Sexual violence epidemic

[Tom Sawyer]

But it does solve the problem of them anally raping their readers. Sure, it's still copping a feel as they pass us in the hallway and that is wrong, but it's a far more minor level of wrong.

 

[Derec]

I am a victim of about 3.5 billion counts of sexual violence. Who knew?

That is ... creepy, considering that "People under 14 years of age made up over a quarter of the world population (26.3%)" ( Demographics_of_the_world).

Less "creepy" than "made a mistake" really. Lop off <20 and >60 and it should still be 1.5 billion or thereabouts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am a victim of about 3.5 billion counts of sexual violence. Who knew?

3.5 billion is not an unreasonable number when one considers how many times the same person can say "not in your dreams." Some sort of algorithm would be needed.

3.5 billion is actually too low. For it to make any sense at all it's simply the people that didn't say yes, there's no way he could have evaluated if he was interested. Thus there's no reason to restrict it to females. Just because he's not interested in males doesn't mean they said yes.

 

[RavenSky]

I think it's okay to highlight a group of things that are potentially problematic regarding sex, but the boundaries of credibility are stretched a bit when they are all lumped into the same category of "sexual violence" without qualifiers. Returning to the 2 or 3 offending entries, I think they could have been phrased more like 'demeaning or shaming comments about a partner's sexual performance' and 'using sex as a form of bribery or withholding it as a form of blackmail' to emphasize that it doesn't cover the usual ebb and flow seen in healthy relationships. Sexual shaming is actually quite harmful for some people, even more so than some of the other obvious things on that list. It can be manipulative and damaging in the long-term, just like the more extreme cases of bartering with sex... something that isn't really conveyed by the way it is written on the site.

^^ well said

 

[dismal]

Yes, they could have posted it more clearly. They could have repeated 'used to manipulate or harm' from other definitions. But i think that in the context of the entire page, that comes across.
Dismal, of course, is taking this one list out of that context in order to see what he wants to see.

- - - Updated - - -

In English we have ways of clearly saying not all instances would necessarily apply. Examples include:

- "Examples might include"
- "Examples could include"

So, that's you agreeing that it does NOT say 'examples always include.'

I'm agreeing it's really stupid.

 

[doubtingt]

make readers aware that sometimes, even witholding sex could be seen as a form of sexual violence?

Only in the sense that Biblical Creationism "could be seen" as a valid scientific theory. IOW, it could only be seen as such by utterly irrational people seeking to misrepresent objective reality for political purposes. It is not only not always violence, it is never violence.

If my wife turns down sex because she wants me to buy her a new car, that's manipulation, sure. Using sex as a weapon.

No, it is not using a weapon. Manipulation is not using a weapon. In fact, calling it use of a weapon is itself a form emotional and rhetorical manipulation, thus by your definition, you just engaged in an act violence.
That kind of abuse / "poetic license" is standard in political and religious discourse (and maybe literary fiction), but has no place in academic discussion about the objective realities of human interaction or counseling people about criminal actions (which actually using weapons and real violence against a person always is).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It turns out to be much more common than many of us thought:

Sexual violence
Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways; withholding sex and affection; always demanding sex; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts, to participate in uncomfortable sex or sex after an episode of violence, to have sex with other people; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex.

http://hr.umich.edu/stopabuse/resources/definitions.html

Most of the married men in America are now victims.

Discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex I believe is meant to mean they say no, but you go ahead anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex I believe is meant to mean they say no, but you go ahead anyway.

But those are two completely different sentences with completely different meanings, even if one of the potential meanings could possibly overlap. It's not like the second sentence is overly verbose and they needed to summarize it and ended up with the first sentence, it's just that they used a poorly worded sentence to say something that could have been said clearly.

This is, after all, the HR department of a major university which is laying out the definitions that they use to determine if someone on their campus is engaging in an act of violence. It is incumbent on them to provide clarity for those definitions so that everyone is operating on the same page and there is as little confusion as possible as to when someone is in violation of their anti-violence policies. If it needs to be interpreted by saying "I believe that when they said that, they actually meant this other thing" in order to get to a sensible definition, then they are the ones in the wrong for not providing a clear and sensible definition in the first place.

 

[PyramidHead]

Only in the sense that Biblical Creationism "could be seen" as a valid scientific theory. IOW, it could only be seen as such by utterly irrational people seeking to misrepresent objective reality for political purposes. It is not only not always violence, it is never violence.

If my wife turns down sex because she wants me to buy her a new car, that's manipulation, sure. Using sex as a weapon.

No, it is not using a weapon. Manipulation is not using a weapon. In fact, calling it use of a weapon is itself a form emotional and rhetorical manipulation, thus by your definition, you just engaged in an act violence.
That kind of abuse / "poetic license" is standard in political and religious discourse (and maybe literary fiction), but has no place in academic discussion about the objective realities of human interaction or counseling people about criminal actions (which actually using weapons and real violence against a person always is).

Out of curiosity, where does one go to become an expert on the objective realities of human interactions? You seem to have attended a seminar or something that I missed.

 

[dismal]

Only in the sense that Biblical Creationism "could be seen" as a valid scientific theory. IOW, it could only be seen as such by utterly irrational people seeking to misrepresent objective reality for political purposes. It is not only not always violence, it is never violence.



No, it is not using a weapon. Manipulation is not using a weapon. In fact, calling it use of a weapon is itself a form emotional and rhetorical manipulation, thus by your definition, you just engaged in an act violence.
That kind of abuse / "poetic license" is standard in political and religious discourse (and maybe literary fiction), but has no place in academic discussion about the objective realities of human interaction or counseling people about criminal actions (which actually using weapons and real violence against a person always is).

Out of curiosity, where does one go to become an expert on the objective realities of human interactions? You seem to have attended a seminar or something that I missed.

That seems to the fatal flaw in taking this "criticizing someone or discounting their opinion is violence" position. You're going to want to criticize and discount the opinions of people who disagree with you.

And then by your own standards you're committing violence.