SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6440589/Date-rape-drink-spiking-an-urban-legend.html
Widespread spiking of drinks with date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB is an "urban legend" fuelled by young women unwilling to accept they have simply consumed too much alcohol, academics believe. A study of more than 200 students revealed many wrongly blamed the effects of a "bad night out" on date-rape drugs, when they had just drunk excessively.
Many are in "active denial" that drinking large amounts of alcohol can leave them "incoherent and incapacitated", the Kent University researchers concluded. Young women's fears about date-rape drugs are so ingrained that students mistakenly think it is a more important factor in sexual assault than being drunk, taking drugs or walking alone at night.
The study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, found three-quarters of students identified drink spiking as an important risk – more than alcohol or drugs. More than half said they knew someone whose drink had been spiked.
But despite popular beliefs, police have found no evidence that rape victims are commonly drugged with such substances, the researchers said.
Dr Adam Burgess from the university's School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, said: "Young women appear to be displacing their anxieties about the consequences of consuming what is in the bottle on to rumours of what could be put there by someone else.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:46PM
Widespread spiking of drinks with date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB is an "urban legend" fuelled by young women unwilling to accept they have simply consumed too much alcohol, academics believe.
This doesn't mean that rape/assault doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that Rohypnol/GHB aren't ever used as described.
Regardless of any findings, consent is not optional. Full stop.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:28PM
This doesn't mean that rape/assault doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that Rohypnol/GHB aren't ever used as described.
Regardless of any findings, consent is not optional. Full stop.
This type of posting is exactly what is fueling this problem. Nobody is suggesting that consent should be optional or that date rape drugs are okay. However, emphasizing a largely-non-existent problem causes people to overreact and behave irrationally.
How would you react to saying, "blacks can't be allowed to go around raping white women?" The statement is true, but it is completely misrepresentative.
Two other examples which might resonate more with you and the rest of SN are, "terrorists can't be allowed to bring bombs onto planes," and "terrorists can't be allowed to use encryption to hide their communications from law enforcement."
Now can you see why over-representing true problems can be bad? Rather than targeting the true-but-very-small risk of date rape drugs ("terrorism"), efforts should be focused on the real problem of overconsumption of alcohol ("reckless driving," "dysfunctional healthcare industry," "misallocated welfare," etc).
But that's hard and scary... and Think Of The Children!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:22PM
This type of posting is exactly what is fueling this problem. Nobody is suggesting that consent should be optional or that date rape drugs are okay. However, emphasizing a largely-non-existent problem causes people to overreact and behave irrationally.
I disagree (obviously). The point I was trying (and, in your case, apparently failing) to make was that while instances of sexual assault via rohypnol/GHB are rare, that's no reason to ignore the issues around rape/sexual assault. Rape/sexual assault are *not* rare, and I didn't emphasize anything other than that rape/sexual assault were unacceptable behavior.
So. It seems you're either trying to pick a fight with me for no apparent reason, or you have other issues surrounding the ideas of consent and and non-consent.
Rape/sexual assault isn't about sex. It's about power and control. I suppose I could have said that instead of "...consent is not optional."
Is it inappropriate to say such things? If so, why?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:33AM
I don't think the original ac was looking for a fight or overly disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that focusing on the date rape drug aspect detracts from the larger issues that contribute to the majority of rapes.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:09AM
I don't think the original ac was looking for a fight or overly disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that focusing on the date rape drug aspect detracts from the larger issues that contribute to the majority of rapes.
Fair enough. However, I said:
This doesn't mean that rape/assault doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that Rohypnol/GHB aren't ever used as described.
Regardless of any findings, consent is not optional. Full stop.
I said that rapes/assaults happen and pointed our that the frequency of the use of "date rape" drugs is >0.
Where exactly am I "...focusing on the date rape drug aspect?" Is your position that mentioning it at all constitutes being overly focused on it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:05AM
>Where exactly am I...
As I got much the same impression from your first post, I would say at the point where you posted at all, with a tone indicating disagreement with the article, whose entire point was that date rape drugs are a grossly overstated risk that distract from responsible risk assessment of alcohol itself. Nowhere was it claimed that spiked drinks are a *nonexistent* risk, therefore by "refuting" that supposed aspect of the article, you are re-inflating its perceived risk.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:12AM
On the other hand, I could also see your statement being intended to specifically at refute the headline, which as is so often the case grossly misrepresents the article. In which case I would recommend explicitly calling out the bad headline in the future, as such are always fair game for caustic sniping, but which without clarification can often be easily misinterpret as being directed at the substance of the article
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:26AM
On the other hand, I could also see your statement being intended to specifically at refute the headline, which as is so often the case grossly misrepresents the article. In which case I would recommend explicitly calling out the bad headline in the future, as such are always fair game for caustic sniping, but which without clarification can often be easily misinterpret as being directed at the substance of the article
I wish I'd read this before I replied to your previous comment, as I'd have included it in my initial response.
Yes, the headline misrepresents the article. However, that wasn't the driving force behind my initial comment.
I was mostly motivated by the tone of many posters that (which was, perhaps, a misinterpretation on my part), IMHO dismissed the seriousness of rape/sexual assault. Non-consensual sex, or non-consensual *anything* for that matter, is repugnant and should be dealt with harshly. Denying sentient beings agency and control over their own persons is, IMHO, heinous and should not be tolerated.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:24AM
I certainly can't argue with that.
But if that was your intent, then your chosen comment subject and opening quote seems to misdirect the impact of your statement, posing as a disagreement with the article, when instead your argument would seem to be with the flippancy and disrespect of some of the commenters.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:38AM
I certainly can't argue with that.
You can, and apparently, you are.
As I've repeatedly said (including in my initial post), rape/sexual assault is, regardless of the frequency with which rphypnol/GHB/etc are used, is unacceptable behavior.
Full stop.
If you really want to continue this discussion, please, by all means, do so. However, I have already said all I meant to say. As such, it's unlikely that such a discussion will be very interesting. But far be it for me to tell you what (or how) you should say or do. Carry on.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:03PM
Since you apparently misunderstood, I will repeat myself more explicitly, and hopefully with less ambiguity:
I cannot (and have not) made any argument against the fact that rape and sexual assault are completely unacceptable. I agree with you completely on that point.
My initial comment was targeted *only* at your question:
>Where exactly am I "...focusing on the date rape drug aspect?"
And my response is that you are doing so by oening (andhaving almost your entire comment focus on the frequency of date rape drug use:
>Operative Term In TFS
>Widespread spiking of drinks with date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB is an "urban legend" fuelled by young women unwilling to >accept they have simply consumed too much alcohol, academics believe.
>
>This doesn't mean that rape/assault doesn't happen, and it doesn't mean that Rohypnol/GHB aren't ever used as described.
>
>Regardless of any findings, consent is not optional. Full stop.
5 lines.
The first 3 lines focused exclusively on the frequency of date rape drug use.
1 line pointing out that rape, and the use of rape drugs, do in fact happen - a point I don't see anyone contesting.
And finally all of 6 words objecting to rape itself.
Both the tone and weight of content lend itself to being interpreted as a disagreement with the article's point that overblown concern over date rape drugs is distracting women from the fact that excessive alcohol consumption can itself expose them to the same risks, and is the far larger real danger.
Your closing line, the only one that carries any point close to "rape is bad" then feels like little more than a tacked-on parting shot at any potential rapists in the audience that might think otherwise
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:51PM
you and the other poster are just dumb. it is obvious if you actually read the posts that he was responding to the conversation as it unfolded. you two boneheads just didn't understand what he was arguing with.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:18AM
I see. So now I'm responsible for the (incorrect) interpretation of my statement?
Ummm...Not so much. I will say what I think and, as occurred here, will elucidate for the benefit of those who don't get it.
Not that I'm under any obligation to do so, but this is a site for discussion and the exchange of ideas. The original AC [soylentnews.org] took a quite confrontational tone and, IMHO, I responded with a considerable amount of restraint.
What's more, if you don't like what I have to say, my username is at the top of my posts. Perhaps you should note that before reading and just slide on by. Or not. That's entirely up to you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:14AM
Yes. To the same extent that you are responsible for the incorrect interpretation of a statement at the pub being perceived as an insult that gets you a fist in the face. Clarity of communication is everyone's responsibility, and if your statement is similarly misinterpreted by multiple people you might want to consider that the failure lies in an excessively ambiguous presentation, and not in the perceptions of those who misinterpret it.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:27AM
Yes. To the same extent that you are responsible for the incorrect interpretation of a statement at the pub being perceived as an insult that gets you a fist in the face.
Have I said anything insulting? I don't think so. I expressed my opinion and someone disagreed with me rather nastily. Did I respond with insults? Nope. As such, your analogy falls rather flat.
Or are you calling me out? If so, how mature of you.
As I mentioned previously, If you dislike what I have to say or how I say it, you are under no obligation to read what I write..
What's more, I'm perfectly willing to to elucidate (as I did repeatedly, but apparently it was what I said, not how I said it that was a problem for them), but there's no reason for nastiness or negativity, is there? After all, this isn't a pub, and while I don't know about you, I'm not an angry drunk and have managed to go nearly fifty years without getting into a bar fight (although some of my companions put me in situations that have, at times, threatened such a minor achievement).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:11AM
> Where exactly am I "...focusing on the date rape drug aspect?"
Well, if you weren't, then remind me to moderate all your posts in this subthread as "Offtopic" when I log in later.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:28AM
Consider yourself reminded.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:49AM
You're true to your word. Thank you!
You've restored my faith in humanity!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:24PM
Came into this subthread looking for some humorous (hopefully) shit talking, got a good does of excellent points!
It is definitely better to represent reality correctly so people can plan accordingly. I guess a lot of girls go get shitfaced, but as long as they or their friends bought/controlled the drink then they think they are safe. Getting too drunk isn't too much better than getting drugged, and it sounds like lots of women only fear the drugs added the their drinks and not the one already there!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:32PM
Women can remove consent retroactively, so what difference does it make?
Never touch a woman, even with consent. Never go near a woman, she can claim you touched her. Never even look at a woman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:57PM
On the bright side, that kind of attitude tends to get weeded out of the gene pool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @07:07AM
False. That means the only males that get to spread their seed are actual rapists, raping "don't even look at me or I'll cry rape" females. That's not a pair of traits I want to see propagated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:12PM
Women can remove consent retroactively, so what difference does it make?
My experience is anecdotal, but I've never experienced anything even approaching what you suggest.
Never touch a woman, even with consent. Never go near a woman, she can claim you touched her. Never even look at a woman.
By all means, follow your own advice. In my experience, women enjoy (good) sex as much or more than men do. I suppose you think women are bitches [urbandictionary.com]. Which probably says more about you than about them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:27PM
Ex girlfriends are always bitches.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:17AM
Yes, womyn-born-womyn do retroactively remove consent.
Please read this [slate.com]. It's Slate so you don't have to worry I'm linking you to some subversive men's rights source.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:29AM
Yes, womyn-born-womyn do retroactively remove consent.
Please read this. It's Slate so you don't have to worry I'm linking you to some subversive men's rights source.
According to the article you linked, the "victim" said she didn't remember the encounter. It was her mother who invaded her privacy and decided to file a complaint.
Regardless, this doesn't invalidate my experience. I have never engaged in non-consensual (this includes drug/alcohol impairment) sexual activity. When there has been any question in my mind about consensuality, I always made sure that consent was given. I've been in a number of situations where it was unclear whether or not consent was given (or even possible), and have *never* run into such a situation.
Am I an aberration? I think not.
As an aside, is it possible that your somewhat obsessive battle with TERFs (who are pretty much nuts anyway [wordpress.com]) has given you a skewed view of women in general? That's not an accusation or a judgement, just a suggestion toward self-reflection.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:44AM
Let's review the portion of that incident where the rape victim did finally remember:
[Friend] recalled that [victim] explained that the diary “contained descriptions of romantic and sexual experiences, drug use, and drinking.” (CB confirmed the contents of the diary in her own deposition.) During the phone call, [victim] asked [friend] if she remembered the night [victim] had sex with Sterrett. [Friend] didn’t, because [victim] had never mentioned it. Now [victim] told her, “I said no, no, and then I gave in.” Eventually, as described in [victim]’s deposition, [victim]’s mother called the university to report that [victim] would be making a complaint against Sterrett. [victim]’s mother drove her to campus, and [victim] met with Heather Cowan.
So, it wasn't that the victim didn't remember it. The friend didn't remember it, because the victim hadn't mentioned it. The victim did remember it, but then she retroactively removes consent. Why? To save face with her mother.
Here's another example [mlive.com] of a womyn-born-womyn caught lying about rape, all to save face about her status as one of the “lesbian race.” I've also firsthand caught a womyn-born-womyn in a damned lie about rape, again to save face with her family.
See the common pattern? Consent tends to be revoked retroactively to save face.
I've also seen attempts to entice men I know into paternal fraud (“oh, I just want your sperm, I won't claim you're the father!”) and statutory rape (with an almost 18 that would not fucking shut up and leave my friend the fuck alone, not MikeeUSA-type stuff) in addition to flat out rape.
As far as TERFs influencing my view of womyn-born-womyn, it's possible I'm sure. Why would I want to take legal risks like talking to strange women to find out otherwise? According to my date rape training, if a womyn-born-womyn I've spoken to is raped later in the night by somebody else, I'll be held accountable as an accessory to rape on the grounds that I conspired to spike her drink (even using my T-900 advanced infiltrator [wikia.com]-class woman [wikipedia.org] suit [wikipedia.org] to get her to drop her guard).
On campus that meant my transcripts would be sealed and I would be instantly expelled. In the real world, that means a he-said-she-said-bathroom-rapist-faggot-said court battle, which would likely cost me my job and make me homeless.
You can't just look at TERFs. Here comes the alt-right on a crusade to protect the Hunnies from my advanced infiltrator woman suit! But it's not just about me and my woman suit. The alt-right will just as easily come down on you to protect a Hunny if she needs to save face after the fact because obviously you're a creep. In other words, it's not just feminists you need to worry about. It's a guy who has a nicer car than you or a bigger bank account you need to worry about. Plenty of guys love to side with the Hunny when she says “rape” if it means knocking the “competition” (you) down.
Now, I admit, it's certainly possible that the alt-right hasn't been influenced by Raymond and Dworkin and came to strikingly similar conclusions somewhat independently. There could also be a tea kettle in Saturn's rings. TERFs like Raymond and Dworkin worked pretty hard to smear trans women as bathroom rapists and invaders (i.e. infiltrator-class terminators and you'd better batcha an advanced infiltrator model like me scares the bejeezus out of them, not unlike The Thing [wikipedia.org]), and it looks like it's paying off.
It all comes back to those M&Ms [slate.com] (remember, never Skittles! Skittles are racist!). You're the one good M&M for now. How long until somebody else who's a better M&M accuses you of being one of the poisoned M&Ms? Have a wife and think that ring will protect you? Nope. All it takes is an accusation of marital rape, and *boom*, you're a poisoned M&M, indistinguishable from MikeeUSA and/or Buffalo Bill.
You're on shaky ground having contact with womyn-born-womyn outside of business. I wouldn't say you're an aberration. I'd say you're damned lucky.
And good grief, that doesn't even get into the Misogynerd Narrative, but that's a different topic only slightly related by way of the homophobic “sexually frustrated” myth.
This study about date rape will be completely ignored, and in fact, I'll be surprised if the people who conducted the study aren't accused of being pro-rape.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:40AM
I wouldn't say you're an aberration. I'd say you're damned lucky.
Thanks for the correction (WRT the Slate article), and the explanation of your point of view.
I don't know. In the 32 years that I've been sexually active, I've never come across a woman who falsely cried rape, nor do I know anyone who has experienced that.
Please note that I live in a *very* large city and have lived in/traveled to many places in the US. I am not a sheltered/cloistered religious type either. I've pretty much always been a sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll kind of guy. That's not to say I attempt to get inside any panties that walk past me, but I'm not a shrinking violet either.
Perhaps I (and every other male I know) have been, as you say, "damned lucky." But that seems unlikely. Then again, I'm middle-aged, not a teen or twenty-something guy who may deal with immaturity (both his own and that of women his age) more often than I do.
At the same time, I was once that age too and managed to get through without being set upon by a romantic interest, girlfriend, lover, fling or one-night stand. So maybe I was just living right.
Then again, I've generally been a pretty good judge of people and try hard to be trustworthy. So maybe I've just avoided the *really* crazy people.
Or perhaps it's a generational thing, but false rape accusations weren't prevalent (the term "rare" would be overkill, as I recall) when I was that age, at least not within my peer groups or in the media. I wonder what's different now? Perhaps it's because that generation grew up with their whole lives on display in a way that didn't happen when I was young.
Or perhaps false rape accusations happen at a similar frequency as they did in the past, but we just hear about it more, since everything is magnified through the scourge of "social media."
Who knows? Who cares? Not me.
In any case, I see no reason to change what's worked for me my whole adult life.
I've never had a desire to tell anyone how they should live their life or interact with others, and I won't start now. I think I understand your concerns about this and I'm sure you know what's best for you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:04PM
Part of it may be situational. Since you and I were of college age, many schools have developed internal procedures and punishments for rape that do not involve police or the courts and do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases they don't even allow defensive testimony or cross examination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:06PM
As far as TERFs influencing my view of womyn-born-womyn, it's possible
understatement of the year
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:32AM
suppose you think women are bitches.
I think they're fish, not dogs. According to feminism, a fish doesn't need a bicycle. So why the fuck should a bicycle need a fish?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:33PM
Ever heard of Forbidden Fruit? Most women know its effect on men.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:59AM
Soon there will be sexbots, and that lever of control women have always held over men will vanish forever. It will dramatically change social relations, but who knows if it will be a net positive or net negative.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:45PM
It is very doubtful someone is going to spend that much money on drugs and use it for the slight chance of getting laid. They can just buy a hooker for that price, and the sex is guaranteed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:40PM
It is very doubtful someone is going to spend that much money on drugs and use it for the slight chance of getting laid. They can just buy a hooker for that price, and the sex is guaranteed.
Rape/sexual assault isn't about sex. It's about power and control.
What's more, IIUC making [gblwheelbrite.com] GHB [gbl99.com] is neither difficult nor expensive.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:10AM
Rape/sexual assault isn't about sex. It's about power and control.
Common trope made about rape that has fuck-all to support it.
Capitalism is about power and control. Government is about power and control.
And yet rape somehow always includes sexual actions. How do you explain that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dingus on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:07AM
It doesn't need to be explained, it needs to be ended.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:10AM
Rape/sexual assault isn't about sex. It's about power and control.
Common trope made about rape that has fuck-all to support it.
That's not quite true [wikipedia.org].
There has been some [apa.org] research [nih.gov] in this area.
While sex is (obviously) a component of rape/sexual assault, if it was only about sex, rapists wouldn't risk (as Username [soylentnews.org] pointed out, in a somewhat different context) being shamed and jailed as rapists, they would just pay for sex. Certainly poor impulse control (often exacerbated by drugs/alcohol) is a factor as well, but forcing another person to engage in sex is explicitly taking agency, power and control from that person.
Rape and other sexual assaults always involves power and control. In fact, many rapists (as well as those involved in the BDSM lifestyle) derive enormous sexual pleasure from that power and control.
As such, it's not a trope, nor is there "fuck all" evidence to support it. All relationships have unequal power/control dynamics. Sometimes those dynamics are fluid, sometimes the inequality is minor, other times it's quite static and the inequality can be quite sizable.
By your logic, if I move into your house, eat your food, sleep in your bed, wear your clothes and fuck your wife/girlfriend without your (or her) consent, and beat you bloody/maim/kill you if you protest, there is no power/control aspect to it at all right?
The key issue is consent. If you do not consent to something happening to your body, that's inherently about power/control. It may be about other things too, but power and control are significant aspects.
I'm sorry you don't like that idea and I wouldn't dream of trying to take power over/control you by forcing you to believe what I say. Because that would be akin to rape, and I'm not a rapist.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:21AM
Bah! You are taking a very limited sample of rapist and conflating it with every instance of rape, which isn't supported [psychologytoday.com]. Not to mention only one your sources specified control and power.
Come again?
Or are we just googling shit at will?
Fine.
https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/ [wordpress.com]
http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2014/09/03/the-myth-that-rape-is-about-power/ [nathanielgivens.com]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812897?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [jstor.org]
The biggest tell in conflating rape with control and power is, as pointed elsewhere in this thread, that rates of rape are significantly higher in Muslim countries where the men already exercise a great deal more power and control over women. And instances of rape are lower where there is liberal access to pornography/prostitution.
Attempting to overlay a power dynamic over every interaction so completely perverts the notion of consent that there can be none until the scales are finely adjusted, which they can never be.
But if you really want to take that tactic, don't forget which way the money flows with Johns/prostitutes.
Who has the power then?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @06:08AM
Attempting to overlay a power dynamic over every interaction so completely perverts the notion of consent that there can be none until the scales are finely adjusted, which they can never be.
But if you really want to take that tactic, don't forget which way the money flows with Johns/prostitutes.
Who has the power then?
I'm not overlaying anything. Power dynamics exist in *every* relationship. Whether that relationship is familial, professional, platonic or romantic, there is a power dynamic at play. That's part of *every* human relationship.
Just because a power dynamic *may* be unequal, it doesn't mean it's not consensual. The power dynamic between many (not all) employers and employees is usually unequal. The power dynamic between a parent and their child is, at least until they are adults, and often long after, is unequal. That parent/child dynamic is often reversed as the parent ages, too. The power dynamic between a D/s Dominant and his/her submissive is, by design, unequal. Many friendships have an unequal power dynamic. And many marriages/romantic relationships do as well.
What's more, not only do those relationships have unequal power dynamics, those dynamics are often fluid, with power/control changing hands as the situation and the relationship changes. In most cases, there is either explicit or implicit consent throughout, with exceptions like abusive relationships, coercion, extortion, etc.
Just because a relationship has an unequal power dynamic, that doesn't mean it's inherently non-consensual. In fact, relationships more often have a complex admixture of power and control in the various aspects of those relationships.
Most often, these power dynamics emerge based on the situation (work environment -- is the military hierarchy an example of non-consensual activity?), the personalities of those involved (friends, romantic partners), filial and legal responsibility (parent/child) or specific needs/drives (the Dominant/submissive relationship), and are wholly consensual.
Assuming that an unequal power/control dynamic requires non-consent flies in the face of the constant experience of just about everyone. Are you that disconnected from other people that you can't see it?
As to the john/prostitute situation, that's a an excellent example of a fluid power dynamic. Until the john forks over the cash, he has control. Once the john does so, the power shifts to the prostitute. Unless, of course, the john uses other means (e.g., violence, intimidation, etc.) to reassert control.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:43PM
The biggest tell in conflating rape with control and power is, as pointed elsewhere in this thread, that rates of rape are significantly higher in Muslim countries where the men already exercise a great deal more power and control over women.
What else is this but the assertion of that power and control?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:18AM
> While sex is (obviously) a component of rape/sexual assault, if it was only about sex, rapists wouldn't risk (as Username pointed out, in a somewhat different context) being shamed and jailed as rapists, they would just pay for sex.
While eating is (obviously) a component of stealing food from the supermarket, if it was only about eating, then homeless people who don't have money for food wouldn't risk being shamed and jailed as thieves, they would just pay for food.
That's your logic. It's broken logic.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:05AM
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
--Anatole France
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:26AM
Wait... are you actually implying that some people should be held to higher standards than others?
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:45AM
Wait... are you actually implying that some people should be held to higher standards than others?
AC made a ridiculous analogy and it made me think of this, so I went with it. Anything you read into it comes from you, not me.
tl;dr: I imply nothing. If that's what you project onto such a quote, that's your doing not mine.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:04PM
Sorry, that does not fly... even you can understand that communication works both ways.
For example: Yelling 'FIRE!" in a crowded theatre (with there actually being a fire or not) cannot be done without considering the implications by the receivers of that yell.
(Whether you consider those implications important or not (from the current discussion I gather you probably do not) is something entirely different).
Anything otherwise would mean your quote is just nonsense.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:11PM
Ahh...you seek meaning. Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Anything otherwise would mean your quote is just nonsense.
If Anatole France hadn't died just about 92 years ago, I imagine he might take umbrage with your comment.
I, however, could not care less.
Posting that quote in response to a moronic analogy was esthetically satisfying to me. Nothing else (including your blathering) means a damn to me.
Then again, I am rather easily amused. Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:31PM
"Anything otherwise would mean your quote is just nonsense."
That came out a bit different than intended. So, let me rephrase that for you:
Anything otherwise would mean you using that quote is just nonsense.
As for the rest of your drivel... anything to avoid a substantive discussion.
Duly noted. Have a nice day as well.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:55PM
As for the rest of your drivel... anything to avoid a substantive discussion.
This comment is the twentieth I've made in this sub-thread (in fact, I started this sub-thread [soylentnews.org]).
I've said quite a few "substantive" things already. In fact, I've said all I wish to say.
As such, when I saw this twaddle [soylentnews.org] I had no interest in responding in a meaningful way.
I'm sorry that you came late to the party, feel free to peruse the long discussion that I've already had with a bunch of others. I hope you find it stimulating.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:09PM
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:03AM
I suspect that their are, broadly speaking, two different "classes" of rape, or perhaps simply extremes on a spectrum
The first and most publicized being premeditated violent rape, whereby sex is used as a means of inflicting power/dominance/humiliation over a target, generally as a symbolic act to release deep-seated psychological issues. In that context I think it's correct to say that it's not about sex per se, but that sex is nonetheless a powerful symbolic/metaphorical focus for those issues. Which is not terribly surprising given its biological and hence psychological importance. There's probably stacks of scholarly essays that could be written as to whether or not sex actually sits at the origin of many/most such issues, or is simply a convenient focus, but I'll leave those to someone with more insight into such damaged psyches than I.
The second, and probably far more common, I would classify as opportunistic rape - and this one I would say absolutely *is* about sex. These would be the Brocks of the world - those who apparently aren't driven by any need for relief from psychological damage, but simply see an opportunity and take it - whether that involves violence, intimidation, or just the expediency of noticing an incapacitated target. Presumably because either they don't see women as deserving of control over their own bodies, or are bullies that just don't care so long as they get what they want.
I blame the "it's not about sex" meme on the fact that the first group is far richer fodder for storytellers - the monster who stalks his prey to get relief from some psychological torment makes for a compelling villain. The asshole with no respect for others - he's just the bully we've all dealt with at one time or another. That he crossed a line from petty torment to inflicting potentially severe psychological trauma doesn't make him any more interesting. Not even as interesting as the man who murders someone in a fit of rage. There at least there's some fire, the forbidden release of being completely overcome by your passions. The opportunist though, he's just the creeping banality of evil - the street mugger, the over-demanding boss. Culturally invisible because to see him would risk acknowledging the quiet corruption whose tendrils so thoroughly and seemingly irresistibly permeate our lives.
And, as our perceptions are heavily colored by drama, the more dramatic story gets perceived as the more common one - not unlike people fearing airplanes and pedophiles when cars and the flu are the far greater actual threats.
Or so sayeth a late-night armchair philosopher with a belly full of alcohol.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday September 21 2016, @07:22PM
So you’re saying someone’s going to spend the time and effort to try and make a drug for the possible chance to incapacitate someone else in order to control them? Instead of just giving a person money and controlling them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:05AM
In context though it does mean there are a rash of false allegations made.
And just as there has been a massive social campaign, from re-education camps to fingernail polish to detect date-rape drugs; there should be mandatory polygraph* testing of women.
*In before some one states polygraphs are unreliable. Yeah, well, so is the testimony of women.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:31AM
*In before some one states polygraphs are unreliable. Yeah, well, so is the testimony of women.
In all fairness, so is the testimony of men...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:33AM
Show me the numbers of men making false rape allegations.
Don't worry, I'll wait.