Definitions matter, which persists to present a problem whenever anyone presents an argument relating to rape and sexual assault. The words still evoke an image of some animal forcibly grabbing a woman, throwing her to the ground in a dark alley and brutalizing her.
Except that’s hardly the rape or sexual assault of which anybody speaks these days. It’s not that it doesn’t happen, and isn’t a horrible crime, but the far more prevalent cries relate to sex that is facially consensual but tainted by the latest excuses of discomfort, alcohol or post-hoc regret. And because of this insurmountable gap in definition, Jim Hopper’s attempt to challenge Emily Yoffe is revealed as a scientific sham.
As a psychologist who has researched the neurobiology of trauma and regularly teaches military and civilian police and prosecutors, higher education staff and others, I can expand a public conversation started in The Atlantic, by the unfortunately titled and highly misleading September 2017 story, “The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault.” In fact, the science on the neurobiology of stress and trauma is actually quite good, and the real issues are how that science is taught to university staff who aren’t scientists and how they, in turn, apply that teaching on their campuses.
This lede, replete with the favored memes and logical fallacies that prevail on such scientifically sound sources as twitter, is simultaneously revealing and concealing. Hopper has been involved in research at the side of the discredited David Lisak, whose phony study has provided the source for claims of recidivist rapists. And he teaches military, cops, prosecutors and college “staff,” which surely suggests a neutral science perspective.
And then he goes after Yoffe:
There are two parts to author Emily Yoffe’s discussions of neuroscience, one on sexual assault victims’ behaviors and the other on their memories, and I address both here. For each, I begin with realities of sexual assault—realities known all too well by millions of people who have been sexually assaulted, and by victim advocates, clinicians, and investigators who truly listen and have been documenting them for decades. Then I cite well-established science on the neurobiological causes of those realities.
Whether or not you’ve read the article, this post will bring clarity to issues that she has clouded with confusion and alarmist claims.
Some harsh words in there directed at Yoffe, while extolling the virtue of his as yet to be told “realities,” curiously prefacing any exposure to what he actually has to say. This use of foreshadowing promises a great deal, even if it tells rather than shows, so that you approach his argument (if he ever gets there) with his bias in your head.
And then comes the kicker paragraph upon which everything that follows relies.
Let’s start with realities of how people often respond to sexual assaults that are extremely stressful or traumatic as they are happening. People respond just as they do to many experiences of military combat and police shootings—with mostly reflex and habit behaviors, not rationally chosen ones.
Well sure, let’s start with this. Remember that image of the brutal stranger rape, the one where sudden, unanticipated force is used, where violence takes a woman by surprise? There are, as he argues, similarities with “experiences of military combat and police shootings.” The problem, of course, is that he’s conflating rape as commonly understood and pictured in the minds of most rational people with rape as cried on campus and the subject of Emily Yoffe’s article.
Everything that follows Hopper’s conflation of violent rape with newly-defined rape addresses entirely unrelated situations. Consensual sex by two people who are drunk, but not incapacitated, bears no connection to military combat. Consensual sex which, a year or two down the road, is regretted isn’t anything like a police shooting. Consensual sex where the consent felt shy of sufficient provable enthusiasm doesn’t bear any more stress or trauma than any other sex, except in the fantasy of the “survivor.”
And yet, articles like Hopper’s, nonsensical though they may be, will find their way into the narrative to excuse the failures of proof and create the win-win for the accuser. If the victim is a good witness and remembers everything, she’s telling the truth. If the victim is a terrible witness and gets all the facts wrong, she’s telling the truth. Hopper says so, because that, neuroscience informs us, is reality.
No, it’s nonsense, shamelessly propounded for the purpose of pursuing a deliberately conflated lie under the guise of science.
Finally and most importantly, given the polarized politics of campus sexual assault, it’s vital to clarify what Ms. Yoffe is actually trying to critique in her article.
Contrary to her story’s title and subtitle, she does not discredit or even assail the well-established neuroscience on how severe stress and trauma can, in fact, “impede the ability to resist or coherently remember sexual assault.” Instead, she raises concerns about the teaching of that science to campus staff, police, and others who are striving for best practices in responding to reports of sexual assault.
While Hopper’s attempt to spin Yoffe’s article to his distorted narrative sounds remarkably familiar, one point of irony emerges. The same distortion that Hopper uses to trick his woke reader into conflating violent rape with post-hoc regret rape is the “best practices” being used to train those on campus, and increasingly police, to mindlessly believe the nonsense he preaches because neuroscience that has absolutely nothing to do with the conduct involved should form the foundation for addressing sexual assaults.
Clearly, Hopper has learned well from Lisak to twist science to serve his prejudice. But words still have meaning to some, like Emily Yoffe, and there is nothing in his disingenuous “critique” that reflects anything beyond the fantasy of campus rape conflated with violent rape. The problem isn’t the validity of neuroscience, but its abuse by people like Hopper to promote his agenda. Game, Yoffe.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a psychologist
Ouch. Fallen at the very first gate. Psychologists aren’t neuroscientists, no matter how much they want to pretend.
Among other things.
I’ve known and worked with a lot of folks in both fields and that’s simply not true.
Psychologists are experts at studying behavior. But of course many of them also look at the physical brain as a significant part of their work because behavior is caused by the brain.
Neuroscientists are experts in studying the physical brain and nervous system. But of course many of them also look at behavior as a significant part of their work because it is often the best evidence for changes of the physical brain.
If your career is only focused on dissecting brains, you get a neuro PhD. If it’s only focused on providing counseling, you get a psych PhD. But if it’s in the middle, like this, you can reasonably use either degree. I have known plenty of psych PhDs who are, for example, working to use live fMRI tests to determine how/if lying affects brain activity; they spend all their time looking at brain scans. And I’ve known plenty of neuro folks who are primarily interested in how their neuro work will affect ultimate behavior.
If this guy is wrong, he’s wrong. But he isn’t automatically wrong because he has the “incorrect” PhD.
There are more ironies in your comment than you can possibly realize, from calling a psychologist an “expert” at anything to fundamentally misapprehending what David was saying (ever heard of a psychiatrist? You know the guy with the medical degree?). But the worst part of your comment is that you opine as if you’re an expert on any of this because you’ve “known and worked with a lot of folks in both fields.” What could David possibly know compared to you?
Sometimes, Erik, you’re hubris is just too funny.
Unless David has spent a while working in neuro labs and taken graduate-level medical, psychology, and neuro courses then yes, I am more of an expert than he is.
As it happens, that was my first field and I was en route to a degree in that field until I fell in love and dropped out of grad school to be with my wife. Also, more than half of my immediate family happen to work in those fields–that fMRI lab is a relative–and hold advanced degrees in neuro, psychology, or psychiatry, so I still keep attuned to a variety of stuff.
Maybe David has the same background, but it’s quite rare; assuming the normal situation is not hubris. If so: Sorry, David.
Some of what Hopper says is factually true, though I agree the spin is deceptive: Hopper keeps moving goalposts, while assuming folks won’t notice. But people shouldn’t make the conversation even stupider by incorrectly bitching about his degree.
You just can’t stop yourself, can you? You should consider seeing someone about that.
Yes, yes, there are psychologists who do valuable basic research, though none can be trusted to actually operate the imaging equipment. It’s an in-joke, Erik. My father’s a neurologist.
That’s an understatement.
I wonder what Amy Farrah Fowler would have to say.
Jim Hopper to Emily Yoffe: you’ve seen my bailey, here’s my motte.
Doc Hopper has issues beyond confusing unrelated things. I haven’t trusted him since he and his goons tried to take Kermit’s legs back in 1979.
That’s a myth.
Good points that campus sex or consent problems should not be confused with unwanted violent sex (rape). The 1990s redefinition of rape to expand it to non-consent sex as opposed to limiting it to violence and threats of violence and created the deepest problems possible. 99% of sex is non-consensual. People simply do not say “Can I touch your breast?” “May I put my finger inside your vagina?” “Is it okay if I get on top of you?” Without this type of bizarre verbal formalism, consent is impossible to determine. Basically “No means no” sex and “Yes means yes” sex, is simply not sex at all. It turns all sex into rape.
Imagine somebody with a food disorder says that the definition of poisoning is wrong. Any eating without consent is poisoning. A waiter who brings you food and just leaves it in your plate is just poisoning you. The waiter must ask you each time you take a bite if you want that bite. If you say no, he must take it away immediately. The Food disorder people form clubs and connect socially. They talk about how horrible life is with people just bringing them food and leaving it there. They say that anytime they eat a meal that way, and live, they are survivors of poisoners. The food disorder people decide to form a political group. Politicians back-up the poor food disorder people and pass laws that waiters must stay with customers and ask them before each bite if they want that bite. This does not really help the food-disorder people, but it does destroy the restaurant business and causes millions of people to go hungry. This is what is happening with rapocentric feminists whose whole lives are dedicated to stopping rape and who believe that the only way to stop rape is by policing every act of sex for the poison of non-consent.
The flaws of affirmative consent have been the topic of many posts here. It’s not the topic of this post. Your food disorder analogy is . . . not good.
How about a beverage analogy? Perhaps somebody should rebrand “newly-defined rape” as “New Rape” and throw a few million at it. If New Coke is anything to go by, it will sink like a stone and we’ll be back to the long established definition in jig time.
The untethering of rape from its definition was really quite a smart ploy. They get the benefit of the heinousness of our traditional understanding of the crime, with none of the definitional elements. I wonder what “new rape” tastes like? I’m thinking tequilla.
I’ve read plenty of learned articles that essentially say that psychiatrists are quacks. Err, maybe I should say, psychiatry is snake oil. Psychologists … well, I’m not going there, except to roll my eyes. The only people who believe in psychiatrists and psychologists are judges who hire them in order to have them testify as to whatever direction the judge is leaning. Neurologists, on the other hand, study the diseases of the brain and are the only true “doctors” of the bunch.