Print

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

[Virex]

Maybe, but still, stories like Andir's creep me the *$^% out. Plus, with the percentage women that get raped, it can't be the fault of a small group of creepy evil guys, so who's to say I'm not one of the "normal" rapists without knowing it beforehand?
Who's to say I don't suddenly turn abusive under stress when I'm in a relation? What guarantees do I have that I'm better than the average male? I'd best just keep my distance at all times...

I'm first just stating that I remain very, very skeptical of the whole one in four thing. That's an extremely high percentage for a specific crime, that should be easily seen in one's social microcosm. It isn't, and that's a red flag abnormality.

That's what makes it so scary. Apparently there's a lot more going on then we pick up normally (one of the sites Vector linked had a statistic showing that only 1 in 10 assaults get reported) and that's why I'm so skeptical that all rapists are evil sociopaths...

Secondly, you're paranoid as hell over this, which in and of itself lends me to believe you aren't a secret rapist. People who do that sort of thing aren't normal, and they probably don't think of themselves as "not rapists". Given the type of people who commit violent crimes like this, they probably don't think about it at all.

How many rapists do you actually know? Enough to say that they were not completely normal before something snapped?

Virex, you seem to be under the impression that you lack a sense of self control.

I actually don't know if I have much self-control, I've never had to exert much or at least I can't recall it. Who knows what I'll do under pressure?

Yeah, maybe you should join some kind of monastic order.

And get "Inspected" by the head monk? No thanks, I'll pass.

[Criptfeind]

Man Virex. Chill out, chances are you are not a rapist or are going to be a rapist. If this is such a huge issue why don't you check out a psychologist and see if you have any like hidden tendencies or something.

[Bauglir]

Maybe, but still, stories like Andir's creep me the *$^% out. Plus, with the percentage women that get raped, it can't be the fault of a small group of creepy evil guys, so who's to say I'm not one of the "normal" rapists without knowing it beforehand? Who's to say I don't suddenly turn abusive under stress when I'm in a relation? What guarantees do I have that I'm better than the average male? I'd best just keep my distance at all times...

The percentage includes situations such as mutual drunkenness, miscommunication, and other errors that don't necessitate violently attacking a woman and holding her down. Honestly, the assumption that that's what rape is is a major problem that leads to those situations, because it causes a lot of people to figure that if she's not violently fighting back, it's not rape. You're not going to come to one moment with the realization that you've attacked a woman and are in the process of raping her, unless you have frequent violence-filled blackouts and are a pretty tough dude.

If you want to worry about falling into the percentage of guys who rape women (which, in case it needs to be pointed out, is going to be less than 1/4 because there's a good chance that a rapist of any category isn't going to be monogamous about it), worry less about physical violence and more about understanding what the women you're talking to are thinking. Chances are, the problem is going to be less about self-control and more about self-awareness.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't think it actually includes those things, or at least, that it is meant to include those things. I think the high number is mostly due to incidence buildup, and partly due to the fact that (according to wikipedia) it includes attempts.

[Mattasmack]

Spoiler: (A little meta-discussion) (click to show/hide)

I hesitate to post because I don't think I'll be able to keep up with the conversation, but what the heck ...

I do so enjoy fencing here, such good sport. That said, never be afraid to take me head on with the same level of respect you'd like. I never stab to harm; no one else should either.

Thanks, but my hesitation is largely about having time to actually hold a conversation.  Almost every time I decide to post something in one of these forums, something comes up that keeps me away from the computer long enough that the conversation moves past me. (As evidence, the forty-odd replies between your reply and mine, on different subjects!)  I don't like 'dive-bombing' threads, just dropping in to post my opinion and disappearing again, but that's what usually ends up happening.

Yay, solar power, a subject I actually know anything about!  I hope I'm not totally derailed here ... could the future of transportation (which also touches on the future of energy supplies and delivery systems) be considered a progressive topic?

If A = B, and B=C then A =C. If Progressive subjects include environmentalism and environmentalism includes solar power, then solar power is included in progressive subjects?

That's about what I was thinking, and it's nice to have some confirmation.    'Progressivism' is not part of my usual vocabulary, and this subject is rather far from the usual ones in this thread.

(snip)
I don't really get why everyone is making a big deal out of me saying the cars are prototypes.
I think the problem seems to be people here are attaching a negative connotation to the word "prototype." There is nothing negative about the word "prototype". I often find breaking things down into CRAC helps....

[Conclusion] It is a Functional Prototype. [Rule/Definition] A Functional Prototype is construction of a fully working full-scale prototype and the ultimate test of concept, is the engineers' final check for design flaws and allows last-minute improvements to be made before larger production runs are ordered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype#Basic_prototype_categories. http://www.answers.com/topic/prototype Moreover, companies commission prototypes to develop future products in the hope of later salable products and repeated refinement happens in the prototype stages. [Analysis] Here, we have fully working full-scale prototypes of solar cells applied to an automobile, sponsored by automobile, electronic, solar cell, and other tech companies, all of which stand to gain practical application products from this research and testing http://solarcar.engin.umich.edu/quantum-sponsors/. Moreover, the methods of production and the models are repeatedly refined and improved almost completely every year for twenty (20) years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Solar_Car_Team [Conclusion] Thus, the cars are  continually refined, commissioned for future salable products, functional prototypes

Yeah, the word 'prototype' isn't the main point, I think it's hold-over from your initial post about the car (which I think Siquo was hinting at as well).

Prototyping is an intermediate stage of the engineering design process.  Based on the students I knew as an undergrad who were on our school's solar car team, their goal was to make a car to compete in a long multi-stage solar car race.  When they completed the car and raced it, they had finished the design process, produced their final product, and accomplished their goals.  Your statements, especially the initial one, feel to me like 'moving the goal-posts', saying that their goal is actually something else and their current efforts fall far short.

Though I'd say that if their goal were to produce a practical road vehicle for personal transport, your initial assessment would be correct.  It's nowhere near ready, and their car would barely be considered proof-of-concept.  By the definition you quoted, it certainly wouldn't then be a functional prototype.

Commissioned for future products: (Too many links found for me to include them all, these are just the first ones.)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What do you think car, solar cell and electronics makers are throwing all that money behind this for? Publicity? No.... This isn't about publicity, they could get much more publicity much cheaper. It's about a development program for prototypes to one day make production sale models to market one day. Follow the money:

http://www.hybridmile.com/news/sunstang-adapting/
Why yes, they are trying to make production models.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/12/1408064/stanford-students-prepare-solar.html
"But like the space program, these vehicles provide a real-world chance to test innovative cutting-edge ideas - which could eventually boost the performance of everyday autos."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Solar_Challenge
"The objective of this competition is to promote research on solar-powered cars. Teams from universities and enterprises participate. In 2005, 22 teams from 11 countries entered the primary race category."

http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=519&Itemid=122
"GM globally has adopted a clear three-pronged approach to reduce fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions in the future. In the near-term, GM will continue to refine and improve today’s technology to provide better efficiency and performance whilst also introducing renewable alternative fuel vehicles, such as BioPower."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtGNd8TgZ_I&feature=related
Let's not forget, this is being commissioned for testing and future use too.

(snip)

I'm not sure where you're going here.  I would say yes, the primary purpose of the companies sponsoring these vehicles is publicity.  Publicity both with the general public, as well as among engineering students.  If every team's budget is around the $1M mark, as Michigan's is, being a major sponsor of many of these teams is not really a big financial committment for the likes of GM or Ford.  Heck, look at the byline of your fourth link -- it's pure PR from GM.  The second and fifth links are also publicity (check out those sponsor stickers in the youtube video!).  The first link, well, follow the link through to SunStang's own website, and it looks like vaporware to me.  And near the bottom of the main page they say themselves that "It is now clearly known that vehicle mounted solar panels can not be the primary power supplier for a practical car".

I really don't get why people think I'm knocking them.... I think it's cool and hope it gets more development....
(snip)

I think these projects are great from the college students' perspectives, they're great fun and the students get valuable practical engineering experience while still students, which is an opportunity that too many engineering programs lack.  I think a large benefit that sponsoring companies get is that they raise their profile amongst and come into contact with some talented and driven engineering students -- just the sort they'd want to hire.  Just based on these and the general publicity around the races I'd consider them worthwhile.  But I see each team's drive to produce their next car for their next race as pretty self-contained projects that have their end at the race, and I think the connection to some overarching goal of developing practical directly solar-powered personal transport is tenuous. (And, as I mentioned in another post, I don't think it's a reasonable goal in the first place.)

[ChairmanPoo]

Yeah, maybe you should join some kind of monastic order.

And get "Inspected" by the head monk? No thanks, I'll pass.

Please. Even in the remote event that you met an abusive priest, they certainly wouldn't try to abuse *you*, a grown man.

Besides, what's worse? that you might (might!) get a pass from some gay member of the order (a pass you could reject), or you finally losing control and abusing some poor innocent girl?

I actually don't know if I have much self-control, I've never had to exert much or at least I can't recall it. Who knows what I'll do under pressure?

I think you should give the monastic order idea serious thought, if you seriously worry about this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How many rapists do you actually know? Enough to say that they were not completely normal before something snapped?

Zero. But that isn't normal psychological behavior. There are always signs to abnormal psychology.

I actually don't know if I have much self-control, I've never had to exert much or at least I can't recall it. Who knows what I'll do under pressure?

You do, hopefully.

[Truean]

In response to mattasmack's last post:

You really need to start thinking like a corporate bean counter.... It has absolutely nothing to do with the student's goals and everything to do with the sponsor's goals. Follow... the... money. Cheap... Research and Development Testing.

The entire program is a program to produce a series of prototypes to design test products for the sponsors. The race itself is a product test and a smart way to product test on the roads....

Phases: (From the sponsors' point of view)
Idea: "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we had a solar car and all the offshoot components to sell as products?"
Problem: "That sounds like it would take longer than hell and cost twice as much to develop...."
Prototype: "Hey, let's have a bunch of college kids cheaply design and test this stuff for us. "
Final Product: "Neato solar car in the future, and component parts/design work on products incorporated into it including electronics, composites, solar cells etc."

All of this is done with cheapo college kid labor instead of expensive engineer labor.... Paying professional engineers to design and road test prototypes would cost how much compared to this? The publicity is minimal, because most people have never heard of solar car racing.

Let's see, cheapo, grateful labor for 20 years of R&D.... Hum....
Should we pay expensive, professional engineers to do this, or comparatively cheap college kid labor....?

Bottom Line: How do I get decades worth of R&D for solar cells, electronics, automotive and other products for cheap? Have students do it.... What's that? I get some minor publicity out of this too? That's just gravy, I want my cheap R&D....

Follow... the... money. College kid labor cheap.... Professional Engineer labor expensive. This has provided 20 years of cheap college kid R&D.... Prototype.

[G-Flex]

The percentage includes situations such as mutual drunkenness, miscommunication, and other errors that don't necessitate violently attacking a woman and holding her down. Honestly, the assumption that that's what rape is is a major problem that leads to those situations

How the fuck do you commit sexual assault due to "miscommunication"? I mean, mutual drunkenness I get, because sometimes people will blame the man involved no matter what, but there should never be room for "miscommunication".

Regarding these statistics, are they for convicted rapes, indicted rapes, or just accusations? Big difference between all of these, and I don't think it's fair to say that a given percentage of women get raped if it's not actually verified in any way that they were.

[kaijyuu]

How the fuck do you commit sexual assault due to "miscommunication"?

"I thought they were just playing hard to get!"

It's important to know how far these "rapes" went, too. Groping and whatnot can easily come from miscommunication. Beyond that... it's feasible that someone won't get the message until they're socked in the face, which could be very far along, though somewhat less likely.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, pretty much. I'm hardly defending them. That's why I went out of my way to say that I think there's a problem with the assumption that rape is just a girl getting jumped in an alley. The point was about the "enthusiastic consent" thing that I think we went over in this thread a while ago (I can dig up a link, if you want), and I was under the impression that the 1-in-a-single-digit figures includes situations that didn't fall under the "forcible rape" definition that some obnoxious legislators tried to shoehorn into law a while back. I might be wrong on that, though, but I want to make clear that I'm not implying that nothing's wrong with it. No apologetics here, I was trying to point out that I think Virex was getting the wrong conclusion from those statistics.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

[twitch, twitch, twitch, twwwwwwwitch] "Changing... article III... Congress overriding supreme court decisions with a 2/3 vote.... That basically makes Congress the Actual Supreme Court of popular vote able to disregard the law without changing the law and create contradictions....Congress can't balance a budget and you want them doing the Supreme Court's job too, somehow...? I just... It...."

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/whats-next-arizona-efforts-repeal-14th-amendment-rights
I mean, they want the 14th amendment gone, which pretty much undoes what the civil war did:

"6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

So... you want more state's rights, except for rights you don't personally agree with. You "respect a state's right to have a different opinion" but you think that opinion should be federally banned if you don't like it? Do you even.... The sheer number of contradictions you put out in a minute has caused the quadratic formula to explode and then the remains of that explosion to explode agian....

So ... have they finally just given up on the whole "intent of the founders, constitutional" charade? Or does this only apply to the parts of the constitution one likes at the time? This dude has just basically said screw it the constitution should be used to enforce his political ideas, though he still says it is the "intent of the founders" that guides him. You know what the founders intended? ARTICLE III as it stands currently.... That's what they intended because that's what they wrote down....

People should be able to use their state's rights to agree with him but not to disagree with him....

[GlyphGryph]

How the fuck do you commit sexual assault due to "miscommunication"? I mean, mutual drunkenness I get, because sometimes people will blame the man involved no matter what, but there should never be room for "miscommunication".

Don't be so surprised. What if a girl consents - to a point. And then suddenly she doesn't want to do it anymore. Her pants are off, but she suddenly realized its a bad idea? But he seems to be so ready, she doesn't know what to do, so she waves at the guy a bit, maybe makes some sounds, tries to look really scared? Every one of those can be misconstrued. The guy can think she wants to keep going simply because she's communicating poorly (or he's being particularly dense).

Is it rape? Come the next morning, I can see girls rationalizing that they wanted to all along (though they didn't), and girls thinking he forced himself on her.

There's definitely grey areas, but rape can happen because of miscommunication. Especially with younger and more naive guys who don't understand the subtleties involved. Especially with young and naive women who may not feel comfortable being assertive, especially in stressful situations (especially in an atmosphere of peer pressure, for both parties). If this can be considered rape, then college can be considered a pretty perfect breeding ground for it.

Now consider that a lot of sex-stuff is non-verbal, and a lot of people involved have no bloody idea what they're doing. It can be easy to assume content is given when instead the girl is just not responding, because the guy assumes that if she doesn't want it she would say something, right? After all, that's what he would do, and if a girl stuck her hand in his pants and went at it, he'd just let her do it if he consented, and say something if he didn't. Is the girl grabbing your hand because she wants you to stop, or because she doesn't want you to stop? Has she withdrawn consent by closing her eyes and freezing up, or is that just what she does? Meanwhile, they guy doesn't say anything, not because he wants to rape her, but because HE might look like an experienced novice if he admits to not understanding the non-verbal message, and he doesn't want to look stupid in front of this girl he likes he's about to have sex with...

Is the guy definitely wrong in some of those situations? Yes. But that doesn't make him a terrible human being, believe it or not, as much as it makes him incredibly stupid. And a girl communicating that she doesn't want sex, poorly, doesn't make her any less a victim, but I think it definitely complicates what sort of approach and response we should take to addressing the issue.

And though there's definitely a victim, its easy to see how someone who is not actually a terrible person can end up having sex with someone who doesn't actually want to have sex. There's a lot of confusion about what is, and isn't, consent, and in the heat of the moment people aren't usually thinking at their best.

[Rose]

And it's for reasons like that that people in law want to define rape as being violent, because once a girl is physically resisting, there is absolutely no way that can be misunderstood.

And a lot of stuff in law is about assuming innocence until proven guilty.

[Truean]

And it's for reasons like that that people in law want to define rape as being violent, because once a girl is physically resisting, there is absolutely no way that can be misunderstood.

Eh, while I find clearly forcible rape horrible far beyond any condemnation we can imagine, I don't know that it's that simple. You can look at things a lot of different ways:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

How the fuck do you commit sexual assault due to "miscommunication"? I mean, mutual drunkenness I get, because sometimes people will blame the man involved no matter what, but there should never be room for "miscommunication".

Don't be so surprised. What if a girl consents - to a point. And then suddenly she doesn't want to do it anymore. Her pants are off, but she suddenly realized its a bad idea? But he seems to be so ready, she doesn't know what to do, so she waves at the guy a bit, maybe makes some sounds, tries to look really scared? Every one of those can be misconstrued. The guy can think she wants to keep going simply because she's communicating poorly (or he's being particularly dense).

Is it rape? Come the next morning, I can see girls rationalizing that they wanted to all along (though they didn't), and girls thinking he forced himself on her.

There's definitely grey areas, but rape can happen because of miscommunication. Especially with younger and more naive guys who don't understand the subtleties involved. Especially with young and naive women who may not feel comfortable being assertive, especially in stressful situations (especially in an atmosphere of peer pressure, for both parties). If this can be considered rape, then college can be considered a pretty perfect breeding ground for it.

Now consider that a lot of sex-stuff is non-verbal, and a lot of people involved have no bloody idea what they're doing. It can be easy to assume content is given when instead the girl is just not responding, because the guy assumes that if she doesn't want it she would say something, right? After all, that's what he would do, and if a girl stuck her hand in his pants and went at it, he'd just let her do it if he consented, and say something if he didn't. Is the girl grabbing your hand because she wants you to stop, or because she doesn't want you to stop? Has she withdrawn consent by closing her eyes and freezing up, or is that just what she does? Meanwhile, they guy doesn't say anything, not because he wants to rape her, but because HE might look like an experienced novice if he admits to not understanding the non-verbal message, and he doesn't want to look stupid in front of this girl he likes he's about to have sex with...

Is the guy definitely wrong in some of those situations? Yes. But that doesn't make him a terrible human being, believe it or not, as much as it makes him incredibly stupid. And a girl communicating that she doesn't want sex, poorly, doesn't make her any less a victim, but I think it definitely complicates what sort of approach and response we should take to addressing the issue.

And though there's definitely a victim, its easy to see how someone who is not actually a terrible person can end up having sex with someone who doesn't actually want to have sex. There's a lot of confusion about what is, and isn't, consent, and in the heat of the moment people aren't usually thinking at their best.

Please don't get me wrong.... I've observed (to learn my trade) a lot of, open to the public trials, including assaults, robberies, rapes, murders etc. The concept of rape scares the living shit out of me and I'm utterly, unable-to-stop-myself-from-shaking, terrified of it. If it is a clearly forcible rape, that's beyond horrible and I don't even know what to say about that. If it's something that starts consensual but ends up not being... that also scares me, but not as much as clear force. 

GlyphGryph kinda has a point. It is a horrible, gut wrenching point, but....

This is from an actual case I observed the trial between two college students. It basically came down to this:

This means keep going: (His side of the story)
"Don't stop!" (as in, don't stop doing what you're doing, keep going)

This means stop: (Her side of the story)
Don't, stop! (as in, get the hell off me)

What we had here was two horny college kids. Both sides readily concede it started consensually, but she changed her mind after a minute or two. She had every right to change her mind and he should've stopped, especially if he wasn't certain she wanted him to continue. That said, the guy (who honestly did not appear to be the brightest bulb) may have honestly been confused. The jury believed her instead of him and I did too.

The point is, even and especially if he was confused, he should've erred on the side of caution and asked her if she liked it/wanted to continue. Incidentally, considering her a bit would've been better for all parties involved had they continued or not.