Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SOdhner]

That's why I'm suspicious of stats I see.

I don't know what study you are talking about but it certainly sounds awful. Here's an article about a far better study:

Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:

1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?

2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?

3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?

4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Once in sixth grade, when I was standing in the doorframe, a girl in class squeezed through and the back of her hand ended up pushing against my groin.

Should I consider myself sexually assaulted?

You know, I know you're joking, but at the same time, that really is the problem with such surveys unless they clearly define what they mean by sexual assault. Otherwise, the term is so vague and open to interpretation that anyone could potentially classify just about ANYTHING as sexual assault.

The survey sod posted above, in which what is meant by sexual assault is clearly and reasonably defined, is much more useful statistically...though of course it still can't control for people lying, which any survey based on an interviewed respondant rather than hard data is subject to.

 

[Merko]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for men to be aware of situations in which anger is escalating and to try and prevent violence. Responsible men who I know do this already, just because you just aren't one doesn't mean they don't exist.

Seriously, a man not doing that is either a hermit, dead, or exceptionally lucky. I don't go out all that often and drink very little when I do, but I can't count the number of times I've had to avoid someone trying to pick a fight.

No, of course men have to do that. Just as it is sensible for women with a sense of self-preservation to avoid going home with strange men when they are stupidly drunk. Everyone knows that. Those who still don't do it are probably a bit self-destructive. Which is not to say they in any way deserve what may happen to them, but it does say that someone taking precautions needs to be aware that statistical averages over the entire population don't necessarily apply to them.

What I'm saying is simply this: to me, this article propagates a mindset where women are supposed to go around constantly being terrified about the in reality very unlikely possibility that they will be raped. It goes beyond taking reasonable precautions.

And that does not even start to address the issue of why it would really be such a life-changing disaster if they actually were raped. It happens to men too, and I can certainly imagine that it would be a traumatic experience if it happened to me, but clearly there is this idea shared by conservatives and some feminist strands that a rape is the absolutely worst thing that can ever happen to a woman.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

And that does not even start to address the issue of why it would really be such a life-changing disaster if they actually were raped. It happens to men too, and I can certainly imagine that it would be a traumatic experience if it happened to me, but clearly there is this idea shared by conservatives and some feminist strands that a rape is the absolutely worst thing that can ever happen to a woman.

You know, I actually have thought that myself to a certain degree. Of course, rape CAN be a life changing event for a woman, if she develops an STD, becomes pregnant, whatever. As you said, rape is certainly a traumatic experience, but I also find myself annoyed with how it is often depicted in the media as the worst thing that can possibly happen to you, that it "ruins you" essentially.

I can remember some time ago I was watching some stupid made for tv movie based on a best selling book in which a girl was date raped. Her brother later confronted her rapist and said to him, "You may as well have killed her!" And it just made me so mad...the idea that if you're raped, you might as well be dead because you can't ever recover from it. I have also heard it said often in media depictions of rape that a woman who is raped will NEVER recover from it, as if such a thing is impossible, and this also really bothers me.

I was sexually assaulted, badly roughed up, and very nearly raped. And yeah it sucked for a little while...but I got over it. I would classify it as a traumatizing event...but it didn't ruin my life, or even have a real lasting impact on my life as a whole. In a much more extreme case, my best friend was kidnapped from a parking lot, brought to a wooded area, and raped repeatedly. She was also afraid, given the circumstances, that she would be killed. She was very shook up for a time, but eventually, she really did get back to normal. She isn't weird about sex or men because of it. Her life and lifestyle hasn't changed because of it. Her personality didn't change because of it. She didn't even need counseling.

There are women who are permanently traumatized from rape, and I don't judge those women. Obviously the circumstances and the viciousness of the attack will have a lot to do with how traumatic it is for a person. But I have always really disliked how I often see rape depicted as something that will inevitably ruin your life forever. People react to trauma differently, and not every victims' life is irrevecably changed because of assault. I can't help but wonder if this mentality actually helps add to the trauma of some rape victims because it is so often depicted as how they SHOULD feel.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It is fine. You just have to remember that to many people "OMG I was sooo drunk I slept with this guy I don't like last night" is rape.

You need to know how they define the terms.

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

You're not even describing a situation where she secretly liked a guy and just needed a pint to get over the inhibitions. (Though even then it wouldn't really hurt to let her sober up.) You're talking about someone ending up doing something they didn't even want, just because they were too intoxicated to really know what they're doing and/or to offer much resistance.

Would it be more acceptable if one slipped her another drug or a sleeping pill and screwed her unconscious body? I'm guessing no. Then why is it somehow ok if alcohol is the drug used there.

More importantly, why only sex the domain where it is somehow ok to take advantage of such an incapacitated state? If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and used his impaired judgment to make him run naked through the snow, I think I'd at the very least have his hospital bills to pay, and everyone would agree that I'm such a complete prick that someone could scalp me and call it a circumcision. If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and packed him in his car and got him to bet he can drive ten laps around the block, I'd be at least an accomplice in any manslaughter he does that way, and again pretty much everyone would agree that it's an a-hole thing to do. Heck, even sex. If I took a terminally drunk guy from a bar and used his impaired judgment to dare him to screw a cow, hardly anyone would think he had it coming or that it's a moral thing to do.

But somehow using a woman's being so intoxicated that Mr Douche can screw her even if she doesn't like or want him, is somehow just a matter of redefining terms and otherwise ok. Why?

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

 

[Ferguson]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

...

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You know, I know you're joking, but at the same time, that really is the problem with such surveys unless they clearly define what they mean by sexual assault. Otherwise, the term is so vague and open to interpretation that anyone could potentially classify just about ANYTHING as sexual assault.

The survey sod posted above, in which what is meant by sexual assault is clearly and reasonably defined, is much more useful statistically...though of course it still can't control for people lying, which any survey based on an interviewed respondant rather than hard data is subject to.

The existing knowledge of people's defining themselves in surveys IIRC is actually that people tend to mis-represent themselves as more socially acceptable. E.g., more people will tend to answer that they help neighbours with stuff or give to charity than actually do.

I.e., as the linked article hints, what you'd actually expect in a survey this explicit is a good dose of underreporting, rather than lying to fit in the rapist club. Apparently less so than when flat out asking "have you raped anyone", but you'd still expect some underreporting.

Plus, even reading the questions, as human capability for rationalization goes, it's easier to underreport by rationalizing those, than to overreport by including something as threat when it wasn't. Basically my take is that at least some people are more likely to rationalize something along the lines of "well, that was more like pressure than threat of force, really" or "well, hey, she could still walk with some support, so she can't have been _that_ drunk" than to go basically "well, I kinda pouted so she might have taken it as a threat" So via another mechanism, but I'd still expect _some_ underreporting there.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.

Not really. If some guy got drunk by a woman so she can screw him, when he clearly didn't want her otherwise, I'd say he got raped all right.

I realized that that would go even more underreported, but I'm certainly not excusing it.

 

[Augustine]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

Seriously, give me one good reason why I shouldn't think that's rape.

Why is the woman not responsible for her own decisions? Why is the man responsible for his own decisions plus ascertaining whether the woman is capable of making her own decisions or incapacitated regardless of whether he's incapacitated??

Your analogies are wrong. Try it this way: you and a buddy leave a bar and screw cows. You do it because you're drunk, and, well, you're also into bestiality. He does it because he's "terminally drunk". Why am I to assume that you knew he was not into bestiality and deliberately conspired to get him to screw a cow with you? How do I know that you did not just assume that he had similar desires as you, and wanted to screw a cow like you did? Why is he an unresponsible actor, and you bear responsibility for your actions as well as his?

 

[Merko]

I don't know what study you are talking about but it certainly sounds awful. Here's an article about a far better study:

Thanks, that article (and especially the linked study) are very much worth reading.
It would be very interesting to see this study repeated in various different populations and broken down in subgroups related to education level, income etc. I believe it is generally considered that such factors don't much affect sex crime (unlike other crimes) but at the same time, I find it very hard to square these numbers with my own complete lack of such experiences. I mean, I've known several women who were sexually abused as children, but never once have I heard so much as a rumour that someone I know, even remotely, may have raped a mutual friend.

 

[Merko]

How do you know the guy isn't saying the same thing? Were they both raped? Two people get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day, I'm sure happens dozens or hundreds of times in America every day. To you, automatically, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim. It's not even conceivable to you that it's gone any other way. Limited imagination, indeed.

The studies SOdhner linked to above don't really depict that scenario though. They have asked people whether they deliberately got someone drunk in order to have sex, when that person would not otherwise agree.
Yes, of course sometimes people 'accidentally' have sex they regret whilst being drunk, but it is quite clear (and that should hardly be a surprise to anyone) that there are quite a lot of men who try to get women drunk on purpose. Now, this may be very hard to prove in a court of law in a single specific case, but that does not mean we should pretend that it does not happen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I see your point, but that is a bad analogy. One is overt racism, the other is just mitigating an actual _potential_ danger. Woman-on-woman rape is practically non-existent (outside Japanese cartoons, that is), so being more worried about men isn't sexism, it's just realism.

IOW, if you lived in a city where 99.9% muggings have been committed by African Americans and caucasian-on-caucasian muggings were virtually non-existent, then you'd have an actual analogy. And in that case you'd also have a reasonable excuse, or I dare even say reason, to be more circumspect around African Americans.

At what percentage of muggings does it become reasonable? There is a disproportionate number of African Americans who commit crimes like mugging. What does that percentage need to be for it to be reasonable?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Says who, where, when?
Data citations and evidence?
Prevalence?

Mostly IRW experience.

 

[Merko]

In a much more extreme case, my best friend was kidnapped from a parking lot, brought to a wooded area, and raped repeatedly. She was also afraid, given the circumstances, that she would be killed. She was very shook up for a time, but eventually, she really did get back to normal. She isn't weird about sex or men because of it. Her life and lifestyle hasn't changed because of it. Her personality didn't change because of it. She didn't even need counseling.

I find that quite uplifting to hear, and I think a person like that should be treated like an ideal. Of course, we cannot expect everyone to be quite that strong, but I think that expectations matter. I doubt most women even heard such a story.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or it could just be a matter of how women define sexual assault in the survey, which is my guess.

For instance, I knew a girl in college who once had her breast grabbed briefly, over the shirt, by a stranger. She was so upset at this that she actually dropped out of college for the summer semester, and truly acted as if she was traumatized by the experience. I'm sure she personally would consider that one second boob grab "a sexual assault," even though most other women I know personally, myself included, would not. When I've had men grope me uninvited, it certainly annoyed me, but I wouldn't personally define it as an assault and I didn't experience any kind of emotional distress as a result.

That would be legally assault. I am not sure if sexual assault is defined as any assault with a sexual component though.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

At what percentage of muggings does it become reasonable? There is a disproportionate number of African Americans who commit crimes like mugging. What does that percentage need to be for it to be reasonable?

As I was saying, if 99% of the muggings were an African American mugging a caucasian, and 1 in 6 caucasians had been mugged once, I'd very much understand it if someone felt uneasy around African Americans.

 

[Merko]

Your analogies are wrong. Try it this way: you and a buddy leave a bar and screw cows.

I think your analogies are wrong. We're not talking about a woman having had a drink which made her a little tipsy and horny. We're talking about guys having sex with women who are so drunk that they are completely unable to protest.
Somewhere there is, of course, a line to be drawn. Personally, I think that if a woman is too drunk to remove her own clothes (or mine), then she is definitely too drunk to have sex with. And she's probably too disgusting as well, but that's another matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I actually spent some time thinking about that and I still can't find a reason to _not_ call it rape. Sorry, I'm drawing blanks. It might be just my limited imagination, but it looks like rape to me.

Because we hold people who are intoxicated responsible for their own decisions and actions. "I was Drunk and so am not responsible for myself" doesn't work for drunk driving and shouldn't work here.

You're not even describing a situation where she secretly liked a guy and just needed a pint to get over the inhibitions. (Though even then it wouldn't really hurt to let her sober up.) You're talking about someone ending up doing something they didn't even want, just because they were too intoxicated to really know what they're doing and/or to offer much resistance.

I am talking about someone doing something that they regret doing when they sober up. You want another example, look at drunk dialing or what have you.

Would it be more acceptable if one slipped her another drug or a sleeping pill and screwed her unconscious body? I'm guessing no. Then why is it somehow ok if alcohol is the drug used there.

Because she chose to drink. If she chose to do other kinds of drugs then that would be the same. It is not about having sex with some passed out girl, that is rape. But about a drunk girl choosing to have sex with some guy, then regretting it in the morning, and retroactively making it rape. Why can't you make any sex you regret rape?

More importantly, why only sex the domain where it is somehow ok to take advantage of such an incapacitated state?

Incapacitated or impaired?

But somehow using a woman's being so intoxicated that Mr Douche can screw her even if she doesn't like or want him, is somehow just a matter of redefining terms and otherwise ok. Why?

No she is ok with it at the time, she just is not ok with it later.

 

[Sun Countess]

No, but you can take it too far. Mind you, my problem with the article is not that she's being unfair to men in general. My problem is that she seems to be propagating a mindset where women go around constantly being afraid for no good reason. It seems entirely plausible to me that the suffering caused by women needlessly worrying about getting raped surpasses the suffering by women who are actually raped.

I don't think she is taking anything too far. It's not a constant state of paranoia, and it's not something I worry about at all when I'm at work, shopping in the daytime, or in busy public areas. Back when I went to clubs with my girlfriends, we wanted guys to talk to us. You have to be a bit more vigilant then, but you certainly weren't looking at every guy as a potential rapist. It's about being aware and assessing things.

It's really exactly like defensive driving. You should always be aware of your surroundings and who's sharing the road with you. Not every car is a drunk driver, but there are a lot of idiots out there and you have to give yourself an "out." If somebody acts in a particularly aggressive or negligent way (continually crossing the centre line, for instance), a smart defensive driver gets out of the way. I've pulled over plenty of times to let some idiot pass me, because I don't want to get entangled with them.

Again I think you're taking it a bit too far. I don't think I've ever tried to strike up a conversation with a woman in a dark alley, and I don't generally socialize in elevators unless solicited. But trains? Come on. Riding on a train alone can be quite boring.

If I'm the only person on a train, I don't want anybody sitting next to me. I would never ride a train alone at night, so if this was during the daytime, believe it or not, I would get off at the next stop if a guy sat next to me or across from me and started talking to me. (Unless he was like 80 years old.)

Of course, but not until I actually notice that person. I don't go around constantly worrying about that possibility.

And the vigilance isn't constant on my end either. If I'm in crowded places, I never think about it. If I'm the only one walking on a street in the daytime, I'm going to make sure I have an "out" if a car pulls up to talk to me, or if somebody else starts to walk right behind me. If that someone else is a woman or an old man, I'm not going to be as worried as if it's a younger, stronger man. That doesn't mean I think he's definitely a rapist, anymore than a random male driver next to me is drunk. But on the off-off-chance that he would resort to violence of any kind against me, I need to be prepared. So I generally cross the street and pretend to tie my shoe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I was saying, if 99% of the muggings were an African American mugging a caucasian, and 1 in 6 caucasians had been mugged once, I'd very much understand it if someone felt uneasy around African Americans.

BUt it would be wrong at 95%? 90%? 80%?