Feminist Philosophy

[tyven]

Obama isnt going out and having agenda pushed press conferences saying that 1 in 4 people will be assaulted or murdered.

Its just massive escalation to make shit look worse than it is to help push the agenda. If Obama had said press conference and said "1 in 4 US citizens will be a victim of petty theft or murder", what would your reaction be?

i'd be like SIGN ME UP FOR THE PETTY THEFT, BARRY

[Zeb]

Obama isnt going out and having agenda pushed press conferences saying that 1 in 4 people will be assaulted or murdered.

Its just massive escalation to make shit look worse than it is to help push the agenda. If Obama had said press conference and said "1 in 4 US citizens will be a victim of petty theft or murder", what would your reaction be?

[Gredival]

You act like the definitions of sexual assault were purposely created to mislead people into thinking the rate of rape is higher than it is, when the legal definition of these terms were established decades ago.

Obama isn't saying the rate of rape is 1/4 then holding up statistics about sexual assault in some switcheroo. He is using terms that mean exactly what they mean. But for some reason you have an issue with it because it includes non-violent offenses, despite the fact that nonviolent offenses are by definition part of the problem.

[archibaldcrane]

Hell, forced oral and anal sex aren't even classified as rape in a bunch of states, they're "just sexual assault" but have me wake up from a drunken stupor with some rapist chick riding me over getting anally "assaulted" any day of the week, thanks.

[NynJa]

And some states just lump rape into sexual assault...your point?
Why is there murder and manslaughter and homicide? Its all the same thing, right?
Why do we even need those terms? Its just "violent crime" afterall.

Canadian Criminal Code lumps Rape into sexual assault as well, but with a wide spectrum of term of imprisonment (6 months to 16 years I believe it said)

[Gredival]

Why is there murder and manslaughter and homicide? Its all the same thing, right?
Why do we even need those terms? Its just "violent crime" afterall.

No it isn't because homicide would be the umbrella here. Murder and manslaughter are distinguished from each other, and both murder and manslaughter have subcategories in most jurisdictions. Culpability, and punishment, are assigned based on where in the spectrum the convicted falls... just like how perpetrators of more severe types of sexual assaults get harsher punishments.

The point is that it's useful to have an umbrella groupings of related but distinguishable acts. Petty theft, larceny, grand theft, burglary, robbery, armed robbery.

You have some bizarre problem with this grouping in particular though because you think there's some agenda to trick people into thinking 1/4 women get raped. The statistic is 1/4 are sexually assaulted. This statistic is not being misused when it is cited point to how sexual assault, as a whole, is a problem. Including all those lesser offenses you apparently don't care about isn't misleading when the goal is to solve those offenses as well.

[Blubbartron]

I like how you guys are discussing it as if the 1/4 statistic isn't bullshit to begin with. It was from a shitty survey where the overwhelming majority of respondents did not claim to have been assaulted. They answered some questions, and the people giving the survey decided whether or not people had been assaulted. If most people didn't feel like they had been victimized, but the dumbass sociologists running the show are claiming 25% of the people had been (despite not feeling victimized), then the problem is obviously with the definition the sociologists are using. As Churchill pointed out, there is a lot of leeway for touching at parties and whatnot just because that's how human interaction works.

[Gredival]

I like how you guys are discussing it as if the 1/4 statistic isn't bullshit to begin with. It was from a shitty survey where the overwhelming majority of respondents did not claim to have been assaulted. They answered some questions, and the people giving the survey decided whether or not people had been assaulted. If most people didn't feel like they had been victimized, but the dumbass sociologists running the show are claiming 25% of the people had been (despite not feeling victimized), then the problem is obviously with the definition the sociologists are using.

From literally the last page:

I assume you're talking about this one: https://www.aau.edu/Climate-Survey.aspx?id=16525

However here's a good piece on that by another sexual assault researcher on why the data is valid: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennif...b_8216008.html

Here's some research on the affects of self-reporting for sexual assaults: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/3/422/ (later updated here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...tomisedMessage)

Here's research that examines the prevalence of sexual assault reporting by making a distinction between "overt rape" on campus and "lesser forms of sexual aggression" http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/55/2/162/

Here's research on the 1/5 statistic as it relates to alcohol http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...9#.VnRuqzbovcs

Here's research that found a 1/4 occurrence with the minimum level of contact being touching/kissing http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/12/3/288.short

[Blubbartron]

From literally the last page:

I assume you're talking about this one: https://www.aau.edu/Climate-Survey.aspx?id=16525

However here's a good piece on that by another sexual assault researcher on why the data is valid: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennif...b_8216008.html

Here's some research on the affects of self-reporting for sexual assaults: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/3/422/ (later updated here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...tomisedMessage)

Here's research that examines the prevalence of sexual assault reporting by making a distinction between "overt rape" on campus and "lesser forms of sexual aggression" http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/55/2/162/

Here's research on the 1/5 statistic as it relates to alcohol http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...9#.VnRuqzbovcs

Here's research that found a 1/4 occurrence with the minimum level of contact being touching/kissing http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/12/3/288.short

Quoting this just so people can realize how full of shit you are. Linking a bunch of urls and talking with authority is convincing to the ignorant masses, but I'm not so easily swayed. Probably because I actually read things.

First off, it's like you didn't even read my post, or the link you provided on "why the data is valid." My concern was with researchers saying that people are victims even though they don't feel victimized. They didn't report that they were victims of sexual assault, or that they felt something extremely wrong had been done to them. They responded to questions like "have you ever been touched anywhere by someone you didn't want touching you" with yes, and the researchers are like boom, sexual assault. They also responded to questions like "have you ever had sex when you were too drunk to remember it" with yes, and the researchers were like boom, rape. The questions were vague as shit, and exemplify how disconnected from reality these researchers are when it comes to parties and shit. Your link, on the other hand, was a response to something else entirely. It almost entirely focused on the concept of selection bias (which is possible, but more doubtful), which was not the major point of the critic she was responding to.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...ccurate.2.html

These surveys are trying to describe the most intimate activities of people by forcing them to answer binary questions about behavior that can be ambiguous, complicated, and confusing. When taking a survey, if a woman checks a box stating she experienced something that meets the legal definition of rape, it does not mean researchers know she was raped. Surveys don’t allow for he said/she said; they don’t even allow for she said. Perhaps those women who checked a box that suggested they suffered a serious sexual violation like unwanted penetrative intercourse and then also checked a box saying the attack wasn’t serious enough to report were trying to convey to researchers that these interactions cannot be reduced to checkmarks.

Sounds an awful lot like what I'm saying, and your link had maybe a sentence or two in regards to this really serious problem in methodology.

Lastly, and I think this summarizes the real heart of the problem - researchers have a clear agenda and bias, and it makes their shit invalid. They want to prove that women everywhere are victims and we need to do more, and that men are rapist pigs.

From your link: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/3/422/

Female Ss were classified as nonvictimized, sexually coerced, sexually abused, or sexually assaulted. Male Ss were classified as nonsexually aggressive, sexually aggressive, sexually abusive, or sexually assaultive. The Pearson correlation between female Ss' level of victimization (LOV) based on self-report and her LOV based on responses as related to the interviewer was .73.

They don't even allow for the possibility of women being aggressive or coercive. Only men can violate others. What a load of fucking bullshit.

[Blubbartron]

I would've responded to the rest of the links, but I got angry and tired of reading stupid bullshit. It's like sociologists/psychologists are collectively performing a Gish Gallop, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to mire myself in their bullshit.

[Churchill]

My question would be, are men predators

[Gredival]

My concern was with researchers saying that people are victims even though they don't feel victimized. They didn't report that they were victims of sexual assault, or that they felt something extremely wrong had been done to them. They responded to questions like "have you ever been touched anywhere by someone you didn't want touching you" with yes, and the researchers are like boom, sexual assault.

Because the statistic is on the prevalence of sexual assault, not what people feel!

If you (legitimately) want to exclude women from the tally who felt victimized but weren't actually sexually assaulted (i.e. "eye rape"), then how in the world are you justifying exclusion of women who were actually assaulted but didn't feel victimized?

They also responded to questions like "have you ever had sex when you were too drunk to remember it" with yes, and the researchers were like boom, rape.

Again the statistic is based off incidence rates, not how people actually feel. If legitimate consent cannot be rendered by someone who's mental faculties are obviously impaired, then it is by definition rape. Non-consent is the determinant element, not violence. I don't know how much clearer this needs to be made.

This poster that everyone is making fun of?



The problem is NOT it's assessment that it was rape. It was.

The problem is the one-way street approach. Maybe Jake was raped by Josie. But everyone considers that absurd because of latent sexism where we assume guys always want it. Guess what the solution to that is? It's fighting sexism.

Lastly, and I think this summarizes the real heart of the problem - researchers have a clear agenda and bias, and it makes their shit invalid. They want to prove that women everywhere are victims and we need to do more, and that men are rapist pigs.

So your characterization, which seems heavily influenced by your presumption that they are part of some vast conspiracy out to get you because you're a man, vs. peer reviewed science?

When data says the percentage of women that experience sexual assault is X, and that data is quoted as the percentage of women that experience sexual assault, and people are using it to justify efforts to lower the percentage of women that experience sexual assault, there's no hoodwinking going on.

The only issue you can have with it is if you fundamentally believe the only thing we should be talking about is violent hold-down penetration rape.

From your link: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/3/422/

They don't even allow for the possibility of women being aggressive or coercive. Only men can violate others. What a load of fucking bullshit.

Again, considering the study was trying to ascertain the percentage of women that experience sexual assault this is a problem how?

Newsflash. Researching the percentage of women that experience sexual assault, and wanting to reduce the percentage of women that experience sexual assault, is not incompatible with wanting to fix sexual assaults on men.

And I even specifically mentioned why feminism (i.e. anti-sexism) is relevant to this issue two pages ago.

male victims grossly under-report due to gendered notions of sex and victims (guess what that is... it's sexism!)

[Blubbartron]

Reading comprehension is hard, and this is the last I'll comment on the matter. The problem is that the definition researchers are using is clearly not relevant to the real world. Whether that be a "legal" definition or their own definition for the purposes of the survey, if people meet the criteria of your definition but don't feel as if anything seriously wrong happened, then the problem is not their perception of reality; it's your definition being useless in reality.

And we wonder why the victim mentality is so goddamn prevalent in 1st year feminists. They're literally being told they're victims at every turn.

[Churchill]

I don't report sexual assault because I'm not being sexually assaulted, I'm being groped by drunk people just trying to have a good time.

[Suvhater]

If Jake is charged with rape, then so should Josie. They were both drunk.

[Marootsoobutsu]

If you (legitimately) want to exclude women from the tally who felt victimized but weren't actually sexually assaulted (i.e. "eye rape"), then how in the world are you justifying exclusion of women who were actually assaulted but didn't feel victimized?

Because intent matters, as does the feeling of the person who experienced the act. Eye rape isn't a physical violation of another person, but neither is someone being unwantedly groped *who does not feel violated*. Stop defending things as legally accurate, when a lot of the point people are protesting is the absurdness of a lot of the legal language.

We get it-- drunk sex is rape, legally. And most of the people here who find that absurd find the legal definition absurd. It's not ONLY that it's rape one-way, it's that it's rape at ALL if both people are knowingly not sober, or even if one person is knowingly, willingly not-sober. That definition needs to change; if you want to make it a crime for someone who is sober to have sex with someone who they know is drunk-- not just tipsy, mind you, but legally, incapable-of-legally-giving-consent-drunk-- then fine. But give it a name other than rape, because that. Is. Not. Rape. It's *NOT*. Diminishing rape to *that* is offensive.

While I do agree that non-consent, not violence, is the essential point of rape, I do not think that people get to scream rape when they willingly diminish their capacity *and then give consent*. A drunk person who does NOT give consent-- drunk or sober consent-- is raped; a drunk person who DOES give consent is not raped, and we need to remove the craptastic "Legally able to give consent in terms of contracts" from sex. Because a not-insignificant-number-of-times, people are going to bars or clubs or frat parties to find someone to hook up with, and getting drunk first is part of their courting or hook up strategy or whatever. I'm not saying if you get drunk you implicitly give consent; I'm saying that getting drunk should not remove your ability to give consent for a one-night-stand. This isn't a binding contract; this is sex. And honestly, you should expect people to be aware of the consequences of being drunk, and not let them off the hook for all actions (except driving drunk) because of it-- again, I'm NOT saying if you're drunk you implicitly give consent; I'm saying if you get drunk, you are still capable of giving consent, because you chose to get drunk in the first place, and the decisions you make after that are still on you. You don't just get a get out of jail free card, and you do not get to compare that to people *WHO HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO SEX WITHOUT GIVING ANY KIND OF CONSENT WHATSOEVER*. The legal definition is ABSURD. It is morally and ethically wrong, and it is an insult to every single person who has been *ACTUALLY* raped.

[Gokku]

Because intent matters, as does the feeling of the person who experienced the act. Eye rape isn't a physical violation of another person, but neither is someone being unwantedly groped *who does not feel violated*. Stop defending things as legally accurate, when a lot of the point people are protesting is the absurdness of a lot of the legal language.

We get it-- drunk sex is rape, legally. And most of the people here who find that absurd find the legal definition absurd. It's not ONLY that it's rape one-way, it's that it's rape at ALL if both people are knowingly not sober, or even if one person is knowingly, willingly not-sober. That definition needs to change; if you want to make it a crime for someone who is sober to have sex with someone who they know is drunk-- not just tipsy, mind you, but legally, incapable-of-legally-giving-consent-drunk-- then fine. But give it a name other than rape, because that. Is. Not. Rape. It's *NOT*. Diminishing rape to *that* is offensive.

While I do agree that non-consent, not violence, is the essential point of rape, I do not think that people get to scream rape when they willingly diminish their capacity *and then give consent*. A drunk person who does NOT give consent-- drunk or sober consent-- is raped; a drunk person who DOES give consent is not raped, and we need to remove the craptastic "Legally able to give consent in terms of contracts" from sex. Because a not-insignificant-number-of-times, people are going to bars or clubs or frat parties to find someone to hook up with, and getting drunk first is part of their courting or hook up strategy or whatever. I'm not saying if you get drunk you implicitly give consent; I'm saying that getting drunk should not remove your ability to give consent for a one-night-stand. This isn't a binding contract; this is sex. And honestly, you should expect people to be aware of the consequences of being drunk, and not let them off the hook for all actions (except driving drunk) because of it-- again, I'm NOT saying if you're drunk you implicitly give consent; I'm saying if you get drunk, you are still capable of giving consent, because you chose to get drunk in the first place, and the decisions you make after that are still on you. You don't just get a get out of jail free card, and you do not get to compare that to people *WHO HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO SEX WITHOUT GIVING ANY KIND OF CONSENT WHATSOEVER*. The legal definition is ABSURD. It is morally and ethically wrong, and it is an insult to every single person who has been *ACTUALLY* raped.

^ agreed for the most part , question what about emotional vulnerability... is it rape if she does it sober or not but only because her BF had just dumped her?if its an action that wouldn't have occurred outside of that particular emotional state?

[Marootsoobutsu]

^ agreed for the most part , question what about emotional vulnerability... is it rape if she does it sober or not but only because her BF had just dumped her?if its an action that wouldn't have occurred outside of that particular emotional state?

I would reject that as rape. It's a regrettable decision, but it's still a decision someone made. I think it would be pretty scummy of a guy who KNEW that about her to try to take advantage of it, but there are a lot of things people do that are scummy that are not-- and should not-- be illegal. And if the dude/gal did NOT know the other person was emotionally vulnerable, there's not even a hint of a problem.

[dasva]

^ agreed for the most part , question what about emotional vulnerability... is it rape if she does it sober or not but only because her BF had just dumped her?if its an action that wouldn't have occurred outside of that particular emotional state?

Without some kind of force/coercion I don't really see how it could. I don't think we want to start counting taking advantage of situations like emotional vulnerability for something as using force. That can go all kinds of places of feelings policing especially if applied to other things.

[NynJa]

Without some kind of force/coercion I don't really see how it could. I don't think we want to start counting taking advantage of situations like emotional vulnerability for something as using force. That can go all kinds of places of feelings policing especially if applied to other things.

Except that path has already been walked...girls wake up the next morning, regret what they willingly did, and cry rape.