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: 2) by black6host on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:06PM
This whole sex thing, at that age, is a lot different than it used to be when I was young. Back then it was pretty simple, "wanna bang?", "Yeah". :)
Now, it seems a fence of fear is being promoted. Yeah, I understand that there are abuses but damn, young kids didn't just turn into rapists over a couple of generations. Good thing my attorney drew up some consent papers to be signed as an affidavit of willingness to be witnessed by a notary or JP no more than 5 minutes before the game is on. Jeesh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:09PM
Two words: Enthusiastic Consent.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:12PM
Two drunk words: Cellphone recording buzzed intercourse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:17PM
#NotAnymore
(Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:16PM
Well, yeah, that was how it was when I was young. And is now as well. For me. However, one can be quite drunk, and quite enthusiastic, and then claim they were not able to consent due to the fact that they were drunk or had their drink spiked. Enthusiastic Consent doesn't help there.
(Score: 3, Informative) by slinches on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:34PM
Even if both parties are sober and give consent, if one party changes their mind later and claims that they didn't consent, the other's life is ruined (or the complaint is just ignored, depending on the genders). And written consent doesn't count if they're drunk. And who knows if either party is lying about being clean of STDs.
Sex is risky when no one deserves the benefit of the doubt.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:32PM
There are lots of different people in this world. Some of them have a fuzzier idea of "consent" than you might. Most of them "at that age" have zero experience with it. Is it any wonder that people make mistakes? Is it any wonder that those that are physically stronger and expected to be more assertive do a lot more damage than they mean to when they make mistakes? And when those people are otherwise important in their communities, such as the football heroes or the sons of local politicians, is it any wonder that they would be protected from their mistakes? These are not new problems; I'll give you that. These problems are older than dirt, really. And it's entirely reasonable to me that you may never have made such a mistake, or known anybody that did. But it does happen, and it never has to.
But let me swing a little bit back from that defense. No, you do not need a signed affidavit. No, you do not need anything formal at all. All you need is to know that the person you are with is happy with what you are doing. But let's back up a bit. You need to know that you are dealing with people who change their minds. People who have different desires and expectations. People in varying levels of lucidity. People. Not prizes. It's not a "score". It's a living person that you are going to have to level with in the morning.
And we need to stop trying to tell this just to ourselves and our young women. Young men need to know how not to make mistakes.
The premise of this article is...likely to get a lot of criticism. But it makes perfect sense to me. Most assailants are making a mistake, not being purposefully predatory. Spiking a drink takes a whole lot of malice aforethought that some people might engage in, but it can't be responsible for the majority of assaults.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:13PM
And we need to stop trying to tell this just to ourselves and our young women. Young men need to know how not to make mistakes.
I'm teaching my children how I got married as a virgin. Everyone scoffs, but my dad raised me that way somehow, and my wife's parents raised her that way somehow, and it worked great for us. Maybe it's the programming that goes with our unique genetic code or something and wouldn't work elsewhere, but I would expect it will work about as well with our kids as it did for us. We're not a part of the culture this article is about, and never were. Which brings me to ...
Many are in "active denial" that drinking large amounts of alcohol can leave them "incoherent and incapacitated"
There's so much heat rather than light on both sides of this issue, but I was amazed when I read a woman explain that telling young girls not to go to bars or drinking parties was "blaming the victim." She went on to proudly assert her right to go to bars and drinking parties. And while I'd agree with her right, I'm still going to teach my girls and boys not to go to bars and drinking parties. I never did. It's not a part of my culture. And by not being a part of that culture and not engaging in those activities, I dramatically increased my chances of growing to adulthood unscathed, and my girls will increase their chances even more. The cost of keeping people safe goes way up in certain circumstances, and while I agree that people ought to be kept safe, I don't agree we should all have to bear that cost.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:08PM
Or you will scare the bejesus out of your kids and they will grow up to be social misfits...
Oh wait, who am I replying to again??
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:10PM
Or you will scare the bejesus out of your kids and they will grow up to be social misfits...
I'm quite happy not fitting into most of society. I fit in quite well in my culture, which is not the culture of the larger society (which is a wreck, if you haven't noticed). I'm sure many people here can identify with being glad that they don't fit into the larger culture.
And I don't remember ever being scared growing up. Other than from abusers in school, I suppose.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:17PM
I was amazed when I read a woman explain that telling young girls not to go to bars or drinking parties was "blaming the victim." She went on to proudly assert her right to go to bars and drinking parties. And while I'd agree with her right,
Its her right to go with the expectation of not being raped. Just like it is her right not to wear a burka with the expectation of not being raped. I'm not being facetious, conservative islam covers their women because they believe that men lack self control so the best way to avoid problems is to make sure women don't give men the opportunity to misbehave. It works, muslim countries have much lower rates of all kinds of crimes but it is an unstable point of equilibrium because men are so used to the expectation that they are animals that when given the opportunity to behave like an animal it is like they have a sort of internal mental "permission" to do it. Same thing with going to a drinking party if society assumes that women who drink too much are probably going to get raped then a man who finds himself with a drunk women is going to have a sort of internal mental permission to assault her.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:48PM
> It works, muslim countries have much lower rates of all kinds of crimes
Citation needed. My understanding was that the inverse is true: That the more sexually repressed a society and its womenfolk, the higher the frequency of sexual violence / rape. Of course getting good stats is hard because of reporting bias, but that should bias the figures in favour of the repressed countries[1]. Instead the data seems to back up my assertion above - conservative Islam is not doing anybody any favours.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/ [the-scientist.com]
[1] A woman is far more likely to report a rape in the west, because, well... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448 [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:11AM
I was going to say the same. And the bias is going to be even more dramatic in cultures that view being a rape victim as infidelity/promiscuity for which the punishment lies somewhere between complete social exile and death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:39AM
> Citation needed.
Hard to find due to differences in local definitions. But it is important to compare like to like.
So comparing a 1st world country to a 3rd world country, regardless of religion, isn't valid.
However the conservative practice of women not being alone with a man who is not family makes "date rape" practically impossible. That still leaves other forms of assault like spousal rape and incest. But those fit within the "men are animals" mindset.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:55PM
However the conservative practice of women not being alone with a man who is not family makes "date rape" practically impossible.
So women should all stay home with their families until their parents marry them off or something? Jeez. There is no reason women should have to fear going out in public, at least no more so than men do. Maybe these "conservative practices" should include some sort of chivalry where men act honorably towards women and each other. The idea that women need to surrender rights to be protected in ordinary social situations is the idea that is wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:11AM
Its her right to go with the expectation of not being raped.
What does "right" mean in that situation? She has a right to expect whatever she wants to expect. If she wants to expect unicorns when she clicks her shoes three times, I don't see the state trying to jail her for that (though such an expectation might correlate with mental illnesses that a state would involuntarily commit someone for). But if you're trying to claim that someone should be able to do dumb shit without the risk of dumb consequences, then I think you fail to understand the role of a right.
Same thing with going to a drinking party if society assumes that women who drink too much are probably going to get raped then a man who finds himself with a drunk women is going to have a sort of internal mental permission to assault her.
So did the man who has "internal mental permission" to rape grant the woman the right to have an expectation of not being raped? I'm not seeing it, but then I'm not seeing the relevance either. Expectations are flimsy things and reality routinely has a habit of not meeting them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:42AM
> But if you're trying to claim that someone should be able to do dumb shit without the risk of dumb consequences, then I think you fail to understand the role of a right.
Its her right not to be raped. Are you autistic or something? This is not complicated. You don't get to rape someone no matter what their mental state is, capiche?
> I'm not seeing it,
Probably because you are autistic and don't have clue 1 about human psychology.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:01AM
Its her right not to be raped.
No, it was said earlier she had a right to expect not to be raped. That's very different.
Probably because you are autistic and don't have clue 1 about human psychology.
Let us note that is irrelevant noise. Society's ability to protect women from rapists is limited and highly dependent on women making good decisions to protect themselves. It is irresponsible to encourage people to make bad decisions which society can't effective protect against. This claim of a right to have unreasonable expectations when one engages in highly risky behavior is one such irresponsibility. And let's face it, who gets punished when such a "right" is violated? Why it's the person exercising the "right". That alone tells you all you need to know about whether this is a right or not.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:24AM
The Internet psychologists have already diagnosed you with autism, thereby instantly and forever defeating you. Continuing to argue with them will only result in even more Internet psychology.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:14PM
Its her right not to be raped. Are you autistic or something? This is not complicated. You don't get to rape someone no matter what their mental state is, capiche?
I'm pretty sure that nearly nobody disputes that. What I can't see is the connection from my teaching my daughter "There are a lot of good reasons to never go to a bar or a drinking party. I never did, and I am very happy for it, and my life is very happy and fulfilling and I believe that the addition of bars and drinking parties in my past or my present would subtract from that. In addition, you have an extra factor that I didn't have: if you avoid bars and drinking parties, you dramatically lower your chances of being raped. I certainly don't believe that women who drink deserve to be raped, but I don't think drinking is a good idea, and you can be much safer if you avoid this sort of thing like your mother and I always have" - not sure how teaching that to my daughters means that I somehow believe men have the right to rape women.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:51AM
Sure. And it is my right to walk through any part of the city at any time with the expectation of not being robbed. And yet, if I'm walking alone at night through areas of the city known to be unsafe, I have to take some of the blame when getting robbed. Note that this does not lessen the guilt of the robber, nor does it mean there should not be made any effort to prevent robberies and catch robbers also in those areas.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:57AM
There's no such thing as "some of the blame". Blame isn't a pie that you divide up among people.
People screw up. Just because you can point the finger at someone else making a mistake or a malicious choice doesn't mean that you haven't also made a mistake or a malicious choice.
There is no conservation of blame. Blame is merely pointing out when someone screwed up. In western society, we like to pretend that blame is a hot potato that only 1 person can hold. That's incredibly stupid.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:32AM
Wanna bet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:16PM
So you're basically agreeing with him but disagreeing with his terminology.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:17PM
Sure. And it is my right to walk through any part of the city at any time with the expectation of not being robbed. And yet, if I'm walking alone at night through areas of the city known to be unsafe, I have to take some of the blame when getting robbed. Note that this does not lessen the guilt of the robber, nor does it mean there should not be made any effort to prevent robberies and catch robbers also in those areas.
I would never word that with the phrase "I have to take some of the blame." In the scenario you describe, the blame is 100% on the robber. However, you could have taken steps to keep yourself safer. That doesn't mean the blame for the robbery is yours.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday September 21 2016, @03:11PM
I was amazed when I read a woman explain that telling young girls not to go to bars or drinking parties was "blaming the victim." She went on to proudly assert her right to go to bars and drinking parties. And while I'd agree with her right,
Its her right to go with the expectation of not being raped. Just like it is her right not to wear a burka with the expectation of not being raped. I'm not being facetious, conservative islam covers their women because they believe that men lack self control so the best way to avoid problems is to make sure women don't give men the opportunity to misbehave. It works, muslim countries have much lower rates of all kinds of crimes but it is an unstable point of equilibrium because men are so used to the expectation that they are animals that when given the opportunity to behave like an animal it is like they have a sort of internal mental "permission" to do it. Same thing with going to a drinking party if society assumes that women who drink too much are probably going to get raped then a man who finds himself with a drunk women is going to have a sort of internal mental permission to assault her.
None of that changes my conviction that I'm much better off for never having been a part of a culture of bars and drinking parties and my desire to pass that on to my children.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:44PM
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:15PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:18PM
Except for alcohol though, right? (Not trying to get a rise out of you, just maybe a grin.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:54PM
Grinning because that's a good question. Alcohol is explicitly mentioned in the Bible as something that God created to make people happy. It's hard to argue with that, though apparently many people do. Of course there are plenty of warnings about not abusing it. Like anything in this world, it was created good, but we can choose to use good things in ways that will lead to negative consequences.
I consider marijuana to be in exactly the same category.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @02:05AM
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday September 23 2016, @03:36AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:25PM
It's all in your heads.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:26PM
Nonono! We must continue to use the Schrödinger's Rapist Dance when approaching a woman for conversation, not because assigned males are all that way, you see, but because assigned males are like a bowl of M&Ms [npr.org]. From the article:
"UNFAIR! NOT ALL MEN!" Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen
So, you see, it's not just in women's heads! This is an important issue! Does it really matter if it's 10% or 1% of M&Ms? Or if it was only actually commonplace in the imaginations of people who present date rape training presentations? You wouldn't want to eat a poisoned M&M, would you?!
*hits preview* *checks hyperlink*
Oops! I'd better correct that. I somehow posted a link about Skittles, which are completely different from M&Ms. Skittles are more like toadstools [theintercept.com], you see. The link I'd meant to use is this one from Slate [slate.com].
There! All fixed! Submit!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:36PM
I'm impressed that the same groups can make the M&M's analogy towards men and it is considered wise and prudent, yet when Trump makes the same analogy towards Muslims (or Mexicans), it's racist.
There is no honest discussion happening, and especially with how widespread the date rape drug stories have gone, it puts it firmly in the category of mass hysteria.
And if we are honest, I'm to the point where I just don't care anymore.
From the Duke Lacrosse team to Sabrina Erdely's story, there is more than enough doubt for ALL of it, and my default is to doubt any claims made by a woman concerning sexual assault and put the onus for their protection squarely in their laps.
Not my problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:39PM
Does it really matter if it's 10% or 1% of M&Ms?
Yes it does. It matters a lot.
If a restaurant has a 10% chance of giving me food poisoning, I wouldn't go. If it had a .0000001% chance of giving me food poisoning, I would.
If driving a car had a 10% chance of causing me to be maimed in an accident, I would find another mode of transportation, or stay home. If it had a .0000001% chance, I would drive without worry.
if I had a 10% chance of being raped on a date, I wouldn't go. If I had a .0000001% chance, I wouldn't worry about it.
If a bowl of a hundred skittles had 3 poisoned, I wouldn't grab a handful. If an Olympic swimming pool full of them had 3 bad ones, it wouldn't be hard to convince me to try a sample.
Trying to get to 100% security is impossible, and trying to get there is how we end up with all sorts of repressive legislation.
I can't believe that I need to explain that probabilities matter on SN...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:02PM
Mysoginistic studies like this minimizing the real probability of being victims of ubicuous date-rape drugs and blaming them of imagining actual rape attempts is what put young women at risk.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:53PM
What is misogynist about this? Asking the question about whether or not these date-rape drugs are used frequently is not misogynist, and neither is actually studying the matter. It has nothing to do with victim blaming. Saying "If you do X, Bad Result Y has a higher chance of occurring." Victim blaming is when you blame the actions of the perpetrator on the victim and act as if the actual perpetrator doesn't need to be punished for whatever they did. I don't see that here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:32AM
No, women doing things that increase risk is what's putting the subset of women who do things that increase risk, but not all women, at increased risk.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:42PM
Now to go rape some bitches! News told them not to expect it!
(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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:30PM
Surely tons of people will make up date rape stories.
But, two of my friends passed out on two separate occasions. Both males, but the group features females too. Both were not shitfaced (yet) when it happened, both dropped quite abruptly, and one of them is a heavy drinker, bordering alcoholic. Neither passed out after those occasions, regardless of the quantities consumed. We drank in wine houses, oktoberfest, parties, restaurants, bars. So, isn't it strange that both times they passed out we were hanging out at the very same club?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:34PM
They didn't prove something doesn't exist, but there is insufficient evidence to prove that these date-rape drugs are in widespread use. Your anecdotal story doesn't really show otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @07:03AM
OP here, don't care how much widespread is the phenomenon, nor I was trying to proving anything. All I say is, keeping an eye on your pals when drinking is no big deal and well worth the avoided risk however low.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @10:34PM
Neither is Bill Cosby‽
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:09PM
... since police don't look for evidence of rape when they're telling the victim, "well look what you're wearing."
Dr. Adam Burgess is malicious, and thinks others are morons. The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:57PM
Well, where is the evidence that these drugs are in common use?
... since police don't look for evidence of rape when they're telling the victim, "well look what you're wearing."
How common is that really?
The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
Maybe. I don't know how well people can tell the difference. I also don't know how these researchers can know what people are or aren't unwilling to believe, so that aspect of this study appears to be bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:24AM
The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
Anymore than the entire mythology of absinthe and its effects is based upon scholarly enterprise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:06AM
> The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
Is it? Given how common binge-drinking has become for college age people maybe not so much. Just that men don't have a socially acceptable scapegoat for their choice to drink themselves unconscious. If they did they might be just as likely to blame shift too.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @08:26AM
> The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
And also a straw man. Nobody said they "can't tell the difference", the story simply says they're *putting the blame on* one rather than the other.
It's telling how those taking the typical SJW lines are displaying such poor logic skills.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @09:14AM
Given that alcohol is a drug, what exactly is the difference between drinking too much and being drugged?
Indeed, given that consumption of alcohol makes you more likely to agree to sex which you wouldn't have agreed to otherwise, there are good reasons to classify alcohol as date-rape drug.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:09PM
Given that alcohol is a drug, what exactly is the difference between drinking too much and being drugged?
Consent. Nobody consents to being roofied, and I doubt most people are nonconsentingly drinking at bars.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:30PM
... since police don't look for evidence of rape when they're telling the victim, "well look what you're wearing."
This is the horrific reality that was the norm historically and unfortunately still survives today. I completely agree with you that such a culture of "blaming the victim" is morally reprehensible.
That said, that's NOT what TFA is about. It's about more accurately identifying the pre-existing factors which influence the incidence of rape. "Blame" is a moral construct, and obviously rape victims (by definition, non-consensual) are NOT liable for the criminal actions of the rapist. However, all sorts of factors come together to create a situation which is more dangerous for victims and easier for rapists to take advantage of.
Dr. Adam Burgess is malicious, and thinks others are morons. The idea that women can't tell the difference between drinking too much, drinking a lot, and being drugged is spectacularly unfounded.
Except for the data quoted in TFA which quotes multiple studies where the incidence of drugs in the systems of rape victims is much lower than they think. Alcohol IS a drug. In large doses, it can cause wildly divergent behavior, memory loss, temporary (or permanent!) unconsciousness, etc. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to "tell the difference" between those effects from alcohol vs. another drug, unless they're perhaps an expert in taking various drugs that can cause such behavior (and let's hope most people do NOT have that kind of knowledge).
So no, I don't think anyone's accusing others of being "morons." The issue is that human nature shows we like to absolve ourselves of responsibility when we do something that's ill-advised. Otherwise, how do we explain so many lawsuits against manufacturers for using products in insane ways? If there's a question of personal error vs. bad actions of others, people frequently will focus on the possible bad actions of others.
Again, let's be clear that none of this is "blaming the victim." The rapist is still solely culpable morally and legally for the assault. The question is what pre-existing factors may have made it easier for the rapist to commit his act.
Let's also note that even IF many of these situations come about "merely" after heavy drinking rather than another drug, the excess drinking may come about in various ways. Many of those methods make it more difficult for victims to keep track of alcohol consumption or make it more difficult to stop at a reasonable point. (e.g., potential victims are often offered sweet cocktails that can have a very large quantity of alcohol in them (but are much easier to drink than, say, hard liquor alone), peer pressure can create situations where you feel talked into "just another drink," once you're already drunk, the inhibitions toward drinking more and making reasonable decisions about that go down, etc., etc.)
Cautioning women that alcohol consumption alone can help put them in a dangerous situation (and is a more frequent occurrence than other "date-rape" drugs) is a prudent thing to bring up. It's not "blaming the victim" for rape any more than saying, "you might consider taking an umbrella next time" is "blaming the victim" for the weather if you walk in after getting soaked on a stormy day. The person rained on isn't to "blame" for the weather, nor is the rape victim to blame for the actions of the rapist. But having a more accurate understanding of the situations which make it easier for rapists to take advantage of victims (much more frequently plain alcohol than other drugs) can help people make better decisions.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Entropy on Wednesday September 21 2016, @12:31AM
Last night, but not so much this morning: We'd like to blame it on date rape drugs too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2016, @02:55AM
Well, maybe not. Cute [youtube.com] though
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dogeball on Wednesday September 21 2016, @01:43PM
TFA and TFJP [oxfordjournals.org] were both published in 2009.
In addition, the newspaper article spins the research like a top. The research highlights a gap between perception ("I must protect my alcoholic drink from potential attackers") from reality ("Alcohol is the biggest date-rape drug"), whereas the Telegraph runs with: "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."
The study does not attempt to discover whether or not the participants (n=10) who claimed to have experienced drink-spiking had in fact been drugged, so to use the phrase 'wrongly blamed' is a massive distortion of the research. Also, the research was conducted in the US as well as the UK, and the 'urban legend' line was not a finding of the research, but a given in their reasoning, so TFS is also misleading :P
The study authors suggest that the perceptions of the participants can be explained by awareness campaigns for drink-spiking being far more visible than campaigns highlighting that alcohol can make you black-out. Some students have no idea how much alcohol is too much, and think that since they only had 5 pints of ale and two glasses of wine, they must feel ill for some other reason... It is the opinion of the authors that "We suggest that the drink-spiking narrative has a functional appeal in relation to the contemporary experience of young women's public drinking", but this is also not a finding of the research.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 21 2016, @04:43PM
TFA and TFJP were both published in 2009.
I just noticed this too. Why is this "news"? I don't think anything's wrong with posting "news" that is days or weeks or even a few months old. If it's a relatively current issue, perhaps with a relatively recent journal article, great. Journals often only publish a few issues per year, so the "news" about "new" studies can last a few months. Fine.
But posting a 7-year-old news article based on 7-year-old research on a "news" site? I'm confused. If there were at least some attempt to update the description with more recent findings, e.g., "Here's a new study on something which hasn't received a lot of attention, and here's an old news article talking about previous research," I'd still buy into it. But 7-year-old findings are frequently out-of-date and may have even been proven wrong by now. It's really weird (and somewhat irresponsible) to publish this as "news."
At a minimum, I'd say any primary story more than a year old should have some sort of clear tag noting the year of publication.