Though in general i think science needs more rigor, this a was a fund article with a legit point. And the findings listed on drinking were interesting. (does reduce pain, and some people don't get hung over)
Can absolutely vouch for the pain reduction aspect. It's not exactly a pointed anesthetic in the way some medications are, but alcohol certainly dulls a lot of aches and moderate pains of the body. Though I think this is also partly due to the distracting effect of relaxed and socializing while drunk. Love it either way, in moderation.
Also, i'm one of those people who rarely suffers anything resembling a hangover, even after those rare nights of heavier drinking, but then maybe drinking only hard spirits helps, because sugar-loaded alcoholic drinks like wine, beer and cocktails are famous for creating some of the most monstrous hangovers among those who get hangovers in general.
The throughput of the liver for many of the enzymatic reactions that it performs, either for converting harmful chemical compounds into harmless substances, or for generating some conditionally-essential nutrients from precursors present in food, decreases in older people.
Because of this, when older, one should pay more attention to observing a healthy diet, which contains smaller amounts of harmful substances (e.g. alcohol) and enough quantities of all nutrients, including those that can be produced by a human body, but in insufficient quantities in older people (e.g. long-chain omega-3 fatty acids).
I'm in the same boat and recently read an article suggesting that with age, even one drink will have very detrimental effects on the whole night's sleep. The solution: have that drink or two much earlier, like 5 in the afternoon. I'm going to try it, but honestly it is in the evening that we want to drink.
That sounds rather sad... sure when I was 18 or 20 this would be cool, but then people eventually actually grow up and have adult lives. Its trivial to fall into alcoholism as billions have already achieved, normally unobservable by given person since all is fine and fun.
Btw hard liquors contain tons of sugars by principle, and ie good dry red wine comparatively little, in reasonable amounts of course.
> Btw hard liquors contain tons of sugars by principle
Seriously? At a quick search all results contain something like "Generally, pure alcohol or hard drinks such as vodka, whiskey, tequila, gin, and rum are absolutely sugar-free.".
Are you speaking of cocktails or the 20% alcohol sweet drinks?
>That sounds rather sad... sure when I was 18 or 20 this would be cool, but then people eventually actually grow up and have adult lives.
What exactly sounds sad? That some people can occasionally enjoy a few drinks and socialization without a hangover? Don't jump to some silly puritanical conclusion that this simple statement makes one an alcoholic or childish.
Many people of all ages enjoy a few drinks with friends without being sad infantile alcoholics, and nothing about "adult life" precludes being able to enjoy such things in moderation. How about climbing down from that high horse of absolutist judgement about how others should live their lives.
Also, no, do a simple bit of checking, hard liquor general contains very little or no sugar.
This is the reason for why I refrain from commenting on medications, especially opioids. Why would anyone be against, say, someone taking Kratom? Let people with chronic pain and/or anxiety and/or depression take it. Why would I be against them improving their quality of life as long as they are not posing any harm to society or even themselves? Some people really just want others to suffer, it seems.
And yeah, I do not think there is much harm in drinking alcohol socially either. Get a buzz, take a cab / Uber home, etc. If someone starts a fight because they are piss-poor drunk, or drives under the influence, that does pose harm to society, which changes a lot, IMO. But if you go home and grab a beer, why would I be against that? Not my business. I especially hate it when people think it is their business and they want to control other people's lives.
Like damn, come, swap with me (not you), have a chronic pain with severe anxiety and depression and we will see if you could just think it away like I am sometimes being told to do, or you know, just let me take what works for me without harming anyone, including even myself.
In college I was part of a research lab that did alcohol behavior studies at student parties. One thing we learned early on: the presence of alcohol testing turns it into a drinking contest. At least with stupid young college boys.
We'd show up to a frat party with a survey and breathalyzers and got people to line up before things got ... weird. As soon as word caught on that we were measuring blood alcohol levels, the boys would start chugging alcohol at dangerous rates to see who could blow the highest BAC. So much for promoting safe drinking behavior! And this would obviously invalidate the research, so we had to go in like a strike team and collect as much data before word got out!
> And if they did, a team of neuroscientists from the local university was waiting to gently torture them.
> The researchers were on site to test how well alcohol can numb pain.
> “Ethically, we can’t ask people to drink alcohol to levels they do in their day-to-day lives,”
> the point beyond which they felt proper consent was hard to establish.
How is this study ethical? Researchers declared they do not need formal consent, because that would be too hard, and just went on, to torture impaired people!
Universities were going on and on, how drunk people can not consent, and even saying hi to someone in a bar is unethical! And now serious research institute pulls this stunt with torturing people without their consent!
If a drunk person can't consent to sex because their judgement is impaired then they can't consent to anything, because their judgement is impaired. Why would sex be different from any other social interaction?
If someone can't consent to anything, can they be allowed on the street? Or even to stay in the same house as others?
I think it isn't black and white. There are acts which carry a greater responsibility than others, and there are levels of inebriation (the word itself already implying different levels of soundness of mind). Driving a car can be dangerous to self and others, hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication; sex is complicated, and is generally, widely accepted to require some form of consent in many countries, hence it becomes more problematic as the alcohol level rises.
Worth reminding the casual reader that the word 'consent' doesn't mean what most people today think it means. The word's definition only means "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". But a modern colloquial definition created in last decade and a half means "i am of sound body and mind to be able to have sex without regretting it later". That very specific definition belies a misunderstanding of what's going on in context. Confusion about this meaning (and its implications) leads to conversations that can't be concluded logically. Because the use of the word 'consent' varies depending on the context, it requires modifier words to express a specific situation.
You can agree to things when you're drunk, obviously. But are you of sound mind and body to not regret that agreement later? That's a specific kind or quality of consent which actually has no official definition or modifier-word (even though it's what a lot of people mean). Examples of what I mean: Do you have enough information to consent without regretting it later? That's informed consent. Have you stated with words or documents that you consent? That's explicit consent. Have you already agreed to certain things when entering the bar (like the rules of the bar, and law in general)? That's implied consent. Are there some things you agree to and others you don't? That's granular consent. Do you agree to be part of my mailing list, or will you click this button if you don't want to be part of my mailing list? That's opt-in and opt-out consent (and passive consent).
But there is no modifier word for "I both have all available information and am of enough sound mind and body to not regret this decision later". Use of this meaning in the wrong context doesn't make sense. You don't need information or sound mind and body to agree to basic social conventions, like a greeting, or holding open a door. And you implicitly consent to things like the Law as an adult member of a country.
Because of the lack of nuance when talking about the concept of consent, it has created a lot of confusion and backlash. It would be less controversial if we had more specific terms of art, to accurately communicate ideas and come to more logical conclusions. I think most of us all agree on acceptable forms of conduct, but we talk past each other when words don't carry enough information.
>hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication
How can a person with impaired judgement be expected to make sound decisions relating to the consequences of their actions? You could say "well, the person should have known better while they were sober than to start drinking when they knew they'd have to drive soon", and I could use that same logic for sex.
People can get really messed up if they feel like they were taken advantage of sexually. Thats why consent matters. For lots of social interactions that are less intimate, it really isn’t gonna hurt you if you regret them later.
I read your comment just now, but I feel like it’s tangential to my point. I think whether someone agrees to something is very important in a legal/social framework, but not really the thing morally. The more important thing is whether harm is actually done.
You're talking about the consequences of consent being violated. I'm asking something different. If "the reason why a drunk person can't consent to sex is because their judgement is impaired", then there's nothing in that sentence that makes sex special. Replace it with anything else and it's equally true. "The reason why a drunk person can't consent to a loan is because their judgement is impaired." That the consequences of consent being violated in one instance or another are different doesn't change the fact that consent to anything has been defined as impossible in that situation.
Isn't choosing to engage as a participant in a study more analogous to entering a contract which is also generally deemed inappropriate/invalid while under the influence?
Just saying there's a ton of grey area. I've never taken sex too seriously, meaning if I did something I regretted while impaired, I just shrugged it off. Other people obviously feel sex is a much bigger issue and regrettable situations are absolutely unacceptable to the point where it's their partners fault for somehow knowing how impaired you are, determining whether your consent is valid, etc. I personally don't get it, how it's become victim shaming to expect people to control their own selves. I get that date rape type stuff is very real and tragic but again, lots of grey area between that and regrettable drunk night out type stuff that's way more common. All to say, there exists a wide spectrum of what any given person may feel about this exact subject.
> A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15% is considered a very high level, resulting in severe impairment of balance, coordination, and muscle control, making walking and talking difficult. At this level, you may experience confusion, vomiting, loss of consciousness
How this intoxication level was measured? I seriously doubt they carried scales and analyzed blood samples, before asking for consent!
Which different countries use different constants to convert to blood alcohol concentrations. But the conversion factor isn’t constant, even if laws pretend it is.
The same “breath” reading could give you 15% different results depending on the country the test is taken in…
I can’t see it explicitly specified in the article, but let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill, it says “gently torture”, it’s clearly tong-and-cheek, I doubt it’s more than a pinprick.
Another thing that isn't fun is reading endless debates about what does and does not constitute rape. Some people legitimately believe that if a woman simply regrets having sex, the man is a rapist. Regardless of her behavior during the act, she could have been 100% into it, undress the guy, push him onto the bed and jump on top, but just because she changed her mind later he's now a disgusting rapist in some people's eyes.
And then there's a whole spectrum of other definitions all the way from there to the real definitions of rape. They're generally always in favor of women, for example if a man and a woman are drunk and they have sex, he is a rapist. If the woman didn't actually want to have sex but did it anyway without clearly expressing any kind of reluctance, guess what? Rapist. He should have read the signs, taken the hints, analyzed her body language etc.
Personally I think people are responsible for their own actions. If you get drunk and do something you regret, that's on you. If you don't like it, don't get drunk. If you go along with someone else's suggestion that's on you. It's your responsibility to stand up for yourself and say no if you don't want it. Men are people too, you can't just lock up some dude for years and completely destroy his life because some girl regrets having sex with him. What a lot of these people seem to be suggesting is that it should essentially be illegal for men to participate in sex, so that any woman he's had sex with can at any time completely destroy his life on a whim.
I get that there is nuance and grey areas, statutory rape is a thing and there are many examples of men abusing their power and status to get laid. That's a difficult topic but honestly if Harvey Weinstein tells some aspiring young actress that he'll cast her in a movie or whatever if she blows him then IMO it's still on her to stand up for herself. It's not pleasant, it's not okay, but it's also not rape. I do believe that kind of quid pro quo is illegal in some jurisdictions and by all means make it illegal if you can. It's basically prostitution, it just isn't rape.
On the other hand you have women actively using sex to manipulate men, it's not like these things only go one way. There are also lots of men who have had their lives ruined just from being accused of rape with no evidence.
A rule I've found to be generally quite reliable in life is that the extremists are always wrong. Any political group exists on a spectrum, and if they're too far to one side of that spectrum then they're probably crazy. That's my view of the extreme feminists and similar groups, they're too far out and their demands are unreasonable. They're not looking to make things equal, they're looking to give women power and advantages over men.
> if Harvey Weinstein tells some aspiring young actress that he'll cast her in a movie or whatever if she blows him then IMO it's still on her to stand up for herself.
I mostly agree with you, but this is a fuzzy boundary.
Boss: do ... with me or maybe I don't feel like employing you anymore
In my opinion this is not voluntary. It's extortion for sex which I would call rape. But how is it different from:
I employ you, if you ... me?
In both cases it's an ultimatum for sex -> employment.
I'm with you, like I said it's not okay. It just isn't rape, as I understand the word. Extortion sure. Despicable sure. Illegal I don't know but it definitely seems to me like it should be.
I just don't see any reason to use the word rape for it. I think people want to use it because it sounds bad and they want to express that this person is a bad person, but on the other hand it devalues the word in a way.
Like did he rape someone or did he "rape" someone? Any time I hear about some celebrity rape thing that's what I wonder. Is the guy a actual rapist or are people just putting the rape label on a less severe (although possibly still despicable) act?
It can be, but in the situation we're discussing not really. The actress is free to decline the offer.
Here's a thought experiment, imagine the offer is way worse. Imagine it's like "I'll mow your lawn if you have sex with me" is that rape? If you really don't want the sex you just say no and that's that, you mow the lawn yourself. I don't think most people would consider that person a rapist.
The difference here is that a better offer is harder to refuse. That does change the situation in a meaningful way but it's still entirely voluntary.
I'm not so sure about that. That's entirely the point here.
I think the difference here is that there is a work contract, but the sex isn't mentioned anywhere. If you would write that in the contract, then you would be right it's "just" prostitution. But in the cases we are discussing, that's generally not the case.
The situation between employee and and employer is generally not that of two equal-powered persons, which is why we have tons of protections there, including doubt if sex was really consensual.
This is getting downvoted a lot, probably because the title makes it sound frivolous which it isn't; it's a legit case in how to do a naturalistic study.
archive: https://archive.is/nRLrZ
Though in general i think science needs more rigor, this a was a fund article with a legit point. And the findings listed on drinking were interesting. (does reduce pain, and some people don't get hung over)
Can absolutely vouch for the pain reduction aspect. It's not exactly a pointed anesthetic in the way some medications are, but alcohol certainly dulls a lot of aches and moderate pains of the body. Though I think this is also partly due to the distracting effect of relaxed and socializing while drunk. Love it either way, in moderation.
Also, i'm one of those people who rarely suffers anything resembling a hangover, even after those rare nights of heavier drinking, but then maybe drinking only hard spirits helps, because sugar-loaded alcoholic drinks like wine, beer and cocktails are famous for creating some of the most monstrous hangovers among those who get hangovers in general.
Up until I turned 50 I was the same. Now a couple of drinks will have an impact the following day.
The throughput of the liver for many of the enzymatic reactions that it performs, either for converting harmful chemical compounds into harmless substances, or for generating some conditionally-essential nutrients from precursors present in food, decreases in older people.
Because of this, when older, one should pay more attention to observing a healthy diet, which contains smaller amounts of harmful substances (e.g. alcohol) and enough quantities of all nutrients, including those that can be produced by a human body, but in insufficient quantities in older people (e.g. long-chain omega-3 fatty acids).
I'm in the same boat and recently read an article suggesting that with age, even one drink will have very detrimental effects on the whole night's sleep. The solution: have that drink or two much earlier, like 5 in the afternoon. I'm going to try it, but honestly it is in the evening that we want to drink.
That sounds rather sad... sure when I was 18 or 20 this would be cool, but then people eventually actually grow up and have adult lives. Its trivial to fall into alcoholism as billions have already achieved, normally unobservable by given person since all is fine and fun.
Btw hard liquors contain tons of sugars by principle, and ie good dry red wine comparatively little, in reasonable amounts of course.
> Btw hard liquors contain tons of sugars by principle
Seriously? At a quick search all results contain something like "Generally, pure alcohol or hard drinks such as vodka, whiskey, tequila, gin, and rum are absolutely sugar-free.".
Are you speaking of cocktails or the 20% alcohol sweet drinks?
> Its trivial to fall into alcoholism as billions have already achieved
You're claiming over 1/8th of the planet is alcoholic? Citation needed.
>That sounds rather sad... sure when I was 18 or 20 this would be cool, but then people eventually actually grow up and have adult lives.
What exactly sounds sad? That some people can occasionally enjoy a few drinks and socialization without a hangover? Don't jump to some silly puritanical conclusion that this simple statement makes one an alcoholic or childish.
Many people of all ages enjoy a few drinks with friends without being sad infantile alcoholics, and nothing about "adult life" precludes being able to enjoy such things in moderation. How about climbing down from that high horse of absolutist judgement about how others should live their lives.
Also, no, do a simple bit of checking, hard liquor general contains very little or no sugar.
This is the reason for why I refrain from commenting on medications, especially opioids. Why would anyone be against, say, someone taking Kratom? Let people with chronic pain and/or anxiety and/or depression take it. Why would I be against them improving their quality of life as long as they are not posing any harm to society or even themselves? Some people really just want others to suffer, it seems.
And yeah, I do not think there is much harm in drinking alcohol socially either. Get a buzz, take a cab / Uber home, etc. If someone starts a fight because they are piss-poor drunk, or drives under the influence, that does pose harm to society, which changes a lot, IMO. But if you go home and grab a beer, why would I be against that? Not my business. I especially hate it when people think it is their business and they want to control other people's lives.
Like damn, come, swap with me (not you), have a chronic pain with severe anxiety and depression and we will see if you could just think it away like I am sometimes being told to do, or you know, just let me take what works for me without harming anyone, including even myself.
More rigor is always good, but there’s also value in studying messy real-world behavior as it happens
With all our smartwatches and social media apps tracking us, aren't we all already part of some giant, unofficial naturalistic study?
The data is unfortunately not quite open and not meant for science, but for advertisement and propaganda.
In college I was part of a research lab that did alcohol behavior studies at student parties. One thing we learned early on: the presence of alcohol testing turns it into a drinking contest. At least with stupid young college boys.
We'd show up to a frat party with a survey and breathalyzers and got people to line up before things got ... weird. As soon as word caught on that we were measuring blood alcohol levels, the boys would start chugging alcohol at dangerous rates to see who could blow the highest BAC. So much for promoting safe drinking behavior! And this would obviously invalidate the research, so we had to go in like a strike team and collect as much data before word got out!
> And if they did, a team of neuroscientists from the local university was waiting to gently torture them.
> The researchers were on site to test how well alcohol can numb pain.
> “Ethically, we can’t ask people to drink alcohol to levels they do in their day-to-day lives,”
> the point beyond which they felt proper consent was hard to establish.
How is this study ethical? Researchers declared they do not need formal consent, because that would be too hard, and just went on, to torture impaired people!
Universities were going on and on, how drunk people can not consent, and even saying hi to someone in a bar is unethical! And now serious research institute pulls this stunt with torturing people without their consent!
> Universities were going on and on, how drunk people can not consent, and even saying hi to someone in a bar is unethical!
Actually they've been saying that drunk people can't consent to sex, not to saying "hi." Bit of a difference, that.
If a drunk person can't consent to sex because their judgement is impaired then they can't consent to anything, because their judgement is impaired. Why would sex be different from any other social interaction?
If someone can't consent to anything, can they be allowed on the street? Or even to stay in the same house as others?
I think it isn't black and white. There are acts which carry a greater responsibility than others, and there are levels of inebriation (the word itself already implying different levels of soundness of mind). Driving a car can be dangerous to self and others, hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication; sex is complicated, and is generally, widely accepted to require some form of consent in many countries, hence it becomes more problematic as the alcohol level rises.
Worth reminding the casual reader that the word 'consent' doesn't mean what most people today think it means. The word's definition only means "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". But a modern colloquial definition created in last decade and a half means "i am of sound body and mind to be able to have sex without regretting it later". That very specific definition belies a misunderstanding of what's going on in context. Confusion about this meaning (and its implications) leads to conversations that can't be concluded logically. Because the use of the word 'consent' varies depending on the context, it requires modifier words to express a specific situation.
You can agree to things when you're drunk, obviously. But are you of sound mind and body to not regret that agreement later? That's a specific kind or quality of consent which actually has no official definition or modifier-word (even though it's what a lot of people mean). Examples of what I mean: Do you have enough information to consent without regretting it later? That's informed consent. Have you stated with words or documents that you consent? That's explicit consent. Have you already agreed to certain things when entering the bar (like the rules of the bar, and law in general)? That's implied consent. Are there some things you agree to and others you don't? That's granular consent. Do you agree to be part of my mailing list, or will you click this button if you don't want to be part of my mailing list? That's opt-in and opt-out consent (and passive consent).
But there is no modifier word for "I both have all available information and am of enough sound mind and body to not regret this decision later". Use of this meaning in the wrong context doesn't make sense. You don't need information or sound mind and body to agree to basic social conventions, like a greeting, or holding open a door. And you implicitly consent to things like the Law as an adult member of a country.
Because of the lack of nuance when talking about the concept of consent, it has created a lot of confusion and backlash. It would be less controversial if we had more specific terms of art, to accurately communicate ideas and come to more logical conclusions. I think most of us all agree on acceptable forms of conduct, but we talk past each other when words don't carry enough information.
> But are you of sound mind and body to not regret that agreement later?
People of "sound mind and body" sometimes later regret their choices. That sounds like an impossibly high expectation.
>hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication
How can a person with impaired judgement be expected to make sound decisions relating to the consequences of their actions? You could say "well, the person should have known better while they were sober than to start drinking when they knew they'd have to drive soon", and I could use that same logic for sex.
> If someone can't consent to anything, can they be allowed on the street?
Well, public intoxication is illegal where I live, so presumably no.
People can get really messed up if they feel like they were taken advantage of sexually. Thats why consent matters. For lots of social interactions that are less intimate, it really isn’t gonna hurt you if you regret them later.
See my response under a sibling comment. The consequences of consent being violated != whether consent can be given.
I read your comment just now, but I feel like it’s tangential to my point. I think whether someone agrees to something is very important in a legal/social framework, but not really the thing morally. The more important thing is whether harm is actually done.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/intoxication/
But I think the key difference is the potential for harm and power imbalance involved
You're talking about the consequences of consent being violated. I'm asking something different. If "the reason why a drunk person can't consent to sex is because their judgement is impaired", then there's nothing in that sentence that makes sex special. Replace it with anything else and it's equally true. "The reason why a drunk person can't consent to a loan is because their judgement is impaired." That the consequences of consent being violated in one instance or another are different doesn't change the fact that consent to anything has been defined as impossible in that situation.
I don't know how literal "saying hi" was meant here, but greeting doesn't need consent.
I didn't take it literally, either. My question is equally applicable if we replace "saying hi" with "participating in an experiment".
Oh, I did. There are some human interactions you don't need consent for i.e. you have automatic consent by the people existing.
Isn't choosing to engage as a participant in a study more analogous to entering a contract which is also generally deemed inappropriate/invalid while under the influence?
Just saying there's a ton of grey area. I've never taken sex too seriously, meaning if I did something I regretted while impaired, I just shrugged it off. Other people obviously feel sex is a much bigger issue and regrettable situations are absolutely unacceptable to the point where it's their partners fault for somehow knowing how impaired you are, determining whether your consent is valid, etc. I personally don't get it, how it's become victim shaming to expect people to control their own selves. I get that date rape type stuff is very real and tragic but again, lots of grey area between that and regrettable drunk night out type stuff that's way more common. All to say, there exists a wide spectrum of what any given person may feel about this exact subject.
[flagged]
I'm pretty sure they're saying they didn't experiment on anyone over 0.15 BAC, because they felt that those people were unable to give true consent.
> A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15% is considered a very high level, resulting in severe impairment of balance, coordination, and muscle control, making walking and talking difficult. At this level, you may experience confusion, vomiting, loss of consciousness
How this intoxication level was measured? I seriously doubt they carried scales and analyzed blood samples, before asking for consent!
Breathalyzer tests. Was that a real question?
https://www.startribune.com/does-booze-relieve-pain-u-resear...
Which different countries use different constants to convert to blood alcohol concentrations. But the conversion factor isn’t constant, even if laws pretend it is.
The same “breath” reading could give you 15% different results depending on the country the test is taken in…
https://www.dart-sensors.com/breath-alcohol-conversions-for-...
Oh, are you concerned that the event took place across multiple countries? That is a weird concern.
It's really weird how you made this about your inability to understand informed consent.
I can’t see it explicitly specified in the article, but let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill, it says “gently torture”, it’s clearly tong-and-cheek, I doubt it’s more than a pinprick.
> it says “gently torture”, it’s clearly tong-and-cheek
Tongs do not sound gentle!
They obviously made a typo. They meant "thong". That's why it's "thong-and-cheek".
Well now we're back to the topic of sexual consent!
Touché (but only conceptually). :D
[flagged]
You know what's not fun? Rape.
Another thing that isn't fun is reading endless debates about what does and does not constitute rape. Some people legitimately believe that if a woman simply regrets having sex, the man is a rapist. Regardless of her behavior during the act, she could have been 100% into it, undress the guy, push him onto the bed and jump on top, but just because she changed her mind later he's now a disgusting rapist in some people's eyes.
And then there's a whole spectrum of other definitions all the way from there to the real definitions of rape. They're generally always in favor of women, for example if a man and a woman are drunk and they have sex, he is a rapist. If the woman didn't actually want to have sex but did it anyway without clearly expressing any kind of reluctance, guess what? Rapist. He should have read the signs, taken the hints, analyzed her body language etc.
Personally I think people are responsible for their own actions. If you get drunk and do something you regret, that's on you. If you don't like it, don't get drunk. If you go along with someone else's suggestion that's on you. It's your responsibility to stand up for yourself and say no if you don't want it. Men are people too, you can't just lock up some dude for years and completely destroy his life because some girl regrets having sex with him. What a lot of these people seem to be suggesting is that it should essentially be illegal for men to participate in sex, so that any woman he's had sex with can at any time completely destroy his life on a whim.
I get that there is nuance and grey areas, statutory rape is a thing and there are many examples of men abusing their power and status to get laid. That's a difficult topic but honestly if Harvey Weinstein tells some aspiring young actress that he'll cast her in a movie or whatever if she blows him then IMO it's still on her to stand up for herself. It's not pleasant, it's not okay, but it's also not rape. I do believe that kind of quid pro quo is illegal in some jurisdictions and by all means make it illegal if you can. It's basically prostitution, it just isn't rape.
On the other hand you have women actively using sex to manipulate men, it's not like these things only go one way. There are also lots of men who have had their lives ruined just from being accused of rape with no evidence.
A rule I've found to be generally quite reliable in life is that the extremists are always wrong. Any political group exists on a spectrum, and if they're too far to one side of that spectrum then they're probably crazy. That's my view of the extreme feminists and similar groups, they're too far out and their demands are unreasonable. They're not looking to make things equal, they're looking to give women power and advantages over men.
> if Harvey Weinstein tells some aspiring young actress that he'll cast her in a movie or whatever if she blows him then IMO it's still on her to stand up for herself.
I mostly agree with you, but this is a fuzzy boundary.
In my opinion this is not voluntary. It's extortion for sex which I would call rape. But how is it different from: In both cases it's an ultimatum for sex -> employment.I'm with you, like I said it's not okay. It just isn't rape, as I understand the word. Extortion sure. Despicable sure. Illegal I don't know but it definitely seems to me like it should be.
I just don't see any reason to use the word rape for it. I think people want to use it because it sounds bad and they want to express that this person is a bad person, but on the other hand it devalues the word in a way.
Like did he rape someone or did he "rape" someone? Any time I hear about some celebrity rape thing that's what I wonder. Is the guy a actual rapist or are people just putting the rape label on a less severe (although possibly still despicable) act?
> I just don't see any reason to use the word rape for it.
That's what I disagree on. What's your definition of rape? I would define it as forcing someone to have sex. Is extortion not forcing someone?
It can be, but in the situation we're discussing not really. The actress is free to decline the offer.
Here's a thought experiment, imagine the offer is way worse. Imagine it's like "I'll mow your lawn if you have sex with me" is that rape? If you really don't want the sex you just say no and that's that, you mow the lawn yourself. I don't think most people would consider that person a rapist.
The difference here is that a better offer is harder to refuse. That does change the situation in a meaningful way but it's still entirely voluntary.
> The actress is free to decline the offer.
I'm not so sure about that. That's entirely the point here.
I think the difference here is that there is a work contract, but the sex isn't mentioned anywhere. If you would write that in the contract, then you would be right it's "just" prostitution. But in the cases we are discussing, that's generally not the case.
The situation between employee and and employer is generally not that of two equal-powered persons, which is why we have tons of protections there, including doubt if sex was really consensual.
There's definitely a tradeoff in terms of experimental control, but the real-world insight seems worth it.
They’re not drunk, honest.
This is getting downvoted a lot, probably because the title makes it sound frivolous which it isn't; it's a legit case in how to do a naturalistic study.
Posts can't be downvoted, only flagged.
This post and the update to the DOD. Is there a connection?
[dead]
[dead]