~ archived since 2018 ~

An Insidious Sample of Biased govt statistics Defining away male rape as "made to penetrate"

wrez

May 26, 2014

16 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	An Insidious Sample of Biased govt statistics Defining away male rape as "made to penetrate"
Author	wrez
Upvotes	16
Comments	24
Date	May 26, 2014 1:56 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/26irgj/an-insidious-sample-of-biased-govt-statistics-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/an-insidious-sample-of-biased-govt-statistics.1617543 https://theredarchive.com/post/1617543

Comments

[–]DavidByron24 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]under_score162 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrez6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron22 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron22 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron22 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal012 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's only a UCR definition.

Do you even know what that means? No you don't do you. But total ignorance of the topic apparently isn't preventing you sounding off. God I hate people like that.

Not sure why you are pointing to a military code of justice

It's the law. One fucking law. As in the stuff we were arguing about when you said that the UCR definition was the law - which it isn't.

Look the next time you're totally ignorant of what's going on try asking for an explanation from the person who is better educated instead of this bullshit.

The law specifies what rape is as far as you getting arrested by cops, prosecuted, put on trial and possibly convicted and sentenced. You understand "law"?

The UCR definition and the stuff the CDC uses is a statistical definition. It's used to regulate (UCR) how the states report crime to the FBI so they can keep tabs on how often stuff happens. Or in the case of the CDC it's a definition used to judge from surveys the extent of rape. It's not the law

[–]yourotherusername1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can tell you are quite upset over my questioning op on his/her surprise at the federal government using the definitions that they do.

Semantics. That's what this is about.

I think that what upsets me is that you didn't start out with a "hey bud, that isn't a law, its a whatever the fuck, but I see what you are saying, yeah, they are all using the same definitions.". See how friendly that could have been?

Then I could have been " hey bud, thanks for pointing that out, let me correct that, we are all on the same side here thanks for making NY point clearer."

But no. You can't do that. You just want to be right. Why? Shit, I don't know. Maybe you had a bad day. Maybe it is the internet and emotion doesn't translate through text. Who really knows.

You are right. I'm wrong. There is no federal legal term for rape. The CDC is Batshit insane for using the same definition I linked from the FBI.

There, feel better? You win.

[–]DavidByron21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm annoyed by idiots who dogmatically argue for positions where they have no knowledge. People like you make other people more ignorant just by hearing you. You should shut the fuck up and listen.

Semantics.

No it fucking isn't. The FBI have a legal definition of rape and what you linked to is not it. Your claim was FALSE. Your edited comment remains FALSE.

And your idiocy is defending hate. You are saying oh gee of course they used this fucked up definition because that's the standard. It is not the standard. They CREATED that fucked up definition explicitly to disappear male victims. The actual law is gender neutral and that is why they needed a new definition that was not.

what upsets me is that you didn't start out with a "hey bud, that isn't a law, its a whatever the fuck

I fucking well did do that.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26irgj/an_insidious_sample_of_biased_govt_statistics/chrjppj

You just want to be right. Why? Shit, I don't know

Because the truth is important to SOME people - obviously not you.

[–]yourotherusername1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link