Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Medians are generally used where there is an extreme amount of variability that would skew the results.

It is often used for pay scale instead of average.

[Graknorke]

Hey, median is an average too. Don't be so insensitive to it.

[Dutchling]

Yeah, you mean mean

[Ogdibus]

I was thinking of mode. x3

[Bauglir]

In other words, consenting to drink number 1 means that you accept the fact that it has consequences extending to further decision-making. Whatever the decision made could be about.

Sure. But "I understand that I may make poor decisions later" does not translate to "I knowingly accept all the potential consequences of all the decisions I might make later, no matter how poor." In other words, "I consent to making poorer decisions" does not equate to empowering all of those decisions with the force of enthusiastic consent, and without that it's still rape.

At best, it is less-bad rape, in the same way that beating a victim during a rape is more bad than the same rape without the beating. At best.

EDIT: I changed a sentence midstream and it changed the meaning to be horrifying. Fixed it!

[Dutchling]

Why does beating the rapee make it less bad?

[Bauglir]

I changed sentence structure midway through and didn't realize it. I suck. This is why I should review before hitting "post".

[scrdest]

In other words, consenting to drink number 1 means that you accept the fact that it has consequences extending to further decision-making. Whatever the decision made could be about.

Sure. But "I understand that I may make poor decisions later" does not translate to "I knowingly accept all the potential consequences of all the decisions I might make later, no matter how poor." In other words, "I consent to making poorer decisions" does not equate to empowering all of those decisions with the force of enthusiastic consent, and without that it's still rape.

At best, it is less-bad rape, in the same way that beating a victim during a rape is less bad than the same rape without the beating. At best.

The amusing accidental endorsement of violence during rapes aside, I cannot see how Consenting While Drunk is always, in every case Not Actually Consenting. And if it actually is, where do you draw the line? By the same logic, you could argue that consent given while under the influence of strong emotion means the person was raped. And to further ad-absurdize, that would definitely include the potent cocktail of brain-altering neurotransmitters that is love.

[Neonivek]

It isn't, to me, a case of whether or not it always counts as consent or not.

If someone asked me if someone could genuinely consent to something while drunk I'd probably say yes.

The issue is more that it is an all or nothing line of thinking. If you don't treat ALL cases as non-consent you just bog things down with doubt and then the idea of consent becomes useless.

Yet if that answer doesn't satisfy you scrdest a better way of saying it is: Since consent while drunk is always in doubt, you cannot treat it as consent.

[Leafsnail]

Is "some men might exaggerate about how many women they've screwed" really a controversial idea?

[Neonivek]

Is "some men might exaggerate about how many women they've screwed" really a controversial idea?

People tend to be honest on written questionaires though...

Unless this was a face to face interview...

But honestly this smells to me like the same old "Ask a misleading question, and then stretch it to get whatever result you want"

[scrdest]

Is "some men might exaggerate about how many women they've screwed" really a controversial idea?

People tend to be honest on written questionaires though...

Unless this was a face to face interview...

But honestly this smells to me like the same old "Ask a misleading question, and then stretch it to get whatever result you want"

Actually, yeah, that might explain it - some men over-report because TRUMENMACHO, some women underreport to avoid being pegged as 'sluts'.

[Bauglir]

I cannot see how Consenting While Drunk is always, in every case Not Actually Consenting. And if it actually is, where do you draw the line? By the same logic, you could argue that consent given while under the influence of strong emotion means the person was raped. And to further ad-absurdize, that would definitely include the potent cocktail of brain-altering neurotransmitters that is love.

I don't draw a line, nor should you. Lines don't apply very often to real-world social scenarios or morals. The act becomes increasingly more severe an act of rape the more intoxicated everyone involved becomes, and the only source of information that can reliably ensure that you're not committing rape is increasingly unavailable. There's a slope from "Definitely capable of consenting" to "Definitely not capable of consenting". Whether or not to go ahead is something I have to leave to the judgment of the people involved, but if you do and your partner turns out to have objected, you have to live with the fact that you have raped somebody. And, more importantly, so do they. You need to respect that, take responsibility for it, and do whatever you can, if anything, to make amends for hurting somebody.

EDIT: Yes this implies it's possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously. Which sounds strange, but on reflection I think is actually an important possibility to have open.

[Reelya]

Is "some men might exaggerate about how many women they've screwed" really a controversial idea?

People tend to be honest on written questionaires though...

Actually we have strong evidence that people do not tend to be honest on written questionaires. For example, the Conflict Tactics Scale which is used in domestic violence estimates asks "did you do X" and "was X done to you". When asked to couples, which should match up there's a very poor correlation (it's at or below random chance) between the two members of the same couple, but the overall number of responses (abusing and being abused) are about the same size. This super-low correlation hold for male sufferers with female abusers, and female sufferers with male abusers.

The bizarre thing is that both abusers and victims PROPORTIONS match, but, the wrong people say yes or no: e,g. 10 men say they're an abuser, and 10 women say they're victims, but they don't even match. The 10 male abusers had wives who didn't report being victims, and the 10 female victims had husbands who didn't report being abusers. Gender reverse this, and they find the same thing. So, it literally isn't simply a case of "abusers just pretend it didn't happen", there's something more complex going on.

This is seen as a weakness of the "conflict tactics scale" but in reality it just means ALL similar questionnaires are fundamentally suspect, and most similar surveys "get around" the problem by eliminating one side's answers beforehand (don't ask both people about an event, and you never have to deal with discrepancies in answers).

So at best we can just hope people are lying or confused in a consistent manner and that the overall averages are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_tactics_scale#Criticism

Another methodological problem is that interobserver reliability (the likelihood that the two members of the measured dyad respond similarly) is near zero for tested husband and wife couples. That is, the chances of a given couple reporting similar answers about events they both experienced is no greater than chance. On the most severe CTS items, husband-wife agreement is actually below chance: "On the item "beat up," concordance was nil: although there were respondents of both sexes who claimed to have administered beatings and respondents of both sexes who claimed to have been on the receiving end, there was not a single couple in which one party claimed to have administered and the other to have received such a beating."

Many domestic violence measures are derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale.

[scrdest]

I cannot see how Consenting While Drunk is always, in every case Not Actually Consenting. And if it actually is, where do you draw the line? By the same logic, you could argue that consent given while under the influence of strong emotion means the person was raped. And to further ad-absurdize, that would definitely include the potent cocktail of brain-altering neurotransmitters that is love.

I don't draw a line, nor should you. Lines don't apply very often to real-world social scenarios or morals. The act becomes increasingly more severe an act of rape the more intoxicated everyone involved becomes, and the only source of information that can reliably ensure that you're not committing rape is increasingly unavailable. There's a slope from "Definitely capable of consenting" to "Definitely not capable of consenting". Whether or not to go ahead is something I have to leave to the judgment of the people involved, but if you do and your partner turns out to have objected, you have to live with the fact that you have raped somebody. And, more importantly, so do they. You need to respect that, take responsibility for it, and do whatever you can, if anything, to make amends for hurting somebody.

EDIT: Yes this implies it's possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously. Which sounds strange, but on reflection I think is actually an important possibility to have open.

Cop-out. This doesn't answer the question - either all sex ever is rape, just ranging from 'just slightly' for things like emotional impulsiveness, or there is a point where it isn't - if so, where is that point?

Furthermore, you need to punish rapists somehow, and law doesn't really work on a sliding scale. 'Your honor, but that rape was only slightly rapey' is a line of defence used by about zero people in the history of justice (at least modern, excluding things like class-based punishments a' la Hammurabi).

Also, if unwittingly causing someone's death, AKA manslaughter, is something different from knowingly causing it due to a strong emotion is something different from cold-blooded killing, why doesn't 'unwitting rape' work the same way?