem everywhere. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vnrp0610pr.cfm

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-hate-crimes-not-being-reported-to-police-govt-report-shows/ 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

"From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations perpetrated by someone the victim knew well (62%) went unreported to police, compared to victimizations committed by a stranger (51%)" 

"About 76% of violent crime victimizations that occurred at school were not reported to police"

[Traela]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

What the legal definition for rape is in our country varies state by state but isn’t the “universal” acceptance of what rape is is when sex is foced upon another person without that other person’s consent? So, if the other person “complies”, even though he or she does not really want to, is that still legally rape? 

It gets complicated.  When I was a teenager, back in the late 70s/early 80s, we started being told not to fight off rapists to avoid further harm.  Of course, this was when most people thought of rapists as strangers or home invaders.  Then date rape began to enter public consciousness.  And girls who had followed the "experts" advice had no evidence that it hadn't been consensual.

 

[Okrahomer]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the report:

I wonder how this compares with comparable surveys on other college campuses.

Thanks,

-Smac

The AAU climate report linked in Thinking's post above indicates that BYU's rate is probably lower than average.  The AAU average is 11.7% vs BYU's 3.7%.  The U of U's survey result was 10.7%.  BYU's survey participation rate (43%) was also much higher than the AAU institutional average (19.3%) and the U of U (14.36%). 

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In your hypothetical, is the other person merely reluctant/ambivalent, or is s/he actually being coerced?

The other person “complies”. Once rhat happens, isn’t consent given even if he or she truly didn’t want to comply for ehtever reason? If I go out and buy something, whether or not I was reluctant, ambivalent, or coerced, did I not ultimately give consent to buy it? 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, Traela said:

It gets complicated.  When I was a teenager, back in the late 70s/early 80s, we started being told not to fight off rapists to avoid further harm.  Of course, this was when most people thought of rapists as strangers or home invaders.  Then date rape began to enter public consciousness.  And girls who had followed the "experts" advice had no evidence that it hadn't been consensual.

 

 

I remember a young lady who was a single mother in our single’s branch who came off and on because strictly speaking, once you’re a parent you should go to your local family ward but she had permission to cone to our branch because she was date raped. I do not know anything more about her situation other than what I told you. I never asked about it. I actually wanted to date her as I found her attractive and very fun to be with. But being my scared self to ask girls out, thst never happened.  

I remember the 80’s movement to not fight off rapists. In a previous thread on this board I spoke about women fighting back against male attackers but one feedback I got is that women shouldn’t because they are weaker and it would take too much training, supposedly for a typical woman to go through to effectively fight back a man. Also, by hitting the male the woman was setting herself up to be beat further.   To me thst just says that this 80’s movement is still alive to some debree. What you told me makes sense in thst by not fighting off a potential rapist, the male gets the impression that it’s OK to pursue his sexual advances. 

These situations are complicated but I only need one piece if info. By being date raped you mean sex was forced without the other person’s consent, correct? That means “stop” or any other various terms were spoken to not have sex but in the end it was forced? In the end if one “complies”, is that not consent or ? I am looking for a legal definition of rape; not situational or emotional. (And it sounds as if you gave it, I just want to make it clear).  If one “complies” one “consents”, correct? I am not asking if there are victims of rape, there certainly are and it’s terrible. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Darren10

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

The other person “complies”. Once rhat happens, isn’t consent given even if he or she truly didn’t want to comply for ehtever reason? If I go out and buy something, whether or not I was reluctant, ambivalent, or coerced, did I not ultimately give consent to buy it? 

If someone is holding a gun to your head and threatens to shoot you unless you comply do you honestly feel that is consent?

To consent is to give permission, authorization or right. If someone "chooses" to be raped rather than be shot they are not giving permission. Someone faced with that choice is not saying, "you have the right to my body". Consent is not about a choice you make, but about the right you give someone. 

From a quick search legal consent varies from state to state and can vary widely. 

 

[Darren10]

OK, before Rain's comment I looked more into what "comply" means. It is open to "conforming" without giving permission to the wish it desire. To me if some e says "no" to sex, that classified as not complying despite what the person's actions are afterwards. In a legal setting I do not know how far that goes. 

[Darren10]

33 minutes ago, Rain said:

If someone is holding a gun to your head and threatens to shoot you unless you comply do you honestly feel that is consent?

To consent is to give permission, authorization or right. If someone "chooses" to be raped rather than be shot they are not giving permission. Someone faced with that choice is not saying, "you have the right to my body". Consent is not about a choice you make, but about the right you give someone. 

From a quick search legal consent varies from state to state and can vary widely. 

 

Interesting. When is consent not a choice? I think you would agree that while consent is a choice but choice is not necessarily consent, correct? 

How many sexual assaults at BYU would you say were done with a gun pointed to another person's head? And whenever it is done that's a clear cut case of wrong doing and clearly merits jail time. I am not looking for emotional or situational conditions, only legality of what defines compliance as opposed to consent. So in a gun to the head situation I don't think you and I disagree. 

Edited to ad: This standard should fit all situations of threats if sex is not given. Well, beyond, "I'll break up with you if you say into sex". 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Darren10

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Interesting. When is consent not a choice? I think you would agree that while consent is a choice but choice is not necessarily consent, correct? 

How many sexual assaults at BYU would you say were done with a gun pointed to another person's head? And whenever it is done that's a clear cut case of wrong doing and clearly merits jail time. I am not looking for emotional or situational conditions, only legality of what defines compliance as opposed to consent. So in a gun to the head situation I don't think you and I disagree. 

Edited to ad: This standard should fit all situations of threats if sex is not given. Well, beyond, "I'll break up with you if you say into sex". 

No, I would not agree that consent is necessarily a choice. If you do not have the right to give something then you can make the choice to give it, but you can't "consent" to it. For example, I can't consent to you having my neighbor's car.  Until I started looking at the definition of consent I might have agreed with you. Now I feel choice and consent are two different things. Consent can be given by choice, but it is not a choice in and of itself.

Consent could also be given, but not by "choice" - in custody cases for example.

Like I said, "legal consent varies from state to state and can vary widely. " I would imagine that it varies even more could try to country. I make no claims to the validity of this site comparing state Co sent laws, but if the things on it are true it may give you what you are looking for. 

[bsjkki]

Consent is not a lack of resistance. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/?utm_term=.76f50d2c183b

[mnn727]

I think the definition of sexual assault at BYU is mush different than the definition of sexual assault in other places.  According to the figures in the linked report, most of the sexual assault was touching with no actual sex act performed. 

Should it happen? no

Is it sexual assault? I'm not really sure it is.

It is an unwanted advance, but I doubt it qualifies as an actual sexual assault.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I think the definition of sexual assault at BYU is mush different than the definition of sexual assault in other places.  According to the figures in the linked report, most of the sexual assault was touching with no actual sex act performed. 

Should it happen? no

Is it sexual assault? I'm not really sure it is.

It is an unwanted advance, but I doubt it qualifies as an actual sexual assault.

"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient"

 

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

No, I would not agree that consent is necessarily a choice. If you do not have the right to give something then you can make the choice to give it, but you can't "consent" to it. For example, I can't consent to you having my neighbor's car.  Until I started looking at the definition of consent I might have agreed with you. Now I feel choice and consent are two different things. Consent can be given by choice, but it is not a choice in and of itself.

Consent could also be given, but not by "choice" - in custody cases for example.

Like I said, "legal consent varies from state to state and can vary widely. " I would imagine that it varies even more could try to country. I make no claims to the validity of this site comparing state Co sent laws, but if the things on it are true it may give you what you are looking for. 

You can always *choose* to consent, e en without a legal right to do so. When I get Wi-Fi I'll see if I can link a funny video clip fro. A The Pink Panther movie on the confusion of consent. 

Anyhow, on the topic at hand, content is always a choice. I cannot see how it is not. One cobsents to sex or not. I seek legal definition as That's the feamework of what Blue Dreams originally framed being raped. In God's eyes, even when one cobsent to se,, it is not necessarily legal to Him according to His laws, despite consent being given by choice.