Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women"

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It wouldn't be a big deal except that LDS girls at his school depend on him to be fair and impartial when they come to his station reporting a crime.  

By the same token, people being accused of a crime have the right to a fair and impartial investigation too, not to mention legal innocence until proven guilty.

I was okay with the focus on the risk that girls take on when they report sexual mistreatment.  No need to dilute it by broadening the pool.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Remember the chief also said if a football player is accused of assault, regardless of the facts of what really happened, “the cards are stacked against" the accused. 

Hmmm. As far as that might be true, how did we get here?

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

The problem is , unless there were witnesses or good physical evidence , conviction will be difficult. 

Why most men get away with it and women don’t report.

Ah. Like ever, it's the predictable outcome of a not-small number of men leveraging women for entertainment (or worse) w/o consideration or consent - while the vast majority of men give that a giant yawn.

The same men who later get incensed when the pendulum swings to the first spot required to get some relief for women.

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And a pretty good secular reason to obey the Law of Chastity.

Yes and no. Something to keep in mind that going back millions of generations across trillions of ancestors, all of them had one thing in common: they all had sex. There are deep, deep forces inside of us that pull us towards making that event happen.

The following story is third or forth hand and some details might not be exactly right, but it makes an interesting point. A pair of exMormons got infatuated with each other and even though one of them was married to somebody else, they "fell in love." Apparently they had a few make out sessions and may have gotten to second base more or less, but the married one ended it before it went much further than that. There was intense remorse and guilt and feelings of betrayal in all directions from all sides, and some of the drama ended up playing out publicly in the exMormon community. A never-member who went to BYU heard this story and commented, "this whole thing is so Mormon!" In the non-Mormon world you either do it or don't do it, and either way you don't spent years beating up yourself and others about it. It's just sex."

Yes, there are other hazards of sex, but I'm sure these guys have already heard about those risks and how they can be mitigated. Being in a culture that puts an extremely high premium on virginity and abstinence could be a new experience for many of these guys. It's a different dynamic to be with somebody who is okay with some kissing, thinks going a little further is a forgivable sin, but thinks then going all the way is sin third only to murder and denying the holy ghost. From my perspective, it's a lot easier to clearly say "no" if you are also free to clearly say "yes," as opposed to deciding how much sin you are willing to commit while in the heat of the moment. 

 Of course you could just get married, but most of the worst marriages I've seen are people who got married too young and just did it so they could do it.

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

I was okay with the focus on the risk that girls take on when they report sexual mistreatment.  No need to dilute it by broadening the pool.

Hmmm. As far as that might be true, how did we get here?

We got here because,  "Standing in a room full of football players this fall, the police chief for Utah State University told each young man to make sure that when he has sex that it’s consensual — especially if he’s with a Latter-day Saint woman." 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We got here because,  "Standing in a room full of football players this fall, the police chief for Utah State University told each young man to make sure that when he has sex that it’s consensual — especially if he’s with a Latter-day Saint woman." 

The inference that the entirety of this began at that moment - and has nothing to do endless bad behavior by men  - that isn't very true.

[MustardSeed]

If he was worried about investigations, he should have simply educated them about consent, let them know that the team takes allegations very seriously, and to be extra cautious and considerate when engaging in casual sex with inexperienced and sexually conservative people. No need to call out religion or accuse entire groups of being liars. 
 

That said I have a family member who admits to crying wolf.  I find her behavior reprehensible and I have zero respect for her.  I think she should be in prison. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

And a pretty good secular reason to obey the Law of Chastity.

Yes and no.

Mostly yes, I think.  

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Something to keep in mind that going back millions of generations across trillions of ancestors,

Billions, actually.  About 100+ billion or so.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

all of them had one thing in common: they all had sex.

Not all of them.  Plenty of people have lived and died without having had sexual relations.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There are deep, deep forces inside of us that pull us towards making that event happen.

Yes.  But this is where the theists start to have a superior argument.  If we are merely animalistic, governed only by "deep, deep forces inside of us," then sexual assault is not a thing.  Nobody bats an eye when a lion commits infanticide.  We do nothing about the apparent rampant rape epidemic amongst ducks.  We do not impose any moral conditions or restrains on animals, but we do impose them on human beings.

I am sure you are not advocating for the idea that "deep, deep forces inside of us that pull us towards {sex}" is a justification for sexual assault.  We impose upon ourselves sexual ethics.  These ethics vary in form and scope from culture to culture, but they are well nigh unto ubiquitous as to their existence within each culture.  

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The following story is third or forth hand and some details might not be exactly right, but it makes an interesting point. A pair of exMormons got infatuated with each other and even though one of them was married to somebody else, they "fell in love." Apparently they had a few make out sessions and may have gotten to second base more or less, but the married one ended it before it went much further than that. There was intense remorse and guilt and feelings of betrayal in all directions from all sides, and some of the drama ended up playing out publicly in the exMormon community. A never-member who went to BYU heard this story and commented, "this whole thing is so Mormon!" In the non-Mormon world you either do it or don't do it, and either way you don't spent years beating up yourself and others about it. It's just sex."

This is an appeal to ridicule, and it doesn't work.

If you revised the narrative to include a story of nonconsensual sex, involving force or threats, or coercion, or drugs, you would not just wave it away with "It's just sex."  Why?  Because in our culture nonconsensual sex is per se wrong.  Notwithstanding the "deep, deep forces inside of {an individual} that pull {him} towards {sex}," he cannot point to those forces as a defense or justification of having had sexual relations with another person without her consent.

A little while ago I watched a YouTube review of "I-Land," a Netflix series (language warning).  Apparently this was a pretty awful show.  It is apparently (spoiler warning) a cross between Lost and The Matrix.  A bunch of people wake up on an island, all having amesia.  Here's a synopsis:

Quote

Each survivor — we get to know their names during a scene in which they share a coconut and read the tags sewn into everyone’s matching shirts — woke up with an item; a knife, a hatchet, a first-aid kit, a conch shell, and so on. During a brief excursion, Chase and the mop-haired alpha-jock Brody (Alex Pettyfer) dig them all up. They find a waterfall and potential shelter, then they share a brief smooch and Brody tries to rape Chase. This whole sequence plays like a bad joke. When they both return to the beach and Chase attacks him, Brody plays it off like no big deal. He later approaches her privately to ask for her vote in the inevitable group meeting, like a smarmy political campaigner. He justifies his attempt to rape her thusly: “There’s no such thing as rape in a place like this. There’s either sex or no sex. And we had no sex.”

Again, I am sure you are not advocating this mindset (“There’s no such thing as rape in a place like this. There’s either sex or no sex. And we had no sex.”).  As soon as we humans get together, we form communities and societies.  Each society then ends up with formlated rules for how its constituent members interact with each other.  Property rights are often a primary concern, as are transactional rules.  However, sexual ethics and other rules governing physical interactions are nearly ubiquitous.  

My point is this: The Latter-day Saints have done what everyone else has done: established a set of sexual ethics.  Everyone recognizes that there are "deep, deep forces inside of us that pull us towards {sex}," but how we respond to and regulate and constrain those forces varies.  Some of us are utterly depraved libertines, with essentially no constraints on sexual impulses.  Others are hedonistic, with "consent" being the only barrier to expression of sexual desire.  Some have no qualms with meaningless sexual encounters.  Some feel that having sex has no moral component (except perhaps consent).  Some feel that there is a moral component attached to sexual expression, but not necessarily involving a restriction on sexual behavior to marriage.  Some feel that sex is appropriate only within marriage.  Some believe that sex is only appropriate for procreation.  Some believe that sex can be totally prohibited for some (as in some religious orders/communities).

The Latter-day Saints believe, essentially, that sex is A) wonderful, B) extremely important, C) limited to expression as between husband and wife, and D) for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife.

I therefore can't go along with your appeal to ridicule.  The Latter-day Saint code of sexual ethics is reasoned and reasonable.  And voluntary.  It is therefore reasonable for a person who subscribes to that code to feel "remorse and guilt" for violating that code.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, there are other hazards of sex, but I'm sure these guys have already heard about those risks and how they can be mitigated.

Sure.  One of the best ways to mitigate those hazards is . . . to obey the Law of Chastity (and the Word of Wisdom).

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Being in a culture that puts an extremely high premium on virginity and abstinence could be a new experience for many of these guys.

The Latter-day Saints put a high premium of sexual purity, which involves abstention from sex outside of marriage and repentance for violations of the Law of Chastity.

I acknowledge that "these guys" may not be aware of the particulars of the Latter-day Saint "culture" relative to extra-marital sex.  But I think it was a pretty bad idea for the chief of police at USU to approach the issue of sexual assault the way he did.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's a different dynamic to be with somebody who is okay with some kissing, thinks going a little further is a forgivable sin, but thinks then going all the way is sin third only to murder and denying the holy ghost.

I question whether the chief of police at a state-run university is situated to offer advice about the particulars of sexual activity with Latter-day Saint women, particularly when his remarks elicited laughter and hollering from the members of the football team.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

From my perspective, it's a lot easier to clearly say "no" if you are also free to clearly say "yes," as opposed to deciding how much sin you are willing to commit while in the heat of the moment. 

 Of course you could just get married, but most of the worst marriages I've seen are people who got married too young and just did it so they could do it.

The Church doesn't teach its members to get married "just ... so they could do it {sex}."

Again, one of the best ways to avoid the risks inherent in the college "hook up" scene is . . . to avoid the scene altogether and live according to the tenets of the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If he was worried about investigations, he should have simply educated them about consent, let them know that the team takes allegations very seriously, and to be extra cautious and considerate when engaging in casual sex with inexperienced and sexually conservative people. No need to call out religion or accuse entire groups of being liars. 

Very well said.  

34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That said I have a family member who admits to crying wolf.  I find her behavior reprehensible and I have zero respect for her.  I think she should be in prison. 

Yes, false allegations of this sort are reprehensible.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Analytics]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is an appeal to ridicule, and it doesn't work.

No, it isn't an appeal to ridicule. It's an illustration of how people do in fact respond differently to sex depending upon their culture.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point is this: The Latter-day Saints have done what everyone else has done: established a set of sexual ethics.  Everyone recognizes that there are "deep, deep forces inside of us that pull us towards {sex}," but how we respond to and regulate and constrain those forces varies.  Some of us are utterly depraved libertines, with essentially no constraints on sexual impulses.  Others are hedonistic, with "consent" being the only barrier to expression of sexual desire.  Some have no qualms with meaningless sexual encounters.  Some feel that having sex has no moral component (except perhaps consent).  Some feel that there is a moral component attached to sexual expression, but not necessarily involving a restriction on sexual behavior to marriage.  Some feel that sex is appropriate only within marriage.  Some believe that sex is only appropriate for procreation.  Some believe that sex can be totally prohibited for some (as in some religious orders/communities).

The Latter-day Saints believe, essentially, that sex is A) wonderful, B) extremely important, C) limited to expression as between husband and wife, and D) for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife.

I therefore can't go along with your appeal to ridicule.  The Latter-day Saint code of sexual ethics is reasoned and reasonable.  And voluntary.  It is therefore reasonable for a person who subscribes to that code to feel "remorse and guilt" for violating that code.

How reasoned, reasonable, and voluntary the LDS code of sexual morality is debatable, and I won't derail this thread by engaging in that debate.

My point is that it is different from mainstream society, and that difference and its implications ought to be understood by outsiders who interact with people in that culture. Was the Chief unnecessarily brash in how he made his point? Sure. But I don't think it was ineffective in conveying his actual point: make sure that when you have sex that it’s consensual — especially if its with a Latter-day Saint woman.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question whether the chief of police at a state-run university is situated to offer advice about the particulars of sexual activity with Latter-day Saint women, particularly when his remarks elicited laughter and hollering from the members of the football team.

That's better than eliciting them to go out and try to have sex with Latter-day Saint women.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church doesn't teach its members to get married "just ... so they could do it {sex}."

The Church does strongly encourage them to get married before sex, and it does say (or at least strongly imply) that you shouldn't wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to get married. 

Trying to apply the Church's teachings the best you can in real-world situations doesn't always lead to ideal results.

 

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, it isn't an appeal to ridicule.

Sure seems like it.

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's an illustration of how people do in fact respond differently to sex depending upon their culture.

Your anecdote seems to present, approvingly, the implication that the Latter-day Saint beliefs regarding sexuality are absurd or otherwise unworthy of respect, that adulterous behavior that doesn't include actual sexual intercourse is no big deal, and that even if sex had occurred "it's just sex" (italics yours).

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How reasoned, reasonable, and voluntary the LDS code of sexual morality is debatable, and I won't derail this thread by engaging in that debate.

That's fine.  

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is that it is different from mainstream society, and that difference and its implications ought to be understood by outsiders who interact with people in that culture.

I agree with you on this point.  But I think the implications could have been better conveyed to those outsiders than by telling them that Latter-day Saint women are, due to guilt borne of religious belief, prone to lying about sexual encounters.

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Was the Chief unnecessarily brash in how he made his point? Sure. But I don't think it was ineffective in conveying his actual point: make sure that when you have sex that it’s consensual — especially if its with a Latter-day Saint woman.

I think the reaction to his remarks about allegations of sexual assault - laughter and hollering - suggest some measure of ineffectiveness.

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I question whether the chief of police at a state-run university is situated to offer advice about the particulars of sexual activity with Latter-day Saint women, particularly when his remarks elicited laughter and hollering from the members of the football team.

That's better than eliciting them to go out and try to have sex with Latter-day Saint women.

Oh.

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church doesn't teach its members to get married "just ... so they could do it {sex}."

The Church does strongly encourage them to get married before sex,

Which is quite different from encouraging them to get married "just ... so they could do it {have sex}."

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and it does say (or at least strongly imply) that you shouldn't wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to get married. 

That's absurdly false.

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Trying to apply the Church's teachings the best you can in real-world situations doesn't always lead to ideal results.

Show me a system of ethics that "always lead{s} to ideal results."  Go ahead, I'll wait.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 15, 2021 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

50 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and it does say (or at least strongly imply) that you shouldn't wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to get married. 

That's absurdly false.

To be fair, this is my experience to a very large degree.  We were even lectured in my grad program at BYU to not postpone having a family for financial reasons or to wait to graduate, and were specifically told to not postpone having children. Many clients have shared with me that their bishops have advised not to postpone marriage “because” sex is so tempting and can mess up temple goals. It’s not the same thing as “get married for sex” but it’s all part of the same stew IMO

[Vanguard]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Hmm.  This seems troubing in a few ways.

First, the police chief seems to have a predisposition of skepticism regarding allegations of sexual assault.  He seems predisposed to thinking of them as being borne of after-the-fact regret.

Second, the police chief is focusing this skepticism on women.  His comment to the football players that "the cards are stacked against you" seems to presuppose their (the players') innocence and the falsity of the prospective allegation against them.

Third, the police chief is focusing this skepticism on women of a particular religion.

Fourth, his comments elicited laughter from the football players.  "Members of the team laughed and hollered in response...").  I'm wondering what, if anything, the police chief did in response to that.

The article continues:

Wow.

And here the USU police chief is, it seems, preemptively expressing solidarity with them.

So USU didn't investigate much until media coverage forced them to.

From the Tribune article:

Noelle Cockett, by the way, made the news a year ago about apparent religious discrimination in the hiring process of the football coach.  See here:

Here's the next part (from the Tribune) :

A few thoughts:

As both a father to a college-student daughter and a member of the Church, I am concerned that Mr. Morris previously worked at BYU-Hawaii in law enforcement.  He seems to be partial, he seems to be presumptively in favor of athletes and presumptively skeptical about allegations of sexual assault.  

I am not oblivious to the possibility of false allegations of sexual assault.  However, Mr. Morris apparently handled that issue very poorly.  His remark elicited laughter/hollering from the fooball team.  Any time a law enforcement officer is talking to young men about sexual assault and they laugh and holler in response, those remarks deserve some reconsideration.

I am curious as to whether Mr. Morris made any mention of the consequences of actual sexual assault, as opposed to just warning the football players about the possibility of false allegations of assault.  After all, it may just be that the young woman, whether or not she is a Latter-day Saint, could very well be telling the truth when reporting an allegation of assault.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not a well-delivered message. I am troubled by some of the wording the chief uses regards to being forced to investigate allegations. Forced? Are you kidding? It makes it sound like he would have to act against his will. And "the cards are stacked against you from the moment that happens" makes it sound like it's a poker game and you better make sure you have the better hand. Primarily though I am troubled by the implication that the football player is better off going for the non-member women as you don't have to worry as much about those women reporting such things. Bad form all around. : (

[smac97]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

 

Quote

and it does say (or at least strongly imply) that you shouldn't wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to get married. 

That's absurdly false.

 

To be fair, this is my experience to a very large degree.  

Okay.  That has not remotely been my experience.

To be sure, being "financially ... ready to get married" is a hugely subjective and malleable concept.  

The same goes for being "emotionally ready."  And in any event, I don't think the Church encourages its members to marry without regard to this.

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

We were even lectured in my grad program at BYU to not postpone having a family for financial reasons or to wait to graduate, and were specifically told to not postpone having children.

Again, being "financially ... ready to get married" is a hugely subjective and malleable concept.  It can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean.

Meanwhile, the Church teaches that "{t}hose who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family," and that "{t}his blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons."

This counsel is not reasonably characterized as "{the Church says or strongly implies} that you shouldn't wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to get married."

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Many clients have shared with me that their bishops have advised not to postpone marriage “because” sex is so tempting and can mess up temple goals.

Bishops telling young people to get married "just ... so they could do it {have sex}" is the point under discussion.

Whether bishops telling young people to not postpone marriage "'because' sex is so tempting and can mess up temple goals" is a fairly separate topic.

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s not the same thing as “get married for sex” but it’s all part of the same stew IMO

I think postponing marriage and/or having children "for selfish reasons" is discouraged.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That has not remotely been my experience.

I’m a marriage therapist 18 years in  so I see and talk to a lot of members of the church about their sex lives.  
 

That said, your experience AND mine is anecdotal.  
 

And what “the church teaches” and what “gets taught” are often different things.  IME/IMO. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m a marriage therapist 18 years in  so I see and talk to a lot of members of the church about their sex lives.  
 

That said, your experience AND mine is anecdotal.  
 

And what “the church teaches” and what “gets taught” are often different things.  IME/IMO. 

Fair points, these.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

www.deseret.com/platform/amp/utah/2021/12/16/22839941/usu-police-chief-resigns-after-reprehensible-sexual-assault-comments-to-football-players-lds-women

Quote

Earl Morris, the chief of police at Utah State University in Logan, has resigned from the job just days after comments he made to the university's football team on sexual assault were made public.

 

The university announced in a news release Thursday that Morris resigned earlier in the day. The day prior, Morris was placed on administrative leave from the university. USU called Morris' comments to student athletes "reprehensible and unacceptable" in the Thursday release.

Recordings of Morris addressing the USU football team were published earlier in the week, where Morris can be heard telling football players that they live in a "Mormon community" and women may regret having sex after the fact, which could lead to reports of sexual assault.

"Oftentimes it's easier to say, 'No, no, no, that wasn't consensual,'" Morris can be heard saying on the recording.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by smac97

[provoman]

 

His comments raise issues of trust as to whether that police department takes sexually allegations seriously based on the victims religion.

[provoman]

Isn’t USU the same school where the School President suggested they would not hire a “mormon” football coach?

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

www.deseret.com/platform/amp/utah/2021/12/16/22839941/usu-police-chief-resigns-after-reprehensible-sexual-assault-comments-to-football-players-lds-women

 

This smacks of "You can't fire me! I quit!" Either that, or they allowed him to resign so he could save a little face.

Edited December 16, 2021 by rchorse

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rchorse said:

This smacks of "You can't fire me! I quit!" Either that, or they allowed him to resign so he could save a little face.

Shall we take bets at how long it takes for him to be hired elsewhere in law enforcement?

[rchorse]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shall we take bets at how long it takes for him to be hired elsewhere in law enforcement?

Probably not long, unfortunately.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shall we take bets at how long it takes for him to be hired elsewhere in law enforcement?

I don't want his life to be ruined, and being blackballed from employment opportunities would a very severe consequence, but I'm glad that he's being held accountable for his words and I hope that he can use this experience as a huge wake up call.  If he doesn't, then he probably shouldn't work in law enforcement again, at least not in any capacity that allows him to influence or be in charge of other cops. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, rchorse said:

This smacks of "You can't fire me! I quit!" Either that, or they allowed him to resign so he could save a little face.

I think it’s typical in such situations to lay the facts out and offer the individual the chance to resign to avoid being fired. 

[katherine the great]

On 12/16/2021 at 2:15 PM, bluebell said:

I don't want his life to be ruined, and being blackballed from employment opportunities would a very severe consequence, but I'm glad that he's being held accountable for his words and I hope that he can use this experience as a huge wake up call.  If he doesn't, then he probably shouldn't work in law enforcement again, at least not in any capacity that allows him to influence or be in charge of other cops. 

I totally agree. I hate to see people lose their livelihoods over a single comment. But I don’t think these attitudes are ever single expressions. This man has been in law-enforcement for over 30 years and 12 of those years were working with college aged students. If, after all that vast experience with violent behavior, his best response to campus rape was “the Mormon girls make it up” then he clearly does not belong in law enforcement. Ever.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I totally agree. I hate to see people lose their livelihoods over a single comment. But I don’t think these attitudes are ever single expressions. This man has been in law-enforcement for over 30 years and 12 of those years were working with college aged students. If, after all that vast experience with violent behavior, his best response to campus rape was “the Mormon girls make it up” then he clearly does not belong in law enforcement. Ever.

I read an article that quoted him telling the players, after talking to them about consensual sex, “we’re going to take care of you no matter what.”  He should not be in any position that lets him investigate rape accusations, or have contact with victims.

[katherine the great]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I read an article that quoted him telling the players, after talking to them about consensual sex, “we’re going to take care of you no matter what.”  He should not be in any position that lets him investigate rape accusations, or have contact with victims.

What the what? 😳 Wow! Does this guy have any daughters????