Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday September 20 2016, @08:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'll-drink-to-that dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:40PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:40PM (#404562) Homepage Journal

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:10AM (#404574)

    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

      by dingus (5224) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:07AM (#404647)

      It doesn't need to be explained, it needs to be ended.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:10AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:10AM (#404649) Homepage Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:21AM (#404659)

        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

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @06:08AM (#404676) Homepage Journal

          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

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:43PM (#404924)

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:18AM (#404694)

        > 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

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:05AM (#404710) Homepage Journal

          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

            by ewk (5923) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:26AM (#404733)

            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

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:45AM (#404744) Homepage Journal

              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

                by ewk (5923) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:04PM (#404750)

                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

                  by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:11PM (#404751) Homepage Journal

                  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

                    by ewk (5923) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:31PM (#404756)

                    "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

                      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:55PM (#404766) Homepage Journal

                      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

                        by ewk (5923) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:09PM (#404847)
                        Keep on hoping then... I did watch some paint dry for a few hours now, and, yes.. it actually really is more interesting than trying to get an answer from you. Yet, I am afraid you somehow will see that as a compliment... Anyway, do feel free to have the last word in this thread. I am back to the paint for now.
                        --
                        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

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @05:03AM (#404656)

      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

    by Username (4557) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @07:22PM (#404893)

    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?