Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby DamianaRaven » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:40 pm

Matthew Notch wrote:Anyway, it's rather disconcerting to have my penis referenced in a thread about rape, so if we could kindly refrain from discussing it or anything else pertaining to my sexual life in this thread, or on any other except, I don't know, the SWIM thread, without my consent, that would be delightful.


Where the hell did that happen?
  • 2

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Marcuse » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:41 pm

I don't think it means "how much, quantifiably, is rape a problem" to you, and I am not as familiar with Windy to say whether it means that to him. It just strikes me as odd that, if all we're doing is nitpicking over numbers when we're all on the same page regarding the severity and awfulness in general of rape and sexual assault, that it's taking us PAGES to do that.


I think it's taking us pages to do this because people have very settled and clear opinions on this matter. The issue at point is whether statistics overestimate how much rape and sexual assault is committed in the US (specifically apparently, because nobody ever rapes in any other country).

The reason for this debate, as far as I can tell, is that people who favour a lower figure think this is being overestimated in order to serve a social narrative: that rape and rape culture is rampant and is causing men (let's be honest, even if here we're more equal in apportioning blame, outside organisations are not. Defining rape as penetrating someone effectively eliminates cases of female on male rape from the stats) to engage in increasing levels of violent behaviour against women and this is an example of why we all need feminism (or [insert ideology here], whatever).

As far as I can tell, the opposite viewpoint seems to stand on the principle that the studies are in fact impartial, and the results speak for themselves. Mostly, the expressed argument here seems to be that we should support the integrity of the organisations carrying out the studies, and accept the limitations of the statistical examples that can be brought up to counter the primary ones.

The reason it's important to look at prevalence and numbers of incidents is because this will determine the appropriate response to it. If nobody ever raped anyone, it would be both overbearing and a waste of resources to have a department that had its sole occupation as dealing with it. Conversely, if there is a serious and increasing rate of rape and sexual assault, then it is reasonable to advocate additional measures in order to combat this as much as possible.

Most people tend to agree that right now rape and sexual assault victims are given a pretty shitty deal. People who are accused of such are often given a pretty shitty deal too in terms of social ostracism and harm to their lives before their guilt has been proven. The problem is that we're all a massive powder keg over things like rape because the issue is poorly handled and often incompetently prosecuted and sentenced. We demand people whose guilt has not been determined be considered guilty until proven innocent sometimes, we often disbelieve genuine victims and prevent them pursuing an entirely legitimate case that requires justice. We ruin the lives of the falsely accused.

Fifty years ago, very few people seriously cared about rape or sexual assault (or if they did, it was in certain circumstances that most of them don't fit into). In 2016 we do, and prosecuting this is a mess. The very first port of call is to find a social narrative we can all (speaking nationally) agree on in order to move forward in appropriately prosecuting these cases without being overbearing towards people who are victims and are innocent or unconnected to these cases. It's a balancing act that will admittedly not be resolved on TCS, but it is a reflection of a wider debate going on in our culture generally that can't really be ignored without sacrificing a contributing voice in that very debate.
  • 13

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Crimson847 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:43 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:Okey dokey. Look, the CDC’s study, in spite of what has been said in it’s favour here, has faulty fact gathering measures. It simply does folks.


If it's that obvious, it should be easy to prove.

For starters it is counting 61.5% of the respondents as rape victims due to the fact they experienced what the CDC calls “drug or alchohol faciliiitated penetration”, now while wording it’s questions about this matter the way it does will catch people who have raped whilst too drunk or high to consent who may otherwise not just come out and say it, it also obviously counts people who’ve merely been high or drunk whilst having sex. The CDC makes no attempts to separate the two. I’m sorry but that undeniably means the results will therefore be inflated.


Not according to federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to—
(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person


Now, do you have any reason why someone who is intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent by their own estimation should be treated as a consenting partner per the law? Because that's what the CDC question under discussion was:

A sample of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”


(emphasis mine)

D-LOGAN wrote:The study also counts anyone who had sex over someone telling them lies in order to get them to have sex with them without clarifying what does and doesn’t count- therefore if there’s a man who told a woman he was single when in fact he was married, then that would count by the CDC’s standards, and would be added to the list. Do you not think that makes the CDC’s result questionable?


Do you not think that obtaining consent on the basis of deception is illegitimate?


It also counts people who had sex because their partner was “showing them they were unhappy” so basically anyone who answers in the affirmative would be counted in the CDC. Had sex with someone because they seemed sad and you thought it would cheer them up? Then that counts for the CDC. Do you not think that makes the CD’s result questionable?


Here's the actual question:

• How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured
you by...

• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?


Unless you agree with Family Guy Sean Connery on this matter, I'm not seeing the problem here, given that the scenario you describe where sex is the woman's idea could hardly be described as the partner "pressuring" or "wearing down" the woman.



I mean, I get that you can’t just ask people if they’ve been sexually assaulted or raped and leave it at that, as not everyone who has been will consider themselves so or be as willing to say, and as such having questions that allow the study givers more leeway is important, BUT if you’re casting the net as wide as the CDC has and not taking any efforts to clarify and weed out non-rapes that could fall into these vaguely worded questions, you’re obviously, inevitably going to include a significant number of people who weren’t raped into this study.


How significant? If you want to argue that these studies are overestimating by, say, half a percentage point, that seems potentially plausible...but it also doesn't support your earlier claim that these studies are so wildly misleading and poorly conducted that they should be dismissed entirely. If you're arguing that these studies are off base by a huge margin that renders the data useless, though, that's a whole different ballgame, and something more substantial than "maybe people read the questions differently than they were actually written" is going to be necessary.

Again just to be clear- the CDC and the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey aren’t just different because the CDC is going for lifetime statistics-
“While the CDC estimates that nearly 2 million adult American women were raped in 2011 and nearly 6.7 million suffered some other form of sexual violence, the NCVS estimate for that year was 238,000 rapes and sexual assaults.”

Those are statistics for the SAME YEAR!


Right, the lifetime/per year gap was only one reason for the difference. The rest is likely due to the differences in wording that you endorsed, such as describing the act of rape and asking if that happened rather than just asking "have you ever been raped?".

Beyond that, I'm not sure where the CDC is getting that estimate, and it seems somewhat in tension with their actual data. I'm guessing they took their lifetime data and then filtered it through presumptions that may or may not be true to get the 2 million figure, which if so is a valid problem with that particular estimate.

In order to show the dangers of going with such research methods, just take a look at the Campus Sexual Study 2007, came up with 1 in 5, using similar vaguely worded questions, low response rate, a non-representative sample. However the real number according to the Department of Justice in a 2014 study is 1 in 53. Yet people still go with the 1 in 5 college student one. So I think we can see how off we are being by going with old studies that use faulty methods. Right?


Why are you critiquing a completely different study with very different and badly inferior methodology, and then acting like this discredits studies that most of said criticisms don't apply to? The statistic that 1 in 5 college students will be raped during their time in college is indeed bogus, based on terrible methodology, and is incidentally not compatible with the CDC's results.

Moreover, why are you describing the CDC data as "old" when it's been confirmed by more recent studies (unlike the CSS 2007 data), and why do you keep on referring to the NISVS as though it's the only supporting study when aviel's provided several others with different methodologies?

To give an example, Aviel linked to a study earlier in this thread to another post in another thread (I generally don’t like to mention what people have said in different threads, but I think it’s okay if you link to it) that claims-
“ A 2002 survey found that 6.3% of men in college had attempted, with or without success, to rape someone, and that a majority of these people were repeat offenders “
However when you look into said study conducted by one David Lisak, as this article does, you start to see problems with it-

*long quote*

So, I think you can see the dangers of just taking these studys without a critical eye. And yeah I do get that no study is perfect, and shouldn’t just be cast aside because it couldn’t be 100% verified. But to put it simply, there’s just too many problems with these ones.


I don't take rape studies at face value. It's an immensely politicized subject, so I check and double-check. If you were expecting me to defend the "1 in 5 women will be raped in college" statistic or the "1 in 3 men would commit rape if they could" statistic, well, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

However, the rub is that when you're looking into such a politicized subject, all sides are exceedingly prone to bias, motivated reasoning, methodological issues, and other logical/empirical failures in their haste to arrive at the result they want. This applies especially to activist individuals or organizations with especially large axes to grind, like RAINN, like Reason, and like Christina Hoff Sommers.

From where I'm standing, however, you've jumped right over the glaring issues with Sommers' and the Reason editor's analyses (such as the misrepresentation of data, the questionable assumptions, and the victim blaming), not to mention Windy and Doma's posts, and applied all your critical energy to the CDC study and the like. This is critical thinking as practiced by conspiracy theorists: "question everything"...except your own sources.

Oh and Crim’ in response to your response-

“Or, you can continue to applaud Doma for his personal attacks on aviel instead of actually demonstrating why aviel and the rest of us are wrong. It's your choice.”

As I have said to you before, I do not adhere to your guideline of who should and should not be thumbed up. As far far as I’m aware on this forum or website or whatever it is, we can thumb up whoever we want for whatever reason we want. This is the third time you’ve criticised me for who I have chosen to thumb, so before the fourth comes along I’d just like to get this out of the way, I do not care what you think about who I do and don’t thumb. And I will continue to do so based on whatever whim happens to strike me. Okay?


I understood the objection that upvoting a post with a baseless insult in it (as well as other things) doesn't necessarily convey approval of the insult. I maintain that it at least indicates acceptance of it, but whatever.

However, in this case you upvoted posts that literally contained nothing but a personal attack on aviel, such as this one:

DomaDoma wrote:Several times, and it was all like that, and it's your MO whether or not I'm involved. As exhibited here. Adversarial discussions with you are never discussions worth contributing to - they are wars of attrition, pure and simple.

So, as I evidently can't add you to the foes list, consider this my announcement that I'm ignoring your posts in analog and others would be wise to do the same.



Now, here's the thing: you constantly rail against this sort of insulting ad hominem. I find this annoying in some cases when I get the sense you're digging your heels in and closing your ears (as with Trump), but overall I respect having such scruples and sticking to them, and you appear to have a very consistent take on this matter.

When you jump from that pattern of behavior to supporting the argument that aviel is acting in bad faith because he won't concede an argument to you without what he deems sufficient evidence, it displays a glaring inconsistency.


If I were inconsistent in following my own rules (say, if I started saying that Sommers is a whore and a bitch for her political opinions despite knowing virtually nothing about her as a person), I'd want you to correct me, because the whole reason I have those rules is that I think society works best when they're followed. Since I want society to work well, I want to follow them.

You seem to have your own rules of appropriate conduct. I assume you want to follow them yourself. Is that assumption incorrect?
  • 3

Last edited by Crimson847 on Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Matthew Notch » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:51 pm

DamianaRaven wrote:
Matthew Notch wrote:Anyway, it's rather disconcerting to have my penis referenced in a thread about rape, so if we could kindly refrain from discussing it or anything else pertaining to my sexual life in this thread, or on any other except, I don't know, the SWIM thread, without my consent, that would be delightful.


Where the hell did that happen?


DamianaRaven wrote:Will everyone please submit their final dick measurements so we can declare a winner here?


People don't get my jokes, I don't get their jokes
  • 3

It's Dangerous to Go Alone


"I desperately want Jiggery Pokery now."-- Pikajew

"I do feel that if she happens to favour attractive, successful, intelligent men I will be at a disadvantage."--Anglerphobe

"I have a beautiful sphincter and Mexico is gonna pay for it."--Kate
User avatar
Matthew Notch
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:48 am
Location: The ICT
Show rep
Title: The Last Finisher

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Tesseracts » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:57 pm

I don't understand why people say we shouldn't talk about stuff because we won't resolve it anyway. It's bullshit. The way we talk influenes how we think, and how we think of the issue influenes real policy.

The recent Stanford case is startling not because another rape happened, but because it revealed so clearly and so painfully obviously the thinking behind rape apologists.
  • 6

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby DamianaRaven » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:58 pm

*grimaces with disgust* Mr. Notch, as flattering as I'm sure it must be for you to imagine I'm over here thinking about your... whatever, that joke had nothing to do with you and I think you know it.
  • 1

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Tesseracts » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:02 am

DamianaRaven wrote:*grimaces with disgust* Mr. Notch, as flattering as I'm sure it must be for you to imagine I'm over here thinking about your... whatever, that joke had nothing to do with you and I think you know it.

You made a joke which didn't land. It happens. Not only did it not land but he got kind of creeped out. That also happens. It would be really... Not generous to assume he's faking his reaction somehow. I think his reaction is real, and you can't really control how people take your jokes. All you can do is accept it and possibly avoid it in the future.
  • 6

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby DamianaRaven » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:04 am

Matthew Notch wrote:People don't get my jokes, I don't get their jokes


That remark had a rather vindictive tone to it. Either Matt knew full well that I wasn't referring to him and had ZERO interest in his personal measurement, or he's just not as bright as I thought he was. Whatever the case, I'll certainly refrain from making dick jokes in his presence.
  • 1

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:09 am

Sorry Crim' I'm done going over the matter. I stand by my take, I respect you standing by your's. This merry-go-round is over for me, as I don't believe there's anything fruitful to be gained from continuing and no amount of "Yeah BUT..."'s are gonna reignite it. That doesn't mean I don't think the discussion should end of course, may well be lots to be gained for others, but I've long since gotten my two cents out. So to speak.

And not that I owe you or anyone else on this Earth an explanation on whom I choose to thumb or not to thumb, I will say this, I make no necessary statements of agreement or disagreement with content or support of conduct with thumbege-es, I might but then again I might not, I go by whatever whim strikes me. Your personal views on what I or anyone else should or shouldn't thumb means nothing to me. And whom I chose to do so, has no necessary bearing on any of arguments or opinions, it might, but then again it might not. If it inherrantly does to you, that's your business sir, however I am not operating under your thumb-system.
You aint my daddy.
And frankly I find the idea of talking about this publicly rather gauche. I don't see it as anyone else's business whom we choose to thumb and why. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I don't think I have anything else to say on that matter.
  • 1

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Learned Nand » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 am

Crimson never said that you were required to abide by his guidelines for whose posts to thumb, or that anyone was owed an explanation, so characterizing his statements that way is unfair. Furthermore, saying "I don't care" is kind of pointless; if you didn't care about his opinion, you could ignore him. If you're taking the time to respond, then on some level his opinion does matter to you enough that you want to address it. And all of that is unnecessary if your substantive defense is that you thumb randomly.

Marcuse wrote:As far as I can tell, the opposite viewpoint seems to stand on the principle that the studies are in fact impartial, and the results speak for themselves. Mostly, the expressed argument here seems to be that we should support the integrity of the organisations carrying out the studies, and accept the limitations of the statistical examples that can be brought up to counter the primary ones.

I don't think this has really been the argument made. I, at least, have been making the argument that it's not the integrity of the organizations that supports the results, but the fact that there is consensus about them among studies of varying methodologies. And it's not so much that I think that statistical counterexamples so far brought up are limited, but that none have yet to be brought up at all. Also, to be clear, I don't think anyone argued that the rate of sexual assault was increasing (and the NCVS suggests otherwise).

That nitpick aside, I generally agree with the point of your post as to the larger significance of these particular statistics.
  • 3

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Andropov4 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:37 am

.
  • 0

Last edited by Andropov4 on Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a lamb."- Ryan Stiles

Jenna is mine.
User avatar
Andropov4
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:24 pm
Location: 'Murica
Show rep
Title: Rhetorically Correct Rascal

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Crimson847 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:52 am

D-LOGAN wrote:Sorry Crim' I'm done going over the matter. I stand by my take, I respect you standing by your's. This merry-go-round is over for me, as I don't believe there's anything fruitful to be gained from continuing and no amount of "Yeah BUT..."'s are gonna reignite it. That doesn't mean I don't think the discussion should end of course, may well be lots to be gained for others, but I've long since gotten my two cents out. So to speak.


Very well then.

Image
  • 6

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:53 am

Crim' ... THAT makes it all worthwhile!!!! C'mere you!
  • 4

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Bert » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 am

DamianaRaven wrote:
Matthew Notch wrote:People don't get my jokes, I don't get their jokes


That remark had a rather vindictive tone to it. Either Matt knew full well that I wasn't referring to him and had ZERO interest in his personal measurement, or he's just not as bright as I thought he was. Whatever the case, I'll certainly refrain from making dick jokes in his presence.


You of all people know you should refrain from calling other members stupid as well.
  • 7

"Condoms are a sign of a bad relationship." -Kate

"We have been here a while. We are not clean people." -Typical Michael
User avatar
Bert
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: The Street
Show rep

Re: Rape - please read the guidelines for this discussion

Postby Andropov4 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:08 am

I don't think that's really calling him stupid. If anything, I would think the purpose was to make the previous clause seem more likely.
  • 0

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a lamb."- Ryan Stiles

Jenna is mine.
User avatar
Andropov4
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:24 pm
Location: 'Murica
Show rep
Title: Rhetorically Correct Rascal

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests