CNN Reports on the "Promising Future" of the Steubenville Rapists

[Trieste]

I still can't find a free copy of it.  Emailed a friend who might be able to get her hands on it but until she gets back to me I can't access it.  What precisely is so flawed about it?

I think I found a copy of it on Google Scholar, when I looked.

[Kythia]

Right, that's interesting.  Thank you Trieste.

You p value of 0.9, Ephiral, is off so far as I can tell.  That's the p value for the five studied surveys agreeing, not for their reported values.  The p value for the reduction seen isn't given directly, just the averaged log odds value (-.221, 95% confidence of -.445 to 0.3).  With the 95% confidence ratio crossing 0, it doesn't have a p of less than 0.05 but thats all you can say.

It's also interesting to note the lack of any measurable effect in mixed gender groups (or, in mixed gender groups composed of college students willing to take the questionairre, etc etc etc.  Standard caveats).  I realise thats not a necessary component of your preferred method by any means, I simply mention it as the difference between women only groups and mixed gender groups was so striking.  It seems to be the takeaway point from the review.

So yeah.  All in all the effect isn't large but I disagree with your utility of 0.42% - as I say, I think you have misread there (though I reserve the right to look stupid, only given it a quick read through myself)

[Silk]

Just want to put something out there again

It's only a 0.42% effect of something right? Well just a cursory glance at Wikipedia so the numbers are likely inaccurate but the point still stands.   says the rate of rapes in the US is about 32 rate per 10,000 so were looking at 3,200 by using the 0.42 from that, your looking at 13 rapes avoided per 32,000 that might not mean a lot to the overall statistic, but that makes the world of difference for those 13 women, with the population being about 155 million women, in the US meaning that 0.42 is roughly 200k of the female population.

that alone is enough for me to think some resources should be spent in it, especially since it's effectively 0 cost. But as I said don't bother hating the numbers i used because they are likely wrong, but the principle that a percentage of a large number is still a large number.

[Ephiral]

All right, my data is even worse than I thought, and I'm arguing from very weak evidence. That's enough to make me fold.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Just an observation here.

I watched a 20/20 or Dateline crime program about the abduction of two young women in the Denver area by a young man named Travis Forbes.  Kenia Monge was murdered and Lydia Tillman survived a rape, beating and near death by arson only to suffer a debilitating stroke after being found and taken to the hospital.  They were are described as young and attractive and walking alone when taken.  Out of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of young attractive women on the scene those nights these two were taken because that is what the rapist was looking for.  The power that taking and raping and killing someone like that gave the rapist is the cause of the crime not the young woman herself. 

What I would like to see come out of educating our young people is a sense of self-preservation that extends to practicing safe behavior such as not leaving a person in your group to fend for themselves.  Keep looking for the person if you become separated or keep looking for your group or companion or find or call someone to be with you or come and get you.  If all you can do is not be seen as being alone you might have a better chance of escaping notice.  A group is better than an individual. 

Neither young woman did anything to provoke the crimes against them and they did not earn/merit/deserve what happened to them.  Yes, they are two of the hundreds of young women assaulted each year but I would never say they are only two because I could never diminish the value of a person's life that way. 

When you look at numbers and percentages you are looking at statistics.  Some people do this so they can avoid looking at the people who are the victims.  Each and every victim of a rape is as important as all of them put together.

[gaggedLouise]

Neither young woman did anything to provoke the crimes against them and they did not earn/merit/deserve what happened to them.  Yes, they are two of the hundreds of young women assaulted each year but I would never say they are only two because I could never diminish the value of a person's life that way. 

When you look at numbers and percentages you are looking at statistics.  Some people do this so they can avoid looking at the people who are the victims.  Each and every victim of a rape is as important as all of them put together.

*nods vigorously* Thanks, BeMi.

[Maiz]

Xiaomei is quite insistent that it is useless, has said so forcefully.

I don't bother defending reeducation because others on this thread make such a very good case for it that I feel I would be rpeaching to the choir.

I defend SA because it is something we as individuals can do.  Reeducation is a response on a broader social and organizational level, SA is a response on the grassroots individual level.

I defend SA because the study saying it does not work flies in the face of directly observed predator/prey early stage interaction.

I defend SA because it is so damn useful for so many things other than the narrow focus of rape prevention.

And doing away with Victim blaming... I couldn't agree more. Rape is unique. It is the only crime that attaches the burden of sin to the victim - literally in the case of current Sharia law, and not that long ago in the West -  and makes excuses for the rapist.   But reeducation is a long term process, it will take years, perhaps decades to have the impact we want it to have.  How do we deal with the rapists of today?  By being aware of our surroundings.  By not getting drunk in public, stoned in public - my God, Xiaomei's insistence that Alcohol consumption has no influence on rape is mind boggling!

Healergirl, I really need you to stop putting words in my mouth. I directly attacked your claim that rapists rape because of alcohol/drugs/psychological disorders. Being under the influence of alcohol doesn't okay someone's criminal actions. Or are you doing the Mel Gibson defense? Alcohol magically made him an antisemite, just like alcohol magically makes people rapists, right? It wasn't the mindset that he or rapists already had, I'm so sure. Rapists do not rape simply because they drink alcohol.

And you act like reeducation is some long term thing. You're the one throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  It doesn't have to take decades if it's effective. Again, look at lynching- while yes there were/are some high profiles cases past 1945 there was an incredible downfall within just a few years, because of a concentrated effort in changing society. So why can't we do the same with rape? You're acting like because it is so impossible, so gargantuan, when it's fucking not. Maybe if you did any anti-rape work you would realize that. But you are so easily able to focus on situational awareness. Guess what? Most the people I know who have been raped KNOW SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. That doesn't stop their family members or significant others from fondling them as they sleep, or coercing (which has been ignored in this discussion! five nos and one yes does not mean yes) them into having sex.

And I still find problem with focusing on situational awareness. You say there is no cost, but there is. It takes time and effort from telling people not to rape. Even now the focus is STILL on people being ~aware~ of their surroundings instead of how to tell people not to rape.

ETA: I find it really offensive that you think Situational Awareness is the only grassroots level thing that people can do. You do a disservice to all the people who run anti-rape campaigns, who start in their own communities, in their schools, in their cities.

[meikle]

ETA: I find it really offensive that you think Situational Awareness is the only grassroots level thing that people can do. You do a disservice to all the people who run anti-rape campaigns, who start in their own communities, in their schools, in their cities.

Just gonna go ahead and reiterate that putting signs that said, "sex with someone unable to consent = rape" in bathrooms in one city reduced sexual assault occurrences in that city by ten percent in one year.  So the idea that this part of culture can't be fixed, can't be changed, is somehow insurmountable -- it's baseless.  We've seen that even small efforts toward education -- education, not even blame-placing, not shaming -- can have a very significant impact in a short time.  If posting signs in bathrooms can reduce sexual assault by 10%, imagine what comprehensive education could do.

[Oniya]

Teaching respect of self and others can be done as part of regular schooling.  For free.  Without taking away from lesson time.

[Maiz]

Teaching respect of self and others can be done as part of regular schooling.  For free.  Without taking away from lesson time.

Schooling at k-12 level? Because even that will sadly be a fight especially for school districts in conservative areas with conservative curriculum. So no, even that would not be free.

[Oniya]

I'm not getting up to the sex bit yet.  I'm talking plain, simple, uncomplicated respect.  Respect yourself, respect your classmates, respect the teacher.  Be worthy of their respect in return. 

You'd be able to sell that up and down the Bible Belt.

[Shjade]

I directly attacked your claim that rapists rape because of alcohol/drugs/psychological disorders. Being under the influence of alcohol doesn't okay someone's criminal actions. Or are you doing the Mel Gibson defense? Alcohol magically made him an antisemite, just like alcohol magically makes people rapists, right? It wasn't the mindset that he or rapists already had, I'm so sure. Rapists do not rape simply because they drink alcohol.

People don't try to pick up other people at bars for future romantic relationships because they drink alcohol, either. But the alcohol might help some of them actually go and do what they wanted to do already.

Saying that alcohol might be a contributing factor isn't saying that being drunk excuses the behavior. Who's putting words into whose mouth now?

[Maiz]

People don't try to pick up other people at bars for future romantic relationships because they drink alcohol, either. But the alcohol might help some of them actually go and do what they wanted to do already.

Saying that alcohol might be a contributing factor isn't saying that being drunk excuses the behavior. Who's putting words into whose mouth now?

*shrugs*  My Opinion based on life experience, yours differs.  I can live with any perceived ridiculousness in your eyes.

And no, Xiaomei.  It does not. Rapists do not act like flipping a switch - unless they are already primed by alcohol or other drugs or psychological disorders of a rather severe magnitude..  There are warning signs that can be acted on.  The victim has many reasons - wishful thinking is a big factor- for not responding to the warning signs, but the warnings are there.

She's implying in that sentence that alcohol causes rapists to act like flipping a switch. Try backreading.

[Maiz]

I'm not getting up to the sex bit yet.  I'm talking plain, simple, uncomplicated respect.  Respect yourself, respect your classmates, respect the teacher.  Be worthy of their respect in return. 

You'd be able to sell that up and down the Bible Belt.

Very conservative areas teach respect as "girls should act like Proper Young Women" and all other sorts of gender stereotype bs. It seems uncontroversial on the outside, but when you have experience with dealing with this kind of thing you can understand/see how much it can upset powers that be.

[gaggedLouise]

She's implying in that sentence that alcohol causes rapists to act like flipping a switch. Try backreading.

Hell no, what she's saying is that only a small minority of rapists (actual or attempting rapists) are like the typical movie psychopath who goes from the image of a perfectly normal Mr. Nice Guy to a violent and relentless rapist or killer on the flick of a switch. Only a tiny fraction - and if you have one of those, *then* that kind of schizoid flipping is likely caused by some overdrinking or drug intake beforehand or serious mental disturbances (which doesn't have to equal that they've already been given a formal diagnosis for some mental illness).

No one's been saying that alcohol is the general motivator, or that it is ever an excuse for rape.

Cool down a bit, xiaomei, please, you are continuously misrepresenting what people are saying.

[Shjade]

Alcohol can have that effect on anyone. It incites behaviors that would unlikely surface otherwise. There's a reason it's so often involved in violent altercations, particularly domestic ones. There's a reason I don't hang out with people who are drunk (several reasons, actually, but that's another story). I wouldn't equate it with "flipping a switch," but I know damn well people do things drunk they wouldn't do sober, not because the alcohol "makes them do it," but because while inebriated they have fewer mental blocks holding them back from doing it.

[Maiz]

Healergirl misrepresented my own words about alcohol+rape. Where did she say a small minority of rapists anywhere? Where do you get that entire thing you wrong gaggedLouise from Rapists do not act like flipping a switch - unless they are already primed by alcohol....?  You can make assumptions about she means but those are her exact words. It's laughable to think that people can tell by visuals if someone is a rapist. How many rapist-defence teams have used the "but he's such a nice guy!" routine to discount a victim's story? Same thing for abusers. They hide their nature in order to fool others.

Shjade- you need to take a look at what you're saying because your post is the exact argument that people use to excuse rapists. When normal people are drunk they act foolish, they are maybe more honest than they mean to be

But they don't rape people unless they already have a rapist's mentality.

[Ephiral]

Alcohol can have that effect on anyone. It incites behaviors that would unlikely surface otherwise. There's a reason it's so often involved in violent altercations, particularly domestic ones. There's a reason I don't hang out with people who are drunk (several reasons, actually, but that's another story). I wouldn't equate it with "flipping a switch," but I know damn well people do things drunk they wouldn't do sober, not because the alcohol "makes them do it," but because while inebriated they have fewer mental blocks holding them back from doing it.

This... is what xiaomei is saying, I think. Rapists who rape when drunk... are already in a rapist's mindset. Alcohol doesn't make you do a damn thing you didn't want to do already, and is certainly no excuse.

[gaggedLouise]

xiaomei,

You're just counting on that people wouldn't go back beyond the words you're clipping out of context, back to what Healergirl actually wrote. She's been claiming consistently all along that most rapists, the vast majority, do not go from fake nice guys to brutal predator in a sudden flip, in just a moment. It's what she's been driving all through the thread and it's a key point of contention between the two of you isn't it? So when she is saying alcohol can make *some* people flip over and quite suddenly decide to go for rape, she is clearly showing that as an exception: alcohol or other drugs can lift off the blocks that held some people back from suddenly assaulting somebody else, but are not the actual reason for rape, and nor are they seen as an excuse. But you've clearly never heard of "the exception that makes the rule".

She and I have been discussing it in a string of pm's but I wouldn't bother to support her right now - I would have gladly left it to her - if it wasn't because she is offline for the night and you are taking advantage of her absence to try to score a few very dubious points.

[Maiz]

The irony in your post, gaggedLouise is hilarious since Healergirl spent a few posts talking about what my arguments supposedly are while I was not around. Also, it's really funny that you're trying to make me out as someone who seriously planned to attack someone while they were gone. Is this highschool?

Even in context, that post has some hefty implications and the only reason I brought them up is because she misrepresented my own words. Not to mention that maybe you have a better understanding of what she meant because you two are discussing it in threadsPMs, but going off what she posted alone has an entirely different meaning. So I can accept that she meant something else, but the thing is that she did not post it like that, nor did she clarify in thread. And that post I keep quoting says something else than what you're saying she meant. It's understandable mistakes happen. But don't blame it on me.

[Trieste]

Whoa, nelly.

Chill out, please. Posts are going from constructive to shrill.

This... is what xiaomei is saying, I think. Rapists who rape when drunk... are already in a rapist's mindset. Alcohol doesn't make you do a damn thing you didn't want to do already, and is certainly no excuse.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and not with an agenda: How is it that a rapist does what he wants to do despite drinking but the same does not apply to a victim? Alcohol is, according to the forensic tox folks, the most common date rape drug. Not GHB, not Rohypnol - alcohol. (In part, I suspect, because of passing out rather than any actual perceived consent, but I digress.) How does drunk == not able to consent if drunk =!= a change of desires or intentions?

I realize my question comes off as confrontational, but I'm asking on the assumption that there is a reasoning behind that apparent ... er, for lack of a better, less loaded term, double standard.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Without attaching blame to anyone or calling anyone a name let me say this.

A person who monitors their alcohol consumption remains to some extent in control of their actions even though their inhibitions may be relaxed.

A person who does not pay attention to the amount of alcohol they consume or who is pouring and no longer has control of their actions or retains awareness of their surroundings can be easily victimized. 

Are there people who cause this?  Yes.
Are there people who look for this?  Yes.
Are there people who take advantage of the opportunity?  Yes.
Is it right?  No.
If you drink less and remain aware is it easier to see the danger?  Yes.  But you have to know to look for it. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~Now, please be respectful and responsible with your comments if you would like your remarks to be taken seriously.~~~~~~~~~~~~

[consortium11]

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and not with an agenda: How is it that a rapist does what he wants to do despite drinking but the same does not apply to a victim? Alcohol is, according to the forensic tox folks, the most common date rape drug. Not GHB, not Rohypnol - alcohol. (In part, I suspect, because of passing out rather than any actual perceived consent, but I digress.) How does drunk == not able to consent if drunk =!= a change of desires or intentions?

I realize my question comes off as confrontational, but I'm asking on the assumption that there is a reasoning behind that apparent ... er, for lack of a better, less loaded term, double standard.

I'm certain I'm misunderstanding your post here Trieste.

I'll just start by saying that many jurisdictions (and me personally as well) separate out drunken consent from not being able to consent through drunkenness. The first term applies to someone who only consents because they're drunk... but they do consent (even if they wouldn't if sober). Assuming no drinks were spiked or the like I struggle to see a serious moral issue here; it's still somewhat immoral that someone would take advantage to an extent but in the great scheme of things it is a relatively minor issue. In contrast the second term applies to when someone is so drunk there is no way they could consent; often passed out but it can apply to situations where there is still some level of conciousness. That is clearly a huge moral issue and is rape. I know the U.K recognises the difference between the two situations (and as above, I likewise do).

Following that, my reading of your post is that you're essentially saying that if someone (male or female) drinks so much that they can't consent they're... for lack of a better term... "fair game". That is essence by deciding to drink so much they've given pre-emptive consent to anyone who wants to sexually assault them.

I'm sure that isn't what you meant... could you translate it to simpleton for me? I think you might be talking about situations where someone only consents because they're drunk as opposed to being unable to consent because they're drunk but I'd love some clarification.

[Maiz]

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and not with an agenda: How is it that a rapist does what he wants to do despite drinking but the same does not apply to a victim? Alcohol is, according to the forensic tox folks, the most common date rape drug. Not GHB, not Rohypnol - alcohol. (In part, I suspect, because of passing out rather than any actual perceived consent, but I digress.) How does drunk == not able to consent if drunk =!= a change of desires or intentions?

I realize my question comes off as confrontational, but I'm asking on the assumption that there is a reasoning behind that apparent ... er, for lack of a better, less loaded term, double standard.

I'm also a little unclear on what you are asking. I think that you might mean, correct me if im wrong, is why rapists are hold accountable for their drunk actions, and victims aren't? If that is what you mean, I would first say that I know of many cases where rapists purposefully pressure their victims to drink more than them (someone mentioned the documentary The Invisible War, which discusses rape in the military, and how alcohol plays a role). I think it would be interesting to find a study that looked at the differences of alcohol intake levels between rapists and their victims. Secondly, being intoxicated is not an excuse/defense for crime. If a thief stole something and was drinking while doing so, they will still be prosecuted for their crime. Third, the idea that victims should be accountable for their actions leading up to rape is victim-blaming. Lastly, even while drunk rapists are morally wrong. Consuming alcohol  should not be a way for rapists to lessen the severity of their crime. This goes back to the point that rapists, even while drinking, have the mentality of a rapist (like they think forcing someone to have sex while drunk is okay/among other ideas) before they have even touched alcohol. If you look at statistics about rape, something like 60-70% of rape is planned (up to 90% in cases of gang rape). So even if a rapist is drinking, there is a good chance they have already planned some part of the rape they commit or have some notion of what they are going to do.

I think it would be interesting to study the differences of intoxication levels in sexual assault,  as well as perpetrator behavior about their own alcohol consumption.

[Trieste]

Following that, my reading of your post is that you're essentially saying that if someone (male or female) drinks so much that they can't consent they're... for lack of a better term... "fair game". That is essence by deciding to drink so much they've given pre-emptive consent to anyone who wants to sexually assault them.

I'm sure that isn't what you meant... could you translate it to simpleton for me? I think you might be talking about situations where someone only consents because they're drunk as opposed to being unable to consent because they're drunk but I'd love some clarification.

I'm glad you realized how ludicrous it came off instead of assuming my bad wording was what I actually meant. My apologies. I might be able to clarify by specifying:


How does drunk == not able to consent on the part of the victim if drunk =!= a change of desires or intentions on the part of the attacker?

The rule of thumb I am familiar with is that if you wouldn't trust someone to drive, then you should not assume they are able to consent. Impaired is impaired. That is not necessarily coded into law (nor am I sure it should be) but the law doesn't cover everything, as we know.