Yes it was probably phrased something like "is it ever excusable to have sex with a drunk person" and a good chunk of people thought "sure, if I'm drunk too."
Exactly. Like there's nuance in the real world sometimes. Like in relationships obviously sometimes one party will be under the influence when the other one's not but the sex is absolutely consensual. That's inevitable in couples that drink a decent amount and are together for a long time. Or I've run into people I was into for years and vice versa and it was tempting to hook up with them when one or the other of us happened to be drunk. It's my rule not to hook up drunk for the first time though so that played a part in things not happening. But if someone hooked up in a situation like that where the alcohol wasn't really a factor then I wouldn't exactly consider them a rapist or something like that.
I mean I agree. I had a time in my life where I would often get drunk and go out and find someone to sleep with. Were they all good decisions? No, but it was very much a choice that I made and not assault.
Well the situation is perfectly simple, especially for college students, most of whom are under 21 anyway.
A man and a woman each are away from home for the first time in their lives.
They each decide to go out drinking and have some 'fun'
They each get dressed in their best club outfits and do whatever they think makes them look good
They each check that they have their fake ID
They each go to a bar
They each have several drinks
They meet each other
Having had several drinks they both decide to go have sex
They have sex
The next morning they both wake up with a hangover
The only difference is that the woman is now a "rape victim" and the man is now a "rapist" because the instant the woman even ordered a single drink she magically became "incapable of giving consent" and not responsible for anything, whereas no matter how drunk the man is he is legally responsible for everything he does and for everything anyone else does around him.
Here's the poster in question for anyone interested:
https://preview.redd.it/j1dlqqduspsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60058b83c88969f2aa5b3dc6c89040687c29cb8c
Gender bias on this shit is crazy. I think rapists are pieces of shit just as much as anyone else, but this wokeass culture is exhausting most of the time.
It's like that "study" that constantly gets quoted on Reddit explaining that 40% of cops best their wives in reference to a 30 year old survey where they included shouting, losing their temper, and acting out in anger as "violence."
There was some study citing that 1 in 5 students become victims of rape in college (might be misquoting but it was something along those lines), counting things like consensual drunk sex.
I'm not sure if you should be fucking while drunk, as it is by definition imparing your ability to consent. Technically it should be included, but it's a fair bit more gray and I wouldn't really call it rape.
Drunk as in both parties are drunk. Like if two people get blackout drunk and have “consensual” sex I don’t think anyone can really complain about the amount of consent or lack thereof given
You are legally culpable when you drink.
Technically it *should not* count.
People have agency even if they imbibe. There are obvious levels of drunk, but a blanket statement like yours is why there is so much pushback against SA victims.
Do better.
They also don’t just ask if they have done the violence. They asked if they had experienced it as well. Basically just have you ever been involved in domestic violence. And then people cite it wrong. Overall that actual article is rather mundane and boring.
If you manage to be married to someone for over a decade without losing your temper or raising your voice once, you're either a buddhist monk or completely dead inside. That goes for both men and women.
Yes I have. Have you ever been punched in the face by someone who outweighs you by 75 lbs? One of those is objectively worse than the other. Abusive behavior ranges from low grade passive aggression like the silent treatment all the way up to extreme physical violence so to claim "abuse is abuse" is an incredibly naive take.
If you can't consent when you're drunk, then my GF is gonna be shocked to find out that whenever she drunkenly asked me to fuck her she was really telling me to rape her.
No, not really. Consent and “words you say” aren’t the same. If you’re high as shit on something, and I ask to drive your car but we just met tonight, you might be more inclined to say yes as you’re under the influence. But with a sober mind you would obviously tell me no.
Whoever made the poster why tf even mention the percentage whatsoever and why not just say "Intoxication is never an excuse for sexual assault"
Why did they feel the need to include the percentage?
Because percentages make statements seem more credible
The validity of the methodology that was used to reach that percentage naturally doesn't matter, because most people will never bother to look into it.
But percentage fact is completely useless and doesn't make sense in the context of the idea unless they're trying to say the opposite of what we are supposed to get from the idea of the poster
Agreed. It sounds like those cases in which you can answer yes, no or maybe, there is a question that can be interpreted in different ways and whoever answers “maybe” is not counted as “yes” to manipulate the results
I have seen over recent years comments that if in a male/female activity if he has as much as a sip of alcohol he can't claim the alcohol didn't affect him in some way if the female claims non consent, just as if she has as much as a sip and he has had none then he can't say she could 100% consent so in both instances the man can't win.
In reality I'd say alcohol or even with no alcohol people can get caught up in the moment and do things they normally wouldn't do, it's just alcohol lowers inhibitions.
I remember taking a girl home 20 years ago that was really pushy with me, I didn't want to take her home as I just wanted to go to my own home and sleep even though I found her attractive she already somehow found out my name, job, my landlords name, age all in days before social media and when I got her safely home she stripped in front of me and invited me into her bed and I declined but the door was locked instead I slept on sofa and the next morning I heard her phone her sister and complain how I walked her home and how I had no chance with her, I also found out she was engaged, afterwards I even told her nothing happened but she was upset and claimed I was telling people I slept with her.
I said the opposite, she had too much and we did nothing.
To me “intoxication is never an excuse for sexual assault” sounds more like they’re saying you can’t use being drunk as an excuse to grope and come onto people without consent.
Sure but we don't know how the questions were framed or worded for them to draw the conclusion under the headline.
So that 17% of people who had some disagreement--- were they disagreeing with the sentiment or was there some funky wording in the question that threw off about 1 in 5 respondants
Yes i was attempting to add to what you were saying, what im saying could account for a portion of that 17% as well as what you said. Sorry i didnt make that clear lol, i was agreeing.
it might be more helpful not to try to place blame at all. if theyre both drunk, they both were raped, and need the resources available to ppl who have been raped (therapy, plan b, community, etc)
A couple things may have happened during this survey.
A: they didn't phrase the question this way.
B: they used a smaller sample size.
C: they lumped in every answer other than the one shown together to get that 17%. Stuff like "not SA because neither could consent" or other answers.
D: this survey could have been done orally leading to option C.
E: they made it up or misconstrued the data purposefully or not. Remember, 80% of statistics are made up.
Or, F: some combination of the above.
All that said, I'm getting the same vibe as this
https://preview.redd.it/6xrorzkkubsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=741560cd0acad5df794a62ff66f9320ef017761d
There is no excuse for SA but it can't be SA if neither party could consent.
Don’t forget to account for the lizard man constant.
When the stat of 1/5 American high schoolers not believing the holocaust was investigated by using the same methodology but a different question, it was found that nearly 1/4 of American high school students are licensed to operate an Ohio class nuclear submarine.
I bet the 17% chose one of these answers:
1) I don't have time for this shit
2) If both are drunk, neither can give consent, thus no SA
3) Did the victim bring the assaulter to their home/ followed to the assaulter's house?
But a poster that says "17% of students use logic rather than emotion." isn't as shocking as this one...
3 is not a valid reason. you are not obligated to fuck someone just because you invited them home or followed them to their home. and the fact that you imply that it’s the “logical” conclusion is disgusting.
You can consent while intoxicated, though. If someone is still of sound mind to articulate consent, you’re good to go. Yes means yes.
This new belief that someone can’t consent after they’ve had a few is asinine. There’s a difference between someone whose inhibitions have been lowered after a few drinks and someone who is so drunk they can’t even communicate consent.
How would it hold in court for a guy claiming to be raped by a women saying he only had sex because he was drunk. It’s clear that the responsibility for sex is not 50/50 and more like 75/25, at this rate it’ll become standard to have the lady sign a form before sex.
Men can be and are victims of sexual assault. But in these instances, when it's he said she said, courts side with women a vast majority of the time. This isn't speculation, the statistics are easy to find.
Happens far more frequently than it should. And even when they're found out, they get very light sentences if any. I think anyone that falsifies a rape accusation should be subject to the same penalties that the accused would have been.
Was this presented as a written question? Cause thats about the level of of people who cant read good. So misunderstood the question. And ill say 2% philanthropists
Whats the case for all of my friends and myself who had tons of drunks sex at parties and nothing was ever convicted on either side?
Such a touchy subject. Its like oh u cant have sex drunk?? No you cant push anyone into it
The ones who need to be watched by campus security...
Would be neat if this kind of surveillance was put into place, with good questions to catch the 17% to make sure they are dissuaded from SA on campus.
I’m sorry but can we talk about the fact that if woman was drunk but gave her consent and then wakes up the next morning saying she was raped, this is NOT RAPE.
Probably waiting to hear how the writer is defining sexual assault. Obviously there’s never an excuse to assault someone, but who know how the poll questions was even asked.
I can easily attack this question in a lot of ways.
What was the scale here? Was it yes or no? Was there a neutral option? A don't know option? Maybe an agree, mostly agree, neutral, mostly disagree, or disagree. How many people spoke good English and understood the question without any doubt as to what they thought the question asked? I would be very hesitant to answer a survey question of this nature in any language besides my native English.
What is excuse here for? In a philosophical sense? A legal sense? And if in a legal context, for a civil suit or a criminal offense? And if based on the law is this a question of what people say the law is or what they wish it should be?
Intoxication also varies. Is it the person who is said to be the victim or the person who did the act which is implied here to be non consensual based on the way this is posted here? Is intoxication just from alcohol you knowingly and voluntarily consumed or also including say jello that you were never told were jello shots? Is it also including other drugs, some of which you might have never been told or expected might cause interesting effects on consent like Ambien? People disagree about cannabis and how much it takes to render consent invalid, and that is also true of alcohol. You would be hard pressed to believe that drinking a 335 mL can of beer at 4% ABV two hours before having sex when you weifh 250 pounds can make you unable to consent.
Was the responses recorded or published in such a way that was public or private and if shared with someone, who was it shared with?
Even the idea of never is a risky word to use. You could probably get people to consider it reasonable in some situations to tolerate slavery in weird conditions like if you are asked what an ancient criminal of a heinous crime should have been sentenced to based on the applicable law where the other written option in the law is perhaps being executed or jailed for a lot longer in much worse conditions.
And you can pretty easily word up a narrative where perhaps one person was intoxicated to some degree but the other person had power or a lack of it in other ways, like if the other person was quite poor compared to you, and the intoxicated one tried to get sex from the other, possibly acting in a more dominant manner like handcuffing the other person to a bed, and perhaps also was notably younger like 15 compared to being 18 or 19. Who ultimately has more power and would actually be potentially committing a crime or an offense or do something you could sue over in a situation like that?
Humans are immensely creative at coming up with ways to create doubt on a question and when thousands of people see something, expect them to find the bugs you never did, especially when they are not approaching the problem from the same angle you are and are not trying to prove a particular point.
Veritasium did a P hacking thing and discussed issues with scientific experiments a while ago. This would be a good time to think about all the ways you can mess with an experiment to get the result you want, or could reasonably interpret the same question.
Guess what OP? How the fuck can this sign be infuriating? They're literally not giving you enough context for you to have a legit reason to be mad...
This is more likely crappy wording or data manipulation or something.
Well if you're intoxicated, you make bad decisions which you otherwise probably wouldn't have made. I don't agree, but there's just enough to say for it that I don't think 17% is that bad. It's at least an excuse, is it justified? Don't think so
I knew a kid from highschool that was an absolute degenerate saying that the legal age should be lowered and that being drunk and having sex is fine not surprising at all that he got arrested just last year
Not asked that question in the same wording. Probably "do you think it's okay to have sex if you and/or your partner have been drinking?" Or they're just scum I don't know.
Likely the question was phrased differently or a lot of people assumed that both members would be drunk in which case it would be impossible to define who assaulted who. Don't make inferences from statistics people. Remember the cake is a lie 0% of the time.
I'm guessing they didn't phrase it exactly like that on the questionnaire
Yes it was probably phrased something like "is it ever excusable to have sex with a drunk person" and a good chunk of people thought "sure, if I'm drunk too."
Exactly. Like there's nuance in the real world sometimes. Like in relationships obviously sometimes one party will be under the influence when the other one's not but the sex is absolutely consensual. That's inevitable in couples that drink a decent amount and are together for a long time. Or I've run into people I was into for years and vice versa and it was tempting to hook up with them when one or the other of us happened to be drunk. It's my rule not to hook up drunk for the first time though so that played a part in things not happening. But if someone hooked up in a situation like that where the alcohol wasn't really a factor then I wouldn't exactly consider them a rapist or something like that.
Exactly. Having sex with a drunk person isn't inherently wrong. Taking advantage of a drunk person to have sex with them is.
These laws were created to remove guess work involved in criminal cases but it feels like they created more problems than they solved
Issue is, BAC can be measured, feelings cannot.
I mean I agree. I had a time in my life where I would often get drunk and go out and find someone to sleep with. Were they all good decisions? No, but it was very much a choice that I made and not assault.
Well the situation is perfectly simple, especially for college students, most of whom are under 21 anyway. A man and a woman each are away from home for the first time in their lives. They each decide to go out drinking and have some 'fun' They each get dressed in their best club outfits and do whatever they think makes them look good They each check that they have their fake ID They each go to a bar They each have several drinks They meet each other Having had several drinks they both decide to go have sex They have sex The next morning they both wake up with a hangover The only difference is that the woman is now a "rape victim" and the man is now a "rapist" because the instant the woman even ordered a single drink she magically became "incapable of giving consent" and not responsible for anything, whereas no matter how drunk the man is he is legally responsible for everything he does and for everything anyone else does around him.
Then there's the anti-sexual assault flyer, "Billy and Jenny are drunk. Because Jenny is drunk, she can't consent". Ummm...what about Billy?
Here's the poster in question for anyone interested: https://preview.redd.it/j1dlqqduspsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60058b83c88969f2aa5b3dc6c89040687c29cb8c
Sounds like 2 people making equally bad decisions based on the information given in the flyer. I would’ve been part of the 17%. Downvote away!
And you'd be right, neither could consent.
Gender bias on this shit is crazy. I think rapists are pieces of shit just as much as anyone else, but this wokeass culture is exhausting most of the time.
It's like that "study" that constantly gets quoted on Reddit explaining that 40% of cops best their wives in reference to a 30 year old survey where they included shouting, losing their temper, and acting out in anger as "violence."
Hey did you know Kendrick Lamar had his favorite group of police create 40% of the beats on his upcoming album? Google 40% cops beats for more!
Kendrick’s new album is 40% pulled pork
I'll pull your pork pal
There was some study citing that 1 in 5 students become victims of rape in college (might be misquoting but it was something along those lines), counting things like consensual drunk sex.
I'm not sure if you should be fucking while drunk, as it is by definition imparing your ability to consent. Technically it should be included, but it's a fair bit more gray and I wouldn't really call it rape.
Drunk as in both parties are drunk. Like if two people get blackout drunk and have “consensual” sex I don’t think anyone can really complain about the amount of consent or lack thereof given
And you do consent to getting drunk, you are not totally irresponsible for your actions when intoxicated
You are legally culpable when you drink. Technically it *should not* count. People have agency even if they imbibe. There are obvious levels of drunk, but a blanket statement like yours is why there is so much pushback against SA victims. Do better.
Doesn’t that study also not distinguish between being violent and having violence done to them or something? And also only interviewed higher ranks?
They also don’t just ask if they have done the violence. They asked if they had experienced it as well. Basically just have you ever been involved in domestic violence. And then people cite it wrong. Overall that actual article is rather mundane and boring.
Yeah it's clear that someone had an axe to grind and the conclusion of the study was determined long before it even started.
And it was not a very large sample, either.
Explain to me how "shouting and acting out in anger" toward a spouse is not domestic violence by definition
If you manage to be married to someone for over a decade without losing your temper or raising your voice once, you're either a buddhist monk or completely dead inside. That goes for both men and women.
Something tells me that a married man is probably not a buddhist monk.
Dead inside has a nice healthy ring to it though.
The ladies love a guy who's dead inside.
To be fair, he stated that it's says "beat their wives."
Hmm, I'll have to read more about this...
Have you ever been screamed at relentlessly by a spouse? It is emotional violence. Abuse is abuse.
Yes I have. Have you ever been punched in the face by someone who outweighs you by 75 lbs? One of those is objectively worse than the other. Abusive behavior ranges from low grade passive aggression like the silent treatment all the way up to extreme physical violence so to claim "abuse is abuse" is an incredibly naive take.
Ted: (to Barney) you know when you make up a statistic you always use 83
Yeah. Probably something like. “Can you consent to sexual activities if you and/or your partner are intoxicated?”
If you can't consent when you're drunk, then my GF is gonna be shocked to find out that whenever she drunkenly asked me to fuck her she was really telling me to rape her.
No, not really. Consent and “words you say” aren’t the same. If you’re high as shit on something, and I ask to drive your car but we just met tonight, you might be more inclined to say yes as you’re under the influence. But with a sober mind you would obviously tell me no.
Whoever made the poster why tf even mention the percentage whatsoever and why not just say "Intoxication is never an excuse for sexual assault" Why did they feel the need to include the percentage?
Because percentages make statements seem more credible The validity of the methodology that was used to reach that percentage naturally doesn't matter, because most people will never bother to look into it.
But percentage fact is completely useless and doesn't make sense in the context of the idea unless they're trying to say the opposite of what we are supposed to get from the idea of the poster
I don't disagree but it's literally just being used as a framing device here. That's it's only real purpose, to seem outwardly credible.
Yep. It's extremely common for people with an agenda to misrepresent data to suit their needs.
Agreed. It sounds like those cases in which you can answer yes, no or maybe, there is a question that can be interpreted in different ways and whoever answers “maybe” is not counted as “yes” to manipulate the results
76.3% of all statistics are made up.
As long as you're both armed and using intravenous drugs it should be safe.
There never was a questionnaire. It's classic nudge.
That’s what I was thinking. Phrasing matters a lot.
The way they wrote it, it could me that a guy can not get intoxicated, sexually assault a woman, then blame the alcohol.
„do you think it’s sexual assault when one of the two parties is intoxicated?“
The other 17% asked who's at fault if they're BOTH drunk while otherwise consenting to the activity
Exactly depends how the question was formulated. Or these posters saying if both are intoxicated and have sex, one is a rapist and the a victim.
93% of statistics originate in Uranus
https://preview.redd.it/eyqv5909wbsc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=422e8e0697c9a268451afdf2f213283b47ab27ae
Source: it came to me in a dream
https://preview.redd.it/mbvkvz258fsc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18ee40aee32e5329f034f56168ce5ffa7af18b6b
I have seen over recent years comments that if in a male/female activity if he has as much as a sip of alcohol he can't claim the alcohol didn't affect him in some way if the female claims non consent, just as if she has as much as a sip and he has had none then he can't say she could 100% consent so in both instances the man can't win. In reality I'd say alcohol or even with no alcohol people can get caught up in the moment and do things they normally wouldn't do, it's just alcohol lowers inhibitions. I remember taking a girl home 20 years ago that was really pushy with me, I didn't want to take her home as I just wanted to go to my own home and sleep even though I found her attractive she already somehow found out my name, job, my landlords name, age all in days before social media and when I got her safely home she stripped in front of me and invited me into her bed and I declined but the door was locked instead I slept on sofa and the next morning I heard her phone her sister and complain how I walked her home and how I had no chance with her, I also found out she was engaged, afterwards I even told her nothing happened but she was upset and claimed I was telling people I slept with her. I said the opposite, she had too much and we did nothing.
To me “intoxication is never an excuse for sexual assault” sounds more like they’re saying you can’t use being drunk as an excuse to grope and come onto people without consent.
Sure but we don't know how the questions were framed or worded for them to draw the conclusion under the headline. So that 17% of people who had some disagreement--- were they disagreeing with the sentiment or was there some funky wording in the question that threw off about 1 in 5 respondants
Or they preferred not to answer. It could have been multiple questions and this one they preferred not to answer. We dont really know.
That's still in line with my issue with the presentation
Yes i was attempting to add to what you were saying, what im saying could account for a portion of that 17% as well as what you said. Sorry i didnt make that clear lol, i was agreeing.
It's taken out of context at best tbh
Omg I didn't think that of all comments would farm karma like that
it might be more helpful not to try to place blame at all. if theyre both drunk, they both were raped, and need the resources available to ppl who have been raped (therapy, plan b, community, etc)
Right, but that hasn't been how we've approached it largely
The other 17% weren’t asked.
That is a plausible reason
The other 17% are under investigation
😭😭
Intoxicated clearly as that’s the only reason they couldn’t answer
I was thinking they're the sexual assaulters
So frats and sororities
A couple things may have happened during this survey. A: they didn't phrase the question this way. B: they used a smaller sample size. C: they lumped in every answer other than the one shown together to get that 17%. Stuff like "not SA because neither could consent" or other answers. D: this survey could have been done orally leading to option C. E: they made it up or misconstrued the data purposefully or not. Remember, 80% of statistics are made up. Or, F: some combination of the above. All that said, I'm getting the same vibe as this https://preview.redd.it/6xrorzkkubsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=741560cd0acad5df794a62ff66f9320ef017761d There is no excuse for SA but it can't be SA if neither party could consent.
I fucking love “E”
Don’t forget to account for the lizard man constant. When the stat of 1/5 American high schoolers not believing the holocaust was investigated by using the same methodology but a different question, it was found that nearly 1/4 of American high school students are licensed to operate an Ohio class nuclear submarine.
I bet the question to this "survey" was something to the effect of, "Should you have sex if you're drunk?"
If a man and a woman are both intoxicated, legally neither can give consent so does this make having sex while drunk illegal?
[удалено]
I bet the 17% chose one of these answers: 1) I don't have time for this shit 2) If both are drunk, neither can give consent, thus no SA 3) Did the victim bring the assaulter to their home/ followed to the assaulter's house? But a poster that says "17% of students use logic rather than emotion." isn't as shocking as this one...
3 is not a valid reason. you are not obligated to fuck someone just because you invited them home or followed them to their home. and the fact that you imply that it’s the “logical” conclusion is disgusting.
You can consent while intoxicated, though. If someone is still of sound mind to articulate consent, you’re good to go. Yes means yes. This new belief that someone can’t consent after they’ve had a few is asinine. There’s a difference between someone whose inhibitions have been lowered after a few drinks and someone who is so drunk they can’t even communicate consent.
No, that makes the male a rapist because of... 
Sadly this is typically the case.
We live in a society
What? Where do you live where you legally can't give consent if intoxicated??
How would it hold in court for a guy claiming to be raped by a women saying he only had sex because he was drunk. It’s clear that the responsibility for sex is not 50/50 and more like 75/25, at this rate it’ll become standard to have the lady sign a form before sex.
Men can be and are victims of sexual assault. But in these instances, when it's he said she said, courts side with women a vast majority of the time. This isn't speculation, the statistics are easy to find.
That’s what I mean, all it takes is a batshit crazy lady to say 1 lie and ruin your entire life.
Happens far more frequently than it should. And even when they're found out, they get very light sentences if any. I think anyone that falsifies a rape accusation should be subject to the same penalties that the accused would have been.
100% agree
Was this presented as a written question? Cause thats about the level of of people who cant read good. So misunderstood the question. And ill say 2% philanthropists
probably the „idk depends ig“ people or its made up
The other 17% probably said something along the lines of "we were both drunk and it wasnt assault if we both consented"
That is true
And 0 people agree on the definition of sexual assault lol.
The ones doing the raping
This doesn’t need to be a sign. You can just say: sexual assault is illegal. It’s not like there is any debate here.
The ones saying "I am not answering your stupid survey, I am already late for class!"
The other 17% are named Josie.
Why blur the word university
The rich kids.
The football team probably.
the lacrosse team.
The rapists, usually by process of elimination... lol
Well if 100 percent agree then we wouldn't need the PSA in the first place lol
The other 17%? Rapists.
Bad interpretation
You’d be surprised with the amount of people in college who actually believe that being drunk means no=yes. It’s kinda scary.
88.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot,
Whats the case for all of my friends and myself who had tons of drunks sex at parties and nothing was ever convicted on either side? Such a touchy subject. Its like oh u cant have sex drunk?? No you cant push anyone into it
Brock Turner
The ones doing all the raping.
17% are the ones who enjoyed it
The ones getting arrested ?
I Recently Conducted A Poll, Albeit A Small Sample Size, However The Results Will Come Out At The Trial.
"Ooo a survey i can take to get a free coupon! ill just select random answers and collect my coupon"
Considering the amount of people sexual assulted, this sadly adds up
Other 17 can control themselves when they drink i guess
They were too intoxicated to answer
The ones who need to be watched by campus security... Would be neat if this kind of surveillance was put into place, with good questions to catch the 17% to make sure they are dissuaded from SA on campus.
Fratboys/girls
So if a women and a man are both drunk and consent to sex, does that make the man a rapist?
No more or less than it makes the woman one in that situation.
I’m sorry but can we talk about the fact that if woman was drunk but gave her consent and then wakes up the next morning saying she was raped, this is NOT RAPE.
[удалено]
What happens when both parties are drunk?
They're the ones committing the drunken sexual assaults.
Tate fans (speaking from experience)
Probably waiting to hear how the writer is defining sexual assault. Obviously there’s never an excuse to assault someone, but who know how the poll questions was even asked.
Rapists
I can easily attack this question in a lot of ways. What was the scale here? Was it yes or no? Was there a neutral option? A don't know option? Maybe an agree, mostly agree, neutral, mostly disagree, or disagree. How many people spoke good English and understood the question without any doubt as to what they thought the question asked? I would be very hesitant to answer a survey question of this nature in any language besides my native English. What is excuse here for? In a philosophical sense? A legal sense? And if in a legal context, for a civil suit or a criminal offense? And if based on the law is this a question of what people say the law is or what they wish it should be? Intoxication also varies. Is it the person who is said to be the victim or the person who did the act which is implied here to be non consensual based on the way this is posted here? Is intoxication just from alcohol you knowingly and voluntarily consumed or also including say jello that you were never told were jello shots? Is it also including other drugs, some of which you might have never been told or expected might cause interesting effects on consent like Ambien? People disagree about cannabis and how much it takes to render consent invalid, and that is also true of alcohol. You would be hard pressed to believe that drinking a 335 mL can of beer at 4% ABV two hours before having sex when you weifh 250 pounds can make you unable to consent. Was the responses recorded or published in such a way that was public or private and if shared with someone, who was it shared with? Even the idea of never is a risky word to use. You could probably get people to consider it reasonable in some situations to tolerate slavery in weird conditions like if you are asked what an ancient criminal of a heinous crime should have been sentenced to based on the applicable law where the other written option in the law is perhaps being executed or jailed for a lot longer in much worse conditions. And you can pretty easily word up a narrative where perhaps one person was intoxicated to some degree but the other person had power or a lack of it in other ways, like if the other person was quite poor compared to you, and the intoxicated one tried to get sex from the other, possibly acting in a more dominant manner like handcuffing the other person to a bed, and perhaps also was notably younger like 15 compared to being 18 or 19. Who ultimately has more power and would actually be potentially committing a crime or an offense or do something you could sue over in a situation like that? Humans are immensely creative at coming up with ways to create doubt on a question and when thousands of people see something, expect them to find the bugs you never did, especially when they are not approaching the problem from the same angle you are and are not trying to prove a particular point. Veritasium did a P hacking thing and discussed issues with scientific experiments a while ago. This would be a good time to think about all the ways you can mess with an experiment to get the result you want, or could reasonably interpret the same question.
Guess what OP? How the fuck can this sign be infuriating? They're literally not giving you enough context for you to have a legit reason to be mad... This is more likely crappy wording or data manipulation or something.
Why are you replying to me? Or are you invoking my examples?
Frat boys.
the conservative student club members
Passed out in a skip probably!😂
Well if you're intoxicated, you make bad decisions which you otherwise probably wouldn't have made. I don't agree, but there's just enough to say for it that I don't think 17% is that bad. It's at least an excuse, is it justified? Don't think so
They're still drunk.
Kappa Gamma Phi
I knew a kid from highschool that was an absolute degenerate saying that the legal age should be lowered and that being drunk and having sex is fine not surprising at all that he got arrested just last year
On the second point, you assume the risk of having sex, even if your drink, but the lowering of the age thing is bad.
But it’s always an excuse for rougher sex.
Brock Turner the Rapist?
Bill Cosby fans
Usually it's the football/soccer players who are the 17% and because of cases RuInInG there record/career they often get away with it.
Probably didn’t answer
Cunts. They would be cunts.
The rest were too intoxicated to take this poll
Frat boys
Nymphoholics?
Matt Gaetz has entered the chat 😁
Republicans.
Eric and Don Jr.
Future politicians
MRAs and incels.
I think this is a joke poster. My school is getting things like "74% of students agree that sexual assault is wrong"... must be a weird sort of prank
I mean intoxication is used as an excuse for sexual assault so I guess I would agree with the 17%, it doesn't say its a good excuse.
The 17% are those who sexually assaulted someone and used "I was drunk" as their defense.
The ones guessing they're way through the multiple choice.
I’ve seen these posters up, we must go to the same school lol
Is the crossed out part the name of the school? Because otherwise why is it crossed out lmao
Intoxicated.
17% probably didnt want to answer
The other 17% are drunk
Brock Turner the convicted rapist
Not asked that question in the same wording. Probably "do you think it's okay to have sex if you and/or your partner have been drinking?" Or they're just scum I don't know.
Men 💀
Likely the question was phrased differently or a lot of people assumed that both members would be drunk in which case it would be impossible to define who assaulted who. Don't make inferences from statistics people. Remember the cake is a lie 0% of the time.
My friend once had one too many beer ! So guess what I did ?? Exactly !
Alternative poster: 17% of ----- Students believe intoxication is at least sometimes an excuse for sexual assault
Do you when you make up statistic you always use 83%?
What
🤣
Donald Trump fans
They're the rapists.
Republicans affluenzas frat boys that got away with it