If the risk of sexual violence accumulates across economic strain, relational conflict, addiction, trauma, isolation, and distorted beliefs, then it makes sense that prevention, would need to be equally layered. Instead of one-dimensional awareness campaigns or interventions, more effective efforts seek to strengthen individuals, marriages, families, and communities at the same time.
If the first article mapped the terrain of vulnerability, the second this part turns to the work of building protection.
What would it look like to respond proportionately to what the evidence actually shows? If certain patterns repeatedly increase vulnerability, then their opposites ought to must become deliberate priorities. In this section, I outline practical steps—grounded in the research reviewed previously above—that families, faith communities, and civic institutions can take to reduce risk and expand real protection for women and children.
The protection of healthy, genuine faith
In part one, I outlined ways that limited religious community and faith commitment can increase the risk of sexual violence against women. The opposite is also true, with religious affiliation, identification and participation often protective against sexual violence according to studies in various countries. For instance:
- A family’s “affiliation with Christian religious denominations” is “associated with lower risk of physical and sexual violence” in India (Kimuna, et al., 2013).
- Being a Muslim was “protective from any type” of intimate partner violence” including “sexual and emotional” in the Ivory Coast (Peltzer & Pengpid, 2014).
- The latter finding is mirrored in an earlier study finding Muslim religion protective against intimate partner violence in six African countries (Alio, et al., 2010).
Beyond affiliation alone, regular church attendance was specifically protective against victimization as well (Lown & Vega, 2001; O’Connor, et al., 2023). Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement in different studies were less likely to report intimate partner victimization (Zavala & Muniz, 2020) -with the latter U.S. research team noting this finding was “consistent with prior studies looking at the relationship between religious beliefs and intimate partner violence.” For instance:
- “Frequent church attendance” is among the factors “associated with decreased risk of violence” in Filipino homes according to Fehringer & Hindin, 2009—who report “less male perpetration if mothers attended church more often”—in line with other findings, as they say “other research supports a protective effect of church attendance on partner violence.”
- The same research team observed in a second article that “regular church attendance by the wife” and “regular church attendance by the husband” were both associated with lower risk of perpetrating violence in a marriage (Ansara & Hindin, 2009).
- Fergusson, et al., 1986 highlighted “church attendance” as a significant factor in the frequency of “wife assault” in New Zealand—with the religious attendance of both fathers and mothers making the perpetration of victimization within their relationship less likely. They specifically found that men and women least likely to commit domestic violence were those who participate in services once a month or more are least -followed by those who attend less than monthly.
- In an analysis of U.S. couples two decades ago, Ellison, et al., 1999 likewise reported that “regular attendance at religious services” made domestic violence perpetration less likely. “Both men and women who attend religious services regularly are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence than persons who attend rarely or not at all,” they observed—noting that for men, it was only when they participated weekly that this effect showed up, while women also had a protective effect with monthly attendance.
Overall, “religiosity does decrease (intimate partner) victimization” report Ellison, et al., 2007 based on a U.S. survey—adding that “religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence”—a “protective effect,” which they note, is “stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.”
As reflected above, studies show repeatedly that faith participation can prevent both perpetration and victimization. This seems, in part, due to pro-social teachings, avoidance of risky behavior and a sense of higher purpose and meaning.
Victims often described in studies how leaders and fellow congregants helped them get away from earlier abuse and begin to find healing. This is not always true, of course—with certain attitudes held by people of faith sometimes functioning as a barrier to healing and safety. Indeed, another set of studies point towards less healthy religious attitudes that leave women at greater risk for different kinds of abuse.
Conflicting evidence
Even so, the influence of religion is not as simple as described above—with more nuance to consider. Psychological, physical and sexual violence had a “significant association” with evangelical faith in a Brazilian study—with the authors reporting a “33% increase in intimate partner sexual abuse in life in evangelical women, compared to those who do not belong to this group” (Santos, et al., 2020).
A set of other studies in Africa have also found families who were Muslim at greater risk of victimization (in Ethiopia Agumasie & Bezatu, 2015; in Kenya Ward & Harlow, et al., 2021; in Nigeria Bolarinwa, et al., 2022; in Malawi Forty, 2022).
How exactly to interpret these and other seemingly contradictory findings is a critical point, something I explore in-depth in my full report. In simple form, not all religiosity is the same, with religious faith that allows men to dominate women, or which does not place serious emphasis on avoiding alcohol or casual sex, putting women (and children) at risk.
“Misinterpretation of religious beliefs” was cited in a Pakistani analysis of influences on sexual and other kinds of violence at home, with the authors advocating for “public policy informed by correct interpretation of religion” which they said could prompt “a change in prevailing societal norms.”
Religious institutions may reduce the risk of violence in a relationship.
After analyzing data from the Philippines, another research team notes that religious institutions may reduce the risk of violence in a relationship “by promoting messages encouraging a commitment to family life, providing counseling in conflict resolution or alcohol-related problems, providing information about resources in the community …. and providing an opportunity for strengthening social networks.”
In addition, there’s also evidence that sincere, “intrinsic” religious practice and conviction among men and women functions as a more powerful protector against sexual violence and other abuse, while more superficial, “extrinsic” religious conviction simply does not. It seems clear that “weak commitment to religion” could be a factor in victimization within a relationship, Vakili, et al., 2010 notes that a “woman and husband’s weak level of religious commitment” in Iran was “significantly associated with an increase in physical, sexual, and psychological abuse.”
The authors later said that “strong religious beliefs may be instrumental in reducing the likelihood of intimate partner violence among Iranian families” (Vakili, et al., 2010). In the other direction, deeper and more sincere religious conviction shows promising effects—with “religious intensity” associated in another study with a “lower victimization count” (Sabina, et al., 2013).
Complex, overlapping patterns of vulnerability
While this broad array of variables involved in increasing (or decreasing) the risk for sexual violence can seem overwhelming, I believe it can be invaluable to know that, broadly speaking, women and men who have experienced significant past abuse, who are under heavy current stress and financial pressures and are experiencing compromised faculties, significant conflict and real isolation, are all at much higher risk of future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have little awareness about the extent of the risk.
By contrast, women and men who have been protected from past abuse, who are not facing current heavy stress or compromised faculties, who don’t have significant conflict or isolation, will all be significantly more protected against future victimization (and perpetration)—especially if they have adequate awareness about the extent of the risk.
To the degree a woman or man falls on a higher or lower place on any of these spectrums (more past trauma, but lower stress levels today … less conflict, but also greater isolation), their level of risk (and protection) will likewise vary widely.
In addition, women who are less educated, divorced, addicted (or with partners addicted to alcohol or pornography) are more likely to experience sexual violence—especially if they experience inadequate financial support, limited healthy community commitments, and a dearth of higher meaning and spiritual purpose in life.
Perpetrators focus on places where any vulnerability exists
Even one risk factor can have rippling effects—with the sheer, cumulative risk of risk factors also corresponding with greater risk. One researcher, for instance, observed “six percent of young white women with no risk factors, nine percent of those with one, 26 percent of those with two, and 68 percent of those with three or more had been sexually abused before or during adolescence” (Moore, et al., 1989).
Certainly, none of the above factors operates in a vacuum independent of each other—with interlinkages among all ten factors. For instance, people of faith are also more likely to avoid drug/alcohol dependency, experience nurturing social support and be happily married (while also having more children).
But overall, the research makes it clear that perpetrators focus on places where any vulnerability exists. For instance, women of younger age and much older age are both more likely to be victimized, as are those with reduced cognitive or physical capacity due to disability or prior victimization.
Some factors are more changeable than others, obviously. But even those that appear unchangeable (past abuse) have interventions that can prompt healing. On a general level, as reflected above, “a person’s routine and lifestyle influences the level of exposure one has to potential perpetrators and how vulnerable one is as a target,” as Walker, et al., 2020 state. Consequently, “the identification of variables that influence likelihood of (sexual violence) is fundamental for prevention efforts” (Thomas & Kopel, 2023).
Alignment with other studies
Many of these themes have been identified in other attempts to survey available risk factors, such as a CDC analysis from 2016, which touched on most of the above patterns, but overlooked the potentially protective role of faith and religiosity.
This national and international data also align with demographic data collected locally in Utah, showing higher vulnerability to sexual violence among women who are homeless, with lower socioeconomic status, using drugs or alcohol, in minority groups, younger, or experiencing some kind of physical or mental impairments.
One especially impressive University of Washington literature review from 2017 concluded that the available evidence “reinforces the long-standing notion that sexual aggression is a complex behavior that emerges based on the interplay of multiple risk factors over time.”
“Additionally,” they note “there are likely very different pathways to the development of sexually aggressive behavior.
As Casey & Masters, 2017 conclude, “This means that preventing sexual aggression before it begins necessitates prioritizing multiple risk factors, and bolstering multiple protective factors across individuals and communities.”
The only real purpose of such study, of course, is taking better steps to protect women from sexual violence.
Better data, better prevention
The CDC advocated nearly two decades ago for building a comprehensive ecological model that “offers a framework for understanding the complex interplay of individual, relationship, social, political, cultural, and environmental factors that influence sexual violence” —all of which they note can inform specific intervention and prevention steps.
In an early 2004 exploration of what sexual violence prevention programs should look like, the CDC called for prevention efforts that “work to modify and/or entirely eliminate the events, conditions, situations, or exposure to influences (risk factors) that result in the initiation of sexual violence” and thereby proactively take steps to “prevent sexual violence from initially occurring.”
Yet a decade later in 2014, CDC researchers admitted (as I cited earlier) “rates of sexual violence remain alarmingly high, and we still know very little about how to prevent it,” going on to describe how most prevention efforts were largely “one dimensional” attempts to change individual attitudes, and little more.
Kathleen C. Basile, Associate Director for Science in the Division of Violence Prevention, in the Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, told me in an interview with Deseret News, “I would also add that sexual violence, intimate partner violence, all types of violence are preventable, and the way we prevent them, like you alluded to earlier, is to understand the size of the problem and who is impacted, and so the characteristics, like who the perpetrators are, who, what age, it happens, things like that” (italics my own).
In a 2014 review of strategies to prevent sexual violence perpetration, CDC researchers stated that “the vast majority of preventative interventions evaluated to date have failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of impact on sexual violence perpetration behaviors.”
They went on to call for “an evidence-based, comprehensive, multi-level strategy to combat sexual violence,” suggesting that “addressing a broader range of risk and protective factors for sexual violence may be more likely to be effective.”
Two years later in 2016, the CDC released a prevention resource prevent sexual violence called “STOP SV”—noting that although the evidence for sexual violence prevention is “less developed” than other areas of prevention, “a comprehensive approach with preventive interventions at multiple levels of the social ecological model (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal) is critical to having a population level impact on SV.” But they noted that evidence remained “limited and must continuously be built through rigorous evaluation.”
As CDC researchers summarized in 2016, “Risk for sexual violence perpetration is influenced by a range of factors, including characteristics of the individual and their social and physical environments. These factors interact with one another to increase or decrease risk for SV over time and within specific contexts.”
CDC researchers also wrote in 2016 that “prevention strategies that address risk and protective factors for sexual violence at the community level are important components of a comprehensive approach,” before lamenting that “few such strategies have been identified or evaluated.”
Ten life patterns that increase protection
Our review of these root contributors paints a picture of what deeper strategies of protection would look like. For instance, men who are less educated, financially struggling, addicted, isolated, emotionally unhealthy, promiscuous and spiritually disengaged, are also more likely to perpetrate sexually on vulnerable women.
There’s also protective power in more fully appreciating that women and men who are better off economically, have good educational experiences, and are embedded within both healthy marriages and supportive communities are less vulnerable to sexual violence. This is doubly true if they also avoid substance abuse and habits of risky, casual sexual relations with multiple people, while nourishing a healthy spiritual foundation.
Here are the ten steps that follow from this research broken down:
- Helping lift families and communities out of poverty
- Expanding educational opportunities for both women and men
- Helping nurture marriages and families that are healthy and happy
- Providing additional support for younger and larger families
- Helping to prevent compulsivity and support addicts in finding freedom
- Encouraging the value of sexually-exclusive marriages and healthy, non-aggressive masculinity
- Fostering deeper healing for mental health challenges
- Helping those who have experienced earlier abuse to work through post-traumatic symptoms
- Expanding robust community connections and durable social support
- Fostering healthy spirituality and religious connection
To see a broader summary of concrete steps, go here for the Deseret News article. Some of these ten themes are reflected in a 2016 prevention resource released by the CDC called “STOP SV.” This resource highlighted research-based recommendations that include efforts to “provide opportunities to empower and support girls and women, support victims/survivors to lessen harms, create protective environments, teach skills to prevent sexual violence and promote social norms that protect against violence.”
As reflected above, some of the best ways to ensure women remain safe may be to proactively encourage life and community patterns proven to protect against both victimization and perpetration, including:
- Healthy marriages that are cooperative and satisfying, surrounded by layers of trustworthy community support.
- An atmosphere where education is prioritized and there are adequate resources to provide for the financial needs of the family, while helping both men and women avoid drugs and alcohol, delay sexual behavior until marriage, and learn how to control anger and impulses.
- A hopeful environment that nurtures healing from past trauma and current mental health challenges, while ideally also providing a grounding sense of higher purpose and spiritual meaning.
According to the evidence, women embedded in this kind of a context will be significantly less likely to be sexually victimized (or abused in other ways)—compared with those living within chaotic settings with poor education, financial deficits, fraying marriages, spiritual detachment, few healing resources, rampant substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and out of control anger.
Just as any vulnerability can be exploited by perpetrators, any time a vulnerability is shored up and turned into a strength, there is more protection against multiple kinds of abuse. Therefore, if we want to get at the roots of sexual victimization, more focus needs to go towards these kinds of protective life patterns, and additional ways to encourage and promote them.
Special thanks to Laura Whitney, Odessa Taylor, Jacob Orse, and Brigham Powelson for helping to gather and sift through published studies, and to Diana Gourley for helping edit the review. In addition to recent support from Deseret News, the author expresses thanks to Public Square Magazine for initial funding for the project.
