GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 A scientific article was published almost two weeks ago with some, for me, surprising statistics which examined sexual coercion and psychosocial correlates among 284 diverse adolescents and emerging adult males in high school and college. Some stats: Over 4 in 10 participants (43%) experienced sexual coercion. 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor. I am shocked as it is much more than I thought would be the case. Both in terms of prevalence and the proportion of aggressors reported to be female. Moreover, they talked about four kinds of sexual coercion (from the press release): (...) 18 percent reported sexual coercion by physical force; 31 percent said they were verbally coerced; 26 percent described unwanted seduction by sexual behaviors; and 7 percent said they were compelled after being given alcohol or drugs, according to the study. Half of the students said they ended up having intercourse, 10 percent reported an attempt to have intercourse and 40 percent said the result was kissing or fondling. Link to the article: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/men-a0035915.pdf Link to press release: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex.aspx
st434u Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 It's all about how you define things. My guess is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, none of this would constitute criminal behavior on the part of the females. It's like how women get drunk in a party or at a club, end up having sex with some random guy, then the next morning they regret it so they say they were "raped". If you willfully took a substance that you knew could make you do things you normally wouldn't, and then do those things while fully conscious (i.e. not passed out or something), you can't say you were "coerced" into doing those things simply because you were intoxicated. I can see how a woman can put drugs into a guy's drink without his knowledge, like heavy tranquilizers or something, and have her way with him (whatever that means for her), but other than that, it's very unlikely that an unarmed woman can "coerce" a grown man (or even most 14-16 year olds+) into having sexual intimacy with her.
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 29, 2014 Author Posted March 29, 2014 Whether the coercion can be constituted as criminal behavior is relevant in many contexts but in terms of pscyhology it is for the most part not.
Wuzzums Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 man buys a woman drinks and has sex with her = man rapes woman woman buys a man drinks and has sex with him = woman sexually coerced man
st434u Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Whether the coercion can be constituted as criminal behavior is relevant in many contexts but in terms of pscyhology it is for the most part not. Right, I meant criminal as in initiating violence/aggression. It may actually be "criminal" in the sense of it being illegal. In the sense I use these terms generally, selling drugs is illegal, but not criminal; while murder is both illegal and criminal; and imposing&collecting taxes is not illegal but is criminal.
dsayers Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 It's like how women get drunk in a party or at a club, end up having sex with some random guy, then the next morning they regret it so they say they were "raped". If you willfully took a substance that you knew could make you do things you normally wouldn't This is voodoo pharmacology and it's bunk. Alcohol does impair inhibitions, but it doesn't make people do things they normally wouldn't. I agree with the underlying sentiment that a person cannot impair their own judgement voluntarily then hold others accountable for the effects of it. I also would argue that it's irresponsible if not outright predatory to try and have sex with somebody who is inebriated.
st434u Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 This is voodoo pharmacology and it's bunk. Alcohol does impair inhibitions, but it doesn't make people do things they normally wouldn't. I tend to agree with this, but was just going along with the premise. I agree with the underlying sentiment that a person cannot impair their own judgement voluntarily then hold others accountable for the effects of it. Exactly. I also would argue that it's irresponsible if not outright predatory to try and have sex with somebody who is inebriated. Why? Many people drink alcohol just so they can hook up more easily.
dsayers Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Many people drink alcohol just so they can hook up more easily. There are people that approach the young so they can hook up more easily. This isn't proof that their actions are not predatory.
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 29, 2014 Author Posted March 29, 2014 A lot of behavior can be predatory and exploitive without it violating the NAP. I know coercion has a very strict definition in the libertarian legal sense, but I think it can be worthwhile to consider how the researchers define and measure sexual coercion and take it from there: Defined as: Broadly, sexual coercion is defined as the use of physical force, harm, authority, blackmail, verbal persuasion, manipulation, pressure, or even alcohol or drugs used for the advancement of sexual behavior (Morrison, McLeod, Morrison, Anderson, & O'Connor, 1997; Testa & Dermen, 1999). Measured as: Sexual coercion was measured using a modified version of the Sexual Coercion Inventory (SCI; Waldner, Vaden-Goad, & Sikka, 1999). The revised SCI is a 17-item instrument that asks participants whether or not they experiencedvarious sexually coercive tactics: (a) verbal coercion (7 items, e.g., “My partner threatened to stop seeing me”), (b) substance coercion (4 items, e.g., “My partner encouraged me to drink alcohol and then took advantage of me.”), and © physical coercion (6 items, e.g., “My partner threatened to use or did use a weapon”). This is exploitive behavior and the fact that 43 % of these young men have experienced this I think is something to take very seriously.Something to also take into account is that the respondents were instructed to only include sexual experiences with a nonrelative peer such as boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, acquaintance, etc. but do not include potential sexual experiences with a family member.And this is only what was admitted.
BlackHeron Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 This is voodoo pharmacology and it's bunk. Alcohol does impair inhibitions, but it doesn't make people do things they normally wouldn't. I agree with the underlying sentiment that a person cannot impair their own judgement voluntarily then hold others accountable for the effects of it. I also would argue that it's irresponsible if not outright predatory to try and have sex with somebody who is inebriated. Agree, alcohol only lets out the inner self that is repressed normally. But it might be that the repressed sober self does feel guilt/regret over what the uninhibited self did while under not under the influence of their repressed inhibitions. Alcohol doesn't make nice people into assholes, it just lets the buried asshole out. But it isn't always necessarily a bad thing. I've met a few people who were actually more likable and real when under the influence than when they are sober. This can go both ways. Inhibitions are not always positive influences.
st434u Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 There are people that approach the young so they can hook up more easily. This isn't proof that their actions are not predatory.What does this even mean? When I hear predatory, I think wolf running after sheep. The wolf wants to kill the sheep in order to eat it. We're not discussing murder here, so I suggest you use another term or explain your meaning in more detail. A lot of behavior can be predatory and exploitive without it violating the NAP.How? Honestly, to me this sounds like when communists say that hiring workers is "exploitative" even though it's voluntary. If we're talking about two people that have the mental capacity to understand what's going on and make their own choices, then what could be "predatory" or "exploitative"? And like I asked dsayers, what do these terms even mean?I know coercion has a very strict definition in the libertarian legal sense,Right, and we shouldn't get into the habit of loosely redefining terms like this. Else we risk doing what Hayek did, who defined coercion as just about anyone doing anything you don't like, even if they've never met you in their lives, and this is how he ends up justifying statism without boundaries, to the point of socialism.Just to take one example, how on Earth is there anything wrong with a partner threatening to end the relationship if they're not gonna be intimate? How in the world is this "coercive"? verbal persuasion is coercion?I know, right?
cab21 Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 the study almost seems like "government study comes to the conclusion that more money is needed from the government to study more". the number of 18% said by physical force is more of a real coercian stat if true.
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 29, 2014 Author Posted March 29, 2014 It is perfectly fine to start a discussion with defining the terms and then take it from there. Whatever follows then refers to that exact definition. Sexual coercion is clearly defined so it should be obvious that it is something different than coercion in the libertarian legal sense. Noone is "loosely" redefining terms, it is stated very precisely what is meant by it.That Hayek analogy you use is a slippery slope logical fallacy. With exploitation I mean manipulation of another person for one's own advantage. AKA being a giant dickhead (clithead in this context ? ). I don't see that happening in a mutual employee-employer written and signed wage for labor agreement. This study shows that sexual coercion leads to both distress and risky behavior for the 43 % of young men who have experienced sexual coercion. I care a lot about the well-being of men and this behavior perpetrated by women on men is not good. Women who do this should be called on it (as men has been for as long as I can remember for similar behaviors).
dsayers Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 A lot of behavior can be predatory and exploitive without it violating the NAP. This is one of those moral gray areas. There are a lot of people that believe that even a post-pubescent adolescent is not capable of consenting to sexual behavior because they cannot fully understand the ramifications. I happen to disagree with that in the abstract as any inability to reason, assess risk, defer gratification, etc would be a "pre-existing condition" from before the equipment was ready. That said, I do agree with the sentiment that there can exist a condition where consent cannot be granted. It is possible for somebody to be so drunk, the world is blurred to them. It's possible for somebody to consent and then pass out. I would argue that both of these scenarios would be rape if somebody had sex with them. Others might not agree, but we can certainly agree (my initial point) that even if it's not rape, it certainly doesn't mean that the person is innocent. I don't know that I would agree that it's possible for something to be both predatory and not violate property rights. I suppose I'm ambivalent on the subject since I'm generally unsympathetic in regards to fraud as it is a sort of cooperative occurrence. It is the responsibility of the person making any commitment to understand what that commitment entails.
cab21 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 looks like this study is on sexuality (including kissing and touching) rather than intercourse so it has examples of what the study considers coercian Verbal pressure "A girl wanted me to do oral sex to her. And begged. But I didn't do it.” Manipulation If my girlfriend is sad about something whether is concerning me or not she pressures me into having sexual intercourse with her” Physical force “. . . I was pushed into a bathroom by a girl and she started kissing me until I made her stop and explained that I didn't like her like that . . .” Substance use “. . . Well she told me she could drink a ton and was giving me double shots to ‘see if I could keep up'. After a couple hours things got blurry and I woke up next to her. Sexual seduction . . . she asked to come in and use the phone because she lost her cell phone. I passed out, she stripped herself then me but I just rolled over and passed out again.” Statutory rape I was coerced into sleeping with an older (woman] because I was told it would make a big boy. I was only 12 at the time the girl was 18 I believe Peer pressure “Friends pressuring me to have sex.” Internal obligation “. . . one time after several days of intercourse I was getting tired and didn't really want to have sex any more but I didn't want to let my partner down so I acted as if I wanted more.” with catagories like that, i am surprissed it's not closer to 100% that would report on of these
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 looks like this study is on sexuality (including kissing and touching) rather than intercourse It includes both: Half of the students said they ended up having intercourse, 10 percent reported an attempt to have intercourse and 40 percent said the result was kissing or fondling.
cab21 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 i meant to say "rather than just intercourse" drawing lines for behavior, i would put some of the categories on different sides. being thrown into the bathroom and kissed by force is on the coercive side. a person faking being into sex because of internal obligation is something more on the side of "how could the other person tell" with concern for well being, it;s like the people are doing the opposite of recommended choices with some of these peer pressure- get different friends internal obligation- get self knowledge? statutory rape- well that's a legal statutory thing, case by case basis but could recommend not having the sex sexual seduction- tell them no? then if the person continues leave? substance use- don't use substances physical force- here is one of actual coercian manipulation- choose other people? Verbal pressure- stand your ground if you don't want sex?
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Yes, I would certainly not be one for abolishing personal responsibility for ending up in bad situations as if no choices were made before the incidences. I agree with your list except the statutory rape; in the example you gave further up where a 12 year old boy had sex with an 18 year woman I think is borderline if not outright pedophilic behavior on the part of the woman.That said, women who do this are responsible for their manipulative behavior.I also feel a bit sad for young men who do not get proper advise from their family so they don't end up in these situations and when in them, how to respond. Furthermore, that their personal boundaries are so blurred that they think that when a woman has needs you should obey them in spite of not wanting to fulfill them.
dsayers Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 in the example you gave further up where a 12 year old boy had sex with an 18 year woman I think is borderline if not outright pedophilic behavior on the part of the woman. Pedophilia is a preference, not a behavior. I think you mean molestation or rape (common mistake). Not that I would necessarily agree with that conclusion, but you'd be saying what you meant to say.
GYre0ePJhZ Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Pedophilia is a preference, not a behavior. I think you mean molestation or rape (common mistake). Not that I would necessarily agree with that conclusion, but you'd be saying what you meant to say. Thanks for the correction. I mean child sexual abuse, yes.
cab21 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Pedophilia is prepubescent i dont know how far develuped the 12 year old was, or his relationship with the 18 year old if two 12 year olds have sex, with one saying "it will make you a big boy" or the "it will make you a big girl", are they considered eaqual status just by being 12? 6 years difference in age says nothing about the maturity levels, a 18 year old saying sex will make a person a big boy does not seem any more mature than a 12 year old listening to that. saying people are children till 18 seems like arbitrary number keeping people from maturity. a 12 year old does have, o genrally ought to have, the mental capacity to say no to a 18 year old or other teens or adults. would have to look at family stats, but there is also the case of rebellion when people go through puberty and sexual desire.
Recommended Posts