• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Nobody is suggesting that 'too drunk to utter words' isn't incapacitated. I already said that clearly qualifies. What I'm suggesting is who knows what the lower threshold is?

Somebody could be too drunk to drive (like say .06 blood alcohol) and they may also consider too drunk to drive=unable to consent.
You were insisting that people may misunderstand the meaning of "incapacitated" which is plausible. I find it very difficult to believe that people would misunderstand the meaning of "and unable."

If native English speaker university students are unable to comprehend the English language when conducting surveys in fairly plain English then all surveys are worthless.
I don't believe this to be the case.

But you still do not understand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting they are unable to comprehend what the word 'unable' means. I'm suggesting you do not know what their threshold of 'inability' is.

I do not consider a blood-alcohol content of 0.06% 'unable to consent'. But you do not know what the survey respondents consider 'unable to consent'. They might consider any alcohol intake at all , or one puff of marijuana, renders them unable to consent.

EDIT: Maybe you're suggesting that judging yourself unable to consent means they are unable to consent, but that definition is fatally bad.
 
Nobody is suggesting that 'too drunk to utter words' isn't incapacitated. I already said that clearly qualifies. What I'm suggesting is who knows what the lower threshold is?

Does the perpetrator also have a problem in determining a threshold?

What do you mean? If you knew or should have known the person was incapable of consent and you had sex with them, then you've raped them.
 
Incapacitated IS further defined in the quote you just provided "you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent." That's a pretty good definition of incapacitated right there. If you can't even utter the word "No." You are damn rightly incapacitated. Do you care to argue this point? Do you think someone who can't indicate any form of objection to be of sound mind and body?

If you didn't want sex and you couldn't object to sex performed on you then you have been raped.

If you did want sex performed on you while you were in a condition where you couldn't object or consent, you actually consented and you weren't raped.

How is this confusing people?

"Unable to consent"--what's their threshold for this?

Most of these surveys have fairly subtle flaws that render them worthless.

As the "research" with blatant flaws gets shot down the "researchers" go back to the drawing board looking for more subtle ways to get the results they want.
 
You were insisting that people may misunderstand the meaning of "incapacitated" which is plausible. I find it very difficult to believe that people would misunderstand the meaning of "and unable."

If native English speaker university students are unable to comprehend the English language when conducting surveys in fairly plain English then all surveys are worthless.
I don't believe this to be the case.
If you can understand why the one term can vary from person to person, then you should be able to see why the other will vary too because they vary for the exact same reason.

Nothing can make the terms used in a discussion obvious except the participants clarify the terms. Being a native English speaker or using dictionaries won’t change this basic fact of daily life. And same with surveys, so they are indeed worthless if the survey-takers do not define their key terms.

What people are you imagining would actually utter the sentence, "I was unable to object because I had a buzz. And when I have a buzz I say yes to everything."?

Would these imaginary people continue that thought with, "One time I had a buzz and some jerk told me to take a long walk off a short pier and I nearly froze to death in the icy waters of lake Michigan. If only I was able to object."?

"Unable" is a rather well defined and understood word. I do not understand how people are having difficulty with the concept of not being able.

Update:

Incapacitated has lots of degrees. Walking with a limp. Walking with crutches. Rolling in a wheelchair. Comatose. Etc.

Inability only has one degree. You can't do it, or you can.

A: Can you speak Spanish?
B: Well, not really but I know how to say "hello" and "thank you."
A: Then you CAN speak Spanish but you really suck at it.
A: Can you translate this sentence, "¿Cuantos años tiene?"
B: No, I can't.
A: Correct. You are able to speak Spanish but you are unable to translate simple Spanish sentences.
A: Could you say "No," shake your head, or push away the person who last sexually penetrated you?
B: No, I couldn't.
A: Then you were definitely raped unless you gave explicit consent for exactly that type of situation beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Ya, I suppose that if you go in the back door it still counts as rape.

The point that you guys keep sticking your heads in the sand about is both could be blackout drunk. That makes it mutual rape.

You are assuming there is no force or coercion involved. Drunk people, including people who are black out drunk are capable of being violent, and of attempting to force another person to do all sorts of things. Depending on a lot of factors, they may be successful. A very large person who is very drunk may still have the capacity to force him or herself upon a sober person who is very small. Or sleeping. Or frightened. Such a drunk person would be guilty of sexual assault, and of rape, if successful.


You are assuming that everybody is talking about two college kids who get drunk at a party and bang each other. While plenty of that happens at parties and bars and elsewhere, so does the circumstance where someone will specifically try to get someone else drunk or stoned or otherwise incapacitated so that they cannot make an effective defense.

And then, there's the circumstance where someone gets a bit hammered and decides that the object of their erection is mutually attracted and interested and tries to force the situation.


You also always seem to believe that if one person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the other person has also been indulging that they must both experience the same degree of incapacity. That is not true. Weight, experience drinking and gender and possibly genetics all affect how alcohol will affect an individual.

I've never yet seen a woman attempt to sexually assault a man, or a drunk or otherwise incapacitated man. I am sure it happens. I haven't seen it. I have seen men attempt to sexually assault women. Multiple times. In some cases, the man was drunk and the woman was as well. In some cases, the man was drunk and the woman was not observably drunk. In a couple of cases, everybody was stone cold sober. But most common was the circumstance where the woman was pretty to extremely drunk.

Things I have seen drunk guys do: Completely misunderstand whether or not a woman was interested in him in any way, shape or form. Also observed of sober guys. Attempt to force their attentions on uninterested women. Attempt to follow women who excuse themselves to get away from their attentions. Tell everybody how much she wants him/it/him to give it to her. What a bitch/lesbo/cunt she is for not being willing to (whatever sex act he can call to mind at the moment) and how she is just a tease.

Things I have seen women do, drunk or sober: Politely decline attention, drinks, conversation, having attended the same school or been in the same calc class. Politely attempt to de-escalate the irritation and attention from some guy who wouldn't take the more polite and subtle hint the first 1 to 12 times. Leave the room/party to escape the guy who won't take no for an answer. Deck the guy who refused to take no for an answer.

I am certain that women also behave very badly when drunk or under the influence of whatever. Or without being under the influence. I am certain that women sometimes rape men. I know they sometimes rape boys. And girls and other women.

But every single study I've ever read shows that men are far more likely to commit all forms of sexual assault than are women. Drunk/sober/ man/woman, man/man, man/child.

I'd love to read some thoughtful work about how to stop men from sexually assaulting anyone. Also to stop women from doing the same, but the fact is, men seem to be the main perpetrators. By far.

Instead of looking at what causes men to do this, I see a lot of men trying to blame women. Which goes a long way towards explaining why there are so many sexual assaults.
 
What people are you imagining would actually utter the sentence, "I was unable to object because I had a buzz. And when I have a buzz I say yes to everything."?

So you know the minds of these people, and you're sure everyone thinks like you?

"Unable" is a rather well defined and understood word. I do not understand how people are having difficulty with the concept of not being able.

Nobody is having difficulty with the concept of unable. What we're trying to tell you is that one person's perception of inability might not be accurate.
 
So you know the minds of these people, and you're sure everyone thinks like you?

"Unable" is a rather well defined and understood word. I do not understand how people are having difficulty with the concept of not being able.

Nobody is having difficulty with the concept of unable. What we're trying to tell you is that one person's perception of inability might not be accurate.

As I was trying to clarify in my post: inability vs. ability is a binary state. You are either able or unable. If you think the word has other options, tell me now. Do you think that more than 15% of female college students believe in this other definition?
 
So you know the minds of these people, and you're sure everyone thinks like you?



Nobody is having difficulty with the concept of unable. What we're trying to tell you is that one person's perception of inability might not be accurate.

As I was trying to clarify in my post: inability vs. ability is a binary state. You are either able or unable. If you think the word has other options, tell me now. Do you think that more than 15% of female college students believe in this other definition?

There isn't another definition. Arguing over what the word means in and of itself isn't the issue. There are other minds who will apply the word differently than you do. Not mean it differently, but apply it differently. What needs to be clarified about the term is how it's applied within the context of a given discussion or survey. 'Unable to consent due to having drunk a beer'. 'Unable to consent due to being passed out'. Etc. "What do you mean by unable?" in the context of consent to sex isn't answered by saying what a dictionary says that unable means. It requires the people in the discussion or survey come to a consensus on what constitutes being unable to consent to sex, or everyone's talking past one another.
 
You in particular are arguing that the word is ambiguous and context sensitive but have just affirmed that there is no other definition.

"Unable to consent or object due to having drunk a beer" means that someone drank a beer and then were left in a state where they could not give consent or object. Were they in a dazed state, passed out, or paralyzed? It doesn't matter which explanation describes their inability to give consent or objections, all that matters is that they were unable to give consent or objections. Why confuse the issue with irrelevancies?

You want definitions specific to rape scenarios provided with the survey when I think that is unnecessary. Just how ambiguous are these words we are using?

I don't think we need new definitions of the word "penetrate" specific to rape scenarios included in every survey about rape. Likewise with the words, consent, intoxicated, force, coerce, fondle, embarrass, fear, threaten, regret, acquaintance, attempt, and others already have understood meanings. Some of them are more vague than others and will need qualification but their meanings are known by speakers of English. Surveys shouldn't need to publish English-Rape dictionaries with sample scenarios that correspond to every question they ask especially when some individual words like "unable" are unambiguous. And further still because any example scenarios they provide may taint their sampling by altering the perceptions of the takers and may serve to inadvertently omit some edge cases that the survey designers may have not have even realized existed.

As I already argued, "unable to give consent" explains the word "incapacitated" in their survey. What they mean by intoxicated is that you are unable to give consent or objections. It's very clear that you need to be very intoxicated or otherwise disabled if you are so incapacitated that you can't say, "yes" or "no," or even nod consent or shake your head in objection.
 
So you know the minds of these people, and you're sure everyone thinks like you?



Nobody is having difficulty with the concept of unable. What we're trying to tell you is that one person's perception of inability might not be accurate.

As I was trying to clarify in my post: inability vs. ability is a binary state. You are either able or unable. If you think the word has other options, tell me now. Do you think that more than 15% of female college students believe in this other definition?

I know that inability vs ability is a binary state. Nobody is saying there is ambiguity about its binary nature.

If I asked you if you are able to run a marathon, your answer might be yes or no. We both know what 'running a marathon' means. But you might be wrong about whether you were able to do it.

For example, you might say 'No, I can't run a marathon' but the next day you actually do run one and finish it. You were wrong about your ability to run a marathon, not wrong about what 'unable' means. You misjudged your marathon-ability.
 
As I already argued, "unable to give consent" explains the word "incapacitated" in their survey. What they mean by intoxicated is that you are unable to give consent or objections. It's very clear that you need to be very intoxicated or otherwise disabled if you are so incapacitated that you can't say, "yes" or "no," or even nod consent or shake your head in objection.

It isn't very clear, and that's the point.

You have defined 'unable due to intoxication' as 'so incapacitated that you can't say, "yes" or "no," or even nod consent or shake your head in objection'.

But someone else might define 'unable due to intoxication' at a much lower threshold because they've been taught that if they drink any amount of alcohol, or if they have a slight buzz from a puff of marijuana, then they are unable to consent.
 
I feel now we have retreated further to discussing the word "consent."

Do you believe that a large number of college educated women misunderstand "consent" in such a way that they believe they can't consent or object to drinking a second glass of wine if they have previously consumed a first? Do you believe that this number of college educated women believe they have lost control of their minds or bodies completely once they reach their own specific subjective threshold of intoxication that does not include a state of "inability to consent" (as I understand it)?

Even if there is some weird, "You can't consent to anything if you have one drink or puff," educational outfit out there confusing a huge number of college bound women about the meaning of "unable to consent,"-- does that educational source also teach that, "You can't object to anything if you have one drink or puff?" Because inability to object is part of the question too.
 
Do you believe that a large number of college educated women misunderstand "consent" in such a way that they believe they can't consent or object to drinking a second glass of wine if they have previously consumed a first?

I have no idea how large the number is because that's an empirical question that is sadly lacking statistics. It's certainly the case that I believe a self-selected group of 453 women might have a different idea of 'incapacitated and unable to consent' to me.

I'm not sure where the 'object' part comes from. You can object to something without being able to consent to it. (No-one would argue that a drunk person saying 'No, I don't want sex' isn't objecting). It's a case of No mean No, and 'Yes' only means Yes when you are able to consent.

Do you believe that this number of college educated women believe they have lost control of their minds or bodies completely once they reach their own specific subjective threshold of intoxication that does not include a state of "inability to consent" (as I understand it)?

I believe American Universities in particular are so infantilising their students that nothing would surprise me.

I am saying that you have an unevidenced confidence that everyone's idea about 'inability to consent due to intoxication' is consistent with yours or mine.

Even if there is some weird, "You can't consent to anything if you have one drink or puff," educational outfit out there confusing a huge number of college bound women about the meaning of "unable to consent,"-- does that educational source also teach that, "You can't object to anything if you have one drink or puff?" Because inability to object is part of the question too.

It's an "or", not an "and".
 
Are people who willfully intoxicate themselves responsible for their actions while intoxicated?
 
Here is a Thanksgiving chewtoy for you MRAs out there:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/joso-sfh111315.php



The findings are based on 483 female freshmen who completed several surveys over their first year of college. The students were from a single university in New York State, so it would be helpful, Carey said, for further studies to confirm the results at other schools as well.

I'll see if I can dig out the study.

Here is is: http://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.829
So are college people more prone to be "rapists"?

- - - Updated - - -

Are people who willfully intoxicate themselves responsible for their actions while intoxicated?
Under law? Or morally? or...?
 
Incapacitated IS further defined in the quote you just provided "you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent." That's a pretty good definition of incapacitated right there. If you can't even utter the word "No." You are damn rightly incapacitated. Do you care to argue this point? Do you think someone who can't indicate any form of objection to be of sound mind and body?

If you didn't want sex and you couldn't object to sex performed on you then you have been raped.

If you did want sex performed on you while you were in a condition where you couldn't object or consent, you actually consented and you weren't raped.

How is this confusing people?

"Unable to consent"--what's their threshold for this?

Are you incapable of knowing if you personally consented to/for something?
 
So you know the minds of these people, and you're sure everyone thinks like you?



Nobody is having difficulty with the concept of unable. What we're trying to tell you is that one person's perception of inability might not be accurate.

As I was trying to clarify in my post: inability vs. ability is a binary state. You are either able or unable. If you think the word has other options, tell me now. Do you think that more than 15% of female college students believe in this other definition?

More like some people here believe 14.999999% of the women are lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom