Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Case in point; what is this business about rape? Feminists seek to expand the definition of rape to include things like "forced by word pressure without threats". This:

http://www.childtrends.org/files/Chi..._ForcedSex.pdf

....is meant to imply rape.

First, how did you decide the ChildTrends was a feminist organization?

Second, this was a series of questions they asked. They first asked “Have you ever been forced by a male to have vaginal intercourse against your
will?” I honestly don't think this is at all controversial as a working definition of rape.

They then followed up and asked about the ways in which their respondents felt it was involuntary.

You'll also note that your bugaboo was simply an option that respondents could choose to elaborate on why they said that they had been "forced"; they in no way said in their report that this was THEIR definition of forced sex. Their definition of forced sex was that respondents said that they were forced. Your big issue there seems to be that the researchers asked follow up questions to find out exactly what their respondents meant by "forced." Surely the gulags are next.

In addition, you'll note that the numbers add up to several hundred percent, because the respondents could choose more than one option, and based on the numbers, most who said "pressured by words" ALSO listed one of the more usual connotations of force. Unless your argument is that if a woman is physically held down AND pressured by words that means it can't be rape.

Fourth, these are women who for the most part are reporting on events that happened when they were still children. Given the points noted above, this further suggests an actual context.

Finally, and most amusing in this context, the report you linked studiously avoided the word "rape" and said "forced sex" because that is the exact question they asked people. The big crime against humanity here appears to be that they followed up and asked what people meant by "forced sex" and were honest in reporting the answers.

[miceelf]

"Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.

The next time the women heard from Cain was Christmas, when he sent them his gospel CD."


Maybe he really wanted the job.
Or the wine.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

All this is far to general. I want to know which hand went to the leg and which to the back of the head. I mean, really, how can we reconstruct the scene in our depraved yearning minds without such vital details?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by sapeye

All this is far to general. I want to know which hand went to the leg and which to the back of the head. I mean, really, how can we reconstruct the scene in our depraved yearning minds without such vital details?

Which hand to which leg and to what part of the leg. Furthermore, where were the woman's hands?

(Okay, we better leave it there, or else Bhtv will have to create another category of threads where to move sexually charged comments.)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

First, how did you decide the ChildTrends was a feminist organization?

I don't know that it is, that isn't the point. The point is this elastic definition of rape, which feminists are behind.

Second, this was a series of questions they asked. They first asked “Have you ever been forced by a male to have vaginal intercourse against your
will?” I honestly don't think this is at all controversial as a working definition of rape.

You yourself see this study as being about "rape", which is what is being implied by the word "force". What is controversial is the inclusion of "Told the Relationship would end" and "Pressured with words/actions without threats".

You'll also note that your bugaboo was simply an option that respondents could choose to elaborate on why they said that they had been "forced"; they in no way said in their report that this was THEIR definition of forced sex.

No, it is an umbrella that the authors of the study are using to define force, to imply rape.

In addition, you'll note that the numbers add up to several hundred percent, because the respondents could choose more than one option, and based on the numbers, most who said "pressured by words" ALSO listed one of the more usual connotations of force. Unless your argument is that if a woman is physically held down AND pressured by words that means it can't be rape.

They're exclusionary. "Pressured by words" is followed by "without threats". Most physical causes carry either violence or the threat of violence, so what I assume "Pressured by words" are the usual cajoling I'm sure many men engaged in when they were teenagers (Study of 18-24). To term this as "force" in order to suggest an abundance of rape is obscene.

Also note the category, "Threatened with ending the relationship" as an example of force. As if there is something illegitimate about someone ending a relationship because their sexual needs aren't being met.

Fourth, these are women who for the most part are reporting on events that happened when they were still children. Given the points noted above, this further suggests an actual context.

The largest share seems to be 15-16, which seems to be the modern median age of sexual activity these days.

Finally, and most amusing in this context, the report you linked studiously avoided the word "rape" and said "forced sex" because that is the exact question they asked people. The big crime against humanity here appears to be that they followed up and asked what people meant by "forced sex" and were honest in reporting the answers.

Except that you, yourself, unintentionally substitute the word "rape" for this study twice in your own post. Not surprising; the reason they use "force" is to plausibly expand the definition of rape, and implying they're the same.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by Ocean

(Okay, we better leave it there, or else Bhtv will have to create another category of threads where to move sexually charged comments.)

That's a great idea, Ocean! Of course it might thin the traffic to this main family thread.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

You yourself see this study as being about "rape", which is what is being implied by the word "force". What is controversial is the inclusion of "Told the Relationship would end" and "Pressured with words/actions without threats".

??? You brought this study up in the context of the definition of rape. The question they asked, for their definition of forced sex was "forced to have vaginal intercourse against your will". THAT's their definition of forced sex which seems fine to me.

The authors didn't include the above items in their definition of forced sex. The description of the study is clear. They asked whether the women were forced to have intercourse against their will. they then *after the women said whether they had had forced sex or not* asked the women who said they had been forced what they mean by "forced." They did not, as you seem to be implying, list all of the options and then conclude that "pressured with words" indicated "force."

The authors' definition of "forced" was "forced." They were also interested in what the RESPONDENTS meant by "forced" and so asked a long list of possible meanings, which the respondents could choose. Now, you might not agree with the respondents definition, but to pretend that the researchers were imposing that definition is a gross misreading of a pretty clear description of what happened. Asking the respondent what they meant doesn't mean that one agrees with all of the definitions one listed. It simply means that the researchers were doing their best to be as clear as possible in understanding what the RESPONDENTS (NOT the researchers, the respondents) meant by "forced sex." you're a smart guy, Sulla. I find it hard to believe that you are misreading the link you provided in such a fundamental way.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

They're exclusionary. "Pressured by words" is followed by "without threats". Most physical causes carry either violence or the threat of violence, so what I assume "Pressured by words" are the usual cajoling I'm sure many men engaged in when they were teenagers (Study of 18-24). To term this as "force" in order to suggest an abundance of rape is obscene.

They are separate options, but the respondents could choose more than one option. The fact that 61% said "pressured with words" and 57% said "physically held down" by definition means that the respondents could endorsre more than one option, unless you want to claim that the authors magically interviewed 118% of a sample.

In fact, if you look at the chart you are so exercised about, you can see that the average woman who responded listed 2.28 elements of "forced." So, it was the rare woman listed who ONLY listed one of the options they gave.

And, yes, the women were 18-24 when they were interviewed. The QUESTION THEY ANSWERED was about their FIRST experience of forced sex. From the link: "Most young adult women report being age 16 or
younger at the time of first forced sexual intercourse." Only 15% of the respondents were 18 or older at the incident they were reporting about.

Like I said earlier. I am open to a somewhat broadened definition of "forced sex" when we are talking about children. This is the whole logic behind statutory rape laws, which I assume you support, at least within some parameters.

And I am sorry, if you are an 11 year old girl, and your dad is 'pressuring you with words" to have sex, I don't think it's the end of the world to label the encounter "forced sex."

So, yes, in this study, the modal woman who listed "pressured with words" as one way she had been "forced" to have sex was:

1) younger than 16 when the incident occurred.
2) ALSO listed a more coercive form of "force" in addition to "pressured with words"

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Except that you, yourself, unintentionally substitute the word "rape" for this study twice in your own post. Not surprising; the reason they use "force" is to plausibly expand the definition of rape, and implying they're the same.

You got me. I assumed YOU were bringing up the study because you thought it said something about the definition of rape. If you weren't in fact doing so, if you didn't think that this study had any bearing on the definition of "rape", I rescind my mention of "rape" in my post.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

I don't see why a reporter doesn't ask Cain to re-enact the scenario, with a staffer, or something, so that everyone can evaluate how plausible it is.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don't see why a reporter doesn't ask Cain to re-enact the scenario, with a staffer, or something, so that everyone can evaluate how plausible it is.

Well, how much effort do you think he will put in making it believable?

I thought you were going to volunteer a video or something...

(Just kidding!)

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by miceelf

First, how did you decide the ChildTrends was a feminist organization?

Second, this was a series of questions they asked. They first asked “Have you ever been forced by a male to have vaginal intercourse against your
will?” I honestly don't think this is at all controversial as a working definition of rape.

They then followed up and asked about the ways in which their respondents felt it was involuntary.

You'll also note that your bugaboo was simply an option that respondents could choose to elaborate on why they said that they had been "forced"; they in no way said in their report that this was THEIR definition of forced sex. Their definition of forced sex was that respondents said that they were forced. Your big issue there seems to be that the researchers asked follow up questions to find out exactly what their respondents meant by "forced." Surely the gulags are next.

In addition, you'll note that the numbers add up to several hundred percent, because the respondents could choose more than one option, and based on the numbers, most who said "pressured by words" ALSO listed one of the more usual connotations of force. Unless your argument is that if a woman is physically held down AND pressured by words that means it can't be rape.

Fourth, these are women who for the most part are reporting on events that happened when they were still children. Given the points noted above, this further suggests an actual context.

Finally, and most amusing in this context, the report you linked studiously avoided the word "rape" and said "forced sex" because that is the exact question they asked people. The big crime against humanity here appears to be that they followed up and asked what people meant by "forced sex" and were honest in reporting the answers.

Nice post. As with Sugar, it pays to click the link and see if it says what Sulla thinks it says.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Nice post. As with Sugar, it pays to click the link and see if it says what Sulla thinks it says.

I strongly encourage anyone who is even within the vicinity of uncertainty about my interpretation vs. Sulla's to click the link.

[harkin]

Of course conservatives believe in sexual assault. Just because Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy never did prison time is no reason to blame the right.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I have never been one for shame.

Only if you have nothing to be ashamed of. That's the question though. If you take a historical, progressive view of history, we've all had a lot to be ashamed of. The basic feminist critique isn't interested in shaming, but in changing attitudes. If your attitude isn't a problem, then no worries, right?

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Like Bil Clinton when confronted with all his infidelities Cain too is following the same defense: lying threw his teeth. Do these pols expect us to be total morons that they are to be believed not all these women with coherent and believeable accounts of what really happened? Please, just tell the truth, we are not that stupid.

It probably goes to being one of these types, though, right? Big, powerful men taking really stupid chances - Clinton, Spitzer, Edwards, Weiner - doing really stupid things. Wouldn't they be the last ones to admit it?

I suppose I'd think of it in terms of self-destructive, addictive behavior, in which a lot of unconscious stuff is happening, with denial the first veil.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Only if you have nothing to be ashamed of. That's the question though. If you take a historical, progressive view of history, we've all had a lot to be ashamed of. The basic feminist critique isn't interested in shaming, but in changing attitudes. If your attitude isn't a problem, then no worries, right?

Such a simple straight forward message, and yet so difficult to understand for some.

When it comes to men that have that defensive attitude, always complaining about women's right to live in an environment of safety, free of harassment, intimidation or threat, I wonder how they would like their mothers, sisters or daughters to be treated.

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

It probably goes to being one of these types, though, right? Big, powerful men taking really stupid chances - Clinton, Spitzer, Edwards, Weiner - doing really stupid things. Wouldn't they be the last ones to admit it?

I suppose I'd think of it in terms of self-destructive, addictive behavior, in which a lot of unconscious stuff is happening, with denial the first veil.

Also, being a pol gives one a predisposition for hedging with the truth or lying, if you will.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sapeye

Why must there be someone somewhere? It seems to me that that's like saying the moon must be made of green cheese just because someone said it. We've all got shadows, it's just that many try to deny it.

Hoping for integrity is nothing like your silly analogy.
And yes I know we're all imperfect. I doubt there are many who are unaware of this.

[stephanie]

So any thoughts about the Huntsman discussion? (Note: I kept forgetting I wanted to ask this yesterday and now it may be too late, as Erick Erickson seems to have lost interest after the debate. Oh, well, I'm still interested.)

I think Michael is basically right that liberals/moderates would be less excited about Huntsman if he actually looked like a possible winner, but it's also true that so much of the reaction on both sides is not policy driven. McCain was liked by many moderates and some liberals for a long time on the basis of a very few policies or despite his policies, and similarly the candidates that the right seems to love/reject seem based more on pugnaciousness and how aggressive they are re the liberals vs. actual policy.

The unfortunate thing is that this is precisely the opposite of what would lead to an end to the counterproductive fighting, but of course the essence of the culture war is the idea that the idea side is not just wrong, but malicious, so someone like Huntsman seems threatening from that standpoint. (Similarly, the right seemed to dislike Weiner and the left like him way beyond what his actual policies would justify, because of his rhetoric.)

Anyway, in that I think ending the culture war is bad for the right and certain parts of the left, I think Huntsman is not a plausible candidate. If he were, though, I think the mere fact that he doesn't seem to hate the liberals and comes across like a reasonable guy and has a few positions that show he's willing to do his own thing all would mean that he'd probably maintain a lot of his popularity with the moderates and some liberals, even when his conservative record was more at issue. So Michael might be right that he's be the best possible candidate for conservatives and perhaps good for the conservative agenda in the short-term if he were to win the presidency. I also think he would have a strong chance of winning the presidency, and possibly a better one than Romney (definitely better than any of the others).

The calculation that taking focus off the culture war is in the long-term bad for the conservative movement may or may not be true, but the belief that it is would be why someone of Huntsman's temperament probably can't sell himself as the anti-Romney.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Anyway, in that I think ending the culture war is bad for the right and certain parts of the left, I think Huntsman is not a plausible candidate. If he were, though, I think the mere fact that he doesn't seem to hate the liberals and comes across like a reasonable guy and has a few positions that show he's willing to do his own thing all would mean that he'd probably maintain a lot of his popularity with the moderates and some liberals, even when his conservative record was more at issue. So Michael might be right that he's be the best possible candidate for conservatives and perhaps good for the conservative agenda in the short-term if he were to win the presidency. I also think he would have a strong chance of winning the presidency, and possibly a better one than Romney (definitely better than any of the others).

The calculation that taking focus off the culture war is in the long-term bad for the conservative movement may or may not be true, but the belief that it is would be why someone of Huntsman's temperament probably can't sell himself as the anti-Romney.

Agreed with Huntsman and I will point out that Romney himself AFAIK doesn't attack democrats and liberals per say, he saves most of his venom for Obama himself and not from "he is not one of us" positions YET ! Romney will have to either change his tune to keep conservatives somewhat interested through the general or undercut some of the culture-war stuff to keep moderates.

Another thing that can be counted on this year is that there will still be plenty of red meat dangling in front of the faithful to get them out to vote in form of referendums such as: anti-sharia law, ant-illegals, anti-gay marriage,anti-union, anti-abortion or fertilized-egg as citizen, anti-evolution, who knows what else.

Huntsman would seem to be more likely to stick to his guns, being more
authentic to who he is at the expense of the angrier conservatives.

To concur with your statement and to paraphrase Chuck Heston: You will have to take the Culture War from the Right's Cold DEAD HANDS !!

[kezboard]

So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges?

I think it's safe to assume that a politician who has acted so sketchily when faced with sexual harassment allegations is probably hiding something. I thought the same thing when Anthony Weiner wouldn't deny that it was his pecker in the picture.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I think it's safe to assume that a politician who has acted so sketchily when faced with sexual harassment allegations is probably hiding something. I thought the same thing when Anthony Weiner wouldn't deny that it was his pecker in the picture.

I think he said something about someone hacking the pecker picture. But largely, I agree. However, it is possible, is it not, that a man accused of sexual harassment may be innocent of said charges.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Huntsman would seem to be more likely to stick to his guns, being more
authentic to who he is at the expense of the angrier conservatives.

Here's Daniel Larison on his puzzlement at Huntsman's strategy and the reaction of conservatives to Huntsman. (My answer: it's not about policy.)

...why did someone with a largely solid conservative record attempt to follow McCain’s campaign strategy from 2000, which confirmed so many conservatives in their enduring contempt and hostility to McCain? Why would the foreign policy realist in the race make the inexplicable error of endorsing preventive war against Iran? How could someone with the most direct foreign policy experience in the race completely fail to hold the ideologues in the field accountable when they have endorsed reckless and dangerous policies? In short, how does a candidate with so many natural advantages manage to fritter them away so quickly? These are some of the things that continue to puzzle me about the Huntsman campaign.

The Huntsman campaign has been something of a puzzle from the start, but the conservative response to Huntsman’s candidacy has also been rather bizarre. On substance, Huntsman is hewing much more closely to current movement conservative line on fiscal and social issues than Romney, but he is widely perceived and treated as if his positions are well to the left of Romney’s.... In many respects, Huntsman is the anti-Romney so many conservatives keep demanding, but Romney’s reflexive anti-Obamaism is still more viscerally satisfying than Huntsman’s conviction that public service should transcend partisan tribalism.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Here's Daniel Larison on his puzzlement at Huntsman's strategy and the reaction of conservatives to Huntsman. (My answer: it's not about policy.)

Yeah true enough.

The Huntsman campaign has been something of a puzzle from the start, but the conservative response to Huntsman’s candidacy has also been rather bizarre. On substance, Huntsman is hewing much more closely to current movement conservative line on fiscal and social issues than Romney, but he is widely perceived and treated as if his positions are well to the left of Romney’s.... In many respects, Huntsman is the anti-Romney so many conservatives keep demanding, but Romney’s reflexive anti-Obamaism is still more viscerally satisfying than Huntsman’s conviction that public service should transcend partisan tribalism.

Ya reaps what ya sows. All of that anti-obama drama ( socialist, muslim, kenyan foreigner, the list goes on ) has seemed to work into the consciousness of conservatives so deeply that they can't seem to see things as clearly as they might. Conservative/Republicans of late seem to swinging at peoples lizard brains ( fear of the outsider and such ) to gain traction now they don't know how to interact with people on a more intellectual but no less substantial plane.