Results of BYUs climate survey

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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

So, what is the *legal* definition of being raped? As I originally pointed out and Rain reiterated, definitions of consent and rape vary state to state but the universal agreement is that it is rape when sex is forced without consent. I believe once no is spoken or reasonably expressed then there is no consent but even that gets legally murky, especially with a lack of resistance. So, any info on the legal definition of rape when it cones to consent?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

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. 

 

In Utah, a 13 year old cannot legally consent to have sex with a 17 year old. A person cannot legally consent if the person itentionally gave the victim a substance which impaired their thinking. A person cannot legally consent if the person has a disability that impacts their consent. There are other legal stipulations as well. 

If you have someone who has down syndrome, with the mental ability of a 3 year old and she says yes to a victimized you really can't say there is a choice because she does not have the mental capacity to make that kind of choice. 

And I wasn't just talking about rape specifically. I was talking about consent which covers another thing. 

So, no, legally consent is not always a choice.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

In Utah, a 13 year old cannot legally consent to have sex with a 17 year old. A person cannot legally consent if the person itentionally gave the victim a substance which impaired their thinking. A person cannot legally consent if the person has a disability that impacts their consent. There are other legal stipulations as well. 

If you have someone who has down syndrome, with the mental ability of a 3 year old and she says yes to a victimized you really can't say there is a choice because she does not have the mental capacity to make that kind of choice. 

And I wasn't just talking about rape specifically. I was talking about consent which covers another thing. 

So, no, legally consent is not always a choice.

Good point but I assumed rational thinking adults since the context if this thread was sexual assaults among BUY students. Naturally those unable go give consent cannot give consent freely. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Darren10

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So, what is the *legal* definition of being raped? As I originally pointed out and Rain reiterated, definitions of consent and rape vary state to state but the universal agreement is that it is rape when sex is forced without consent. I believe once no is spoken or reasonably expressed then there is no consent but even that gets legally murky, especially with a lack of resistance. So, any info on the legal definition of rape when it cones to consent?

In Utah (emphasis added):

76-5-406.  Sexual offenses against the victim without consent of victim -- Circumstances.
     An act of sexual intercourse, rape, attempted rape, rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, object rape, attempted object rape, object rape of a child, attempted object rape of a child, sodomy, attempted sodomy, forcible sodomy, attempted forcible sodomy, sodomy on a child, attempted sodomy on a child, forcible sexual abuse, attempted forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, attempted sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, or simple sexual abuse is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances:

(1)	the victim expresses lack of consent through words or conduct;

(2)	the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or violence;

(3)	the actor is able to overcome the victim through concealment or by the element of surprise;

(4)

(a) (i) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the immediate future against the victim or any other person, and the victim perceives at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; or (ii) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and the victim believes at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; (b) as used in this Subsection (4), "to retaliate" includes threats of physical force, kidnapping, or extortion;

(5)	the actor knows the victim is unconscious, unaware that the act is occurring, or physically unable to resist;

(6)	the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect, or for any other reason the victim is at the time of the act incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;

(7)	the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse;

(8)	the actor intentionally impaired the power of the victim to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering any substance without the victim's knowledge;

(9)	the victim is younger than 14 years of age;

(10)	the victim is younger than 18 years of age and at the time of the offense the actor was the victim's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian or occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim as defined in Section 76-5-404.1;

(11)	the victim is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, and the actor is more than three years older than the victim and entices or coerces the victim to submit or participate, under circumstances not amounting to the force or threat required under Subsection (2) or (4); or

(12)

the actor is a health professional or religious counselor, as those terms are defined in this Subsection (12), the act is committed under the guise of providing professional diagnosis, counseling, or treatment, and at the time of the act the victim reasonably believed that the act was for medically or professionally appropriate diagnosis, counseling, or treatment to the extent that resistance by the victim could not reasonably be expected to have been manifested; for purposes of this Subsection (12): (a) "health professional" means an individual who is licensed or who holds himself or herself out to be licensed, or who otherwise provides professional physical or mental health services, diagnosis, treatment, or counseling including, but not limited to, a physician, osteopathic physician, nurse, dentist, physical therapist, chiropractor, mental health therapist, social service worker, clinical social worker, certified social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional counselor, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric mental health nurse specialist, or substance abuse counselor; and (b) "religious counselor" means a minister, priest, rabbi, bishop, or other recognized member of the clergy.

 

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html

[Darren10]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In Utah (emphasis added):

76-5-406.  Sexual offenses against the victim without consent of victim -- Circumstances.
     An act of sexual intercourse, rape, attempted rape, rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, object rape, attempted object rape, object rape of a child, attempted object rape of a child, sodomy, attempted sodomy, forcible sodomy, attempted forcible sodomy, sodomy on a child, attempted sodomy on a child, forcible sexual abuse, attempted forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, attempted sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, or simple sexual abuse is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances:

(1)	the victim expresses lack of consent through words or conduct;

(2)	the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or violence;

(3)	the actor is able to overcome the victim through concealment or by the element of surprise;

(4)

(a) (i) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the immediate future against the victim or any other person, and the victim perceives at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; or (ii) the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and the victim believes at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat; (b) as used in this Subsection (4), "to retaliate" includes threats of physical force, kidnapping, or extortion;

(5)	the actor knows the victim is unconscious, unaware that the act is occurring, or physically unable to resist;

(6)	the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect, or for any other reason the victim is at the time of the act incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;

(7)	the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse;

(8)	the actor intentionally impaired the power of the victim to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering any substance without the victim's knowledge;

(9)	the victim is younger than 14 years of age;

(10)	the victim is younger than 18 years of age and at the time of the offense the actor was the victim's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian or occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim as defined in Section 76-5-404.1;

(11)	the victim is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, and the actor is more than three years older than the victim and entices or coerces the victim to submit or participate, under circumstances not amounting to the force or threat required under Subsection (2) or (4); or

(12)

the actor is a health professional or religious counselor, as those terms are defined in this Subsection (12), the act is committed under the guise of providing professional diagnosis, counseling, or treatment, and at the time of the act the victim reasonably believed that the act was for medically or professionally appropriate diagnosis, counseling, or treatment to the extent that resistance by the victim could not reasonably be expected to have been manifested; for purposes of this Subsection (12): (a) "health professional" means an individual who is licensed or who holds himself or herself out to be licensed, or who otherwise provides professional physical or mental health services, diagnosis, treatment, or counseling including, but not limited to, a physician, osteopathic physician, nurse, dentist, physical therapist, chiropractor, mental health therapist, social service worker, clinical social worker, certified social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional counselor, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric mental health nurse specialist, or substance abuse counselor; and (b) "religious counselor" means a minister, priest, rabbi, bishop, or other recognized member of the clergy.

 

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html

"the victim expresses lack of consent through words or conduct;"

"the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and the victim believes at the time that the actor has the ability to execute this threat;"

Both exactly what I have said consists of rape. 

Thanks 

[mnn727]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

"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

Is brushing against someones butt or breast which is covered by clothing sexual contact? Sexual assault?

Is it sexual contact if I turn around to pass someone in a narrow hallway and our fully clothed butts touch? how about if a woman passes me in a narrow hallway and her fully clothed butt touches my fully clothed butt. Is that sexual contact? sexual assault? towards who? me if I'm the one standing still?

How about if we're on a date, both kissing passionately  and my hand wanders to her fully clothed breast and she says stop and I stop? is that sexual contact? sexual assault?

Boy I'm glad I'm not single these days.

Edited November 21, 2017 by mnn727

[Storm Rider]

The great thing is that this is a national conversation.  It is obvious that some males have assumed that being a pig i.e. being sexually aggressive, is an acceptable way of interacting with others.  It would be great if this leads to a more healthy interaction between humans.

I also think we have some very socially inept males that are just thoughtless about what is and what is not acceptable courting behavior. Some of the things I have heard said in national conversation and an experience of my wife's makes me think that some men are just plain stupid when it comes to social interactions with females.  Never in my wildest ideas of social interactions would I have ever considered showing my genitals to my date - it would just never happen. However, this is what some males think is acceptable or at least something to do when they are interested in a relationship - however brief - with a female.  I hope that parents are talking to their boys about what is and what is not acceptable when dating or interacting with females. 

We need to define what is and what is not aggressive behavior also. Some of the national conversation goes to extremes. It is almost as if some people think that humans are not supposed to be sexual beings in any degree. I don't care how advanced we think humans are when you get males and females in close environment for long hours it increases the probability that something sexual may develop.  The fact that it does should not be a surprise or be unexpected. 

One thing that scares me about the national conversation is that if I was running a small business today it would be a cold day before I willingly hired both males and females. The liability has skyrocketed and I would be fearfully of becoming liable given our societal penchant for litigation.   

I am curious how the conversation is so completely focused on male behavior. It is as if females are simply pure, non-sexual beings at the mercy of males and never, ever the source of sexually aggressive behavior.  I know for a fact that is not reality.  The reality is much more different than what society seems willing to discuss. We are still pretty sexist

[mnn727]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am curious how the conversation is so completely focused on male behavior. It is as if females are simply pure, non-sexual beings at the mercy of males and never, ever the source of sexually aggressive behavior.  I know for a fact that is not reality.  The reality is much more different than what society seems willing to discuss. We are still pretty sexist

When I was young, single, and good looking (and not yet LDS) I had three females be the aggressor (at different times).

[clarkgoble]

On 11/19/2017 at 12:04 AM, 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.

Wow that's surprisingly low. I'd have thought it'd be much higher.

15 hours ago, Gray said:

"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

The problem with that definition is it's ridiculously ambiguous. One person might find a shoulder rub sexual assault. By that definitely I've been assaulted but I have a hard time seeing it as sexual assault. Further I think that definitely ends up watering down the place of full on rape. There's a big difference between unwanted touching, groping of breasts, and so forth, and full penetration. I think that these definitions, however well intentioned, actually ultimately make things worse because of those confusions. We can of course think all three are wrong yet recognize important distinctions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and think more than 3.7% of people have had unwanted touching especially on dates. Yet just don't feel appropriate calling it sexual assault.

By this definition I've been sexually assaulted dozens of times - perhaps more. But I'd have a hard time saying that with a straight face.

BTW -  when I saw the thread title I thought this was a survey about global warming.

Edited November 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Storm Rider]

In the south entering the home of another meant giving hugs to everyone - it is a cultural thing. It is easy to recognize that for an individual who has a bigger personal space that this could be viewed, in these newly redefined terms of today, as sexual assault.  It becomes an extremely subjective standard, which makes it beyond confusing.

[Calm]

I think it would be useful to use an intuitive for the most part gradient as people would be more reluctant to report if they saw punishment as not fitting the crime, both too lenient OT too harsh.  With lesser offenses, perhaps the main desire is to ensure the offender figures out it is wrong.

Perhaps treating sexual offenses and crimes more like driving offenses would be helpful (in describing and teaching, lot of specifics, greater penalties and why tend to be clear...handbook of rules and acceptable behaviour).

people can figure out speeding 30 mph over limit is different than 3, speeding 5 miles over in a school crossing zone withflashing lights worse than speeding 25 over on an empty freeway, a parking violation isn't as bad as a moving one, operating DUI should be worse than suddenly being sleepy.

It needs to be clearly taught that a kiss on a cheek is not the same as a full on the lips kiss with hands restraining movement.  Anything done with either participant Operating under the influence should buck up the severity of the crime, like labeling something a hate crime does rather than letting someone argue diminished responsibility or something..  having multiple offenders involved should elevate it like a conspiracy so that anyone just watching is liable as well.

something like sexual harassment (civil), then sexual aggression,  sexual offense, sexual assault, sexual violation, rape....any presence of drugs or alcohol bumps it up a level, any physical threat upset, physical injury (bruising, broken bones, choking, etc) ups it, multiple aggressors ups it...

pretty much rambling so not wedded to the specifics, just trying to think of an easy way to teach what is wrong and what is really wrong because so often excuses are made like with compliance...well, she didn't say "no" or "stop", so that's consent, right? (No, it is not)...she didn't say yes, but her eyes did when I kissed her (not consent), she did t say yes, but she kissed me back (but in many cases the woman may have just froze and the guy is ignoring the negatives to remove guilt that he is assaulting, so not consent).

It is usually easier to get people to agree on the really wrong stuff, get that in place and then work on the next level down, making it clearer and clearer over time that no sexual aggression (as opposed to assertiveness) is acceptable from anayone to anyone.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it would be useful to use an intuitive for the most part gradient as people would be more reluctant to report if they saw punishment as not fitting the crime, both too lenient OT too harsh.  With lesser offenses, perhaps the main desire is to ensure the offender figures out it is wrong.

Perhaps treating sexual offenses and crimes more like driving offenses would be helpful (in describing and teaching, lot of specifics, greater penalties and why tend to be clear...handbook of rules and acceptable behaviour).

people can figure out speeding 30 mph over limit is different than 3, speeding 5 miles over in a school crossing zone withflashing lights worse than speeding 25 over on an empty freeway, a parking violation isn't as bad as a moving one, operating DUI should be worse than suddenly being sleepy.

It needs to be clearly taught that a kiss on a cheek is not the same as a full on the lips kiss with hands restraining movement.  Anything done with either participant Operating under the influence should buck up the severity of the crime, like labeling something a hate crime does rather than letting someone argue diminished responsibility or something..  having multiple offenders involved should elevate it like a conspiracy so that anyone just watching is liable as well.

something like sexual harassment (civil), then sexual aggression,  sexual offense, sexual assault, sexual violation, rape....any presence of drugs or alcohol bumps it up a level, any physical threat upset, physical injury (bruising, broken bones, choking, etc) ups it, multiple aggressors ups it...

pretty much rambling so not wedded to the specifics, just trying to think of an easy way to teach what is wrong and what is really wrong because so often excuses are made like with compliance...well, she didn't say "no" or "stop", so that's consent, right? (No, it is not)...she didn't say yes, but her eyes did when I kissed her (not consent), she did t say yes, but she kissed me back (but in many cases the woman may have just froze and the guy is ignoring the negatives to remove guilt that he is assaulting, so not consent).

It is usually easier to get people to agree on the really wrong stuff, get that in place and then work on the next level down, making it clearer and clearer over time that no sexual aggression (as opposed to assertiveness) is acceptable from anayone to anyone.

I appreciate the conversation.  I see a difference between a criminal action and a social interaction and there needs to be a distinction between the two areas.  Someone being a social klutz is different from someone that has boorish behavior and both are different from a person that rapes another. 

I tend to reject that women should be excused from any liability in a social relationship.  If you are big enough to have a sexual relationship then be should be big enough to speak up and say "NO".  The idea that women are tiny, defenseless ninnies is a stereotype that has not existed for decades. It only seems to be pulled out in politicized topics.  If we are teaching our young men and women proper courting behavior then we better be teaching them to say no when they are not comfortable with something. 

I just read an article in Crisis magazine that addresses some other ideas on this topic.  I don't completely agree with the entire article, but there is definitely some food for thought on how we have traveled from the sexual revolution and the demeaning of Christian morals to the highly politicized environment of today where only the government is entitled to define what is and is not that which has always been known as sinful behavior.

[Calm]

I am not suggesting women be excused from saying "no".  I am saying men and women should not be excused from asking.

Men and women are vulnerable when under the influence.  Men and women are vulnerable when either decides that nonverbal communication is sufficient.

In other relations, clear communication is required.  Someone moving into another lane without using a turn signal will get a ticket.  If someone puts money on the shelf in a store and then walks out with the item, they can get arrested for stealing.  Why not require the same level of care in the very important sexual relationships of all levels?

Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting women be excused from saying "no".  I am saying men and women should not be excused from asking.

Men and women are vulnerable when under the influence.  Men and women are vulnerable when either decides that nonverbal communication is sufficient.

In other relations, clear communication is required.  Someone moving into another lane without using a turn signal will get a ticket.  If someone puts money on the shelf in a store and then walks out with the item, they can get arrested for stealing.  Why not require the same level of care in the very important sexual relationships of all levels?

So a couple is out on a date (lets say for the sake of getting it out of the way, they are not LDS) "Would you like to have sex later?" should be asked before even holding hands? Hows ever going to get a yes answer?

 Heck, my wife would just laugh if I asked that over dinner.

---

And BTW there is no law requiring the use of a turn signal to change lanes in 3 out 4 states I have lived in.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

So a couple is out on a date (lets say for the sake of getting it out of the way, they are not LDS) "Would you like to have sex later?" should be asked before even holding hands? Hows ever going to get a yes answer?

Why in the world do you think that is what I am suggesting?  Misrepresentation of what I said to the point it looks intentional in order to make it appear ridiculous.

If you are at a point you want to hold hands, ask to hold hands.  If you are at a point you want to kiss, ask to kiss.  When you get to the point where the next stage would be sex, ask if they are interested as well and if yes, ask about what they prefer for safe sex practices next.

Not rocket science.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm

[mnn727]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Why in the world do you think that is what I am suggesting?  Misrepresentation of what I said to the point it looks intentional in order to make it appear ridiculous.

If you are at a point you want to hold hands, ask to hold hands.  If you are at a point you want to kiss, ask to kiss.  When you get to the point where the next stage would be sex, ask if they are interested as well and if yes, ask about what they prefer for safe sex practices next.

Not rocket science.

I see zero difference. Have you ever heard of foreplay? getting in the mood? or do you schedule your encounters?