- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,607
- Reaction score
- 126
So how far back do licensing boards go when requesting medical history? Childhood? 18 years old? Last 10 years?
Actually, that's probably a good thing. Unis with counseling services seem to pressure -- if not coerce -- students with mental illnesses out of school entirely because they're liability risks. Instead of helping students, they just traumatize them more.
this is all good information. what if, say hypothetically, someone sees a psychiatrist/psychotherapist to deal with life problems like marriage issues, general stress, or just whatever reason? will those visits be made public? that seems against the very definition of confidentiality.
That's the way things were around 1998. That's not exactly how things are these days. http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/3/369.short
The state bar examiners got my step-sister's records just fine. If they did, I'm sure the same thing happens every day with the medical examiners since bar examiners have always modeled themselves on medical examiners. You probably give them permission in the fine print without realizing it.
So how far back do licensing boards go when requesting medical history? Childhood? 18 years old? Last 10 years?
It's complicated. I am neither a psychiatrist or a lawyer, so I may screw this up, but as I understand it, a psychiatrist can place a 72-hour hold on a patient to keep them in a locked unit if the psychiatrist has reason to believe the patient is a danger to themselves or to others. At the end of that 72-hour period, if the patient wishes to leave and the psychiatrist wants them to stay, there will be a hearing before a judge who will decide whether or not the patient should be involuntarily committed for their own good/the good of society. Different states have differing laws; in California, the 72 hour hold can be extended as long as a week, or even two weeks, without a court order.
I assume, but do not know, that court-ordered counseling, psychiatric visits, or substance abuse treatment would show up on a background check; I do not know (but suspect) that they would be grounds for denying a medical license.
There are many reasons why victims of rape and sexual assault do not immediately contact the police. One significant reason is that a victim may fear that he or she will not be believed, or that the police and community will choose to side with the person who attacked them. Another is that victims of sexual assault are often blamed for being victimized, whether it's because they had been drinking, or were dressed in a supposedly provocative way, or because they did not fight noisily enough. Ironically, by talking about how if victims were feistier, they wouldn't get raped, you are helping to perpetuate a culture of underreporting of rape and sexual assault.
I know you don't mean any harm by it, but in fact you have repeated several myths about rape and sexual assault prevention in quick succession, and I do not wish to let those myths go unchallenged.
Last, I would like to leave you (and everyone else) with this: Just World Fallacy
In this case, it applies because so often when talking about rape or sexual assault, people will immediately jump into conversation about what victims did or did not do to bring rape upon themselves, and not into conversation about why rapists choose to rape, or why rapes are so underreported in American society. We do this because we cannot bear to live in a world where bad things happen to ordinary, decent people - and so we must find some way in which these ordinary, decent people deserved to suffer, so that we can continue to believe that if we make all the right choices (are feisty, brandish knives, etc) we will never suffer the same sort of harm.
What part are you saying is incorrect about my post?
I agree with everything you said. I was really upset reading the story last night. There are two rape victims that I personally know. What they both did was keeping silent, giving up and getting into destructive relationships. Their married men that were abusive to their children and the women unconsciously tortured the kids, too. Not until I found out they were rape victims did their behavior make sense to me. I find it unforgivable that they totally ruined their children's lives and for that reason I often find it difficult to sympathize silent victims.
I completely agree that rape is nobody but the rapist's fault. However, in most human societies sexism is the norm and rape will occur somewhere to somebody. Girls are encouraged to go to ballet lessons, avoid rough games, keep long hair that's easy to grab, draw their eyes to look like pandas, and wear incapacitating dresses and high heels. Misconduct of boys, on the other hand, are tolerated because "boys are boys." You can't find such stark gender gap in our primate relatives. My point is, yes we should teach boys rape is bad mmmk, but we also need to teach girls since rape is somehow inevitable.
rape, it's not so much about sexual pleasure as it is about dominance.
Did I seriously just read what I thought I read?
No, it won't show up on a background check, although any legal offense would. The exact laws vary by state (as do the names), but here is the process in Colorado:
- Pt or family member, friend, etc. states pt has feelings of SI or HI (suicidal or homicidal ideation)
- Pt taken to ED, typically to a Psych ED unit (not 2710 certified, so pt's time on hold CANNOT legally begin)
- Pt is placed on 72-hr hold (M1 hold) pending psychiatric assessment (this hold may be legally performed by a variety of professionals, including an RN w/ mental health experience, LCSW, MHC, MD, PsyD/PhD level psychologist)
- Pt is transferred to a 2710 certified and licensed facility --> hold time begins
- Pt is assessed by a Psychiatrist (typically daily) and may release pt at any time up until the end of the 72 hr hold
- If MD does not feel pt is ready after 72 hrs, pt will be offered VOLUNTARY commitment (most pts will accept this)
- If pt refuses or MD does not believe pt is competent to make that decision, MD may decide to pursue a 90-day commitment or "Certification" (other option is to let pt leave AMA)
- If pt is committed involuntarily, a letter (typically a form letter with a few basic details filled in) is sent to the local courthouse certifying that, in the MD's opinion, this person needs add'l time on a locked unit
- Pending official approval, the pt is placed on a certified 90 day hold
- I have NEVER seen a judge overrule an MD's decision to place a pt on hold (to do so would be to take that person and others' lives into his/her hands against the recommendation of a recognized expert in the field since the MD is basically stating that that this person cannot yet be trusted in the community)
I was serious in every word.
Exactly. Rapists at some point of their lives were also victims, to parental abuse/neglect, sexual assault or bullying. By raping someone weaker they play god and feel the almighty power they wished to possess when they were victimized. That's why rape is often accompanied by torture and killing.
How to deal with a mansplainer starring Hillary Clinton in GIFs.
It's about entitlement. No more, no less.
So much for rape. Anyway, I think psychiatric records should not be involuntarily revealed if HIPPA is strictly followed. The only exception is in the military, or if you apply for a CIA/FBI job.
Exactly. Rapists at some point of their lives were also victims, to parental abuse/neglect, sexual assault or bullying. By raping someone weaker they play god and feel the almighty power they wished to possess when they were victimized. That's why rape is often accompanied by torture and killing.
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.
Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid. The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong. If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.
............
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.
Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid.
The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong.
If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.
I agree that the baseline of rape is entitlement, or the idea that that the rapist can "take" or "do" whatever they want with whomever they want irregardless of what the other person feels BUT I think it's definitely a lot more than just that and it goes much, much deeper.
Since you said you agreed with him, I just deleted it to give the more detailed answer.
I'm not really about violent/stranger rapes. In Western contexts, I think they're red herrings.
I think what women here need to worry about are date rapes, particularly involving drugs/alcohol, as well as other forms of DV.
Er, then shouldn't there be more rapists in the BDSM community than in the regular community?
Moreover, the average rapist rapes 5+ women, but they also don't really care about whether their victims are conscious or not. In fact, most American rapists prefer their victims to be unconscious. If a rapist gets off on suffering, then wouldn't they want their victims to be awake and remember it?
At the same time, how do you explain the relationship between harassment acceptability and rape acceptability, particularly across cultures? Ask yourself this: what do South Dakota, Japan, India, and Colombia have in common?
I think the other problem with your argument is that harassment frequently does not lead to visible suffering of another. Quite the opposite, actually. Most women, whether in America, Japan, or wherever, respond by smiling and trying to be nice, so that the guy goes away.
And if you've ever been to India, or just read a non-American newspaper, you'd know that the men who raped and murdered that poor woman probably did think that they were in the right. After all, she was out at night with a man she was not related to, so she was a slutty mcslutterina. Therefore, she deserved to be punished.
Violent stranger rapes, although a small percent, still happen. So I don't think they qualify as a red herring.
I think that women here need to be worried about all the different types of rapes out there.
I also don't think that we can use one blanket term for everything.
I think it's deeper than just "entitlement, nothing more nothing less" because people rape for power, for fear, for sexual sadism, for sexual frustration, for a sense of entitlement (yes), from ignorance, and for so many other reasons. I think to blanket it and tell a woman who was violently raped that it was just "entitlement" downplays what happened to her as well as objectifies her. Entitlement implies that women are objects to begin with (in my opinion).
There are plenty of rapists in the BDSM community. I don't know where you got the idea that there aren't, but people who get together in that community have to be very paranoid at first due to the fact that it harbors a very high concentration of dangerous individuals compared to the normal population.
As for American rapists preferring victims to be unconscious, that's also a form of sadism. A normal person would not be able to have satisfying intercourse with a partner that is completely unresponsive. A sadist can. Again, it's a paraphilia based around violating the rights of others. Drugging an involuntary woman into a stupor and then raping her while she's helpless to do anything about it is most certainly something that would fall into the realm of sadism.
As for your last point about harassment, that's hardly rape and more like horny idiots thinking they can woo a girl if they're persistent. If you're referring to fondling/molestation though, that's a different paraphilia (frotteurism). It has a lot in common with sadism though (use of non-consenting partners with the intent being to make the other person extremely uncomfortable, feel violated, etc). Likewise there are still other paraphilias that revolve around violating non-consenting partners in some way (exhibitionism and voyeurism being two examples).
As for the Indian case, do you seriously think that any rational person could have a thought process that goes "I hate this woman for looking promiscuous, so I'm going to have sex with her"?
I would also like to point out that female rapists are not unheard of.
Using my explanation you would expect that this would be the case since there's no reason why only men could derive pleasure from violating another person. Your explanation of male entitlement, however, fails to account for this observation.
This may be completely wrong but I assume that anything you bill to health insurance will be on your medical record.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
bills to medical insurance don't necessarily equate to a medical RECORD. i have a friend who's name and information was stolen, started receiving bills in the mail for pregnancy visits, etc. and it had been going on for months... fraud obviously but after the long process it still may come up here and there, there is insurance/identity fraud everywhere and in this case, she didn't find out about it until the very end, so I don't think insurance records are the best source of someone's medical history.
Strawman. Please re-read my post.
I didn't say there weren't rapists. I just said that, for your argument to work, there would have to be more. As far as I can tell, that evidence doesn't exist.
So first sadism's about pain and now it's about rights? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
It's not about "sadism" so much as it is about group think.
Statistically they're so rare the CDC analyses of sexual violence treats analyses them separately. The pattern is strikingly different from male-on-female and male-on-male rapes -- so much so it's ridiculous to try to compare them (i.e., its teacher-on-student rapes, they tend to be in long-term relationships, and they're only a handful each year).
No, I think an outliers need to be treated as outliers. See the above links on intimate partner violence.
TBH, I think this is why the entitlement explanation rings resonates with so many women. I've noticed it's a bit more common with "out" rape survivors than non-rape survivors in the feminist blogosphere. (IIRC, Marcotte's a rape survivor.)
I think what r1d1 did was great and admirable. I'm just saying that to say that "if only the victim would have..." Never really makes anyone feel better. Some women fight, others shut down, some are so terrified they crumble. I think that unless we have been in that position and felt that fear we should never judge how a woman reacts and instead say something more along the lines of "if only this rapist wasn't a sick twisted monster who probably has insecurity as well as power complex issues and feels the need to violate and batter another human being to get off."
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.
Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid. The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong. If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.
This is true for a certain group of rapists and a certain classification of 'rape'. Education programs are generally aimed at preventing date-rape scenarios (one of the most common forms, especially at colleges), not sadistic/power/stranger rapes. Clearly, no one is expecting a seminar to make someone think "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't put on a ski mask and go drag a woman into that alley tonight"
However, the hope and intention is that it will minimize the number of rapes where the guy says "I thought it was OK...I assumed that because of x, y, z, the fact that she slept with me before, the fact that she promised while she was sober, that she invited me inside, that her friend told me she was really into me but didn't have the balls to admit it..." and the girl says "I didn't want it, but he wasn't paying attention and I was too scared to do anything but lay there and cry".
Does it work? I honestly have no clue. Clearly, it's not enough...what's less obvious is whether it is a step in the right direction. Either way, though, it's hard to see how it could be detrimental. At the very least, it does raise awareness of the issue as a whole.
No, it's not just teacher-on-student rapes. Hell, just last month the FBI went on a manhunt for a woman who had been seen in videos raping children:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/feds-bust-jane-doe-child-porn/story?id=18030002
There have been studies which have shown that the prevalence of sadism in women is just as common as in men:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940032
You can find confirmed cases of female-on-male rape:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15876968
Granted these are hard to find, but not necessarily because they're rare, but because they're almost never reported for reasons that should be obvious.
H'okay.
What I've found (through looking through other ppls research, my own life, and being around rapists/pedos) is that a rapists number one priority is to keep raping as many people and for as long as possible.
They are predators who purposfully seek out victims who are unlikely to be believed. They benefit off of rape myths by chosing to rape people who are drunk, unconcious, have bad (aka slutty) reputations, etc. these are the vast majority of cases simply because they have so many victims.
However I'm not sure they are the vast majority of offenders. there's another type of rapist - the opportunitist, he's prob not a lifer but instead someone who feels entitled to womens bodies, the whole PUA type. He rapes without knowing he's a rapist, without realizing what he does is hurting others because he doesn't see his victims as real people.
I'm not sure about this. Where are you getting this from?
I'm not sure about this. Where are you getting this from?
I got this from research showing some men will vemently say that rape is wrong, but will admit to doing behaviors which legally meet the definition of rape or wanting to do those behavior as long as the actual word rape is not used.
Also from the reddit thread about rapists (where rapists were telling their stories)
Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
You have to look into the methodology on studies such as that. There was a very prominent one making the rounds recently where their conclusion was essentially the same: men will say that rape is wrong, but will admit to actions which legally meet the definition of rape.
However, when you looked into the actual questions asked, many of the admissions were for statements such as "I have had sex with someone who had been drinking"
I recognize that at a certain point, intoxication prohibits consent, but we should also recognize that not all intoxicated intercourse is equivalent to rape.
This is simply an example; I'd have to dig through and track down the paper again (which is difficult as I no longer have journal access) to find all of the stats and questions, but it is an example of how difficult it can be to get an accurate reading from these types of surveys.
I have wondered about this a lot myself. Having spent a lot of time reading feminist writers and thinkers, the idea that rape is about power and control, not about sex, is something I've heard a lot; feminists will also talk about "rape culture", the idea that our society encourages rape, blames the victims, and excuses rapists. If that's your conceptual framework, then it makes sense to wonder how many rapes are committed by "accidental" rapists, who are acting from an unexamined and unreflective place of entitlement and who somehow do not realize that what they are doing is criminal.!
Of course, the problem with this is that it's hard to do research if you've already got a pretty clear idea of what you SHOULD find based on your overarching theory of rape culture, and I'm also not sure how you would investigate "accidental" rapes like that.
Sorry, just got back into the country.
Just to be clear, I do not take this view. Nor do I take the accidental rapist view. Just because you're entitled doesn't mean what you did was accidental.