Given the recent "no means no" stuff, well, does it always? Of course not, female sexuality plays on token resistance and the overpowering male trope. I wonder if someone dares to re-do this 1988 study today? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hollabaugh%20LC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=3379584 … 1994 replication https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents …pic.twitter.com/aeP3PRnjc4
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Reading the actual questions used does not seem to indicate any interpretation issues. http://www.elainehatfield.com/uploads/3/4/5/2/34523593/87._sprecher_hatfield_coretese_potapova__levitskaya_1994.pdf …pic.twitter.com/2b9NVyzCjg
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
1/I see the "no means no stuff" in signal detection terms - there will always be false positives and false negatives, norms just adjust the rate. In truth consent is always judged after the fact, for there will always be a lag between consent and the physical act, in which time
-
2/consent could have been withdrawn. Thus "consent" largely comes down to custom and standards of evidence; the dream of perfect unity ignores we're humans living in sequential time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Works fine for me.
-
Tweet unavailable
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.