Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by dyqik » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:06 am

I don't think the description you've just given of "pressured" is moot. Pretty much all of what you just offered as options are abusive.

Pressured means the person felt pressured. This it means that there was a feeling that they should consent to something against their wishes.

And that is a problem.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:23 am

Feeling pressure to...

...do the laundry.

Persuasion is pressure.

The ambiguity is obvious.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by dyqik » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:41 am

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:23 am
Feeling pressure to...

...do the laundry.

Persuasion is pressure.

The ambiguity is obvious.
No, it's not. The context is obvious and makes it unambiguous.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by discovolante » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:11 am

Being 'persuaded' to do something can make it much more difficult to take the position that what the persuader is trying to do is wrong. 'I was only asking...' etc.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Tessa K » Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 am

dyqik wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:41 am
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:23 am
Feeling pressure to...

...do the laundry.

Persuasion is pressure.

The ambiguity is obvious.
No, it's not. The context is obvious and makes it unambiguous.
Seriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:00 am

Tessa K wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 am
dyqik wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:41 am
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:23 am
Feeling pressure to...

...do the laundry.

Persuasion is pressure.

The ambiguity is obvious.
No, it's not. The context is obvious and makes it unambiguous.
Seriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.
The whole point of this thread is quibbling. This is the quibbling safe-apace.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Tessa K » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:05 am

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:00 am
Tessa K wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:56 am
dyqik wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:41 am


No, it's not. The context is obvious and makes it unambiguous.
Seriously? You think that feeling you really should do some laundry is IN ANY WAY comparable to the subject under discussion here? As dyqik says, context is everything. Refusal to believe victims even if that's on the level of quibbling about data rather than looking at the bigger picture being indicated is a pretty fair indicator of a general attitude towards us, too.
The whole point of this thread is quibbling. This is the quibbling safe-apace.
There's quibbling about data and there's making really bad comparisons...

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:09 am

I'm showing that the words can have more than one sense. When a number of words with more than one sense are put together in a question with multiple choice answers that also have more than one sense the results are going to be unreliable. GIGO.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Tessa K » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:18 am

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:09 am
I'm showing that the words can have more than one sense. When a number of words with more than one sense are put together in a question with multiple choice answers that also have more than one sense the results are going to be unreliable. GIGO.
... which is why we're saying context is all. Keep up.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:27 am

Tessa K wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:18 am
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:09 am
I'm showing that the words can have more than one sense. When a number of words with more than one sense are put together in a question with multiple choice answers that also have more than one sense the results are going to be unreliable. GIGO.
... which is why we're saying context is all. Keep up.
Pressured is the first in the list of terms and most likely to get an ambiguous interpretation*. The more I think about the survey the more it appears designed to garner big numbers. Professional surveyors know how to manipulate likely responses.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:27 am

The comparison with doing laundry is pretty off. There's an obvious contextual difference between household chores and receiving violence during sex.

But the thing is, even if we take username's apparent belief that 38% of women have been nagged into being gently slapped, choked, gagged or spat on during sex when they would have preferred not to be - however plausible that reading of the survey may in fact be - I think most of us would agree that that is still a problem.

I can't come up with an interpretation of the data that is more generous than that to men. Any advance on nagging and gentle violence?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by dyqik » Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:20 am

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:09 am
I'm showing that the words can have more than one sense. When a number of words with more than one sense are put together in a question with multiple choice answers that also have more than one sense the results are going to be unreliable. GIGO.
You haven't shown anything other than that you don't understand social science.

To criticize question wording like this without it being stupid nitpicking, and revealing of your biases, you first need to show that enough people would not understand it to render the results suspect. You've made no attempt at that.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by dyqik » Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:40 am

By the way, one of the first things to do if you suspect that there's an issue with question wording on a survey is to go and look at the trial phase of the survey, where things like question wording are tested by following up with participants, or are tested as part of live interviews. That might be part of this survey program, or this form of words may have been tested previously in other surveys or methods.

What you shouldn't do is assume that the researchers just write down questions then send the survey out without thinking about it first.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:15 pm

Screenshot_20191206-071136.png
Screenshot_20191206-071136.png (358.76 KiB) Viewed 5084 times
There are other testimonials lauding more scientific approaches to be fair.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by dyqik » Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:21 pm

Are you actually theorist?

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 pm

Getting pretty gung ho with the ad homs against posters.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pm

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 pm
Getting pretty gung ho with the ad homs against posters.
Pointing out that the survey company had a commercial motive and that the researchers had a publicity motive is also an ad-hom argument.

I notice you are still ignoring my question. You have thought up all sorts of possible alternative readings of various questions. What you need to do next is think it though, specifically and in detail: so what?

For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:47 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pm
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:09 pm
Getting pretty gung ho with the ad homs against posters.
Pointing out that the survey company had a commercial motive and that the researchers had a publicity motive is also an ad-hom argument.
If an unsupported statement is made about pretesting etc. I am at perfect liberty to look at the offerings of the survey company. That's not an ad hom at a poster, and if a company is in the business of conducting surveys to build stories, in the context of discussing possible flaws in a survey it's pretty relevant.
I notice you are still ignoring my question. You have thought up all sorts of possible alternative readings of various questions. What you need to do next is think it though, specifically and in detail: so what?


For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
It is unambiguously not supported by the data.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:13 pm

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:47 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pm
For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
It is unambiguously not supported by the data.
I agree with you. We can't (without access to the raw data) get separate results for different kinds of behaviours.

How about "10% of women have experienced slapping (where a partner strikes you with open hand on any part of body), choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure), gagging (where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item) or spitting (where a partner spits on you) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to."?
Last edited by El Pollo Diablo on Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quote fuckup
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:13 pm
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:47 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:32 pm
For example, take the statement: "10% of women have experienced choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to." Is that statement
(A) supported by the data
(B) contradicted by the data
(C) impossible to say?
It is unambiguously not supported by the data.
I agree with you. We can't (without access to the raw data) get separate results for different kinds of behaviours.

How about "10% of women have experienced slapping (where a partner strikes you with open hand on any part of body), choking (where a partner places their hands around their neck and applies pressure), gagging (where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item) or spitting (where a partner spits on you) during consensual sex, when they didn't want to."?
No for different reasons as seem at length in previous posts.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:59 pm

Hmm. I think, then, that I haven't understood how the different parts of your argument work together.

I agree that we don't know, for example, whether the acts in question were done gently or violently. But I don't think you've ever suggested that they didn't take place at all.

I agree that we don't know in a lot of detail how the acts were unwanted. They could have been sprung by surprise, or they could have been reluctantly agreed to in advance as part of a quid pro quo.

But given the following points, which I've not seen you disagree with:
- 1416/2002 respondents said that they had experienced at least one of those behaviours at least once
- of them, 753 said that the behaviour was unwanted on at least one of the occasions that it occurred

it's hard for me to conclude other than that 753/2002=37.6% of respondents had unwantedly experienced at least one of those behaviours in some form or other in a way that they subsequently described as "unwanted".

For all the points of uncertainty that you have raised, which are all in some way valid, I don't see how any combination adds up to a negation of that result. Am I missing something?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm

Yes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.

Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:28 pm

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm
Yes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.
But why?

The fact that there is some general uncertainty about how acts were performed and how people felt doesn't mean that we have to completely distrust the entire thing, AFAICT.

Nothing that you've posted suggests that either
(a) respondents reported that behaviours happened when they didn't,
or (b) that respondents said the behaviours were unwanted when in fact they were wanted.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by jimbob » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:36 pm

username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm
Yes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.

Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
To echo BOAF - in what way?

Is there some selection bias in the respondents? Is there some bias in the respondents' responses? Is it something else?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

Post by username » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:39 pm

jimbob wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:36 pm
username wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 pm
Yes. The survey result is unreliable. That is the final step being missed.

Of course the subsequent reporting and sensationalistic claims by the bbc exacerbate the problems with the survey. None of this criticism suggests in any way that male sexual violence is not highly problematic, and as I and others have said, more research ought to be done. Reliance on these figures is fundamentally flawed imo.
To echo BOAF - in what way?

Is there some selection bias in the respondents? Is there some bias in the respondents' responses? Is it something else?
There are three pages here expressing problems with phrasing, aggregation etc. There's even a thread on good causes and bad stats over there with a link to a great blog post.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

Post Reply