Page 2 of 5
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:09 pm
by username
tom p wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:56 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:22 am
Rex Piat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:14 pm
In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all
could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport',
No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.
And if someone goes beyond the expected/allowed degree of contact, then not only is there a referee on-hand to administer in-game justice; but the victim can even have recourse to the law should the assault be too great.
There is an assumption of organised matches here.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:19 pm
by Stephanie
[mod]I've split another couple of posts I missed off, apologies for that, if I've missed any others, please do report so I can make sure everything is in the right thread - Stephanie[/mod]
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:27 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:02 pm
I'm disappointed that the BBC report said that 38% of women in the survey have been subjected to unwanted acts, whereas it's 38% of 69% of women; as 31% of women have not said they've experienced them
Still appalling.
Not helped by poor reporting.
I don't think you've got the numbers right, there.
Question 2 had as its base 'All respondents who select 'have experienced' slapping, choking, gagging or spitting at Q1'. It has 1416 respondents, out of 2002 in Q1. 1416/2002=0.707 experiencing those forms of abuse. (We don't know anything about those who 'prefer not to say')
Adding up those who had experienced those acts unwillingly, be it sometimes (29%), most of the time (14%) or all of the time (10%) we get 53% of respondents.
So it's 53% of the 70.7% of original respondents, which gives 37.4865% by my maths, of women who confirm that they have experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:34 pm
by Woodchopper
username wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:09 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:56 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:22 am
No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.
And if someone goes beyond the expected/allowed degree of contact, then not only is there a referee on-hand to administer in-game justice; but the victim can even have recourse to the law should the assault be too great.
There is an assumption of organised matches here.
The same applies to disorganized matches. A reasonable person would be able to assume that a game of football would involve some physical contact, but also that other acts would not occur. For example, they could be assumed to have consented to shoving, but not to being bitten.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:55 pm
by Gfamily
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:27 pm
Gfamily wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:02 pm
I'm disappointed that the BBC report said that 38% of women in the survey have been subjected to unwanted acts, whereas it's 38% of 69% of women; as 31% of women have not said they've experienced them
Still appalling.
Not helped by poor reporting.
I don't think you've got the numbers right, there.
Question 2 had as its base 'All respondents who select 'have experienced' slapping, choking, gagging or spitting at Q1'. It has 1416 respondents, out of 2002 in Q1. 1416/2002=0.707 experiencing those forms of abuse. (We don't know anything about those who 'prefer not to say')
Adding up those who had experienced those acts unwillingly, be it sometimes (29%), most of the time (14%) or all of the time (10%) we get 53% of respondents.
So it's 53% of the 70.7% of original respondents, which gives 37.4865% by my maths, of women who confirm that they have experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex.
Yes, my mistake. Thanks for putting me right.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:12 pm
by username
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:34 pm
username wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:09 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:56 pm
And if someone goes beyond the expected/allowed degree of contact, then not only is there a referee on-hand to administer in-game justice; but the victim can even have recourse to the law should the assault be too great.
There is an assumption of organised matches here.
The same applies to disorganized matches. A reasonable person would be able to assume that a game of football would involve some physical contact, but also that other acts would not occur. For example, they could be assumed to have consented to shoving, but not to being bitten.
Yes, but rules are fluid and vary by groups of participants ime. Referees are not always present. Not every infraction of the rules elevates to the level of assault even when it breaks the rules; people might join a pickup game which was stricter or less strict than expected.
The bright lines we like to draw on paper do not always exist in three dimensions.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:41 pm
by Woodchopper
username wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:12 pm
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:34 pm
username wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:09 pm
There is an assumption of organised matches here.
The same applies to disorganized matches. A reasonable person would be able to assume that a game of football would involve some physical contact, but also that other acts would not occur. For example, they could be assumed to have consented to shoving, but not to being bitten.
Yes, but rules are fluid and vary by groups of participants ime. Referees are not always present. Not every infraction of the rules elevates to the level of assault even when it breaks the rules; people might join a pickup game which was stricter or less strict than expected.
The bright lines we like to draw on paper do not always exist in three dimensions.
Certainly, and such fuzzy situations are what courts are for.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:40 pm
by username
Yes, ultimately.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:37 pm
by tom p
Except that some things are not fuzzy.
In any game of footy in the park, hacking someone down or punching them in the face would neither be permitted nor tolerated and only a shitbag would do it
In this analogy, tackling, shoulder-barging and the other normal/borderline contact would be like scratching or light spanking or similar during sex. Some folks will be up for it, others would say no.
Hacking, elbowing, punching or spitting are like choking or slapping or punching or spitting on someone without request or prior consent/expectation during sex.
It's not nearly as difficult as you're making out. The grey areas are actually pretty small and easily negotiated by starting gently.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:56 pm
by username
tom p wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:37 pm
Except that some things are not fuzzy.
In any game of footy in the park, hacking someone down or punching them in the face would neither be permitted nor tolerated and only a shitbag would do it
In this analogy, tackling, shoulder-barging and the other normal/borderline contact would be like scratching or light spanking or similar during sex. Some folks will be up for it, others would say no.
Hacking, elbowing, punching or spitting are like choking or slapping or punching or spitting on someone without request or prior consent/expectation during sex.
It's not nearly as difficult as you're making out. The grey areas are actually pretty small and easily negotiated by starting gently.
Which is part of the problem with the survey. Much as there's a rush to pretend the terms are unambiguous, they are not, and they are lumped together in a way which renders the output quantitatively hollow.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:29 pm
by Bird on a Fire
username wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:56 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:37 pm
Except that some things are not fuzzy.
In any game of footy in the park, hacking someone down or punching them in the face would neither be permitted nor tolerated and only a shitbag would do it
In this analogy, tackling, shoulder-barging and the other normal/borderline contact would be like scratching or light spanking or similar during sex. Some folks will be up for it, others would say no.
Hacking, elbowing, punching or spitting are like choking or slapping or punching or spitting on someone without request or prior consent/expectation during sex.
It's not nearly as difficult as you're making out. The grey areas are actually pretty small and easily negotiated by starting gently.
Which is part of the problem with the survey. Much as there's a rush to pretend the terms are unambiguous, they are not, and they are lumped together in a way which renders the output quantitatively hollow.
I think the key point of the survey, though, is that the behaviours were unwanted.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:36 pm
by username
Sometimes over an unspecified period with an unspecified number of interactions some rather poorly defined actions were unwanted.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:42 pm
by Bird on a Fire
username wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Sometimes over an unspecified period with an unspecified number of interactions some rather poorly defined actions were unwanted.
Exactly.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:48 pm
by username
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:42 pm
username wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Sometimes over an unspecified period with an unspecified number of interactions some rather poorly defined actions were unwanted.
Exactly.
I'm glad you agree with my summary of the survey. It doesn't tell us much, does it?
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:54 pm
by Bird on a Fire
I think a lot of people were surprised and disappointed by the number of women who had unwantedly experienced those actions at all, as (however you define them) that would be unpleasant.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:59 pm
by username
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:54 pm
I think a lot of people were surprised and disappointed by the number of women who had unwantedly experienced those actions at all, as (however you define them) that would be unpleasant.
A. No one is surprised that it happens
B. The numbers are unreliable for the aforementioned reasons.
Seriously, this survey wouldn't pass muster with a junior marketing executive.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:02 pm
by Bird on a Fire
username wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:59 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:54 pm
I think a lot of people were surprised and disappointed by the number of women who had unwantedly experienced those actions at all, as (however you define them) that would be unpleasant.
A. No one is surprised that it happens
B. The numbers are unreliable for the aforementioned reasons.
Seriously, this survey wouldn't pass muster with a junior marketing executive.
What's your evidence for A? Some posters in the thread sound surprised to me.
As for B, how are the numbers unreliable? Or perhaps a better question is, what do you consider the best-case scenario that is supported by the data?
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:05 pm
by Bird on a Fire
A purely logical argument against A is that most women haven't experienced it, which means that most men aren't doing it, so obviously most people have no direct experience of it. As discussed, it's not something people generally talk about. So most people could be justified in thinking that it's very unusual, rather than quite common.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:11 pm
by username
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:05 pm
A purely logical argument against A is that most women haven't experienced it, which means that most men aren't doing it, so obviously most people have no direct experience of it. As discussed, it's not something people generally talk about. So most people could be justified in thinking that it's very unusual, rather than quite common.
Wrt people being shocked here, fair enough. In the wider world, depending on how
unwanted* is parsed I don't think shocked would work.
*as well as many other things already mentioned.
Eta The data supports very little at all, it being a bit f.cked.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:16 pm
by Bird on a Fire
I think we can safely conclude that about a third of women have been hit, choked, gagged and/or spat on during consensual sex when they didn't want to be.
Do you disagree?
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:21 pm
by username
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:16 pm
I think we can safely conclude that about a third of women have been hit, choked, gagged and/or spat on during consensual sex when they didn't want to be.
Do you disagree?
There is ambiguity in the statement. So I'm going to say that I neither agree or disagree, it's a crappy question. I've talked to people specifically about both hair pulling and spanking who said they didn't want it done
badly.
Badly meant too little or too much force. Do you see the problem?
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:29 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Hmmm. I'm not sure that's consistent with the wording of the question. I'd be surprised if that covered large proportion of responses
We could narrow it down to just the numbers of people who specifically said they felt pressured, threatened or forced, though.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:04 pm
by tom p
username wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:11 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:05 pm
A purely logical argument against A is that most women haven't experienced it, which means that most men aren't doing it, so obviously most people have no direct experience of it. As discussed, it's not something people generally talk about. So most people could be justified in thinking that it's very unusual, rather than quite common.
Wrt people being shocked here, fair enough. In the wider world, depending on how
unwanted* is parsed I don't think shocked would work.
*as well as many other things already mentioned.
Eta The data supports very little at all, it being a bit f.cked.
The reader will note how username here has slipped from "surprised" to "shocked" to make his opponent seem unreasonable and hysterical and to give him a straw man to attack later should he need it.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:09 pm
by username
Not really. I was out walking in the woods and just used the term carelessly.
I'm not surprised nor shocked such a questionable dataset was used by the bbc to suggest sexual violence was being normalized.
Re: Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:14 pm
by username
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:29 pm
Hmmm. I'm not sure that's consistent with the wording of the question. I'd be surprised if that covered large proportion of responses
We could narrow it down to just the numbers of people who specifically said they felt pressured, threatened or forced, though.
Not really, pressured is a moot term (was it just persuasion? Repeated requests to try something? Nagging?) That's a very wide gamut of meaning, again, the results fail any reasonable clarity. Thus is highly problematic when they're then used to claim the
scale of an issue.
Tbh this will probably run for ages. I would be both shocked and surprised for a similarly worded survey to get beyond "well this is a bit sh.t" on almost any other topic.
