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

[RavenSky]

I think there is a huge difference between a man who actually leaves a relationship because he is dissatisfied with it, and one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the woman. (And yes, my point applies to any couple regardless the genders involved on either side).

So it's unacceptable to express dissatisfaction with the relationship, if the dissatisfaction on said relationship is the sex?

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

 

[Terrell]

So it's unacceptable to express dissatisfaction with the relationship, if the dissatisfaction on said relationship is the sex?

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

So how do you define it as a threat, as opposed to expressing why a person is dissatisfied with the ongoing relationship? How does one tell their partner that they don't like the amount of sex in the relationship and is willing to seek another relationship, without crossing the boundary? What are the specifics between defining the terms of continuing a relationship, vs. what you consider a threat, and how do we objectively determine which side of the line any given behavior is?

 

[ronburgundy]

Your argument was a fallacious appeal to authority with respect to the OP. The study stipulates the following definition:

An extreme form of sexual assault is rape, defined as unwanted completed or attempted sexual penetration.

This definition is different than that used by many jurisdiction and many dictionaries. Just as one cannot substitute their personal definitions of rape when reading the study, one cannot substitute any legal definition, either.

I am sorry. I thought we were discussing the study.

Using any legal definition actually makes the study even more meaningless. The study fails to show evidence of a single instance that satisfies any legal definition of rape. Unsupported self-reports to ambiguous questions have nothing to do with legal rape. Legal rape requires actual evidence that a person's mental state during the act meets an objective standard of being "incapacitated". Whether a person say "yes" to a poorly worded question asking about some undefined "incapacitated" is of little to no relevance to whether that legal definition has been satisfied.
In addition, "unwanted" as utilized in the question has no bearing on whether any legal definition has been satisfied. Only evidence related to whether the person did or did not communicate a consensual willingness matters, and whether a person currently labels it as "unwanted" gives little to no information about what consent and willingness was communicated to the other party at the time. This isn't just a matter of a person changing their feelings, but that all people regular consent to actions that are "unwanted" in the vague subjective sense used by the study.

Can you show evidence that 'unwanted' is interpreted in legal arenas as casually as you refer to above?

That is the whole point. Legal arenas would, should, and do immediately dismiss any case where the only evidence of "rape" is a person saying "yes" to the study question, even without they themselves ever indicating they view it as rape or an illegal act or having ever made any legal accusation. The law doesn't care about such claims of "unwanted" as used in this study. Thus, the study tells us nothing about the frequency of any actions that would be deemed by either the law nor any reasonable person to be "rape".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So do you expect a guy to remain in a relationship if they're not getting what they want from said relationship? Should he not be allowed to both leave & say why he's leaving? What's his allowable, by your standards, course of action if he's dissatisfied with the sex, or lack thereof, in the relationship?

I think there is a huge difference between a man who actually leaves a relationship because he is dissatisfied with it, and one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the woman. (And yes, my point applies to any couple regardless the genders involved on either side).

In other words, it's not permissible for a man to try to fix a sexual problem in the relationship.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's unacceptable to express dissatisfaction with the relationship, if the dissatisfaction on said relationship is the sex?

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

So he can't indicate the severity of the problem? She should go along in ignorance until one day she finds herself alone?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So it's unacceptable to express dissatisfaction with the relationship, if the dissatisfaction on said relationship is the sex?

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

I don't get this definition. I don't see how "Have sex with me or I'll dump you" counts as rape anymore than "Buy me a car or I'll dump you" counts as theft. If somebody feels that maintaining the relationship is more important than abtstaining from sex or avoiding a large purchase, that is a choice they're free to make. It may make their partner a dick for giving them a difficult choice, but it doesn't make their partner a criminal.

 

[ronburgundy]

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

I don't get this definition. I don't see how "Have sex with me or I'll dump you" counts as rape anymore than "Buy me a car or I'll dump you" counts as theft. If somebody feels that maintaining the relationship is more important than abtstaining from sex or avoiding a large purchase, that is a choice they're free to make. It may make their partner a dick for giving them a difficult choice, but it doesn't make their partner a criminal.

In fact, it isn't different than demands to get married or have children as a condition of maintaining the relationship. It isn't a crime, nor in any way immoral.
It is normal human interaction and negotiating wants and needs in a relationship in order to make the relationship worth the efforts and drawbacks that all relationships come with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

I don't get this definition. I don't see how "Have sex with me or I'll dump you" counts as rape anymore than "Buy me a car or I'll dump you" counts as theft. If somebody feels that maintaining the relationship is more important than abtstaining from sex or avoiding a large purchase, that is a choice they're free to make. It may make their partner a dick for giving them a difficult choice, but it doesn't make their partner a criminal.

It's the same pattern we see over and over--the idea that choices shouldn't have bad consequences. If the world is a good place a person should never have to choose between two evils. Thus if faced with such a choice the other guy must be in the wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

Did I say that? No.

I said: "one who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate" There is also a HUGE difference between someone in a relationship genuinely trying to work on the relationship vs someone who uses threats of leaving in order to manipulate the other person.

I don't get this definition. I don't see how "Have sex with me or I'll dump you" counts as rape anymore than "Buy me a car or I'll dump you" counts as theft. If somebody feels that maintaining the relationship is more important than abtstaining from sex or avoiding a large purchase, that is a choice they're free to make. It may make their partner a dick for giving them a difficult choice, but it doesn't make their partner a criminal.

I never said "it counts as rape" - I said it is manipulative. Loren is the person who put forth the dumb-ass strawman that there is some statistically significant number of "dicks" manipulating their wives/girlfriends into unwanted sex, and that those same woman are calling it "rape" on surveys.

Loren's dumb-ass strawman is exactly that, but since Terrell and others chose to go down the detour to discuss the idea of a woman having "unwanted sex" because she has been pressured into it - I responded that yes, it can exist, and it is a manipulation on his part. Or as you put it, he's a "dick"

And as I said to start with, this type of manipulation can exist regardless of the genders of the couple involved and can involve more than demands for sex. This type of manipulation is usually an indicator of an abusive relationship, or an extremely immature one.

 

[laughing dog]

What I find really interesting in these types of threads if the clear gender division. The literal definition of rape interpretation with its implications crowd is almost exclusively male while the less formal interpretation crowd is mostly female. I wonder why that is.

I also noticed that the discussion almost immediately veered off into dismissing the research because of complaints over definitions. I think the research is informative because it indicates that regardless of what you think or believe the 15% refers to, that number is too high. I think this research shows there is a subgroup of women who go to college whose use of alcohol may lead to issues for themselves or others with sex. This results of this research might help institutions of higher learning better understand some of these issues and, perhaps come up with some protocols or programs that might reduce the instances of "incapacitated" sex that cause problems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No. Bad data doesn't help with anything.

 

[ronburgundy]

What I find really interesting in these types of threads if the clear gender division. The literal definition of rape interpretation with its implications crowd is almost exclusively male while the less formal interpretation crowd is mostly female. I wonder why that is.

So, you're suggesting that women are scientifically illiterate?
Because without a formal definition of the variables, then the "data" isn't actually evidence, because the research isn't in any way scientific.

My wife would find your views sexist and insulting, because she is a scientists who competently recognizes the fatal flaws of this "research" and that its informal (and vague and unknown to the participants) definition of "rape" make it an unreliable and invalid measure of the theoretical construct.

 

[Toni]

What I find really interesting in these types of threads if the clear gender division. The literal definition of rape interpretation with its implications crowd is almost exclusively male while the less formal interpretation crowd is mostly female. I wonder why that is.

So, you're suggesting that women are scientifically illiterate?
Because without a formal definition of the variables, then the "data" isn't actually evidence, because the research isn't in any way scientific.

My wife would find your views sexist and insulting, because she is a scientists who competently recognizes the fatal flaws of this "research" and that its informal (and vague and unknown to the participants) definition of "rape" make it an unreliable and invalid measure of the theoretical construct.

Maybe your wife would care to join the discussion and speak for herself.

If that's allowed.

 

[Toni]

No. Bad data doesn't help with anything.

By 'bad data, ' you seem to mean data that hints at something that makes you uncomfortable.

It's a good sign that any study which suggests that a significant number of any group of individuals is the victim of rape or sexual assault or any serious crime makes someone --or a lot of someones--uncomfortable.

It would be a much better sign if, instead of confronting the issues that such a study raises, those who are made so uncomfortable quit quibbling over whether they like how the study defined terms and instead, addressed the issue of sexual assault and rape.

I suspect actually addressing those issues makes some--maybe a lot of people too uncomfortable to think rationally. It's much easier and much safer to quibble over terms and definitions and mistakes made by victims.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, you're suggesting that women are scientifically illiterate?
Because without a formal definition of the variables, then the "data" isn't actually evidence, because the research isn't in any way scientific.

My wife would find your views sexist and insulting, because she is a scientists who competently recognizes the fatal flaws of this "research" and that its informal (and vague and unknown to the participants) definition of "rape" make it an unreliable and invalid measure of the theoretical construct.

Maybe your wife would care to join the discussion and speak for herself.

If that's allowed.

Wow. Do you forbid your spouse/mate from participating in discussions? Because why else would you think mine wouldn't be allowed? My wife doesn't suffer fools as patiently as I do, so she avoids discussion boards where the discourse is often driven by dogmatic ideology, denial of fact, and disingenuous rhetorical tactics.

Why don't you address laughing dog's insinuation that women fail to appreciate the need of formal definitions of variables in empirical research, rather than your red-Herring fallacious implication that a reference to my wife's views means that she isn't allowed to voice her views.

 

[laughing dog]

What I find really interesting in these types of threads if the clear gender division. The literal definition of rape interpretation with its implications crowd is almost exclusively male while the less formal interpretation crowd is mostly female. I wonder why that is.

So, you're suggesting that women are scientifically illiterate?
Because without a formal definition of the variables, then the "data" isn't actually evidence, because the research isn't in any way scientific.

My wife would find your views sexist and insulting, because she is a scientists who competently recognizes the fatal flaws of this "research" and that its informal (and vague and unknown to the participants) definition of "rape" make it an unreliable and invalid measure of the theoretical construct.

Your response indicates you missed the entire point of my observation. There was nothing about scientific literacy in the post nor about genders and scientific literacy.

Your response (as well as Tom Sawyer's) suggests you really did not read the research with an open mind.

 

[Toni]

Maybe your wife would care to join the discussion and speak for herself.

If that's allowed.

Wow. Do you forbid your spouse/mate from participating in discussions? Because why else would you think mine wouldn't be allowed? My wife doesn't suffer fools as patiently as I do, so she avoids discussion boards where the discourse is often driven by dogmatic ideology, denial of fact, and disingenuous rhetorical tactics.

Why don't you address laughing dog's insinuation that women fail to appreciate the need of formal definitions of variables in empirical research, rather than your red-Herring fallacious implication that a reference to my wife's views means that she isn't allowed to voice her views.

I guess I'm just naturally suspicious of people who assure us of the opinions of someone who is unknown to the group. And who isn't present to speak for herself.

Btw, laughing dog is correct: you didn't inderstand his post.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wow. Do you forbid your spouse/mate from participating in discussions? Because why else would you think mine wouldn't be allowed? My wife doesn't suffer fools as patiently as I do, so she avoids discussion boards where the discourse is often driven by dogmatic ideology, denial of fact, and disingenuous rhetorical tactics.

Why don't you address laughing dog's insinuation that women fail to appreciate the need of formal definitions of variables in empirical research, rather than your red-Herring fallacious implication that a reference to my wife's views means that she isn't allowed to voice her views.

I guess I'm just naturally suspicious of people who assure us of the opinions of someone who is unknown to the group. And who isn't present to speak for herself.

Nah, you just don't have a valid point, so you resorted to a fallacy. The fact that it is my wife is irrelevant. Any scientifically literate women would be insulted by laughing dog's insinuation that appreciating the need of formal definitions in empirical research is a gender issue.
So, you don't need to know my wife, just any scientifically literate female.

Btw, laughing dog is correct: you didn't inderstand his post.

No. you and laughing dog don't understand logic or empirical principles, and thus don't understand the logical implication of his post.
BTW, unlike laughing dog, I wouldn't presume this is due to your gender.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, you're suggesting that women are scientifically illiterate?
Because without a formal definition of the variables, then the "data" isn't actually evidence, because the research isn't in any way scientific.

My wife would find your views sexist and insulting, because she is a scientists who competently recognizes the fatal flaws of this "research" and that its informal (and vague and unknown to the participants) definition of "rape" make it an unreliable and invalid measure of the theoretical construct.

Your response indicates you missed the entire point of my observation. There was nothing about scientific literacy in the post nor about genders and scientific literacy.

Your response (as well as Tom Sawyer's) suggests you really did not read the research with an open mind.

I fully understand what you were unsuccessfully trying to do and what you actually did. You were trying to cover up you lack of any rational argument in favor of the OP by fallaciously implying that anyone who doesn't blindly accept its claims are doing so do to a gender-based bias regarding rape. What you actually did was make an argument that presumes that females are less capable at understanding the need for formal definitions in establishing empirical evidence for any claim.

 

[Toni]

I guess I'm just naturally suspicious of people who assure us of the opinions of someone who is unknown to the group. And who isn't present to speak for herself.

Nah, you just don't have a valid point,

I'm pretty sure you lack any qualifications to make that determination.

The fact that it is my wife is irrelevant.

Snort.

Any scientifically literate women would be insulted by laughing dog's insinuation that appreciating the need of formal definitions in empirical research is a gender issue.

I don't necessarily agree with laughing dog but I don't find his post insulting. I also don't read his post the way that you do.

So, you don't need to know my wife,

Of course not. You've already assured us that she is irrelevant and I'm inclined to take you at your word.

just any scientifically literate female.

Thanks. I hold a degree and work in laboratory science, along with many other women. Two of my sisters are scientists and another works in a peripheral field. Quite a number of my female friends are in various hard scientific fields, including chemistry, engineering, physics, biology and mathematics.

One thing that all of these women have in common, aside from a love of science and strong scientific literacy is the ability to evaluate evidence and form and voice an opinion of her own.

Btw, laughing dog is correct: you didn't inderstand his post.

You still don't.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No. Bad data doesn't help with anything.

By 'bad data, ' you seem to mean data that hints at something that makes you uncomfortable.

It's a good sign that any study which suggests that a significant number of any group of individuals is the victim of rape or sexual assault or any serious crime makes someone --or a lot of someones--uncomfortable.

It would be a much better sign if, instead of confronting the issues that such a study raises, those who are made so uncomfortable quit quibbling over whether they like how the study defined terms and instead, addressed the issue of sexual assault and rape.

I suspect actually addressing those issues makes some--maybe a lot of people too uncomfortable to think rationally. It's much easier and much safer to quibble over terms and definitions and mistakes made by victims.

It doesn't make me even moderately uncomfortable and you're quite fully aware of how bullshit your response is.

Addressing these issues would be wonderful. We are, however, discussing a study which does not do that.