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: 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