15 percent of women are raped while incapacitated during their freshman year at college

[Toni]

You really like telling me what to do.

I can see why you have trouble actually discussing the issues raised by the study. That mad emoticon is telling.

You're the one promoting poor studying of the issue instead of proper studies. Using some kind of weird-assed attempt at logic which makes no sense to anybody but me, I feel that the most reasonable conclusion from this is that you like the fact that that so many women are getting raped and want to put up as many barriers as possible to anybody doing anything about it. That's a pro-rape agenda on your part. I think it's important to the intellectual integrity of the thread to ignore everything you're saying and point that out so that other members won't make the mistake of reading the words you're using and believing them as opposed to looking between the lines and figuring out your super secret pro-rape agenda that you're trying to sneak in.

That's just me being sensible.

Sure. Extremely believable.

 

[Toni]

This is information that is useful only to those who are interested in discussing the subject at hand: incapacitated rape at universities.

It's much easier to debate the meaning of 'is.'

The information in the OP is actually completely fucking useless. The only way to move forward in this discussion is to ignore the study in the OP, because it doesn't provide usable information about what happens to college students.

Had Nice Squirrel done a bit more work than posting a link to a Eureka Alert, like actually reading the study instead of posting Derec-bait, we wouldn't be wasting energy trying to make sense of an study that doesn't make itself clear.

And instead of these bullshit well-poisoning and ad hominem arguments, you could lead by example.

Since you have, it seems, read the academic material and familiarised yourself with the sociology of incapacitated rape, you could and provide links to academic work that investigates the causes of incapacitated rape among college attendees, or work that not only identifies the causes but investigates practical solutions that are much more detailed than 'teach boys not to rape'.

It would be a nice change from the third-rate social theory, anecdotal arguments, and ideology that are the standard fare of TFT Political Discussions.

Except that links to other studies have produced no more in depth discussion.

Unlike being raped, no one in this thread is being forced to do something they don't want to do. No one is being forced discuss their quibbles with terminology and definitions instead of the actual issue of incapacitated rape.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're the one promoting poor studying of the issue instead of proper studies. Using some kind of weird-assed attempt at logic which makes no sense to anybody but me, I feel that the most reasonable conclusion from this is that you like the fact that that so many women are getting raped and want to put up as many barriers as possible to anybody doing anything about it. That's a pro-rape agenda on your part. I think it's important to the intellectual integrity of the thread to ignore everything you're saying and point that out so that other members won't make the mistake of reading the words you're using and believing them as opposed to looking between the lines and figuring out your super secret pro-rape agenda that you're trying to sneak in.

That's just me being sensible.

Sure. Extremely believable.

OK, I've tried explaining my position to you and I've tried laughing at you. At this point you're just kind of creeping me out.

 

[Toni]

Sure. Extremely believable.

OK, I've tried explaining my position to you and I've tried laughing at you. At this point you're just kind of creeping me out.

Right back at you.

Why should Asians be discriminated against in college admissions so that I can get a leg up? What societal ill is being addressed by that?

If native born asians are denied educational opportunities, more asian women will be forced to turn to prostitution in order to earn enough money to eat. Having the workers in that industry staffed from domestic sources will lower the need for women born in Asia to be sold into sex slavery and brought over here. Discriminating against asians in college admissions helps combat human trafficking. Anyone who wants more asians to be going on to higher education is implicitly making the argument that they're in favour of sex slaves being kidnapped and raped.

I like whores.

Everyone likes whores until they knife you and sell your organs for crack money.

OK, the important question - do any of these 80 people have single daughters with bad taste in men? If so, does anyone have their addresses?

If they do a map for Canada and you're surprised to see that the #1 search term in Ontario is "asian lesbian twin incest anal fisting", understand that 95% of that is me and you shouldn't be casting aspertions about the province as a whole because of it.

 

[bigfield]

The information in the OP is actually completely fucking useless. The only way to move forward in this discussion is to ignore the study in the OP, because it doesn't provide usable information about what happens to college students.

Had Nice Squirrel done a bit more work than posting a link to a Eureka Alert, like actually reading the study instead of posting Derec-bait, we wouldn't be wasting energy trying to make sense of an study that doesn't make itself clear.

And instead of these bullshit well-poisoning and ad hominem arguments, you could lead by example.

Since you have, it seems, read the academic material and familiarised yourself with the sociology of incapacitated rape, you could and provide links to academic work that investigates the causes of incapacitated rape among college attendees, or work that not only identifies the causes but investigates practical solutions that are much more detailed than 'teach boys not to rape'.

It would be a nice change from the third-rate social theory, anecdotal arguments, and ideology that are the standard fare of TFT Political Discussions.

Except that links to other studies have produced no more in depth discussion.

Unlike being raped, no one in this thread is being forced to do something they don't want to do. No one is being forced discuss their quibbles with terminology and definitions instead of the actual issue of incapacitated rape.

No, that's just bullshit.

You have an opportunity to lead by example.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, I've tried explaining my position to you and I've tried laughing at you. At this point you're just kind of creeping me out.

Right back at you.

Why should Asians be discriminated against in college admissions so that I can get a leg up? What societal ill is being addressed by that?

If native born asians are denied educational opportunities, more asian women will be forced to turn to prostitution in order to earn enough money to eat. Having the workers in that industry staffed from domestic sources will lower the need for women born in Asia to be sold into sex slavery and brought over here. Discriminating against asians in college admissions helps combat human trafficking. Anyone who wants more asians to be going on to higher education is implicitly making the argument that they're in favour of sex slaves being kidnapped and raped.

I like whores.

Everyone likes whores until they knife you and sell your organs for crack money.

OK, the important question - do any of these 80 people have single daughters with bad taste in men? If so, does anyone have their addresses?

If they do a map for Canada and you're surprised to see that the #1 search term in Ontario is "asian lesbian twin incest anal fisting", understand that 95% of that is me and you shouldn't be casting aspertions about the province as a whole because of it.

Now you are SERIOUSLY creeping me out. Like to a "you need to call a psychiatrist because you are fucking insane" level of creeping me out.

Seriously. Get some help. You're weird.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can someone initiate a discussion around the important issue that matters here? (I don't know how to start it).

 

[Toni]

Right back at you.

Why should Asians be discriminated against in college admissions so that I can get a leg up? What societal ill is being addressed by that?

If native born asians are denied educational opportunities, more asian women will be forced to turn to prostitution in order to earn enough money to eat. Having the workers in that industry staffed from domestic sources will lower the need for women born in Asia to be sold into sex slavery and brought over here. Discriminating against asians in college admissions helps combat human trafficking. Anyone who wants more asians to be going on to higher education is implicitly making the argument that they're in favour of sex slaves being kidnapped and raped.

I like whores.

Everyone likes whores until they knife you and sell your organs for crack money.

OK, the important question - do any of these 80 people have single daughters with bad taste in men? If so, does anyone have their addresses?

If they do a map for Canada and you're surprised to see that the #1 search term in Ontario is "asian lesbian twin incest anal fisting", understand that 95% of that is me and you shouldn't be casting aspertions about the province as a whole because of it.

Now you are SERIOUSLY creeping me out. Like to a "you need to call a psychiatrist because you are fucking insane" level of creeping me out.

Seriously. Get some help. You're weird.

Those are your very recent posts, not mine. And not edited. I realize you were attempting to be 'funny.' That's part of the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

Unwanted sexual act involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration that occurs after the victim voluntarily uses drugs or alcohol. The victim is passed out or awake but too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

I don't really see this as a rebuttal.

1) We don't have a snapshot of her mind at the time in question. How are we measuring how impaired she was?

2) While you are using "unwanted" I don't see that in their stuff.

Thus this leaves open the possibility they are using too wide a definition of "impaired" and simply catching drunken hookups.

If the null hypothesis falls within the margin of error you assume the null--and without more detail on their yardstick I think they include the null.

 

[fromderinside]

Right back at you.

Why should Asians be discriminated against in college admissions so that I can get a leg up? What societal ill is being addressed by that?

If native born asians are denied educational opportunities, more asian women will be forced to turn to prostitution in order to earn enough money to eat. Having the workers in that industry staffed from domestic sources will lower the need for women born in Asia to be sold into sex slavery and brought over here. Discriminating against asians in college admissions helps combat human trafficking. Anyone who wants more asians to be going on to higher education is implicitly making the argument that they're in favour of sex slaves being kidnapped and raped.

I like whores.

Everyone likes whores until they knife you and sell your organs for crack money.

OK, the important question - do any of these 80 people have single daughters with bad taste in men? If so, does anyone have their addresses?

If they do a map for Canada and you're surprised to see that the #1 search term in Ontario is "asian lesbian twin incest anal fisting", understand that 95% of that is me and you shouldn't be casting aspertions about the province as a whole because of it.

Now you are SERIOUSLY creeping me out. Like to a "you need to call a psychiatrist because you are fucking insane" level of creeping me out.

Seriously. Get some help. You're weird.

Those are your very recent posts, not mine. And not edited. I realize you were attempting to be 'funny.' That's part of the problem.

Why are we talking about overreactions by teen girls operating on a normal overdose of estrogen in family and society? Shouldn't we be talking instead about how society should treat these girls before they go socially bankrupt.

 

[ronburgundy]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

Unwanted sexual act involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration that occurs after the victim voluntarily uses drugs or alcohol. The victim is passed out or awake but too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

How many times does it need to be explained that the researchers collected zero data relevant to any of the theoretical definitions they provide. Their operational definition is all that matters for the scientific validity of any interpretation or conclusions. The operational definition is nothing but the question the women were asked, and that question provides no basis to infer that these women viewed themselves as "too drunk or high to know what she was doing or control her behavior." The women were never informed of this definition, and it is theoretically implausible to assume that all women would have that interpretation of the word. And yes, it is required for all women to have that interpretation for the findings to speak to the % of women in that theoretical situation. If even 7% of women would interpret it differently, then that is enough for the results to have inflated the true % by double.

It is very simple. Imagine the following research article
[P]I define blomnip as killing babies for fun, and here are some other person who defined it that way (citation). I asked 1000 people a the question "Do you blomnip?", and 15% replied "yes". Therefore, 15% of people kill babies for fun?
[/P]

If you can grasp why this research is crap and the conclusions completely invalid, then you understand the objection and why the OP research crap. If you cannot grasp that, then their is no hope for a reasoned discussion of the issue, either because you refuse to or are incapable of applying the most basic principles of empirical research (let alone common sense).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

How many times does it need to be explained that the researchers collected zero data relevant to any of the theoretical definitions they provide. Their operational definition is all that matters for the scientific validity of any interpretation or conclusions. The operational definition is nothing but the question the women were asked, and that question provides no basis to infer that these women viewed themselves as "too drunk or high to know what she was doing or control her behavior." The women were never informed of this definition, and it is theoretically implausible to assume that all women would have that interpretation of the word.

It's what incapacitated means in common usage* but please tell us the exact questions reviewed by the college's Internal Review Board that you have a problem with.

*incapacitated - unable to act, respond, or the like

 

[Metaphor]

How many times does it need to be explained that the researchers collected zero data relevant to any of the theoretical definitions they provide. Their operational definition is all that matters for the scientific validity of any interpretation or conclusions. The operational definition is nothing but the question the women were asked, and that question provides no basis to infer that these women viewed themselves as "too drunk or high to know what she was doing or control her behavior." The women were never informed of this definition, and it is theoretically implausible to assume that all women would have that interpretation of the word.

It's what incapacitated means in common usage* but please tell us the exact questions reviewed by the college's Internal Review Board that you have a problem with.

*incapacitated - unable to act, respond, or the like

The study said incapacitated or unable to consent.

 

[zorq]

It's what incapacitated means in common usage* but please tell us the exact questions reviewed by the college's Internal Review Board that you have a problem with.

*incapacitated - unable to act, respond, or the like

The study said incapacitated or unable to consent.

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

 

[Metaphor]

The study said incapacitated or unable to consent.

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

 

[zorq]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

 

[zorq]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

So what are you arguing you think that these women are thinking when they take this survey?

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

So why don't you do as I suggest and find some actual women and see if any of them think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object" means anything as weak and flimsy as you keep suggesting.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

So what are you arguing you think that these women are thinking when they take this survey?

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

So why don't you do as I suggest and find some actual women and see if any of them think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object" means anything as weak and flimsy as you keep suggesting.

I'm sorry, but what is it you think I've suggested? I said I don't know how they've interpreted it, not that they've interpreted it as 'one glass of wine an hour' (which would allow an average weight woman to drive home).

 

[zorq]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

So what are you arguing you think that these women are thinking when they take this survey?

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

So why don't you do as I suggest and find some actual women and see if any of them think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object" means anything as weak and flimsy as you keep suggesting.

I'm sorry, but what is it you think I've suggested? I said I don't know how they've interpreted it, not that they've interpreted it as 'one glass of wine an hour' (which would allow an average weight woman to drive home).

You either think people are interpreting is too broadly or too narrowly. You can't get much more narrow than passed out, delirious, or paralyzed, as I interpret it, so you must think they are interpreting it too broadly.

You keep insisting the words are undefined. I think that the phrasing of the question is so clear that about 95% of people who have a fluent understanding of English who read the question will all agree with each other as to what it means. I think that if we exclude the people who didn't get into college that number is likely more than 99%. Language is malleable and open to interpretation but carefully chosen words organized with care can still effectively convey meaning to broad audiences.