The Story
Lets take a hypothetical scenario:
A woman dresses up for a night out. She selects a gorgeous dress which is very low-cut in back. She exercises regularly and her back is toned and muscular. The dress is bedecked with sequins which catch the light and draw the eye to her figure. It is a tight-fitting dress and her ample bosom is contoured and accentuated by the cut and form of the dress. She applies makeup and creates a look with dark eye-shadow that creates a smokey “come hither” look. Her lips are painted a ruby hue which complement the pristine complexion and tanned hue of her skin. Every detail of her appearance is optimized to showcase her beauty and attract the attention of men that she will encounter. This is how she looks:
She goes out on the town. She stops at an upscale bar and orders a few drinks. A handsome man approaches her and they share an evening of revelry, drink and mutual attraction. It looks something like this.
She accepts an invitation to his apartment. As they talk in the apartment, she entertains the possibility of a sexual encounter with him. She steps into the bathroom and removes her dress and changes into a negligée she brought along. She remembers that she had not missed any of her birth control medication and had brought condoms just in case. She is about to consent to sex – but then she decides – NO. For some reason – any reason – she decides that she doesn’t want to have sex with this man right now. She continues to hug and to kiss him, but tells him “I really like you, but I am not ready for sexual intercourse” and repeatedly tells him “No” when he presses – and she attempts to withdraw.
He changes his demeanor dramatically. He becomes more forceful and ultimately overpowers her and penetrates her against her will – all the while telling her “you know you want it” – It is sexual assault. Rape. When he releases her, she gathers her things and leaves.
The next day she is reeling from the violation of her person. She considers her options.
It is here that we consider two alternate scenarios for this rape victim.
Scenario A
One is a woman who is raised in a culture in which there is a strong message of modesty and chastity. She is Mormon and a student at BYU.
- She recalls the evening and remembers that she herself chose to dress in an alluring and revealing way. It was a violation of modesty, which is the safeguard of virtue and chastity. She herself violated these standards. She concludes that she carries some blame.
- She remembers that she had been taught that the Holy Ghost withdraws when she enters unsavory places like a bar or if she were to stay out with a man past midnight. She herself chose to do those things and so she has paid the price of her choices. She is responsible.
- She remembers that even though she ultimately decided not to go through with it, she had made plans to include birth control, condoms and lingerie. She remembered that she was accountable for both her thoughts and her actions. She bore some of the guilt for having entertains such unchaste thoughts.
- She thinks to her self that she had led this man on and her dress, her sexual innuendos, her foreplay all drove him to a point where he couldn’t resist taking her. She blames herself for leading him on.
- She remembers that while she is free to make her own choices – she is not free to choose the consequences for those choices. Since she chose to violate the standards of modesty, then she accepts the idea that her attack was a deserved consequence. She accepts guilt and blame for it.
- She remembers that she had been taught that since it was better to lose one’s life than to lose one’s virtue, that unless she had physically resisted to the point of death – she did not do everything in her power to retain her chastity.
- She remembered that if she reported this rape, then they would want to know how she got to his apartment, where they were before hand, how she got dressed in lingerie – those details would come out, she feared, and since she was a student at BYU and depended upon being in good standing with the honor code – any of those details reported to the Honor Code Office could place a hold on her standing in school. She might lose all the work she had put into her education.
She considers all of these things and ultimately decides not to report the sexual assault or to seek therapy. Two tragic things happen – She lives with the pain and trauma of being violated and places a significant portion of the blame upon herself, believing she is in need of repentance. A violent sexual offender is not held accountable and remains free to victimize other women. ((This is not to place any degree of blame on the victim for the criminals future attacks, but acknowledges the reality that these cultural messages make it harder for victims to feel empowered to report assaults. ))
Scenario B
The second scenario is a woman who is raised in a culture which understand that men own complete accountability for their actions and that consent is essential for any sexual intercourse.
- She remembers that she wore a revealing and sexy dress and it never even occurs to her that this has anything to do with her being raped. Her personal virtue and chastity are not in any way a part of the equation as the victim of a sexual assault.
- She remembers that she met him at a bar and went home late with him and thinks to herself, that did not justify any forced sexual act. Unlike the Holy Ghost, the requirement of consent is there no matter where or when she finds herself with a partner. His attack on her was the result of his disregard for her person and her consent – not a justified action resulting from the late hour.
- She remembered that she had made plans to include birth control and protection and lingerie and thought to herself, that is what any responsible woman would do, but having made those preparations does not constitute consent.
- She remembered that her alluring dress, sexual banter, and foreplay all may have aroused this man, but that consent may be withdrawn at any point and his forcing her after consent is withdrawn is a criminal act. He is solely and completely responsible for how he responds once consent is withdrawn. She does not carry guilt for his violent assault on her person.
- She doesn’t even consider the idea that she has any guilt for not physically resisting a sexual assault. The guilt lies entirely with the violent attacker. The imbalance of power, the psychological shock, paralyzing fear and any other number of factors may incapacitate a victim and holding a victim to blame for not offering up a vigorous physical resistance is to turn the tables and blame the victim for the crime.
- She remembered that she attended a school which holds criminals accountable for their actions and does not attempt to place blame upon the victims or penalize or terminate their academic standing for being the victim of such a crime.
She considers all of these things and decides to report the assault and seek professional assistance for dealing with the trauma of the attack. She finds healing and the perpetrator is held accountable for his actions.
Conclusion
When you are raised in a culture which obfuscates issues of sexual morality with notions of modesty and chastity, then it is possible that the key moral principle can be lost in the process. That is the issue of consent.
- Consent: A voluntary, mutually understandable agreement that clearly indicates a willingness to engage in each instance of sexual activity.
- Consent to one act does not imply consent to another.
- Past consent does not imply future consent.
- Consent to engage in sexual activity with one person does not imply consent to engage in sexual activity with another.
- Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
- Any expression of an unwillingness to engage in any instance of sexual activity establishes a presumptive lack of consent.
- Refusal, lack of consent, or non-consent may be expressed in many ways, verbally or physically. Physical resistance is not necessary to communicate a lack of consent. It is not necessary to resist physically or express verbally to indicate a lack of consent. It is the responsibility of the initiator of the sexual activity to obtain effective consent.
- Consent is not effective if it results from:
- (a) the use of physical force
- (b) a threat of physical force
- (c) intimidation
- (d) coercion
- (e) incapacitation
- (f) any other factor that would eliminate an individual’s ability to exercise his or her own free will to choose whether or not to have sexual activity.
- A current or previous dating or sexual relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute consent. Even in the context of a relationship, there must be a voluntary, mutually understandable agreement that clearly indicates a willingness to engage in each instance of sexual activity.
I have discussed these issues with an LDS woman previously who then had the epiphany that she herself had been the victim of rape, but had not previously understood that to be the case because she didn’t realize the centrality of the key principle of consent. When you feel that you bear responsibility for a sexual assault because of your dress or because of a particular sequence of events and you don’t understand how consent is the only consideration that matters – then you are setup to blame yourself for being victimized and carry the weight of that toxic aberration of accountability your whole life.
Combine this with an honor code which clouds the issue by leveraging considerations of academic standing with violations of things other than actual academic integrity. To illustrate, let’s take a look at the top ten university Honor Codes
- Princeton
- Honor Code – Deals only with academic integrity
- Harvard
- Honor Code – Deals only with academic integrity
- Yale
- SOM Honor Code – Deals only with academic integrity and ethical behavior
- Columbia
- Honor Code – deals only with academic integrity
- Stanford
- Honor Code – Deals only with academic integrity
- University of Chicago
- Honor Code – Deals with academic integrity, civility
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- No official Honor Code – Statement of Academic Integrity
- Duke University
- Honor Code – Deals only with academic integrity
- University of Pennsylvania
- Honor Code – Deals with civiltiy, responsibility, academic integrity
- California Institute of Technology
- Honor Code – Deals with ethics
Each of these institutions also have policies for dealing with criminal behavior such as sexual assault, harassment, exploitation, physical assault and other criminal behaviors. What they do not do however is to make non-criminal activities have any bearing on an individuals academic standing. As such the potential repercussions of reporting a rape on the victims own academic standing are a non-issue. If a student is assaulted, they have no potential punitive academic repercussions for reporting the crime.
It should be mentioned that the issue of reporting rape takes many complex considerations in the mind of the victim, beyond those described here. The purpose of this exercise is to isolate the messages about modesty, chastity, and agency as taught by the church and to see how they affect the victims view of themselves. Add this to all the other complex factors that victims face and it can significantly complicate and exacerbate an already traumatic experience.
Finally, it should be kept in mind that one need not be a student at BYU to have the same forces affect their choices. Each ward in Mormonism has its own sort of Honor Code. The loss of standing in the ward that goes along with things like probation, disfellowshipping and excommunication can be just as conflicting in the mind of someone who is the victim of a sexual assault committed in the context of “immodest” or “unchaste” circumstances. The church has made progress in undoing the toxic teachings and policies of years past, but until it starts to actually teach essential moral considerations, such as consent, without clouding the issue with modesty and the conflation of chastity and virtue, then the incentives will remain for victims to remain silent, to blame themselves and for the perpetrators to continue.
Axiom 1) Immodest dress increases sexual desire among the male population by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Rape is motivated by sexual desire. (Proof: Dennis J. Stevens, et al: Inside the Mind of a Serial Rapist (1998), Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer: A Natural History of Rape (2001))
Conclusion 1) Immodest dress increases the motivation for rape by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Immodest dress increases the incidences of rape. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Immodestly dressed persons incite incidences of rape. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
This comment was submitted by an anonymous reader:
Axiom 1) Immodest dress increases sexual desire among the male population by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Rape is motivated by sexual desire. (Proof: Dennis J. Stevens, et al: Inside the Mind of a Serial Rapist (1998), Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer: A Natural History of Rape (2001))
Conclusion 1) Immodest dress increases the motivation for rape by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Immodest dress increases the incidences of rape. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Immodestly dressed persons incite incidences of rape. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
Let me know the next time the theory of advertising absolves a thief of blame for a robbery.
More to the point, in many cases dressing provacatively actually decreases the incidence of rape, though of course it is far more complex than that. See this review of a number of studies on the subject: https://anabagail.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/research-on-the-relationship-between-rape-and-dressing/amp/
This is some of the most puerile and juvenile thinking I’ve encountered. I would say that anonymous is not even thinking but simply having an emotional reaction.
Using the proffered metaphor and expanding upon Mats statement.
A manufacturer creates a new product.
That manufacturer hires an ad agency to develop interest in their product.
You view the advertisements, learn of the product and your motivation to obtain it is initiated and heightens.
You begin to make arrangements to obtain said product.
When you arrive at the store you are told that you must be screened before you are allowed to obtain this particular product.
During the screening process the vendor tells you everything is looking good and you should be able to get it..
At the very end of this vetting process something in the system flags you.
You are denied the product that you have this heightened motivation to possess.
At this point you allow your frustration to overcome you and you hop the counter, assault the vendor, take the product and flee the scene; all the while stating that if the vendor says anything about the incident you will harm or destroy them.
You have just committed theft, assault, possible battery, burglary threatened and intimidated and you want us to believe that the blame rests with the manufacturer, advertiser and vendor for making you behave that way.
Please do us all a favor and seriously, seriously, review your morality, your ethics and your thinking in general.
And further consider this personally, what if this occurred to one of your relatives, your parent, sibling, child, etc. And please include the boys and men as well, because rape happens to them too.
Please I encourage you to expand your mind and thinking, this issue is too important to take a status quo, traditional approach toward.
No. No. No.
Dear anonymous reader:
Axiom 1) “immodest” does not mean what you think it means
Axiom 2) 100% of all rapes are caused 100% by rapists
Axiom 3) 0% of rapes are caused by the victims
Premise 1) Rapists have a wide variety of motivations, but I appreciate the citations. Ultimately rape is caused by rapists.
Conclusion 1) Women should be able to walk into a bar naked, with magic marker on their thigh reading “I want some action today” and NOT BE RAPED.
Conclusion 2) Anything less than an enthusiastic yes is a lack of consent.
Conclusion 3) Please do not have children. If you already do please find someone else to teach your children about sex and consent.
Let us test your premise despite how idiotic it is. Let’s say a man has a fetish. The sight of radishes turns him on sexually. He goes to the grocer at the peak of the season and sees all those luscious red roots just glistening in the artificial light and bulging with anticipation. Maybe he even buys some and slowly consumes them in the privacy of his home. But all it does is make him want more. His arousal is overwhelming. Later he rapes a woman. He goes to court to face rape charges. I doubt very much that the radishes would be called as co-conspirators. I doubt those veggies would be viewed as a mitigating factor.
Let me say it again. Rape is caused by rapists.
—
Flashy Advertisements
—
Axiom 1) Flashy advertisements increase humans’ desire to own things by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Stealing is motivated, at least to a significant level, by a desire to own things.
Conclusion 1) Flashy advertising of products increases the motivation for stealing by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Flashy advertising of products increases the incidences of stealing. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Flashy adverstising of products incite incidences of stealing. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
—
Displays of power equal to or over a male
—
Axiom 1) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male will often incite prideful/vengeful feelings among the male population by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Rape is sometimes motivated, at least in part, by power (proof: interviews with rapists https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/)
Conclusion 1) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male increases the motivation for rape by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male increases the incidences of rape. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Women acting equal to or superior in power to a male incites incidences of rape. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
In response to the anonymous comment submitted Aug 29, 2016, I offer two additional examples.
—
Flashy Advertisements
—
Axiom 1) Flashy advertisements increase humans’ desire to own things by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Stealing is motivated, at least to a significant level, by a desire to own things.
Conclusion 1) Flashy advertising of products increases the motivation for stealing by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Flashy advertising of products increases the incidences of stealing. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Flashy adverstising of products incite incidences of stealing. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
—
Displays of power equal to or over a male
—
Axiom 1) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male will often incite prideful/vengeful feelings among the male population by design.
Axiom 2) Increasing the motivation to commit an action among a population will increase the incidences of that action among that population — this is the underlying theory of advertising.
Axiom 3) A person contributes to (incites) an incidence of an action if that person provides the actor with an incentive (increase in motivation) to perform the action — this is why advertisers get paid.
Premise 1) Rape is sometimes motivated, at least in part, by power (proof: interviews with rapists https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/)
Conclusion 1) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male increases the motivation for rape by design. (Axiom 1, Premise 1)
Conclusion 2) Acting equal to or superior in power to a male increases the incidences of rape. (Axiom 2, Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3) Women acting equal to or superior in power to a male incites incidences of rape. (Axiom 3, Conclusion 1)
The woman in this article was clearly raped; the man engaged in non-consensual, forcible intercourse, which is a textbook definition of the term. With that said, this article is seriously flawed and strikes me as manipulative (perhaps intentionally so).
1) Although the hypothetical woman DOES indulge in several Honor Code violations, they would be unlikely to lead to serious academic discipline from BYU.
– The woman’s dress (although tasteful) DOES violate BYU’s Honor Code, albeit in a very limited way. The severity of this “offense” is diminished by several factors, including distance from campus, and a general lack of dress/grooming enforcement on the part of BYU admin (one need only spend an hour on BYU campus to see a wide range of sleeveless tops, non knee-length bottoms, and form-fitting clothing. Dress and grooming standards are violated on a regular basis, with practically no repercussions). Her clothing choice would have a negligible effect on her academic standing.
– Attending a bar is NOT a violation of the Honor Code. Students and Faculty frequent establishments which serve alcohol (Wingers, Buffalo Wild Wings, The Pie, etc.). The woman’s visit to the bar would not jeopardize her standing at BYU.
– Visiting a man’s apartment is IRRELEVANT to the Honor Code (unless, of course, the man was also a BYU student). The only stated visiting restriction regards access to the bedroom/bathroom areas, not one’s apartment; furthermore, the entire clause is written so as to suggest that it applies only to BYU students hosting visitors. The woman’s visit to the man’s apartment would not jeopardize her standing at BYU.
– Being a victim of rape does NOT make one an Honor Code violator, nor does it make one a sinner. To the contrary, this entitles one to help and protection. LDS policy is clear on this matter: “Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin.” The rape of this woman would not jeopardize her standing at BYU.
– Consumption of alcohol DOES violate BYU’s Honor Code (and is similarly a violation of a supposed LDS commandment). In this case, the woman is guilty. This could conceivably jeopardize her academic standing, but it is unlikely that penalties would be severe for a first offense.
From the perspective of the Honor Code office, the relevant violation in Scenario A is a Word of Wisdom offense. The only roadblock for the woman in Scenario A is her ambiguous intent. The lingerie, condoms, birth control, and admittedly consensual foreplay/innuendo make the woman’s rape accusation less believable to an outsider. This leads to my second point.
2) The decisions we make have real-world consequences. When actions seem to contradict statements, those in positions of authority are less likely to decisively rule in defense of the wronged. For example, the hypothetical woman claims that she ultimately denied the man’s sexual advances. However, an outsider would note that the woman’s actions clearly communicated the possibility of sexual intent. For example:
– She was actively taking birth control, and had a personal supply of condoms on-hand
– She admittedly engaged in foreplay and innuendo (accepting at least the man’s initial advances)
– She brought a neglige from her home to a bar, and from a bar to the apartment of a sexually interested individual. Furthermore, she consciously and willingly changed from her clothing to the neglige, then reengaged in foreplay and innuendo
Therefore, I find it unlikely that the woman in Scenario B could actually bring her abuser to justice. Given the information above, could one assert “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the woman did not consent? In a he-said, she-said situation, would the woman’s testimony (when undermined by her actions), be sufficient to lead to a conviction?
I doubt it. The best-case scenario would probably be a plea bargain; the most likely scenario would end with the rapist getting off scott-free.
The fact of the matter is that when consent to a certain action is disputed, a pattern of prior consent (especially when combined with likely intent) will lead most to side with the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Regrettably, this hypothetical woman put herself in a risky situation and left herself little opportunity for recourse – even through legal avenues.
Hey Jonathan Skeeter,
I understand your point, and I’m not altogether unsympathetic in the matter.
But here is my major complaint:
I think the way you present false dilemma is profoundly-profoundly-unfair.
No one in Mormondom is saying that women are completely responsible for the thoughts, behaviors, and virtue of men.
I would simply argue that recognizing the indisputable fact that men can be, and often are, affected by what women wear. (If that’s not true, it’s difficult to see a lot of sense in many “men’s magazines,” in much female fashion, in a great deal of advertising and so forth. “Sex sells,” goes the familiar adage But what women wear makes no difference? Seriously? What on earth is Cosmopolitan about, in that case?)
Sure there must be a large and reasonable middle ground between the manifestly absurd clam that what women wear and how they behave has no impact whatsoever on men, on the one hand, and, on the other, the equally absurd notion-advanced by no Mormon who I’m aware-that women bear responsibility for how men think and act.
Yes, males have agency, and they’re responsible for how they think and act. But humans interact with each other. We affect each other. And it’s folly, and sometimes ideaolcially-driven folly, to pretend that we don’t, or to fault those who point that we do.
I’m not entirely patient with transparently unjust and unreasonable accusations that, for instance, people who suggest that intoxicated single women probably shouldn’t walk down deserted urban alleys in rough neighborhoods at 2AM are chauvinistically denying women the right to move about freely like men or are blaming rape victims for being assaulted.
The theif who stole the thousand dollar bill that you left sitting overnight on the roof of your car is, indisputably, guilty of theft and morally responsible for his action. But it’s not unreasonable to suggest that leaving thousand dollar bills out in public spaces isn’t overnight isn’t especially unwise.
This shouldn’t be controversial of very difficult to grasp.