Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 4 of 4 pages
I just dont understand how in a world in which numerous men have slept with much older women as teenagers, and few are emotionally scarred, you get to decide that the act is immoral. What are the grounds for your judgment, other than catholic prudishness?
Again, we've all spun out from what I considered a rather small point.
I find the appeal to authority with respect to rape studies totally noncompelling. How many people who are tenured professors studying this are "opposed" to the general academic consensus about the frequency of rape? As far as I know, zero - no reputable university would allow a "rape denialist" to be on their faculty. So there's no real debate / dissent about the numbers - there's merely a race to reenforce the consensus (or better still, find even MORE people are being raped!).
Is this the same argument Creationists use to disregard the universal academic dismissal of their hokum?
I totally disagree with this. I'm not a rape scientist - i'm not even a social scientist. I can't meanigfully critique study design.
But from my experience as a hard scientist, I know that if there is no respected, well-funded dissent,
But to say this is a "envelope pushing study" because a rape researcher found more rape is happening is laughable - to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail.
Example? Real criminal laws please, not traffic violations.
I think the morality is tricky in states with higher ages of consent. I'm pretty sure most 16 and 17 y.o.'s are capable of consent, so the act may be illegal, but not immoral.
So you're calling it bullshit because its findings disagree with your intuitions on the subject?
These are studies that appear in respected journals.
A lot of the method is just very basic textual analysis of the laws, with an emphasis on how language constructs statistics.
Also, teenage boys are conditioned to react differently by general mores. Any 15-year-old who admitted to emotional trauma from being unready to sexually interact with a 35-year-old female would most likely be ridiculed and therefore not admit any trauma.
Also, teenage boys are conditioned to react differently by general mores. Any 15-year-old who admitted to emotional trauma from being unready to sexually interact with a 35-year-old female would most likely be ridiculed and therefore not admit any trauma. Likewise, a 15-year-old female who admitted minimal trauma from the experience would likely be seen as a budding whore by the population at large.
You are shading to grey here when are claiming black and white previously.
The difference is that in the case of Creationists, the folks supposedly conspiring against creationism don't care if its true or not. (I say this as someone who, as part of their work as an isotope geochemist, worked on dating meteorites and stuff, so we would get nasty letters from Creationists. I would explain to them - you dont understand, if I were able to date a meteorite to 5,000 years old, I'd make Nature! It would be the coolest finding in years!)
No! I'm calling bullshit because there's no meaningful dissent.
Those are what I observe with respect to these researchers.
Based on peer review by people who share a hegemonic view. That's the whole point.
What journal would pick up an article reporting the opposite of this - that language leads to overreporting of rape? Would it be as "respected" or "prestigious"?
If men are getting sexually assaulted far more than they are reporting, that speaks volumes about the emotional trauma of the event -- as does the lack of expression of trauma outside the formal reporting process, as we see around the country with the current outcry in re campus sexual misconduct toward women.
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. Basically you're saying that science has paradigms enforced through the institutions that produce scientific knowledge. Which is, of course, true in general, but not automatically true in each case. And what you're doing here is claiming, without any evidence to suggest that paradigmatic norms are being enforced, that any article published on the subject of rape can't be considered methodologically sound because science is a liar sometimes.
The American Journal of Public Health isn't deeply invested in the project of upping the rape count.
What I'm distinguishing between is, say biochemistry - where ideology is not a litmus test to participate in the field,
Rupert Sheldrake is a biochemist and yet finds his groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting research into morphic resonance suppressed and discarded by The Cathedral of biochemists and their materialistic ideology.
No, you're arguing against a strawman. What I'm distinguishing between is, say biochemistry - where ideology is not a litmus test to participate in the field, and rape studies, where ideology IS a litmus test. I'm pretty sure there is not a single academic in western academia who studies rape for a living that didn't bring an ideological predisposition to rape - i.e., seeing rape as an underestimated problem - before becoming a "expert".
Yes. They don't begin to stand for what you say they stand for. Men might be sexually assaulted more frequently than is commonly understood. So what? If anything, that reinforces the point that they aren't as emotionally traumatized by the assaults.
and I don't know anyone who approaches their data like that.
I see now - you don't understand how peer review works. All that is required is for the journal's editor on the topic and the peer reviewers to be deeply invested. I am 100% certain they are.
But is he an actual biochemist - i.e., did he get a degree?
Sure ... and from and on behalf of women there's an ongoing and massive outcry about this state of affairs. From and on behalf of men there's ... crickets.
Way more than the analogous number of men.
When I was in high school, some of my 17-year-old friends dated some of my 15-year-old friends and I found it "borderline," since there was a significant maturity gap. This was my 15-year-old morality; I had never been in a relationship at the time. Now I'm still in about the same place.
Every outward indicator is that neither society nor the victims involved act as if sexual misconduct toward males is as emotionally traumatic as sexual misconduct toward females.
I'm not dodging anything.
If you commit to the position that males make as many or more "second thoughts" sexual misconduct claims against women as women against men on the nation's college campuses, I
I'm just now getting to the point where I'm not entirely freaked out about the concept of dating someone with kids. Not because I don't like children or because motherhood is unattractive, but because I'm behind those women in "stage of life."
Men and women are conditioned to process and express trauma in different ways. That doesn't mean the trauma isn't experienced-- it just means it isn't expressed and processed similarly.
That might be, but I'd need evidence that men are actually suppressing emotional trauma before I'd conclude that men are actually suppressing emotional trauma.
I didn't say it was zero, I said is was virtually zero as compared with women.
(*) Though if there are really hundreds of thousands of emotionally traumatized males out there who don't feel comfortable expressing their trauma to a repressive, uncaring, and unfeeling society, you'd think liberals and modern liberals would be up in arms about it, but surprisingly we don't see a lot of evidence that such is the case.
Under what set of facts can you accept that teenaged men are generally not traumatized by a sexual encounter with an older woman?
Your story from college - how close to 15 years old were you?
But a quick Google Scholar on the subject turned up precisely the short of narrative you'd expect-- the cultural taboos on male disclosure of sexual assaults has limited our knowledge of it.
I'm saying having sex with someone who is incapable of consent is intrinsically immoral. Below a certain age, people are generally incapable of consent. Clearly any pre-pubescent is incapable. But between puberty and 18 there is some gray area. Figuring out that age is tricky, and may vary by society, but you need to figure that out.
Why do we need to pretend women and men are prima facie identical in all aspects of life when they are so clearly not?
Google Scholar! Well I'll be! Folks, authority has been appealed to!
What evidence could be presented to you that you would find persuasive that such encounters are not particularly traumatizing?
You've already stated that men are conditioned to not be traumatized (or as traumatized).
Poor RayRay, his desire to always be the smartest guy in the room forces him to stake some really ugly positions. I've given this friendly advice before, I'll offer it again: not every thought that pops into your head is worth sharing on the internet.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.7933 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed