Things that are making you crabbit! [4]

Norc wrote:if they had asked rape ofcourse no one would have answered what they did, they know the "correct" answer to that , the ting is, no one really know how to define rape so that's why they haven't written it. because they have to define it themselves.

Yes, I got that.   It's just a small point, as there is no real or material difference. What's described there would be rape, in all of the circumstances. And there is a legal definition of it. A moral one I might be a bit more hard pressed for.

And the answer is of course "no, in any circumstances." I don't really see it meriting a debate whitin the limits of the poll.  

One could of course discuss the limits of what might be considered rape morally outside the limits of the legal definition.

A disagreement always merits debate. Nearly half of males seem to think rape is okay, they clearly don't realize it's rape. You may think there's no room for debate because it clearly IS rape, but a lot of people need to get their thinking realigned. Just telling them "You're wrong" won't solve this problem; they need to understand why they're wrong.

I think many of the boys are reading this situations as an invitation to sex, perhaps as something the girl really wants but can't bring herself to ask for. This needs serious clarification.

Clearly you can discuss why those opinions exist and the reasons for them. But it doesn't alter the fact that they are in the wrong. You don't tell them "You are wrong," you tell them "You are wrong because this is the law and these are the moral and ethical rules and considerations our society is based and built upon."

I did contemplate them reading the question that way, but the simple fact of the matter is you can't hold someone down and force ( a dictionary definition of wich is rape) them to consentually have sex with you. It's as simple as that.

Now why they don't consider it as rape and the reasons for that might be an interesting subject for discussion, but let's not forget the bottom line. It is.

I think Norc's point about answering differently if the word 'rape' is used is a good one. If you start out telling them it's rape, suddenly they will not be willing to discuss their opinions. I think you have to have the discussion of their opinions first, then point out it's rape (assuming it hasn't already, though I'm sure it will have), then go on to discuss how this lack of understanding feeds into date rape.

True. And that was kind of my original point in pointing it out.

I have a quibble with telling people something is wrong because it's the law and there are moral and ethical rules to be followed.

I make a distinction between wrong and socially pragmatic. It's pragmatic that people follow rules/laws, but it's wrong even if such rules have not been formulated. I want people to realize the wrongness based on their own feelings of empathy and human understanding.

Some regulations/laws exist because it helps things go smoother if everyone's doing the same thing, and some exist because some people simply don't care (or don't think/understand) about others and need to be slapped around. I'd like to convert people into those who don't need to be slapped around.

Anyway, it's this nuanced moral discussion I'd like them to have. Then tell them "this is why it's called rape in ALL these situations."

We're obviously discussing means to an end here. And I'm not sure if the point we disagree upon isn't insignificantly small.

You are right up to a point. The law is the law. And ignorance of it is no defence for breaching it. I think it's fair to be blunt here.

Can laws be wrong? Sure. They are discussed and changed all the time.

But there are certain rules and  some basic human rights founded in the belief of the basic worth of a human being that I believe are real and necessary to society and can't be changed. Should they still be questioned and discussed? Yes, I think that is healthy.
It doesn't change their intrinsic part of modern enlightened society though.

In this case the action they see as allowable breaches both the law and those basic human rights of another person. And from my perspective that position is indefensible both ethically, morally and legally, and if anyone holds it I struggle to believe they have actually thought trough what they are claiming they believe.

yes, it's the thinking through we want to achieve.

Yeah, and you might be right that dialogue is more constructive than lecturing.

Though the basic situation of right and wrong here I don't seem inclined to leave. 

They need to come to a realization of why it's wrong, and it's not wrong just because society says it's wrong. The moral judgment needs to come from within. Else their decision making process in new and unusual situations will falter if they keep having to look outside themselves for the proper course.

If they answered the way they did simply because the word "rape" was not used, that tells you they haven't developed the inner guide that will tell them the difference between right and wrong in these situations.

Sexual situations are complicated, largely because men and women respond so differently. It needs to be discussed openly so that young people have a basis to guide themselves in complex situations. To a young mind, clearly the situations described in the survey were already too complex for them to navigate, and I think that comes from a lack of understanding of the human factors at play.

A lot going on here.  When I was at the University I took part in a series of alcohol studies in which they'd give us drinks of various strengths, then ask us to perform tasks and answer questions.

Some of the questions were moral judgment such as "Is it alright to steal?" which seems simple until you come to question like,

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Alcohol changes these things.

The morals of dating and sex are confusing enough, even without alcohol, with one part of the brain saying "yes" and another sometimes saying "bad idea".  

All of the questions in the survey with the highest vote by both male and female suggest some implied miscommunication, which I think speaks for a sympathy for the confusion as much as a lack of empathy for the victim.

Then consider that these were high school students, and there are plenty of studies that show the moral brain centers continue to develop well into the 20's and 30's.  I'm thinking it's no wonder there's confusion.

Yes, I'm open to that. And that the answers given might not have been something the participants would stand for in reality.

halfwise wrote:They need to come to a realization of why it's wrong, and it's not wrong just because society says it's wrong.  The moral judgment needs to come from within.  Else their decision making process in new and unusual situations will falter if they keep having to look outside themselves for the proper course.

If they answered the way they did simply because the word "rape" was not used, that tells you they haven't developed the inner guide that will tell them the difference between right and wrong in these situations.

Sexual situations are complicated, largely because men and women respond so differently.  It needs to be discussed openly so that young people have a basis to guide themselves in complex situations.  To a young mind, clearly the situations described in the survey were already too complex for them to navigate, and I think that comes from a lack of understanding of the human factors at play.

Yes, and why are the reasons of ethics and basic humanity I referenced above.

We are really having two discussions here it seems. I have never said it wouldn't help discussing and sorting out their misgivings, and helping them sorting these things out. But what's actually right and wrong is clear cut to me. Morally, ethically and legally. There can be no real discussion of that in itself.

And I'm not sure I see the issue as either complicated or too complex. It's made complicated and complex by going into it without proper founding, as you say. All of the questions is that poll were clear. There were only one answer. So why did so many get it wrong? That is an interesting question, I agree. But they did get it wrong. It's that part I feel isn't up for discussion.

So do we really disagree on anything... I don't know.  

I think where we disagree is you seem to feel a discussion is only a helpful afterthought, what is most important is that there is a right and wrong answer and they need to know the right answer.

I feel the discussion is more important, and the 'right' answer will come out of it. To me the most important thing is the process of finding that answer, so they will be able to go through that process in the future.

Fact checking the source. The data is from a study done in 1979, and the questions were asked differently than this implies. This image has created so much drama that there's now a web page just about it.

http://www.fearus.org/

Did a study really take place? Is this "real"?
The data originated from a study "Adolescents' Cues and Signals - Sex and Assault" by R Giarrusso ; P Johnson ; J Goodchilds ; G Zellman. [According to this book all were currently researchers at UCLA.] It was presented at the Western Psychological Association Meeting Symposium, 'Acquaintance Rape and Adolescent Sexuality,' in San Diego, California, April 1979. Click here for more information on the study, including who they interviewed.

However, the data in the picture that has been circulating has been misrepresented. The original study did not ask "Yes" or "No", but asked subjects on a five point scale. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out specifically what each point was, other then at the two extremes were "Yes" and "No". For more information, see the infograph/chart below.

Ah, it appears that the people who made the new image changed the the five point scale to 'never' versus shades of gray.  If 5 is a 'never', the new version we saw would take 4 as a 'yes'.

The shades of gray versus yes/no makes a huge difference.  As soon as you allow it, you encourage the poll takers to go to 'still wrong, but degrees of forgivable'.  Very different from right and wrong.

This is somewhat along the lines of BB's point that they should be taught that there are no shades of grey in these cases.

Exactly. And furthermore the study was being done in the 1970's in Los Angeles when psychologists were first trying to understand the causes date-rape, so the methodology was designed specifically to find the shades of gray.  That's a very different thing than what was suggested by the image. Context is everything!

halfwise wrote:I think where we disagree is you seem to feel a discussion is only a helpful afterthought, what is most important is that there is a right and wrong answer and they need to know the right answer.

I feel the discussion is more important, and the 'right' answer will come out of it.  To me the most important thing is the process of finding that answer, so they will be able to go through that process in the future.

Ah, yes. I think this is where we've been talking past each other.

No, I have no problems attacking it from that direction. But I'm not open to a discussion of wether rape is alright or not.

Though it seems the numbers might not have merited our discussion anyway, and I'm finding my point might have been a whole lot simpler than my rhetoric. But isn't that often the case.   

I think deep down most people know what is right and what is wrong, unless they are sociopaths, but people choose to ignore their better instincts due to selfishness, or society abetting certain behaviour. They may know date-rape is wrong but they feel their 'victim' is not worth considering much, or feel its easy to get out of because drink was involved. if people are surrounded by subliminal messages every day which normalize the objectification of a female body then certain messages and wires are going to get mixed up. Deep down people know this is wrong but choose to ignore it if it suits them.

Honestly I think a lot of date rapers are like stalkers: they just don't get that their intended doesn't feel the same way, or that maybe once they've consumated that connection they'll feel the same way.  They don't feel that they are stalking or raping.

Perhaps a black/white definition will help them see what they are doing is wrong, or perhaps they need to dig in deep and get their view of the world re-aligned.  Most likely both approaches are needed.

And some people are just self absorbed assholes who selfishly ignore their victims.  Social messages definitely make it easier for them.

Mrs Figg wrote: Deep down  people know this is wrong but [some people] choose to ignore it if it suits them.

That pretty much says it all.
[I added a couple words because there are many people who do act morally. I hope that's what you meant.]

by people I meant the date-rapers.

Ah, I misunderstood you then, though not by much I think.

It's something that makes me sad how many people (in the larger sense) know what's right and wrong(in a larger sense), but will ignore it if it's in their interests. I'm thinking in particular of a onetime friend who turned out to have been stealing because she thought nobody would notice, but it applies just as well to politicians making backdoor deals, businessmen cheating on their taxes, Wall Street inside traders, Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. They all know it's wrong, and they all do it anyway. What the #$#@ is wrong with people?  

well here its institutionalized selfishness. The more cunning and the more they dodge the law, the more celebrated and applauded they are. Berlusconi is the epitome of this. Thats why corruption is more a national hobby than anything to be guilty about. To be cunning and gain wealth is a positive. thankfully this is changing and it started during this current crisis. people realized the furbo down the road with a Ferrari wasnt paying taxes and part of organized crime, or they saw their politicians raking in cash while poor people were killing themselves after their buisness went bust. people began to get angry. Cunning is no longer fashionable. Its Amazing how things have changed,first with the Vatican then with Renzi coming to power. Now there is hope and every day the corrupt are being stripped of power and sent to prison. I hope this is a shift in the national psyche and corruption will no longer be tolerated with complacency.

That's wonderful news Mrs Figg! We could do with some more housecleaning over here, though I don't think the corruption and selfishness was ever quite as deeply entrenched.

It hard to believe how nice and charming such people can be, right up until they screw you out of your life savings. Bernie Madoff supported a lot of charities and many people thought he was a saint. It only increases the sense of violation when they take advantage of you. It makes it hard to trust anybody, which is the real crime.

I have a lot of hopes riding on the new Pope. I know the activism that's a part of the Latin American Catholic Church, and I'm frankly surprised Pope Francis was ever allowed into the Vatican. It has to be a sign that the Church recognizes it needs to clean house.

Just saw your new avatar......