Tumblrinas post wildly inaccurate graph about rape statistics, gets destroyed by reality. (x-post from /r/tumblrinaction)

[–]saint2e 197 points198 points199 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 80 points81 points82 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 84 points85 points86 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 93 points94 points95 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]saint2e 68 points69 points70 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celtinarius 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Everything-Is-Okay 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

We are discussing data that is represented visually. Humans like visual representations of data because they make it easy to assimilate and comprehend the data. However, when one creates visual representations of data, they need to take care to make the visual match the data as closely as possible.

In this case, the creator has purposely misrepresented the scale (the final example, about the fruit, is exactly what this graphic did). This effectively skews your perception of the data, making the right of the graph (where all the actual data is) look less significant than the left (which is not actual data, but is rather an "educated" guess).

The creator of this specific graphic is, without a doubt, a liar who is attempting to misrepresent the data not only through improper scaling, but also through biased labeling, omitting data, and poor construction.

Hope this helps.

Additional reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

[–]Celtinarius 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Everything-Is-Okay 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celtinarius 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celtinarius 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Celtinarius2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atxsuckscox 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Not-Now-John 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prox_ 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Koolaideinsurance 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyMe2TheMoon 43 points44 points45 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diamondeyes18 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]atxsuckscox 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]atxsuckscox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

What was good about it? The very wording of the questions makes it all rather meaningless. To have sex "when you did not want to", is not a measure for rape. Clearly people interpret the questions very differently to each other, which is why it should be game over as far as scientific usefulness goes. If they asked women questions that didnt beat around the bush, they'd have got different results and less "raped" women to put in their statistics. That's why they don't conduct rape studies that are strong enough to account for such variables and misinterpretation or ask questions of both men and women equally. Even if they do have the data they ignore it.

Here's a study that at least reports the shocking figures (as far as our society understands) of male childhood sexual abuse, but still reports more girls are sexually assaulted than boys. What their data actually shows is that of those girls, they are much more likely to suffer the least serious form of childhood sexual abuse which pushes the numbers up, that their data actually shows that more boys are raped than girls! At least they mention somewhere in the report that 50% of the perpetrators of male CSA were women. Of course we dont get to hear their results that show more boys are raped than girls with 50% of the rapists of boys being women. In the public eyes its still girls that suffer the most and sustain the most serious sexual abuse as children. Its the same mentality that goes into these rape studies. Even if they end with results that said something different to what people like Mary Koss wanted/expected, it seems they'll just pretend it was the opposite anyway.

[–]atxsuckscox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Enhance your calm, dudebro, you're reading something into what I said that just isn't there. I appreciate your thoughtful response, but it's not what I'm getting at.

What I was saying is a fairly nuanced thing, so I probably shouldn't have been so terse. I probably don't have the time to do it justice, so I'll just do a kind of synposis.

1) The original Koss study did some valid research. It did not simply ask "have you had sex when you didn't want to?". Koss, for all her strengths and weaknesses, was a better researcher than that.

2) Koss' study did not conclude that "one in four" college women are raped. The results were that about 14% of college women had been raped since the age of 14, and that an additional 12% had experience attempted rape.

2) Other studies, worded differently, have been within the margin of error on the 14%.

3) People who are not Koss have combined the 14% and the 12% statistic to create the statistic that ~25%, or "one in four", college women are "victims of sexual assault". This is technically true in many of the cases it's presented in, because there are numerous ways in which attempted rape can fall under the umbrella of sexual assault; that's understandable, as attempted rape can still be very harmful and damaging. However, this is not strictly honest given the actual data that exists.

These are essentially the facts as they lay. They can be debated, but there really is a lot of evidence behind them. Here is where things get to be My Opinion, which (like all opinions) is much more assailable than facts:

When I say the "one in four" stat has "seriously damaged some otherwise well-done studies" I am not referring to Koss study, because there is enough documentation out there to prove it was done. What I am referring to are subsequent studies. I suppose I am not only referring to studies, but all sorts of publications.

The damage I am talking about is confirmation bias. That "one in four" stat is a real eye-catcher. It makes jaws drop. When people do a study, publish an infographic, write a paper, they want to have the impact that number has. They want their study to get to that "one in four" level. But the target they're shooting for is a mirage. They want to confirm the shocking truth they've heard, that they think they know, that 1/4 of women are raped. They ignore the fact that the study deriving that fact doesn't even say that. They massage their own data, their own questions, their own presentation, to achieve an unrealistic goal. And that only throws fuel on the fire, perverting honest studies, which in turn inspires dishonest research that do crappy research to try to achieve this holy grail of 25%, or the next shocking statistic.

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Enhance your calm, dudebro,

Don't start out like that...

1) The original Koss study did some valid research.

Yes, you said that already... I asked you what valid research that was. You haven't actually told me what that is, not even in this comment.

It did not simply ask "have you had sex when you didn't want to?".

It kinda did actually... All of the questions baring probably the most ridiculous first one was based on the principle that the measure of rape is having sex "when you don't want to". That is never a measure for rape, it needs more qualification than that. This was the problem with all the questions, they are too vague, too broad, too undefined and too easy to misinterpret. I used to work in market research and surveys attempted to made very sure people knew what they meant, or they knew the data they would spend huge amounts of money on collecting would be worthless. I would also see people often completely reverse their answer if I questioned them if they were sure when their answer didnt seem to make sense. Is there really any doubt that if we had asked the same people the same questions in a different way using different phrasing so that it was not ambiguous what it meant, they would have answered differently? Why don't we just do that to start with if their answers would still be the same? Are we afraid they might not tick that box? 70% of them did not consider themselves raped, perhaps that is the reason.

One of the questions simply asks if they had ever had sex when they didnt want to because a man had given them alcohol. There is nothing to tell us how drunk she got, what the scenario was, or what her behavior was or how she communicated her feelings. All that is rather relevant dont you think? Not to someone that believes that if a woman has sex when she has been drinking its rape no matter what and so doesn't feel they need to specify.

2) Koss' study did not conclude that "one in four" college women are raped. The results were that about 14% of college women had been raped since the age of 14, and that an additional 12% had experience attempted rape.

Koss' study said that 1 in 4 college women were victims of rape or attempted rape. Yes.

3) People who are not Koss have combined the 14% and the 12% statistic to create the statistic that ~25%, or "one in four", college women are "victims of sexual assault". This is technically true in many of the cases it's presented in, because there are numerous ways in which attempted rape can fall under the umbrella of sexual assault; that's understandable, as attempted rape can still be very harmful and damaging. However, this is not strictly honest given the actual data that exists.

Glad to see you acknowledge at least one lie commonly told by fellow feminists.

These are essentially the facts as they lay. They can be debated, but there really is a lot of evidence behind them.

The most important of which is your first point, where you say there is a lot of valid research. I'd still like to hear what that valid research is.

The damage I am talking about is confirmation bias. That "one in four" stat is a real eye-catcher. It makes jaws drop. When people do a study, publish an infographic, write a paper, they want to have the impact that number has. They want their study to get to that "one in four" level. But the target they're shooting for is a mirage. They want to confirm the shocking truth they've heard, that they think they know, that 1/4 of women are raped. They ignore the fact that the study deriving that fact doesn't even say that. They massage their own data, their own questions, their own presentation, to achieve an unrealistic goal. And that only throws fuel on the fire, perverting honest studies, which in turn inspires dishonest research that do crappy research to try to achieve this holy grail of 25%, or the next shocking statistic.

Impressive, you're quite right. Now if you could only see that Mary Koss is just as bad as all those are we'd get somewhere. Im not sure why you give Koss so much credit while bad mouthing all these others, many of which it could be argued had better methodology than she did (while still bad).

[–]atxsuckscox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't start out like that...

Sincere apologies. It was an attempt at levity in a subject otherwise given to inflamed passions. I didn't mean to slight you. My friends and I call each other dudebro, it legitimately didn't occur to me that it's kind of a fraught word in this context.

You do raise valid concerns about some of the questions, especially the one about being plied with alcohol. However, you are grossly oversimplifying the questions. In the question "Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)?"

To to make "didn't want to" the operative part of that question is disingenuous.

Anyways, my point was never to defend the Koss survey. She's done further research on improving that survey, which deals in a very frank way with many of the shortcomings of the initial study. But, again, I only ever said she was a good researcher. Though the research tool she initially used was flawed, her methods and analysis were sound, which is sadly uncommon in a lot of study on the subject of rape.

My point, from the very first comment so long ago, was that the "one in four" number, which is frequently misstated from Koss' study, has poisoned the well. I'm not on the work network so I don't have all the journal subscriptions I'd normally have, so I can't find all the examples I'm thinking of, but here are a few studies that I recall doing some wonky structuring to get closer to the "one in four" benchmark:
Leggett: "Bad Dates or Emotional Trauma? Campus Sexual Assault Aftermath
Journal of American College Health, 1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey
...Crap, drawing a blank. I'll edit some more in once I have full text access and can refresh myself on what I recollect as being funny business

fellow feminists.

I apologize if I've lead you astray, I'm not a feminist. I don't know of a single "-ism" that would willingly claim me.

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In the question "Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)?"

If you remove the specification of "threats" (since there is an "OR" in there) what do we have left?

"Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting) when you didn’t want to because a man used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)?"

Despite this being the most "severe" question it still doesnt tell us what the scenario was, it doesn't tell us about her behavior, how she communicated her feelings, or whether it was common for her partner and her to have rough sex where holding someone down and using some force would be typical. Its still too vague, too broad, too undefined. And once again its the part written "when you didn't want to" that is the main problem with the question. How are we going to know any of the important details or know how the respondent is interpreting the question? How are we going to know how severe the problem of rape is without understanding the severity of the scenario's you got people to tick boxes to? If you have to write "when you didn't to", then you are going to need a lot more qualifiers.

The questions show us Koss believes rape is something someone "feels", rather than something someone does to someone else against their "will", or their "consent". If a woman "feels" like she doesn't want to have sex and then has sex, then by Koss' definition they have been raped and nothing else matters.

Ironically she said that if a male (man or boy) is forced to penetrate someone else (male or female) this is just "unwanted sex" . Worse than that, even if you are 8 years old, and someone fed them enough viagra to erect a horse, even if they gave them HIV, even if if the perpetrator were female and got pregnant and had his baby (which he would be forced to pay for) then it would still be the 8 year old that chose to engage in the act with the person they were forced to penetrate, and it would be "inappropriate" to call that rape. While that's all kinds of ridiculous, the main irony is that for Koss unwanted sex is rape when it happens to a woman, but if it happens to a man then its because she believes being forced to penetrate is "unwanted sex" that it should not be considered rape! The very definition of rape that she uses to say what is rape for women, is what she considers to be the reason why being forced to penetrate should not be considered rape! Its completely topsey turvy.

Though the research tool she initially used was flawed, her methods and analysis were sound,

I cant understand why you separate the two. The methods she uses includes the study questions, which are fatally flawed. The analysis is clearly broken since its based on her broken definitions of rape and on her interpretation of the data from the questions.

here are a few studies that I recall doing some wonky structuring to get closer to the "one in four" benchmark: Leggett: "Bad Dates or Emotional Trauma? Campus Sexual Assault Aftermath Journal of American College Health, 1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey ...Crap, drawing a blank. I'll edit some more in once I have full text access and can refresh myself on what I recollect as being funny business

Oh I have no doubt that they do that. You seem very critical of them, but I just don't see why you keep giving Koss a pass by saying she did valid research and that she is a good researcher. From where I am looking she is a demonstrably poor researcher that is either incompetent or her bias has warped her to such a degree that we can't tell the difference. For a start, a good researcher would know that in order to gain an accurate understanding of human behavior you need to ask both genders the same questions.

[–]Demonspawn 153 points154 points155 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bsutansalt 38 points39 points40 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_ate_a_milkshake 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]that_dude_you_know 12 years ago* [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link

"Fun fact; it doesnt matter what other statistics you have, even one rapists not convicted is too many."

o_o

Edit: To be clear, I copy/pasted one of the comments from the blog--the quoted statement is not my opinion.

[–]saint2e 88 points89 points90 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoltrahn 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sevion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mr_Dr_Prof_Derp 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Peterowsky 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sevion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gellis121 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gellis121 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kss1089 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kss1089 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peterowsky 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peterowsky 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil88 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 55 points56 points57 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a nice sentiment, just not based in reality. I'd rather have 10 guilty rapists walk free than one innocent person falsely convicted. Sadly, there are people (feminists mostly) trying to replace "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "preponderance of evidnce" in rape cases. They've already succeeded in doing so on many college campuses.

It's actually really scary that they're able to lobby for this crap

The most dramatic move in the letter is to mandating that college judicial panels use a “preponderance of evidence” standard to judge allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. An individual is considered guilty by the “preponderance of evidence” if it’s “more likely than not” that they committed the crime (i.e. 50.01%).

Previously, colleges were free to define their own standards of proof. Some colleges were already using “preponderance of evidence,” while others were using a standard of “clear and convincing evidence” (“significantly more likely than not”), or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (~98%).

The preponderance of evidence standard means that students can be found guilty and suspended or expelled on a suspicion that’s “more likely than not.” College judicial tribunals can tell students and staff accussed of sexual harassment or sexual assault, “hey, we know there’s a 49% chance that you are innocent, but we are punishing you anyway.” They believe in wrongly punishing 49 innocent individuals to punish 51 perpetrators.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/09/18/new-campus-sexual-misconduct-policy-threatens-civil-liberties-noh/

Moreover, if an accused student is not found guilty, even under this very low standard of proof, his or her accuser may be afforded a right to appeal (under section 304) exposing the accused to double jeopardy. Of course, campus disciplinary proceedings are not formal criminal trials governed by the 5th and 6th Amendments. But you'd have to regard the protection against double jeopardy as a mere constitutional technicality to believe that schools should dispense with it. Or you'd have to assume that, as a general rule, fairness requires convictions and provides multiple opportunities to obtain them.

These low standards of proof, together with the appeals provisions, reflect the tendency of victim advocates, including Obama Administration officials, to err on the side of presuming guilt in sexual misconduct cases. Some have unabashed contempt for the rights of the accused: Boston attorney Wendy Murphy writes disdainfully of "lawyers for men accused of rape (who) injected themselves into college disciplinary proceedings demanding 'due process' and arguing that accused students have a constitutional liberty interest at stake." The accused have no constitutional claim to due process, she writes approvingly, but "student victims of sexual assault" do, "because sexual assault is a form of gender discrimination."

Perhaps. But if violence against women is a form of gender discrimination, so is the systematic denial of due process to "men accused of rape." It is also a prescription for false convictions.

Consider the case of University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner, suspended for three years and banned from campus after being convicted of sexual assault under the "preponderance of evidence" standard favored by the administration and arguably required under VAWA. Reviewing the same evidence, FIRE reports, North Dakota law enforcement concluded that the accuser was lying and charged her with with filing a false report (issuing a warrant for her arrest), but the university exonerated Warner only after a spate of bad publicity, including this Wall Street Journal op ed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/

[+]that_dude_you_know 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a nice sentiment, just not based in reality. I'd rather have 10 guilty rapists walk free than one innocent person falsely convicted.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. It's a scary world we live in.

[–]Raidicus 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Riktrat 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jcea_ 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or, you know, the opposite of thousands of years of jurisprudence evolution which has led to the presumption of innocence.

In fact, legal scholars would say it's the opposite. Better to let ten or one hundred guilty people go free than to punish a single innocent.

Obviously crimes against anyone are terrible and someone who legitimately committed a crime who avoids culpability is a shame, but that doesn't mean we should upend the presumption of innocence over knee jerk emotional reactions by reactionaries who have no experience thinking abstractly or philosophically about why the system has these safeguards and procedures in place.

Which is why the dear colleague letter to Title IX schools from the president is such a dereliction of reason and frankly his duty. He pandered to demographics and marketing by the largest swing vote group in the country - - - - women. Which is why we also see him tout the 77 cents on the dollar wage trope so often as well. It's really hard sad and pathetic and gives you a true idea of his character and virtue.

[–]mrekon123 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]golemsheppard 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrekon123 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]HappyGerbil88 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually, feminist researchers don't define it as forced sex, it's forced penetration. Women don't typically penetrate anybody, so using this definition lets feminists make statements like "over 99% of rapists are male," because the studies they're using only counted rapists who penetrated their victims. Same with "90% of rape victims are women," that only includes victims who were penetrated, not men who were forced to penetrate.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Watermelon_Salesman 44 points45 points46 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]safewinter 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cagg 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JRutterbush 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JRutterbush 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]golemsheppard 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asdfgasdfg312 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tectonic9 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That probably goes back to the scaremongering 1982 survey by Mary Koss, commissioned by Ms. magazine. By including an ambiguous question about drug and alcohol use, and letting the experimenters act as arbiters of what constituted rape, they were able to conjure up enormous scary numbers - allegedly 27% of women surveyed had been a victim or what the researchers tried to pass off as rape or attempted rape.

But wait... there was a follow up study that contacted those same women for clarification, and it turned out that only 6.75% of the women in the survey described their experience as rape or attempted rape. The numbers get lower (between 3 and 5 percent of the women surveyed) if you also subtract the results of the unprofessionally vague drug and alcohol question.

It's still a high enough number to be scary! But it's telling that agenda-driven researchers feel the need to steer public opinion by putting out results that are so dishonest. And it's equally telling that these numbers are still used, decades after they've been debunked. If these folks are in the right, why do they feel so obliged to lie?

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tectonic9 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. They allege that some people don't know what rape is, and so it's better to ask behavioral questions than questions with the label "rape." When questions are worded without any ambiguity, perhaps one might make a case for this. But frequently, they're worded such that they might include consensual rough sex, drunken voluntary hookups, seductive persuasion, sexual "buyer's remorse," etc. Coincidentally, doing this makes for numbers that appear more urgent, which is great for those who make a living selling moral panic.

Among the many ways that it's fucked up is this: rape is a horrible thing, and it should be addressed with honesty and realism, not exaggerated and not appropriated as leverage for a cheap scare tactic in a social engineering campaign.

Here's an article that reviews the circumstances of the Ms. Magazine Mary Koss study in some detail.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points66 points 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]speenatch 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobbenQC 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterDamage 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]nc863id -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Raudskeggr 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]t0talnonsense 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Was the person who posted the infographic the one who actually created it? A ton of shit gets shared across the internet without any real knowledge of who the creator was. Unless you know for a fact that the person created the infograph they are posting, jumping down their throat isn't the best course of action. They could be just as misinformed as anyone else.

If you aren't looking closely, you miss the fact that the men get smaller. I know I missed it until it was pointed out to me.

[–]alphabetmod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]t0talnonsense 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I assumed not. It was primarily a hypothetical question to get the other person to think. Just because I can upload/share a picture onto the internet, that doesn't mean that I'm the one who made it.

[–]alphabetmod[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]t0talnonsense 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They may have acknowledged it, but look through the whole chain. Not trying to be rude/argumentative. Just trying to explain my line of reasoning.

/u/Raudskeggr

A person on the internet was purposefully lying in order to generate support for their hate-speech agenda. So fuck that, mild name-calling is fair enough.

/u/MakhSC

You have no direct evidence whatsoever to support your claim. All you know is some person posted an infographic.

The claim that the person who posted it created it.

/u/MisterDamage

I think the fact that the stick figures get smaller the further to the left hand side of the graph you get clearly demonstrates that the person who created the graph knew what they were doing and intended to mislead.

Seemingly implies that the person in question is the one who created the graph, which is why I commented.

[–]alphabetmod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]t0talnonsense 12 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Don't come in here talking sense. It'll get you nowhere. Trying to explain that no one will take you seriously when you talk shit about anyone who disagrees with you is a bad move seems to be the best way to heap downvotes upon yourself.

After all, every feminist is evil, trying to destroy men, and purposefully spewing misinformation to push their own agenda..../s

Heaven forbid there are people with actual brains who can comprehend a logical argument when presented with factual information in a non-inflammatory manner.

[–]alphabetmod[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]t0talnonsense -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]t0talnonsense -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

it doesn't matter whether or not the moderate feminists are intentionally spewing misinformation

But it does. I know and agree that there are things being done very deliberately by those who control the discourse, but being combative and rude doesn't help MRA's. I keep meaning to write out a long post about this, but just don't have the time.

Quickly though, MRA is a reactionary movement to feminism. The origins of feminism aren't necessarily evil, and did a lot of good for gender equality. The movement has now shifted away substantially from gender equality, but the majority of the general public doesn't know or understand. Thus, MRA is born. Since this is a countermovement (effectively), it will be looked down on immediately.

Since MRA's are automatically looked down on, because the gut reaction is, "you don't like feminism? you don't like equality!" MRA's have to earn the respect of the common people and news media. When every other post on a major hub of MRA's, which is a primarily online movement, is full of hate-speech and radical rhetoric, it does nothing to further the brand that is MRA. Until people learn to hold their tongues when talking about these issues, MRA is doomed to fail. The number of people who actively advertise themselves as an MRA who act civilly is disappointingly low. MRA's are overwhelmingly represented (vocally) by those who are extreme and just as full of hate as the extreme feminists.

When moderation and civilly is looked down on as much as it is on this sub, potential allies are pushed away. People are too far in the bubble to realize that they are playing the political game called Civil Liberties worse than a pigeon plays chess.

All of this to say, just because the extremists are being very deliberate, MRA's shouldn't play into their hand by losing all civility.

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know and agree that there are things being done very deliberately by those who control the discourse, but being combative and rude doesn't help MRA's.

Agree.

MRA is a reactionary movement to feminism.

Agree.

The origins of feminism aren't necessarily evil, and did a lot of good for gender equality.

Mostly agree.

The movement has now shifted away substantially from gender equality, but the majority of the general public doesn't know or understand.

Eh, maybe... the general public may not identify as feminist (most people don't) but maybe you're right in that your average person doesn't understand.

The number of people who actively advertise themselves as an MRA who act civilly is disappointingly low.

I don't think so. I think we have a bigger hill to climb because getting anyone to be sympathetic to men's issues is a challenge in itself, not withstanding the chokehold feminism has on the discourse surrounding gender issues. I agree that we have a huge hill to climb if the loudest most radical voices are portrayed as the norm, though.

I'm not sure what my post had to do with all of this though... I don't see anyone being extreme here at all... the only comment with any bullshit rhetoric is the one at the bottom that's down voted, seemingly made by a feminist calling MRAs "Male Rape Apologists."

[–]t0talnonsense0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think so....I agree that we have a huge hill to climb if the loudest most radical voices are portrayed as the norm, though.

Maybe I've just had a lot of really bad experiences here, but it unless someone is brandishing pitchforks at the drop of a hat, then they aren't welcome. This conversation and entire post is a very pleasant exception in my experience.

I'm not sure what my post had to do with all of this though.

It goes back up the comment thread about the whole civility thing. While there may not have been a tone of BS in this particular thread, a general lack of civility was still apparent and can be seen through the vote numbers. Even if they evened themselves out mostly, there were still a lot more people up voting unnecessarily inflammatory speech.

Like I said, I keep meaning to make a very large post about all of my thoughts on why/how MRA needs to change its approach, but I've got a thesis and about 4 other papers standing between me and graduation at the moment, plus wedding stuff. haha. The last thing I have time for is a MRA manifesto I expect to get down voted to oblivion where it's never seen unless I catch the reasonable MRA's first.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]t0talnonsense2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No worries.

It would take some research on my part, but I would be willing to bet that the rhetoric involved with similar social movements was calmer. Rather than spending more time blaming and pointing fingers, things started changing/getting done when the people they were pointing fingers at were ignored and more emphasis was placed on the actual issues at hand. In the case of MRA's, spend less time fighting with SJW's and radfems. Instead try and form allies with moderate feminists who are actually gender egalitarians. The civil rights movement wouldn't have gone anywhere if there weren't prominent white men behind them. MRA's can't get anything done when they spend so much time pushing away potential allies.

Basically, find something that pretty much everyone can agree isn't fair (let's take the fact that men are given harsher prison sentences for the same crime), and get people to rally behind that. Radfems won't bite it, but you can get some moderate people. Once you have done that, not only have you created allies with moderate feminists you can probably work with again, you have an explicit example where radfems were working against men, and the moderate feminists agreed with the MRA's. It gives the group more legitimacy, which in turn gives the MRA's a stronger ground to stand on when pointing the finger at the radfems.

See what I mean? it's not that calling out radfems is wrong, it's that MRA's don't have the foundation to do it. Like a little dog barking at a big one. The big one just sees the little one as a nuisance, that is until the little dog comes back with friends (moderate fems in this case).

[–]mynewromantica 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]atxsuckscox 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cagg 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ChaoticParadox -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]ChaoticParadox -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharou 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sharou1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mynewromantica 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sevion 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaoticParadox1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]earl_sleek2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ObeseMoreece 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]torrentfox -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]saint2e 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sevion -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mangoose420 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]quantumfox64 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mister_Kurtz -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gellis12 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gellis12 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JRutterbush 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GilTheARM 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marks1995 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The other aspect I did not see mentioned is the difference between number of reported cases and the number of suspects. Based on the news from Detroit who is apparently just now getting around to some huge number of rape kits, they found 100 serial rapists in the first 1000 rape kits. By definition, a serial rapist is someone who rapes 3 or more women.

So those 100 men were responsible for at least 300 rapes. While I would bet most falsely accused and inconclusive cases involve one suspect per case. I'm too tired to apply the numbers to the charts, but where I am going is that if 100 rape cases are reported, and 10 serial rapists were responsible for 30 of those 100 rapes, but then you have 2 individuals who were falsely accused and the rest inconclusive, 2% of the rapes were "falsely accused", but 2 of the 14 cases with conclusive outcomes were falsely accused (14% of the men that were tried).

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jokester1220 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fhwqhgads 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disillusi0n 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SammichHeist 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Electroverted 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skinnybignose 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Goddamn. I have a friend who was raped and her accused was never brought to trial because the circumstances around it were completely impossible to prove and somewhat suspect sounding. In short, she was in bed with her boyfriend and another guy sleeping after a pretty drunken/wild party and the non-boyfriend dude started grinding up on her, removed her underwear and penetrated her. This went on for several minutes because she thought it was her boyfriend. I have never 100% understood the circumstances that could have made this possible, but there you have it. Shes an old friend and I care about her.

In short, I cannot bring up the concept of gray areas, false accusations, or double standards for the way people involved are treated at all with her because it deeply upsets her, offends her, and causes serious rifts in our friendship.

It's really sad, but the truth seems to be that we can't have reasonable discussions about this kind of thing without being accused of defending rapists or "shaming" women who are simply trying to get justice.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nick012000 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FuriousMouse 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ventuckyspaz 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]somecallmejohnny 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

In addition to everything else that's incorrect here, wouldn't the "faced trial but not jailed" group be considered falsely accused. Presumably if they were found guilty they would have gone to jail.

[–]alphabetmod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]somecallmejohnny 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

But if they are not guilty, then they are innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a really key part of the US justice system.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]somecallmejohnny1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Technically, you're correct. But, "innocent until proven guilty" is not a valid way to measure the "falsely accused" because "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "innocent." An accused rapist can be found "not guilty" for lack of evidence, for instance, and that doesn't mean that person is always innocent. That person would be an "unknown" for the purposes of this graph. Unless the accuser can be proven to be a "false accuser" then depicting them as one is statistically dishonest, which is exactly what the original graph in the OP is. We don't want to go to the other extreme here. We want the real, accurate numbers. The real numbers are all we need... we don't want to try and pull the same dishonest tricks the feminists making these kinds of bullshit claims are pulling. We need to rise above that.

[–]TelMegiddo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keltino 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stickymoney 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]asdfgasdfg312 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]LieBaron -26 points-25 points-24 points 12 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod[S] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

. Calling the 'reported' number 'inconclusive' is also wildly misleading - if no one is convicted, that doesn't we can't conclusively say a woman was raped - it only means we can't find the rapist.

No, it means that the same percentage of the 'unreported' are going to be false reports (if not moreso than the actual reported ones) though the graph misleads people into thinking that all of the unreported ones are rapists that got away.

Edit: It also assumes that for every unreported rape, there was a different rapist, which we know is not the case. The vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders. For example:

RAINN’s recommendations pointed to research that suggests that more than 90% of college rapes are committed by about 3% of college men

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape

[–]theskepticalidealist 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrimB0LD 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[+]LieBaron -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (69 children) | Copy Link

That was not the only question asked, how dishonest yet typical of you to act like it was.

"When you didn't want to" is still not a measure of rape. Being held down is also not a measure of rape since many women like rough sex. This particular question even says "threatened OR used some degree of force**. While threats would suggest rape it also means the poor wording of the question those who were not raped and would not consider themselves raped would fall into this category as well.

You still ignore the fact that 70% of her rape victims didn't consider themselves raped and half went on to continue their relationships with their rapists. Now either 1 in 4 women are SO damaged and SO philologically traumatised and through being so manipulated it's possible for this to happen and for her to not even be able to acknowledge its rape, or perhaps they didn't interpret the questions the same way. And the fact is that is a more reasonable explanation, not only because of the demonstrably poor wording of the questions themselves, but because he alternative would require extraordinary evidence of this huge widespread trauma experienced by all these rape victims that we just don't see. Trauma so great that they can be raped and not even know it, and not even recognise it when asked, and where half of those continue to have relationships with their rapists. If they had asked direct difficult to misinterpret questions, if they had asked women of their behaviours as well, and asked men and women the same questions, they would get a different answer. People like Koss aren't interested in a methodology that is solid so we can gain accurate knowledge about human behaviour, they are interested in supporting their own view of human behaviour.

And regarding the OP, you can't feel scared to report a crime because someone won't take you seriously if being a victim of this crime is news to you.

[–]LieBaron 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Are you now arguing that women answered 'yes' to the question because they had rough sex? Because that suggests that you have some incredibly weird views on how people interpret questions in context (or in your case, a particularly literalist contextlessness). When people are taking a survey about rape and violence, they are probably not going to interpret questions about "force" as referring to rough sex. These questions are not difficult to interpret - except if you're overly literal and desperately grasping for a reason, any reason, to dismiss this study.

I also suggest you look into actual victim behaviour, especially for battered women (and men, for that matter) - your comments about victims staying with their rapists seems to suggests that you have no knowledge on the subject. I can give you a hint: Women who are raped as part of a larger pattern of abuse consider their rape in the context of that pattern. I have spoken to some of these women, and it's incredibly disconcerting to hear them talk about what is obviously rape as if it was 'just' a violent episode in a relationship often defined by violence and psychological abuse. Nevertheless, this is exactly how they cope with it, sad as it is. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to put the snide attitude away when you talk about subjects where every word you write betrays your ignorance.

And sure, we can pretend that Mary Koss is part of some nefarious feminist conspiracy in the universities. I'm sure that conspiracy cackles devilishly next to all the evolutionist conspirators and climate change conspirators - maybe they exchange tips on how best to twist research to fit a preconceived narrative? If your worldview hinges on dismissing the motives of incredibly respected researchers, perhaps you should consider the fact that your worldview is wrong.

Honestly dude, fuck you. If you knew jack shit about this subject, I wouldn't have to tell you this. Most rapes are by close relations. Most victims of severe abuse stay with their abusers (for a while) because that's how they become victims of severe abuse in the first place. But I guess that actually reading up on a subject as depressing and personal as rape and abuse victims would stop you from furiously masturbating about the evil feminist conspiracy desperately trying to make us poor men cower under the first of the matriarchy. Skeptic my ass.

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (67 children) | Copy Link

When people are taking a survey about rape and violence, they are probably not going to interpret questions about "force" as referring to rough sex

"When you didn't want to" is never a measure for rape no matter how you spin it. That was also not the only question they asked, as I told you.

Koss believes no matter how a man or boys penis gets inside a woman, its not only wrong to call it rape, but he is still the actor and the sex just "unwanted". When the sex is "unwanted" by a woman in her study however, that she defines as rape.

I also suggest you look into actual victim behaviour, especially for battered women (and men, for that matter) - your comments about victims staying with their rapists seems to suggests that you have no knowledge on the subject. I can give you a hint: Women who are raped as part of a larger pattern of abuse consider their rape in the context of that pattern. I have spoken to some of these women, and it's incredibly disconcerting to hear them talk about what is obviously rape as if it was 'just' a violent episode in a relationship often defined by violence and psychological abuse.

Please present evidence that such an incredible amount of women did not just suffer a sexual assault in college but that suffered to such a immense degree of trauma that they were convinced it was not rape at all through some serious physiological control/manipulation. There should be evidence of that, if it is what you say it is.

In order to explain why these women didnt consider themselves raped and arent actually reporting rapes even when its anonymous the answer is that rape is such a huge problem that women are just this psychologically damaged that they cant even accept it even to themselves. The problem that there is no evidence of such psychological trauma suffered by such a vast percentage of the population. Any theory must be better than to question the methodology they used in the first place.

And sure, we can pretend that Mary Koss is part of some nefarious feminist conspiracy in the universities.

You are suggesting its a conspiracy, not me. I believe it is mostly because they are so blinded by their hate and bias that they cannot see what is wrong with what they are doing. How else do you explain why they do not ask the same questions to both men and women? There are ways to better the study, to account for these variables it and those like it are criticized, but they don't seem to want to or acknowledge its flaws.

Bias, incompetence or conspiracy. Whatever the reason, these studies are flawed. When you look at the 1 in 4 women statistic it sounds sensational which is why you see it repeated so much, but when you factor in how they arrived at that statistic and when you factor in that in a study like the CDC's IPVS which found in the previous year they studied equal numbers of men and women were forced to have sex and the men they asked nearly 80% of which said it was a female perpetrator, and when you factor in other studies such as one showing more boys are raped than girls are and half of perpetrators are women, it starts to become a little less one sided and a lot more murky. We start to question the methods that determined that women are perpetrators and men victimized to the degree with which the studies found, to us this seems extraordinary. The problem for feminists, is that rape and sexual assault start to sound a lot less like male behavior, and a lot more like human behaviors. That they may have to start targeting women as perpetrators of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence, or ask awkward questions of women who claim to be raped such as whether the man had also been drinking and therefore whether she raped him. Such scenarios are unacceptable to them, decided consciously or unconsciously, which means they have to try to twist and manipulate reality in order to not have to.

Most rapes are by close relations. Most victims of severe abuse stay with their abusers (for a while) because that's how they become victims of severe abuse in the first place

So.... the 1 in 4 college women were being sexually abused by family members, and not date raped by their partners, is that what you're saying?

Because also btw I have a study here that says more boys are raped than girls.

[–]LieBaron 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

"When you didn't want to" is never a measure for rape no matter how you spin it. That was also not the only question they asked, as I told you.

I know. I'm the one who started quoting the actual questions, remember? Again, you seem to deliberately interpreting the question without context. People understand that "when you didn't want to" doesn't mean "that one time when you were kind of tired." You want to bet you're not half as skeptical when it comes to the studies you do like?

Koss believes no matter how a man or boys penis gets inside a woman, its not only wrong to call it rape, but he is still the actor and the sex just "unwanted". When the sex is "unwanted" by a woman in her study however, that she defines as rape.

That's an incredibly distorted, twisted way to put it. There's a reason why 'being made to penetrate' is not considered rape in the CDC report, and none of those have to do with agency. The real, actual reason is that being made to penetrate is not as traumatizing as being penetrated - it is a form of sexual assault, yes, but it is not rape. Again, you would know this if you had read the actual studies (freely available online) instead of just circlejerking in a community that treats gender studies the way creationists treat biology. At any rate, that's entirely besides the point to the conversation we're having now, namely: How often are women victims of rape?

Please present evidence that such an incredible amount of women did not just suffer a sexual assault in college but that suffered to such a immense degree of trauma that they were convinced it was not rape at all through some serious physiological control/manipulation. There should be evidence of that, if it is what you say it is.

I never made any such claim. I said that victims of 'domestic rape' did not necessarily consider their rapes as rape. If you want evidence of that, you need to look no further than to the fucking study we're discussing. If your best alternative explanation of Koss' numbers is that an huge number of women are so literally minded that they're practically robots, perhaps you should reconsider whether you're really being objective in your assessment here. (And again, many, many studies have replicated her findings)

So.... the 1 in 4 college women were being sexually abused by family members, and not date raped by their partners, is that what you're saying?

I like how you're still pretending that I didn't say 1-in-5, and how I'm only talking about college women. I realize that that's a talking point for some people, but it's not what the actual study says. And no, not family members - close relations, as in close friends or partners, though yes also family members.

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (65 children) | Copy Link

I know. I'm the one who started quoting the actual questions, remember?

I never questioned the actual question. The issue is the question is predicated on the assumption that rape is when you have sex "when you didn't want to". That is not rape, that is never the definition of rape, or a measure for rape. Why then would you make that the main focus of the question? Lots of people have had sex and will have sex when they didnt and don't want to, and they wont consider it rape, nor would anyone else.

Of course for Mary Koss, that is only when you are a woman. If you are a man and you had sex when you didn't want to, no matter what, its just unwanted sex and not rape and you are still the one that is the actor in the situation. But you know, keep defending her....

Again, you seem to deliberately interpreting the question without context

Find me a single justification for using that phrase at all. If you were trying to get more people to tick that box, that is the phrase you'd use, because you'd know that using a stronger phrase might make them not tick it. Whether she did this consciously, one can only speculate. The fact remains that due to the wording more people will by definition fall into the category. Simply acting like people would know what it means is really giving people too much credit. I used to do market research, which is more or less the same thing. People are typically idiots and you have to spell everything out in great detail. They can often answer with totally different extremes because they initially misunderstood the question after I asked again if they were sure (since sometimes their answer made no sense).

People understand that "when you didn't want to" doesn't mean "that one time when you were kind of tired."

In that case why didn't they consider it rape? Do they not know what the defintion of rape is? In which case, you just argued against yourself, because it means they don't know what rape is and the questions did indeed need to be much more specific in order to make sure they understand what it is they are answering.

That's an incredibly distorted, twisted way to put it

That is almost a direct quote, actually.

"Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes... [...]... It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman."
- Mary Koss - Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods p. 206

There's a reason why 'being made to penetrate' is not considered rape in the CDC report, and none of those have to do with agency.

They couldnt come up with any actual reason when asked, actually. They simply said that is the definition they use.

If rape is sex when you didnt want to, and everyone knows that. Then why isnt it rape if, for example, an older woman were to force an 11 year old boy to have sex with her and gets her pregnant and gives him HIV. Nope, he's just havung unwanted sex with a woman. That's not rape. There is no scenario where it will ever be considered rape and you defend that, you can sit here say that a woman who gets drunk and has sex, or who get penetrated "no matter how slight" with a finger, or where she is totally cool with having sex then decides she isnt and says "stop" but the guy doesnt for a few seconds (maybe because he is also drunk or not sure if she is serious or not) are justifiably "rape". But an 11 year old boy could be forced to penetrate an adult (male or female), gives him HIV, and that wouldnt be rape.

This woman for example, had sex with a boy 50 times since he was 8. That's well into the pedophile range, but no, its still not rape, not for the CDC or Mary Koss. It would never be considered rape, not even if she fed him enoigh viagra to erect a horse. In fact for Koss, it was the 8 year old boy that engaged in unwanted sex with 'her'.

The real, actual reason is that being made to penetrate is not as traumatizing as being penetrated

I like how you just ignore the fact that "made to penetrate" also includes a heterosexual boy being forced to penetrate a man, or a homosexual being forced to penetrate a woman. Not very traumatic? Really? I sure would find it rather traumatic being forced to penetrate another man, especially when you consider what scenarios you will consider to be traumatic enough to be considered rape enough when it comes to women. You sure have some cheek to call us rape apologists, you wont even call that rape.

Men and boys are just emotional rocks apparently, and women wilting flowers easily traumatized. Sounds a lot like traditional attitudes to men and women to me. Funnily enough feminists I've debated this with have told me that people like you arent real feminists and that the defintion doesnt include "made to penetrate" because of "patriarchy". How ironic!

Some rapes are not as serious as others. Yes, but if you are going to report that 1 in 4 women will be raped and use an incredibly wide definition of what rape is then if you apply it equally then you will have men that will fall into the same net. But you don't want to do that, because otherwise you can't say its only a male behavior and only men need to be targeted as rapists, being sexually aggressive or coercive.

70% of the women in Koss' study she said were raped did not consider themselves raped. In order to explain this you have to claim they are SO traumatized they can't even accept they were raped, and yet still for some reason ticked the box that said they had sex "when they didnt want to", which you claim they would know means forced sex against their will and consent. If you were that traumatized that you were under a self delusion as to your rape, you would not say that you had sex when you didnt want to. You would be telling yourself that you did indeed want the sex. Otherwise you are saying they don't know what the definition of rape actually means, and that this is the reason they said they weren't raped.

How often are women victims of rape?

We need to ask questions that will get us accurate understanding of human behavior, which starts with controlling for variables such as potential misunderstandings of respondents as possible. Asking any vague open ended or broad questions is not the way to do that. They also need to ask men and women the same questions equally. Feminists claim rape is a male behavior, that it is men that need to be taught what consent means and taught what rape means. You wont say women dont engage in these actions, your excuse for not including "made to penetrate" in the rape figures is that you claim its not traumatizing enough. But apparently having a few too many drinks and agreeing to have sex when you didnt want to is rape and traumatizing, but pedophilia against a male child, giving the boy HIV and if the perpetrator were female having his child (which he will be forced to pay CS for) would not be traumatizing enough and not rape.

Is that the measure of rape? Not forced sex, but a degree of trauma? Does that mean I can tell someone that they werent raped if I dont think they are traumatized enough? The thing is you don't use this measure anyway.

I never made any such claim

Yes you did. You said this is the reason why they didnt consider themselves victims of rape, because they are so traumatized.

I said that victims of 'domestic rape' did not necessarily consider their rapes as rape

Its funny how you keep referring to scenarios away from the scenario we are talking about. Also, see above. It still doesn't work.

and how I'm only talking about college women.

That is the study we're debating. The only other study brought up was the CDC and that is regarding another point.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If rape is sex when you didnt want to, and everyone knows that.

Honestly dude, do you even have a better definition yourself? Although, again, you're removing context in order to misrepresent what the actual question was.

Then why isnt it rape if, for example, an older woman were to force an 11 year old boy to have sex with her and gets her pregnant and gives him HIV. Nope, he's just havung unwanted sex with a woman. That's not rape.

Dude, statutory rape and rape are not the same thing. Do you seriously think that I'm arguing against statutory rape laws?

you can sit here say that a woman who gets drunk and has sex,

Is she able to consent? Then it's not rape! Is she so drunk that she cannot meaningfully consent? Guess what - it's rape!

or who get penetrated "no matter how slight" with a finger,

Does she consent to it? Then guess what? Not rape (although this might count as sexual assault as opposed to rape, although it's incredibly odd to see someone apply a 'just the tip' qualifier to a rape discussion.)

or where she says "stop" but the guy doesnt for a few seconds (maybe because he is also drunk or not sure if she is serious or not) are are justifiably "rape".

We all know of the many cases where miscommunication leads to rape charges, right? That's totally something that happens.

You sure have some cheek to call us rape apologists, you wont even call that rape.

Well, you've literally spent hours arguing against widely-accepted definitions of rape. Although I note you have no reservations forgetting about those definitions once we're talking about men.

If you were that traumatized that you were under a self delusion as to your rape, you would say that you did not have sex when you didnt want to.

Because abuse victims are typically known to be incredibly logical. I mean it's not like people have defense mechanisms or anything. Hell, you've even argued yourself that 'not having sex when you didn't want to' wasn't a good indicator as to whether or not you've been raped.

Otherwise you are saying they don't know what the definition of rape actually means, and that this is the reason they said they weren't raped.

This is also often the case, especially in 1985 - before Koss' study, it was a huge problem that women did not say they were raped because rape only 'counted' if it was a stranger attacking them. Koss' study was and is groundbreaking because it tried to create a more objective definition of rape, based on the questions asked rather than upon self-identification as a rape victim.

Feminists claim rape is a male behavior, that is is men that need to be taught what consent means and taught what rape means.

Are you now objecting to teaching consent - especially in light of the fact that lots of men and boys don't realize that having sex with someone who is passed out due to drugs is against the law?

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly dude, do you even have a better definition yourself? Although, again, you're removing context in order to misrepresent what the actual question was.

Yes, forced sex. How difficult was that?

If you want to add coercion, then go ahead, but more men will fall in the net. I am asking you to treat rape equally. Your justification to leave out "made to penetrate" is indefensible nonsense and you quickly become a "rape apologist", an accusation you frivolously throw around and accuse others of.

Dude, statutory rape and rape are not the same thing. Do you seriously think that I'm arguing against statutory rape laws?

What an odd response..... Firstly, I know that. And secondly, I didnt say anything about the law. I am talking about what Mary Koss, the CDC, and apparently also you, would consider "rape".

Is she able to consent? Then it's not rape! Is she so drunk that she cannot meaningfully consent? Guess what - it's rape!

Is he also too drunk to meaningful consent? Guess what! Its rape! See how this works? or should we not expect women to be responsible for their actions to the same standard we expect of men? Where men should need to be responsible for their own decisions while drunk, and also womens? I thought it was rape if it was traumatic? This isnt a scenario that necessarily makes it be a traumatic experience. So then, your logic is wrong, its not about consent that makes it rape, its about if she was traumatized, right?

I also didn't say it wasnt rape, this is about what YOU believe. I'm talking about being consistent. I said you consider this rape but not my scenario with pedophilia and passing on HIV to a child, because you claim the latter wouldn't be "traumatic" enough so should not be considered rape but a woman can have a happy time having sex drunk and still be considered technically raped.

oes she consent to it? Then guess what? Not rape (although this might count as sexual assault as opposed to rape, although it's incredibly odd to see someone apply a 'just the tip' qualifier to a rape discussion.)

See above, this point is not about what should and should not be considered rape, its about you being consistent. Keep up.

Well, you've literally spent hours arguing against widely-accepted definitions of rape. Although I note you have no reservations forgetting about those definitions once we're talking about men.

I never implied they werent rape. My point was to say you will include all these things as rape, but not ANY scenario where a man or boy is forced to penetrate a man or a woman, because its not traumatic enough.

Because abuse victims are typically known to be incredibly logical.

You keep arguing against yourself. If they are so illogical then the need for strong pointed questions is even more important.

I mean it's not like people have defense mechanisms or anything. Hell, you've even argued yourself that 'not having sex when you didn't want to' wasn't a good indicator as to whether or not you've been raped.

If they are so self deluded about their rape not being a rape, then they wouldn't have ticked the "I was forced to have sex" box.

Not sure where you're going with your second sentence. Having sex "when you didnt want to" is not a measure of rape, sorry. It needs more qualification than that.

This is also often the case, especially in 1985 - before Koss' study, it was a huge problem that women did not say they were raped because rape only 'counted' if it was a stranger attacking them.

According to feminists today, women still don't agree they were raped. Did they bother to ask them if they actually feel traumatized? Because even if they didnt think that was the definition, they would still feel trauma right?

"1 in 4 or 5 women are the victims of rape or attempted rape, according to the legal definition, but only 1 in 4 of those women identifies her experience as rape. Why? Koss believes that now, as then, “people can’t see what happens to themselves as rape.”"" - Date Rape Revisited

Are you now objecting to teaching consent

God you are ridiculous. I am clearly objecting to abusing statistics to claim rape is a male behavior and only men need to be taught not to rape or what consent means. I see you're already resorting to acting like you are illiterate and misrepresenting me in order to get through this. That sure didnt take long.

especially in light of the fact that lots of men and boys don't realize that having sex with someone who is passed out due to drugs is against the law?

Evidence? And does your source ask women the same questions, if not, why not?

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is he also too drunk to meaningful consent?

You were super clever when you mimicked the things I wrote, except of course for the part where you think that people who are too drunk to consent are also capable of pursuing others.

you claim the latter wouldn't be traumatic as the former.

Not my claim... Which again you'd know if you'd read the CDC study.

If they are so self deluded about their rape not being a rape, then they wouldn't have ticked the "I was forced to have sex" box.

Except people totally do. And I'm not talking about the study, here. I'm talking about several real life experiences I've had - the popular conception of rape is not close to reality at all (hence why we get 'legitimate rape' comments). Also, talking about rape victims as 'deluded' is a serious shit move on your part.

I don't think there's much else to add. You clearly do not know what you're talking about, you clearly believe that the actual people in actual universities have sinister agendaaaaa - are you as skeptical of the other branches of academia as well, or is it just when they challenge your worldview? (Again - some skeptic you are)

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You were super clever when you mimicked the things I wrote, except of course for the part where you think that people who are too drunk to consent are also capable of pursuing others.

Ah then Im glad to see you recognise that "too drunk to consent" requires a definition and qualification. Just how drunk does one have to be to too drunk to consent? I dont know if you know this but you can get pretty damn hammered while still being able to be quite able to do a lot of things. Where did Mary Koss define how drunk they had to be when she asked if they had been given alcohol in her paper? Where did the CDC, even, when they asked the similar question? Ah yes, thats right, they didn't. With Koss, all someone has to do is have sex when they didnt want to because the "man" "gave" them (so they have no free will) alcohol and had sex with someone they wouldn't have if they were sober.

But I see you again ignored the entire argument once again, about why I brought those things up. It was not to question whether these things were rape or not. With your ridiculous misrepresentation corrected in the last post, you now just ignore the point entirely. Well done, way to show you are just covering your eyes and ears.

Not my claim... Which again you'd know if you'd read the CDC study.

I see this is winding down with your responses getting more and more minimal and vague. What are you talking about? This is your claim, since you made it in this thread. They were traumatised therefore that is why they said they weren't raped. I don't care who also says it, or if someone said something similar. Can you actually defend the claims and arguments made or not?

Except people totally do.

Then as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, if they are that self deluded and they are that illogical then it makes asking direct not easily misinterpreted questions with strong definitions even more important.

I'm talking about several real life experiences I've had

And I already told you about my life experience working in market research where I could get people to completely flip their answer because they didnt understand the question after I queried whether they were sure of their answer. The more vague and unclear a question the more meaningless the answer will be for research purposes. That goes for whether you are the government researching people about their experiences of the healthcare system, a company asking people what they think of their product, or a study into human behavior. And btw the surveys I was conducting were damn clear in the questions they asked, because they typically wanted to make sure the data they were spending a ton of money to collect actually told them something meaningful.

Also, talking about rape victims as 'deluded' is a serious shit move on your part.

lol. Why?? You said they were deluded in your description of their behavior, I just gave it a word. You said their rape made them so illogical and traumatised that they will believe they weren't raped, but also tick a box that says "I was forced to have sex". Once again you people knee jerk on a single word, rip out the context, and decide I'm somehow implying something else. I wonder if you start telling people its racist to use the word "black" in any context at all, because racism.

I don't think there's much else to add. You clearly do not know what you're talking about

That's funny, because you clearly refuse to address any of the critical questions in this debate. What a big surprise. You claimed Mary Koss said things she did, you claimed I said things I didnt say even when you quoted me. Its really amazing.

I have had arguments with feminists that tell me people like you are not real feminists and that the reason "made to penetrate" is not defined as rape is because of patriarchy. I have also been told that feminists like you don't exist, that you're just a "straw feminist". Irony! You haven't even tried to offer a defense of why "made to penetrate" shouldn't be considered rape. Every time you try you end up arguing against yourself. It would be nice if you could actually answer the critical issues and get to the bottom of this, but you won't let yourself because it seems you already know how absurd you're sounding.

you clearly believe that the actual people in actual universities have sinister agendaaaaa

You haven't explained why they do not ask equal questions to both men and women if they really wanted to know the truth about human behavior. Because it is ideologically unacceptable to them to deal with the idea that rape and sexual aggression is not a male behavior, that's a rather strong bias. But it doesn't really matter why right now, it matters that it is objectively demonstrably flawed and the conclusions drawn from it unjustifiable.

are you as skeptical of the other branches of academia as well, or is it just when they challenge your worldview?

Such projection from someone that snips all the important parts of my post. Good going.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's funny, because you clearly refuse to address any of the critical questions in this debate.

What critical questions? You haven't actually made any criticisms that I (and plenty others, seeing as you're just parroting early 90's conservative talking points) haven't addressed, but you've refused to move on from my answers. And you've continually asserted that the studies we are dealing with are not made in good faith, in spite of the fact that Koss is widely respected in academia. And once again - one of us has academic consensus behind them, and the other one is a member of a fringe crank movement. What you're doing is no different from the data-fudging that, say, John Watts or any number of creationists is doing - magnifying minor flaws in studies that contradict your worldview (and in your case, a major persecution complex).

Oh well. Science deniers gonna science deny, I guess.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What critical questions?

There were several... Such as why made to penetrate should not be considered rape. That "forced sex" shouldn't actually be the definition for rape. Whats funny is you said if they cant consent its rape, but then said statuatory rape isnt the same thing as rape, when statutory rape is called rape because the idea is they "cannot consent". Is it impossible for a boy to ever not consent to sex? Is consent the measure of rape, or not? Is trauma the measure of rape, or not? You brought up these measures by which to determine what is and isnt rape, but even then you won't apply it consistently, since if you did it still means there will be male victims you currently don't accept and less female victims. You danced around my entire argument that I made in this post. When it was pointed out how badly you apparently misunderstood me, you ignored it entirely. You tied yourself up in so many inconsistent impossible to reconcile knots I suspect that is why you realised you had to abandon it. Don't agree? Please do go back and read my argument and explain how you can justify not including made to penetrate as rape and actually address the critical questions addressed to you. Eventually you will have to accept you are wrong, or accept you have no answer.

You also accused me of attributing to Mary Koss beliefs that were "incredibly distorted, twisted way to put it". When I presented you a quote saying exactly what i said she said, you ignored it. The truth of is, you have no evidence or reasoned argument that can back up your points all you have are emotional feelings. You "feel" like what Im saying is this and that, but cant argue the case, which is why you've abandoned every argument you have presented in favor of a basic logical fallacy.

(and plenty others, seeing as you're just parroting early 90's conservative talking points)

lol I dont see how its a conservative viewpoint to say that made to penetrate should be considered rape. Where are conservatives saying that the definition of rape should apply to men? It was traditionalists that said only women can be rape victims and only men can be rapists. You again "feel" like what Im saying is conservative (you mean traditionalist), but will never be able to back it up. You yourself have made arguments that imply a traditionalist mindset, that men must be responsible for both themselves and women, and that we cant hold women to the same standards we hold men to. That men and boys cannot be traumatised as much as women can even if they were forced to have sex and molested when they were 8 years old, because women are wilting flowers easily hurt, even if they are only "raped" by your definition and don't consider themselves to be raped at all.

but you've refused to move on from my answers.

You haven't provided any answers. You made claims and arguments, when I replied to them you just ignore them. What point did you make that you think is so good that I cannot move on from?

And you've continually asserted that the studies we are dealing with are not made in good faith

That is my explanation for the problems in the studies. But whether my explanation is correct or not doesn't change the problems with them, or whether the conclusions and claims made on the basis of the results are justifiable or not.

And once again - one of us has academic consensus behind them,

lol Argument from authority/popularity? Really? The difference between this and something like Evolution vs Creationism is that unlike you if you argue with a Creationist you don't ever say that you're right because you have academic consensus behind you. That is never a valid argument. You say you are right because you can defend evolution on the basis of its merits. You however have simply regressed into ignoring all the criticisms and acting like you don't need to because you say academia seems to think its generally okay. Are you able to understand the topic, and understand the subject to a degree where you are able to actually debate these things yourself? Or are you only able to say you believe there must be good responses to my points, but you aren't able to make them personally, and can only make arguments from authority and popularity?

magnifying minor flaws in studies that contradict your worldview

So much projection! How is it a minor flaw in studying rape and sexual aggression in humans where you only ask one gender about their victimization? How is it a minor flaw that you arbitrarily decide that being "made to penetrate" should not be counted as rape, and then base theories on sexual aggression (claiming its a male behavior) off data generated with definitions of rape where it would be impossible for it to show any other answer?

I mean honestly, if you want to say rape is a male behavior, then you can't show statistics where you define it so women can't be perpetrators. I've even had feminists use British crime statistics to show me how its always men that are rapists, when in the UK its only legally possible to be a rapist if you have a penis. Gee, I wonder why we won't find any female rapists there.... Even if rape really is a male behavior, you cannot possibly glean that from data that was generated from methodology which made it impossible for you to get another answer. If you stack the deck in a card game in your favor, you may have won anyway had you played fairly, but since you cheated there was never any way you wouldn't win. You are like someone saying that the evidence they are better at card games comes from the outcome of games where it would not be possible for them to have lost because they made it impossible to. And you're saying its fair to do that.

If I'm so wrong, and your position so well accepted, you should be able to find some reasonable logical justification for treating the subject this way. But you cant do that, can you?

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I'm so wrong, and your position so well accepted, you should be able to find some reasonable logical justification for treating the subject this way. But you cant do that, can you?

Horses and water and all that. You've repeatedly ignored my point that there aren't any real problems with the questions in Koss' study (or at least not the ones we have been talking about - there are other, realy, flaws), you continually muddle your definitions (sexual assault, rape and statutory things are different things), and pretend like this somehow means that I'm caught contradicting myself - defining rape and defining statutory rape are two completely different things, and there are things that should/would be considered sexual assault if they happened to an adult should be considered statutory rape if they happen to a minor. That's not a contradiction, dude.

Again - Koss has argued (based on consensus) that being made to penetrate is a form of sexual assault that is distinct from rape. Sexual assault depends on consent. Rape is the severest form of sexual assault, but it is not the only form.

So much projection! How is it a minor flaw in studying rape and sexual aggression in humans where you only ask one gender about their victimization? How is it a minor flaw that you arbitrarily decide that being "made to penetrate" should not be counted as rape, and then base theories on sexual aggression (claiming its a male behavior) off data generated with definitions of rape where it would be impossible for it to show any other answer?

Putting the cart before the horse there. I agree that historically male rape and sexual assault victims (as well as male victims of domestic violence) have been woefully understudied. I disagree that this is feminism's fault.

Oh and finally:

The difference between this and something like Evolution vs Creationism is that unlike you if you argue with a Creationist you don't ever say that you're right because you have academic consensus behind you. That is never a valid argument.

I'm not saying that I must be right because I have academic consensus behind me. I'm just trying to get you to consider the fact that you are part of a crank movement on with creationism or what have you.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've repeatedly ignored my point that there aren't any real problems with the questions in Koss' study

You cant just "make a point". I understand this is your position. Its like you've never had a debate before. I have not ignored the fact that you believe this, I have been debating you on the validity of your belief.

and pretend like this somehow means that I'm caught contradicting myself

You have. Your excuse that being "made to penetrate" shouldnt be considered rape is because its not as traumatic. This means the measure for what is and isnt rape should be the level of trauma sustained to the individual, which still means this wouldn't rule out being "made to penetrate" from being considered. But the kicker is there would be no way to quantify this level of trauma where you could exclude all "made to penetrate" scenarios from being considered rape, while also not reducing the number of women being raped at the same time. Your "trauma" argument therefore still cannot be an argument not to include it as rape.

defining rape and defining statutory rape are two completely different things, and there are things that should/would be considered sexual assault if they happened to an adult should be considered statutory rape if they happen to a minor

Firstly statutory rape and age of consent laws were only originally created to protect girls. Secondly, we call it statutory "rape" because the idea being that rape is sex without consent. That if you define it so below a certain age that person cannot consent, then by definition its rape.

The fact remains that people like Koss, the CDC or you, will not define what happens to a boy as actually being raped. You may say they may have been a victim of statutory rape on the technicality on what the law says about the age of consent. But no matter what, they won't be put in any rape statistics like the CDCs, or Koss' work. They defined away the possibility that rape statistics could show anything other than a vast female majority of rape victims, even if that were true.

The questions in Koss' survey show she believes rape is something someone "feels", rather than something someone does to someone else against their "will", or their "consent". If a woman "feels" like she doesn't want to have sex and then has sex, then by Koss' definition they have been raped and nothing else matters.

Ironically Koss said that if a male (man or boy) is forced to penetrate someone else (male or female) this is just "unwanted sex" . Worse than that, even if you are 8 years old, and someone fed them enough viagra to erect a horse, even if they gave them HIV, even if if the perpetrator were female and got pregnant and had his baby (which he would be forced to pay for) then it would still be the 8 year old that chose to engage in the act with the person they were forced to penetrate, and it would be "inappropriate" to call that rape. While that's all kinds of ridiculous, the main irony is that for Koss unwanted sex is rape when it happens to a woman, but if it happens to a man then its because she believes being forced to penetrate is "unwanted sex" that it should not be considered rape!

The very definition of rape that she uses to say what is rape for women, is what she considers to be the very reason why she believes being forced to penetrate should NOT be considered rape

Putting the cart before the horse there. I agree that historically male rape and sexual assault victims (as well as male victims of domestic violence) have been woefully understudied. I disagree that this is feminism's fault.

It isn't feminism fault, but they are however still promoting it because deep down feminism cant get away from their traditionalist feelings.

I'm not saying that I must be right because I have academic consensus behind me. I'm just trying to get you to consider the fact that you are part of a crank movement on with creationism or what have you.

That is your claim. You don't get to just make a claim and then act like that's all that is necessary.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is your claim. You don't get to just make a claim and then act like that's all that is necessary.

Well, no. You're literally arguing against the academic consensus because it disagrees with your worldview. You're free to do that, of course, but that's pretty much the definition of science denialism. (From wikipedia: "In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.")

for Koss unwanted sex is rape when it happens to a woman

... Because 'unwanted sexual intercourse' pretty much by definition includes penetration to women.

Worse than that, even if you are 8 years old, and someone fed them enough viagra to erect a horse, even if they gave them HIV, even if if the perpetrator were female and got pregnant and had his baby (which he would be forced to pay for) then it would still be the 8 year old that chose to engage in the act with the person they were forced to penetrate, and it would be "inappropriate" to call that rape.

That's not actually what Koss is saying. It's clear from Koss' own paper that "unwanted sexual intercourse" is to be regarded as a form of sexual assault - she herself seems to prefer the term "nonconsensual sexual activity" to 'sexual assault' in its broadest sense.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, no. You're literally arguing against the academic consensus because it disagrees with your worldview.

Argument from authority again. Why do you think this is a valid argument in itself? You know feminism wasnt the prevailing view not so long ago. I asked you before, is an argument to claimed consensus all you can muster or can you actually debate these topics yourself?

If you aren't able, or arent going to, actually debate the details and just keep saying I'm a science denier, then you might as well not bother replying

You're free to do that, of course, but that's pretty much the definition of science denialism. (From wikipedia: "In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.")

What you are missing is the "well supported" part. And feminist theories are not "science", and you are comparing hard science to social science research. Rather a lot more can go wrong and there can be a lot more arguments in social research. Right now feminist views tend to have a monopoly on things, but there's plenty of published research out there that goes against your feminist beliefs despite your instance to characterise this with Creationism which have no backing of the scientific community at all.

... Because 'unwanted sexual intercourse' pretty much by definition includes penetration to women.

Err... obviously? What's your point? You're not even trying anymore, are you?

That's not actually what Koss is saying. It's clear from Koss' own paper that "unwanted sexual intercourse" is to be regarded as a form of sexual assault - she herself seems to prefer the term "nonconsensual sexual activity" to 'sexual assault' in its broadest sense.

I do wish you paid attention.... All of Koss' questions used the basis that if a woman had sex "when she didn't want to" then it was rape. "Unwanted sex" = rape by Koss' definition. When she justifies not including men being forced to penetrate someone as rape, she says this is "unwanted sex" and that this is the very reason why it should not be considered rape. So its not even that Koss won't use her definition equally, its that she uses her definition completely backwards to justify the opposite position.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

o_O...

That isnt actually isn't Koss' justification, her justification was that no matter what its always just "unwanted sex" that "he engaged in". Presumably even if he was a little boy, and even if the perpetrator had force fed him viagra, and even if they permanently damaged his penis somehow or gave him HIV. Her logic here that unwanted sex is not rape, is what she uses as the very definition of what rape is for women.

Regardless of Koss and the above, the whole point here is whether the definition of rape should not only be restricted to penetration. The definition of rape at one time only included forced vaginal penetration of women with a penis. Feminists have made a big deal over the years of getting the definition and what we understand to be rape changed, in various ways.

You cant just say "that's the definition". Yeeees... we all realise that's the definition being used. Are you really this slow? I wish text could convey the patronizing tone you deserve to be treated to right now.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yea... Thanks... Now tell me why it should not be considered rape. I already told you if the measure is the level of trauma to the individual, then there is no way to quantify what that level should be that could disqualify all instances where a male was made to penetrate someone without also disqualifying by definition a unknown percentage of women currently considered to be rape victims.

Additionally, if the level of trauma is what makes it a legitimate rape, why was this not studied in something like Koss' study? So they were not only not asked anything about the specific scenario involved that they checked the box to, but they weren't asked how they felt about it. These questions and details apparently considered unimportant when looking at rape with women. All that is needs to be to be considered rape is that the women merely "felt" like she didn't want to have sex. But when considering whether men and boys who are forced to penetrate another person (male or female) and whether this should also be considered rape, then suddenly these details are of utmost importance based on a completely undefined measure and degree.

The trouble is you can never find a justification that you will ever be able to be consistent with in application

EDIT: Notice how it describes the whole concept as a man doing so only because he is "ambivalent" about what he wants. That's the only scenario they can think of. Well, men just weren't certain they wanted the sex. Well, it's just unwanted sex and it's still him that chose to engage in it. Does this also apply to male children that are forced to have sex with male or female adults? We have to assume it does which means these people you quote believe that even little boys that are molested actually wanted it, and that they are INCAPABLE of the same level of trauma as even the least serious scenario they consider to be rape for a woman. Lovely people you defend.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Additionally, if the level of trauma is what makes it rape

Is it so hard for you to understand that being penetrated and being made to penetrate are two different forms of sexual assault, both legally, psychologically and in terms of severity?

Additionally, if you read the studies they cite (by now I realize this is a long shot - you don't seem to want to know more about this subject than what is absolutely necessary for you to dismiss whatever the experts in the field have to say), you'll see that men usually are ambivalent about what happens, except in very severe cases where physical force or drugs are involved - however, those are not the usual circumstances surrounding female-on-male sexual assault. I agree that it's terribly phrased, though, but hardly evidence of the sick line of thought you're suggesting.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still won't respond to my actual argument or points. You just totally ignore them each time. Amazing.

It doesn't matter if men generally feel less trauma or no trauma. That has no bearing on what is and isn't rape when it comes to whether you consider a woman raped, does it? There simply is no possible way to apply "trauma" consistently and also proves the failure of a study like Koss' because she never cared about the details (such as how traumatised or not her respondents were). It was enough that she got ticked boxes to her mostly vague and ill defined questions. I've already explained why in great detail but you ignore it all, feel free to try and resolve it. It will mean not snipping my entire post and replying directly to the points raised.

And you do realise you keep ignoring the fact that it also ignores male on male assaults too right? You do realise that even if it does involve violence, it's still ignored right? That no matter what, no matter the level of trauma, no matter the age of the male, it cannot ever be considered rape? You do realise what you keep saying IS saying something as "sick" as I said above about a child wanting to be molested?

Why do you defend arguments where we have to say sexually molested boys wanted it and are incapable of feeling any relevant level of trauma?

And you do also realise that even if 100% of men really were totally okay with being forced to have sex no matter the scenario, that wouldn't change women's behaviour and wouldn't make rape more of a male behaviour.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now tell me why it should not be considered rape.

That's what I did. It's a different form of sexual assault. Ultimately I'm basing this on the studies done on it by scientists.

It doesn't matter if men generally felt no trauma. That has no bearing on what is and isn't rape when it comes to whether you consider a woman raped, does it?

Yes, of course it does. If you're just groping a woman, it's not rape.

But honestly dude, you're also arguing against your own definition of rape ('forced sex'). Your proposed definition of 'rape' was forced sex. Well, 'level of trauma' is involved in that definition, whether you want it to or not - after all, what does and does not count as sex? What if someone tied someone down, and penetrated them with their fingers for an hour? Technically not 'intercourse', but definitely worse than if they had simple felt them up when they were drunk. At some point "Well, it's worse because it's more invasive/traumatic" is going to come up. That's a judgement call that any definition of rape will have to make, implicitly or explicitly.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's what I did. It's a different form of sexual assault. Ultimately I'm basing this on the studies done on it by scientists.

You aren't justifying why it's different. One can just as easily argue that "slight penetration by a finger" should not be considered rape for the same exact reason. That it is just a different form of assault and should not be considered rape. The same logic.

Feminists manage to justify broad definitions of rape for women and don't demonstrably give too hoots about how traumatic it either was or was not for the woman they ask the question to, in order to consider them a rape victim. You are asking for very special pleading.

Yes, of course it does. If you're just groping a woman, it's not rape.

What are you on about now? What's this got to do with groping anyone? If you say that what makes something rape is the level of trauma sustained to that person then one of your problems I pointed out is that people like Koss do not ask about the level of trauma experienced by the respondants. If they do not care about the level of trauma (if there was any) women sustained to determine if they were raped or not, then why is this a relevant point concerning males being made to penetrate? Why do you apply one set of criteria to men and not women?

You provide the example of someone being tied down and penetrated with fingers. Except that scenario is not demanded by the current definition nor is it demanded by your feminist researchers. I have provided a scenario where a child under 10 is molested and abused and given an incurable disease. You won't even consider that to be rape even in theory. Where absolutely no scenaro is bad enough for you. Where your logic has been that he actually wanted it and is incapable of feeling any relevant trauma.

And as I said even if 100% of men were completely untraumatised about being forced to have sex that still wouldn't make sexual aggression and rape a male behaviour. It just means men wouldn't care as much as women do. You're wrong even if I agree with every claim you made.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because that would be another study

Why? According to you we are still trying to sort out the question of what the definition of rape should be in the first place. If its the level of trauma that determines whether an assault should be considered rape, then why did Koss define as raped women who ticked the boxes to those questions and not ask how they felt about any of it? If a woman was totally fine and didnt feel anything at all, (or felt as much trauma as the men they are referring to) then why should it be considered rape? If this doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered raped, then why does it matter when considering if men being forced into having sex should be considered raped? Why do you keep ignoring this question? This is one of those critical ones I mentioned earlier...

Koss was studying prevalence of certain forms of sexual assault, and argues that "being made to penetrate" and "being penetrated" are two different degrees of sexual assault, based on research done by others.

Again -- #insert patronising tone# -- I do realise that they don't consider it rape. The issue is whether their justification for that definition can be defended. Your response to this was that this was the definition and that being forced to penetrate was considered different.... Your logical progressions are licking each other's buttholes in a big circle.... I then reminded you that not so long ago rape was only considered to be forced vaginal intercourse with a penis and feminists had to argue the case that "rape" should be expanded to include lots of other things, and you promptly stopped using that argument. Now it comes back again.

The logic you presented in that study you quoted must also apply to little boys being forced to penetrate adults. Otherwise you have to explain why underage boys can be considered "raped" by this method, while also applying the logic you have presented, while an adult cannot be. You cant do it, that's why your responses keep chopping the meat out all my replies.

Again, statutory rape.

Which wouldn't ever be included in any rape statistics with methodology which those like Koss' or the CDC uses. The justification for why not being that they probably wanted it anyway and/or are incapable of feeling any relevant trauma no matter the scenario. Jeez how hard is this??

I have no problem calling it rape,

So if they are underage suddenly it becomes different? Suddenly the logic you used to discard adult men suddenly can't be applied to underage males? For what justification? Your inconsistency truly knows no bounds.

because sexual assault of minor should probably considered rape

Probably!!! hahaha! You still aren't sure! Amazing. Just amazing....

Is ignoring what I say habitual, intentional or something else? And as I said even if apathetically 100% of men were necessarily and always completely untraumatised about being forced to have sex that still wouldn't make sexual aggression and rape a male behaviour. It just means men wouldn't care as much as women do. You're wrong even if I agree with every claim you made.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You cant do it, that's why your responses keep chopping the meat out all my replies.

Because most of your replies are you asserting that you definitely get what I'm saying, rephrasing what I'm saying, and then mercilessly attacking your completely idiotic version of what I'm saying: such as here:

I do realise that they don't consider it rape.

What I was actually trying to do was make my exact position clear to you, because honestly you didn't seem to understand what I was saying - as patronising as you like to be, you don't seem too smart. You don't seem to realize that I'm saying that it's a judgement call based on degrees of severity, the same way we judge other forms of sexual assault (IE groping) as groping/assault/rape, based on their severity, and that the evidence suggests that 'being made to penetrate' is a less severe form of sexual assault than rape. I've given you the studies where this is argued, and yet you contine to debate semantics and mercilessly attacking the imaginary implicatinos of what you think I'm saying. That's not meat. Your 'meat' is just you arguing semantics back and forth. The reason why we've been around so many different areas by now is that you refuse to stick to any point, instead preferring to debate semantics. Yes, of course the sexual assault of a minor is potentially much more traumatic than the rape of an adult, but all else being equal being made to penetrate is less traumatic than being penetrated.

Christ. I'm sure if I argued that attacking someone with a weapon is more dangerous than shoving someone, and that it should be treated as a separate form of violence both legally and for survey purposes, you'd immediately ask me if that was an assessment based on damage, and what if someone shoved someone else down a set of concrete stairs into a pit of HIV-needles, and does my survey account for that? (all the while you're being super condescending, because nothing beats sheer ignorance as ignorance tinged with smugness, and why not go for both?)

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because most of your replies are you asserting that you definitely get what I'm saying, rephrasing what I'm saying, and then mercilessly attacking your completely idiotic version of what I'm saying: such as here:

What I am doing is showing you what happens when you apply your logic consistently, to show that you can't and why its therefore nonsense. You don't try and defend any of my points against this, you just hand wave and act like you don't have to. You absolutely do have to justify why you are so arbitrarily applying your logic.

And look, you ignored my question again... I am shocked. Maybe if I make it bold you might see it.

If its the level of trauma that determines whether an assault should be considered rape, then why did Koss define as raped women who ticked the boxes to those questions and not ask how they felt about any of it? If a woman was totally fine and didnt feel anything at all, (or felt as much trauma as the men they are referring to) then why should it be considered rape? If this doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered raped, then why does it matter when considering if men being forced into having sex should be considered raped?

as patronising as you like to be

I tend to get irritated when people like you throw around the word rape apologist and then start using the same arguments they would say is rape apologia if we were talking about women, and when they ignore all my critical questions and tell me I'm a science denier. Yea.

you don't seem too smart.

If you skipped all the irrelevant hand waving prose you'd have barely anything to say. Maybe if you stopped trying to insult me (this isnt Against Mens Rights) and tried actually honestly debating the actual subject with logical reasoned responses then maybe we'd get somewhere.

You don't seem to realize that I'm saying that it's a judgement call based on degrees of severity

... Oh FFS... So is it severity or is it trauma that we measure what is and isnt rape? I hope you know the difference.... This sure is getting really retarded. And I hope you realise again, that you will be unable to justify a CONSISTENT quantification of degree of "severity" we are talking about, in order to exclude all males that are forced to penetrate another person, while also keeping all of the definitions of rape you currently have for women. That's the trouble with you, you keep jumping from one excuse to the next without dealing with the fact that whatever it is you will never be able to be consistent about it.

Edit:~ This is much like the Creationist trying to find a reason to exclude humans from being defined as "apes" or "animals".

the same way we judge other forms of sexual assault (IE groping) as groping/assault/rape

What we don't do is say something wouldn't be groping because we think one group of people don't seem to care.

Feminists claim that rape is a male behaviour and that this is proved with rape statistics, and thats why they can justify only targeting men as rapists and that only men need to be taught what consent means. Yet, they have defined rape so that women cannot be rapists, because you claim men dont seem to suffer much trauma from when women dont respect their consent. Even if the male brain was incapable of feeling trauma from being forced to penetrate another person (the only justification to not include it as rape btw), then that would still not allow feminists to use the "rape" data in this way. It would still be dishonest lies. All you have done is argue that men don't give a shit if women force them to have sex no matter how severe the scenario, while women are easily traumatised. Thats the best possible case you can make using your arguments defending feminist understanding about rape. The problem is as well, that you also ignore the men that are forced to penetrate other men, the justification always uses the example of a man being forced to penetrate a woman. The CDC has 21% of the made to penetrate perpetrators as men. So you have to come up with a justification that includes a homosexual man forcing a heterosexual man to penetrate him as not being rape and not possible of being traumatic enough, because you are arguing no form of being "made to penetrate" should be included as rape. Because of that, you need to completely ignore the idea that this is about female on male perpetration, because whatever your justification has to justify male on male perpetration and the most extreme and most severe form it could take.

the evidence suggests that 'being made to penetrate' is a less severe form of sexual assault than rape

And a guy slipping a finger in your vagina when you didn't want them to when you're half naked rubbing up and down each other will be a less severe form of assault than a stranger dragging you into an ally and raping you in your ass hole. And where a guy you're consensually fucking doesn't pull out immediately upon you saying stop maybe because he is unsure whether you meant it, will be less severe form of assault than your boyfriend beating you bloody and fucking you by holding you down against your will and protests. Does that mean you do not agree those things should be considered rape either? As I keep saying, all your arguments can be used to argue against definitions of rape you currently say are justified. You demand special pleading to say we can't apply your logic to them, for no reason at all.

And how do you measure severe? By injury? Nope, feminists say there may be no injury to the woman. A man could however easily have his penis BROKEN because the person they were being forced to penetrate forced it in them poorly. So severity clearly isn't a measure you actually want to use. So we have to go back to "trauma". Which again means you have to justify why you will allow a definition of rape which can include women which suffer no trauma at all, but wont include any men forced to penetrate as rape no matter how traumatic it was for them, even in theory. So the level of "trauma" cant be said to be a measure of what is and what isnt rape either.

and mercilessly attacking the imaginary implicatinos of what you think I'm saying. That's not meat. Your 'meat' is just you arguing semantics back and forth.

As I said at the start. I am showing you that you cannot apply your arguments and rationalisations consistently. That is not irrelevant semantics.

The reason why we've been around so many different areas by now is that you refuse to stick to any point,

Well that is rich. You keep ignoring all my arguments and making new points, I have to keep bringing them back around to what you keep ignoring.

es, of course the sexual assault of a minor is potentially much more traumatic than the rape of an adult, but all else being equal being made to penetrate is less traumatic than being penetrated.

Even if true, "more traumatic" is not a measure of rape, and you agree with this. Because if you didn't you couldnt possibly defend all the definitions of rape there is for women.

Christ. I'm sure if I argued that attacking someone with a weapon is more dangerous than shoving someone, and that it should be treated as a separate form of violence both legally and for survey purposes, you'd immediately ask me if that was an assessment based on damage, and what if someone shoved someone else down a set of concrete stairs into a pit of HIV-needles

Except that's not a valid comparison, is it.... We have a range of scenarios for what we will consider rape for women. Some are very severe indeed and can result in a lot of physical damage, others are very minor and can begin and finish in a mere moment and a woman may not even be sure it was a violation at all. On the other hand for men being forced to penetrate another person can range in severity too with potentiality a lot of physical damage and emotional trauma as well, not to mention potentially a child they will be forced to pay for. But being forced to have sex is also something that men tend to feel less traumatised about from an emotional point of view. Not because the act itself is less severe, but because of how how the typical male psychology processes the incident and how they deal with it.

But thanks for showing once again how inaccurately you view this.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you skipped all the irrelevant hand waving prose you'd have barely anything to say.

I'm glad we agree that most of what you've been writing is irrelevant hand waving prose.

At any rate, found the problem:

... Oh FFS... So is it severity or is it trauma that we measure what is and isnt rape?

Both, motherfucker. It's both, because oddly enough they are related. This is exactly what I meant when I said you were far more interested in semantics than in actually trying to understand what I'm saying or have a reasonable discussion.

Again: The literature suggests that there are substantial differences in being penetrated and being made to penetrate. They're simply not the same things. Really, I don't need to elaborate beyond that. You need to justify treating them the same, though. Honestly, I don't have any problems calling more severe forms of sexual assault of men 'rape' (eg. if physical restraint or drugs are involved) but that sort of reasonable discussion doesn't really seem to be your goal here, as much as feeding your delusion that feminists are hiding a secret male holocaust.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm glad we agree that most of what you've been writing is irrelevant hand waving prose.

Oh look a comedian. What a sound argumentation style.

Both, motherfucker. It's both, because oddly enough they are related.

Actually, not necessarily. While they can often go hand in hand, its possible to suffer severe emotional trauma from a very small minor incident. Its also possible that someone can feel surprisingly little emotional trauma from a severe physical incident. You would think you'd understand that, because this is the exact reason used by feminists to open up the definition of rape to include a lot more than just violent forcible penetration. Regardless, you won't apply either premise equally to men and women and what should and should not be considered rape, which is the whole point I'm making and which you keep ignoring. Its possible for me to 100% accept all the justifications you give are fair and valid, and you'd still end up failing because of your complete inability recognise that in order to apply it to men, you have to apply it to women. If you can do that, show me you can do that, stop running away from that glaring hole in your position. You can't which is why all you do is repeat the same initial claim and never move forward.

Hilariously you quoted me above and then still ignored what I said right after that...

*You will be unable to justify a CONSISTENT quantification of degree of "severity" we are talking about, in order to exclude all males that are forced to penetrate another person, while also keeping all of the definitions of rape you currently have for women.

...and...

And how do you measure severe? By injury? Nope, feminists say there may be no injury to the woman. A man could however easily have his penis BROKEN because the person they were being forced to penetrate forced it in them poorly. So severity clearly isn't a measure you actually want to use. So we have to go back to "trauma". Which again means you have to justify why you will allow a definition of rape which can include women which suffer no trauma at all, but wont include any men forced to penetrate as rape no matter how traumatic it was for them, even in theory. So the level of "trauma" cant be said to be a measure of what is and what isnt rape either.

A guy slipping a finger in a womans vagina when she didn't want them to when she's half naked rubbing up and down her partner will be a less severe form of assault than a stranger dragging her into an ally and fucking her in her ass hole. Is that correct? Yes or no? Your claim has been that its "less severe", therefore should not be considered rape. If so, then most of the definitions of rape for women should not be included as rape either for the same reason. Which behaviours would be included in that definition would be based on the currently unquantified measure you'd want to use. How severe does something need to be to be considered rape? Its how severe you define it to be, which you haven't done and will never do. Because if you did define it specifically then immediately we'd have to reject X number of definitions of rape for women by your very definition, or you'd have to concede that men being forced to penetrate someone should indeed be considered rape.

You need to justify treating them the same, though

I have been and you have been giving me justifications that you use to reject the idea that it should be considered rape. But justifications you wont use when we look at what should and should not be considered rape for women. You are yet to even acknowledge let alone justify that you have selective rules for women compared to men.

If you people actually were forced to deal with the arguments presented and not skip them you'd be forced to acknowledge you have no valid argument. Just try it, actually deal with the points presented. Don't just restate the same claim as if I never said anything.

Honestly, I don't have any problems calling more severe forms of sexual assault of men 'rape' (eg. if physical restraint or drugs are involved)

But not unless they are penetrated right?

Otherwise you disagree with those like Koss and the CDC and the others you've quoted. Where no matter what possible scenario there is, no matter how severe the physical and emotional trauma they will never consider a man who has been forced to penetrate someone as rape.

See, you havent only rejected the idea that minor scenarios involving being forced to penetrate someone shouldn't be considered rape. You've rejected every possible scenario . Your argument has been the equivalent of someone arguing that a guy slipping a finger in his girlfriend in foreplay without asking should not be considered rape, and that therefore thats why no penetration without consent should ever be considered rape even if a woman was dragged into an ally and raped at knife point. If someone wanted to reject all forcible penetration of women from being considered rape, they'd need to justify excluding the most serious scenarios possible.

Its the same here. You reject every possible scenario of men being forced to penetrate someone from being considered rape. Because of that, you need to do the same thing. Justify why the least serious scenario (no physical or emotional trauma) should be considered rape for women, but the most serious scenario (extreme psychical and emotional trauma) should never be considered rape for men.

I look forward to your next inevitable hand waving tap dance.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where have I argued that women who aren't penetrated are rape victims?

...Wow... are you actually this slow?

I never said you did.

I am saying that the definition of rape used by those like Koss which includes various scenarios some more severe than others, cannot stand in totality, while also using the justification you use to exclude every possible scenario where a male is forced to penetrate someone as rape.

In other words.... if we apply your justification of why men being forced to penetrate someone should never be considered rape, then if that measure is applied equally and consistently to women then we must reject - by that same measure - women we would have previously classified as raped.

In other other words... Justify why the least serious scenario (no physical or emotional trauma) should be considered rape for women, but the most serious scenario (extreme psychical and emotional trauma) should never be considered rape for men.

Don't believe me? Then present a quantified measure ("trauma" and "severity" would need to be quantified if that's what you want to use) by which to exclude every possible scenario of men being forced to penetrate, that does not automatically exclude currently accepted female rape victims as well. Go ahead, try it. And please, be specific.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In short.... if we apply you justification of why men being forced to penetrate someone should never be considered rape, then if that measure is applied equally and consistently to women then we must reject by that same measure women we would have previously classified as raped.

Nope. Koss' definition of rape consistently includes penetration, if we assume that women are penetrated during intercourse - again, it helps to read the studies you're trying to criticise. I quote from her original study:

Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?

Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc) to make you?

Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse, or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc) to make you?

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Koss' definition includes penetration?

But it doesn't 'include' penetration. Koss is counting women who are penetrated without consent as rape victims - and those women only. Not handjobs, for instance. Because all else being equal, that's a more traumatic/more severe worse form of sexual assault, and it's a relatively objective measure (trying to include a 'how traumatised were you' scale would be a very subjective measure)

Fair enough, you seem to be arguing that such a question is necessary, that being made to penetrate is potentially as traumatic as being penetrated. But then we would also have to include as rape victims women who are made to penetrate with their fingers, who are forced to give handjobs, or who are otherwise sexually assaulted without being penetrated. And those women are not included in current rape statistics. The fact of the matter is, the actual studies suggest that 'being made to penetrate' is more similar to women being sexually assaulted without being raped than it is similar to women who are raped. I mean your own definition of rape calls for such judgement calls - "forced sex", you said. But then, what exactly counts as sex? Probably not handjobs, but what about blowjobs? Inevitably, your definition will have to make a number of judgement calls based on things like how traumatic such acts generally are, unless you actually want your definition of rape to be entirely dependent on a subjective measure. The fact is, the definition of rape of women is forced penetration, because 'penetration' is a much more objective measure than 'sex' (in fact, that's one reason why it's used - previous rape studies had a lot of problems with such vagueness) - why should we not apply the same definition to men? The only valid argument for that would be that 'being made to penetrate' is equivalent to being penetrated - but that's not what studies suggest to be true.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Koss is counting women who are penetrated without consent as rape victims - and those women only. Not handjobs, for instance

... I..... kknnnoooowwwwww......

Because all else being equal, that's a more traumatic/more severe worse form of sexual assault, and it's a relatively objective measure

.....yeeessss........

I wonder when you will be finished trying to convince me of things I already know. Maybe you can stop talking to your sock puppet version of me.

(trying to include a 'how traumatised were you' scale would be a very subjective measure)

Lol? You were the one that decided "trauma" was the measure, not me.
I'm sorry you suddenly have a problem with your own argument when its reflected back at you.

Fair enough, you seem to be arguing that such a question is necessary, that being made to penetrate is potentially as traumatic as being penetrated.

My gosh! All these posts and only now do you only "seem" to understand what I am asking? Not that it wasnt completely fucking obvious already or anything...

But then we would also have to include as rape victims women who are made to penetrate with their fingers, who are forced to give handjobs, or who are otherwise sexually assaulted without being penetrated.

Unless you believe when a man and woman have sex the man has not actually had sexual intercourse with the woman, no we wouldn't. Unless you believe that if a man puts his penis in another mans anus, he hasnt actually had sexual intercourse with that man, no we wouldn't. Unless you believe only the person that is penetrated is the one that is considered having sex, no we wouldn't.

I mean your own definition of rape calls for such judgement calls - "forced sex", you said. But then, what exactly counts as sex?

....... If a boy puts his penis into a womans vagina, has he not had/experienced sexual intercourse with her?

Inevitably, your definition will have to make a number of judgement calls based on things like how traumatic such acts generally are, unless you actually want your definition of rape to be entirely dependent on a subjective measure.

You are the one that claims trauma should be considered to be the measure of what rape should be. I'm happy to go with whatever measure you decide.

Use whatever measure you like to exclude all possible scenarios by which a man is forced to penetrate another person. I'll accept any of them, which means I will happily accept men being forced to penetrate should not be considered rape. However the issue for you is that there is no possible way for you to do this without also excluding women that we have previously classified as raped. Yes, I realise its awkward, you "feel" like its just different, but can't justify why.

why should we not apply the same definition to men? The only valid argument for that would be that 'being made to penetrate' is equivalent to being penetrated - but that's not what studies suggest to be true.

For the nth time. Show me the measure by which you can exclude all possible scenarios by which a man is forced to penetrate another person, but which does not also by definition also exclude women that we have previously classified as raped. Something we can apply consistently and equally.

I've been asking you for this since we started.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again - penetration. There are a number of reasons why 'penetration' is the measure by which we define rape (it's more invasive and hence traumatic, a greater violation of others' bodies), and you have continually ignored those reasons. This is not something I 'feel' like is different, this is something that the actual research into the question is suggesting (the invasive aspects are often emphasised by rape victims, for instance). So yes, I can totally "justify why".

Once again, since you haven't actually replied to it:

Furthermore, the data indicate that men's experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women's experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994). (emphasis mine)

Again, this does not mean "I feel that it's different." It's not an arbitrary line - it's a line based on empirical evidence. You'll forgive me if I think that's a better argument than semantics, which is all you've had to offer so far.

However the issue for you is that there is no possible way for you to do this without also excluding women that we have previously classified as raped.

Again, this is just false. Koss' definition is explicitly based on women being penetrated. That we continue to use that definition, doesn't mean that we're now excluding them. You don't seem to understand such a simple concept, so you'll forgive me if I assumed you confused Koss' definition with more nebulous definitions used by bloggers, etc. Again, only one of us seem to have bothered reading the actual studies, as opposed to blogs or MRA criticisms (which are ripe with (deliberate?) falsehoods).

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again - penetration.

This is getting pointless. Its like your entire universe of logic can only go in a circle.

The question is whether penetration should be the only measure, if the current measures and methodologies used can be defended. As I already told you not so long ago the official definition of rape was only forcible violent sexual penetration of a vagina by a penis. It took people to say that it was justifiable to include other scenarios.

a greater violation of others' bodies)

The damage rape causes to a person is not in the physical injuries. Even most of the cases with physical trauma will 100% heal. It is the mind that will have trouble dealing with it. So it really has nothing whatsoever to do with being penetrated, if its all about the mind. As most feminists will tell you most rapes are not forced, and are not violent, so there will be only an emotional trauma.

But you know, its just not possible for men to feel any physical or emotional trauma especially not the same way women can. Its just totally fine if we encounter a scenario where we class something as rape where the woman doesnt even consider herself violated or traumantised in the least. In fact, its so irrelevant we aren't even going to bother asking them about how they feel when we do the survey to find out how many have been raped. That's A'OK! But a male, who can potentially sustain severe life changing physically injuries as well as the lifelong emotional trauma? That doesn't matter, because its his dick going inside someone else. Its not him that's even having sex, that's only the person he has his dick in. Its really no different to fingering someone! /s

Penetration is not necessarily traumatic. You are saying that being penetrated is necessarily traumatic and we should always assume it is. If you dont believe that, then you have to concede that failing to measure the level of trauma or lack of trauma in respondents is indeed a failure. If it was 20% of those Koss defined as rape reported they aren't traumatised at all, and havent even thought about it since, perhaps in the same way those researchers said men reported their experience, do we just give them proverbial finger and define them as raped anyway? Because thats exactly what happens in these studies you defend. Its relevant if its traumatic to men, its not relevant if it happens to women. Its not even that they ask and then ignore them, they just don't give a shit about that particular detail. Otherwise Koss would have asked when she did the study, wouldn't she? Otherwise she would have not defined those as raped those who said they weren't and said they felt no emotional trauma. If you are going to talk about trauma and feelings of violation you better start applying it equally. You cant do it, you wont do it.

Whats really fucking bizzare is that you said you have no problem defining a boy as raped if he has had sex underage because the law says he cant consent, presumably then even if he was just below the age of consent and completely enjoyed himself with someone just over the age of consent! As bizzare as this contradiction is, its even more of a contradiction when you fail to recognise that none these boys you say you have no problem saying are raped (not the 5 year old, not an 8 year old, not a 15 year old) would still never be counted in any rape statistics with the definition and methodologies used to collect the data you defend. The least you could do is agree that boys who are technically victims of statutory rape (by being forced to penetrate another person) should be included in rape statistics. Why don't you do this? Because then you'd have to admit that your damn "experts" are wrong somewhere. You've ended up throttling your own position and don't even realise it. Seriously just try and get out of this one... If its rape, your experts are wrong. If its not rape, you just contradicted what you said earlier and its not rape even if its an 8 year old boy that's being sexually abused.

Once again, since you haven't actually replied to it:

Yes... I have replied, over and over again in various ways.

You havent only rejected the idea that "minor" scenarios involving being forced to penetrate someone shouldn't be considered rape. You've rejected every possible scenario no matter how physically and emotionally traumatic.

Your argument has been that because being forced to have sex tends not to involve a scenario where it ends up being that traumatic for a man, then being forced to have sex shouldnt be considered rape ever, even if that scenario was incredibly physically and emotionally traumatic. But you will define women as raped, even if they don't consider themselves violated, traumatised, or even identify it as rape.

Your argument has been the same as someone that could say a girl who is penetrated slightly by a boyfriends finger when he didnt ask her when she is grinding naked on him shouldnt be considered raped, THEREFORE non-consensual forced penetration should never be considered rape. That's how ridiculous your argument sounds.

Again, this is just false. Koss' definition is explicitly based on women being penetrated.

Around we go on this merry-go-round....

...And why should that be the only included definition of rape? Any excuse you give will not be applied in a logically consistent manor....Especially as the results of using this definition are statistics which are claimed to be evidence rape is a male behaviour caused by their toxic masculinity and that only men need to learn what consent means, because - look - the ratio of men being raped by women to men raping women is just so huge isn't?!! Well yes it sure is huge when you define rape in a way that women cant be rapists with the same sexually aggressive behaviour that is being called rape for men.

You don't seem to understand such a simple concept

You dont seem to understand what words are. A word is defined by humans, its defined by us. Words do not make reality. The word "rape" by itself does not mean anything except what we define it to be. You also dont seem to understand a words definitions change. That not so long ago the word "rape" was restricted only to a woman being penetrated by a penis, and feminists realised this truth about words, and knew that they wanted to have the word expanded to include other things. They lobbied long and hard to justify expanding the definition.

So now we are here a little time after, with a recently expanded definition of rape. You then say no no no, that's the definition, you cant change it, that's the way it is.

The most appalling and dishonest part of all this is what I have mentioned many times, which is how feminists use these rape statistics. To prove some point about male behaviour and masculinity. If they arbitrarily restrict rape to just "penetration" then it means no matter how sexually aggressive and lack of concern for male consent women can show, that won't ever be shown in the rape statistics. They stack the deck then use it as evidence they're right. So no matter how many men are forced to penetrate a woman, they can go on throwing the statistics around saying that men are the ones that need to learn what consent means, and its because of their toxic masculinity that makes them so rapey. They know that "rape" is a very strong word in our society, and if it could be shown that women behaved in very similar ways to any degree, they feel this harms their view of society and gender. If it was possible to only include men forcing other men penetrate them, I do expect they'd have no problems including it, but because it would also have to include the same behaviour by women they can't.

only one of us seem to have bothered reading the actual studies, as opposed to blogs or MRA criticisms

You act like there are no published studies with actual researchers in the field that go against feminist theory. Don't act like that, because otherwise you'll be reaching for those goal to posts to run away with very quickly.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly dude, you're making it more and more obvious you haven't read the fucking studies involved. The fact that women didn't consider themselves rape victims doesn't mean they weren't rape victims, and were therefore traumatized. You're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing women's self-identification as rape victims and men's self-report of the symptoms of sexual abuse.

Come back when you've read the fucking studies instead of these bullshit "welp, the feminist are probably distorting the statistics to the highest degree" assumptions you're making now. I'm not interested in reading another rant by you on how feminists are obviously trying to blame men or whatever. So far all you've 'contributed' is semantics and bullshit MRA memes about the evil feminist conspiracy. I'm getting off the bullshit train right now.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly dude, you're making it more and more obvious you haven't read the fucking studies involved.

Says someone that every reply I have to make to them requires me to correct some absurd twisted misinterpretation they had about something they think I'm saying that's been explained a hundred different times.

The fact that women didn't consider themselves rape victims doesn't mean they weren't rape victims, and were therefore traumatized

Except that was not what I was talking about. I apologise, I really shouldnt underestimate your apparent insistent illiteracy.

What I wrote there was a hypothetical scenario where IF Koss had asked her respondents about their level of trauma and sense of violation and (lets say) 20% (but hey, pick any figure) said they weren't traumatised at all, or at least answered with the same answers the men gave that you said showed it didnt deserve to be considered rape, do we just define those women as raped anyway? Now please, go back and read the whole post and that part again, because I'm not just going to just keep wasting time rewriting and rephrasing something that was perfectly understandable the first time.

I also assume you skipped the entire rest of post when you got to that part thinking you had some kind of "gotcha" and a reason not to reply anymore and hand wave eveything else. Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you could go and reply to it now I have corrected your "misinterpretation".

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you meant innumeracy there, champ.

... No.... I mean illiteracy. I write something and you keep misinterpreting it. Innumeracy is regarding numbers. My posts aren't written in calculus.

You don't even understand what words themselves are, and that their definitions and meanings change based on what we say should be their definitions.

I didn't say it damaged their bodies. I said it violated them.

Uhhh.... and if that did not result in physical or emotional trauma, what relevance is this violation? Is it not a violation of a boy or a man to have his penis forced inside someone else? Both are violations, but you only consider one to be rape. So here's where we get on the matter of "degree" of trauma from that violation you will consider to be rape, and where every time I want you to quantify that level you reverse and go straight back to the start of your argument.

Honestly, you don't really seem to be arguing anything, other than that I must be wrong, no matter what I actually say, and that feminists are distorting facts.

It might help if you actually read my posts for understanding, rather than to try find some way you can twist it into some ridiculous caricature I never implied and then handwave the rest.

I don't think you've talked about any of my points yet,

What points have I not talked about? What was wrong with what I wrote in response to your last post you said I ignored? What is it that I missed to such a degree that you can characterise me as not talking about ANY of your points? Do be specific.

and you've misrepresented my position several times.

lol. And please, where have I?

Even though you have ignored every single critical issue, and over the past 10 or so posts merely picked a few lines to caricature and hand wave the rest, do address this simple point from 2 posts ago:

Whats really fucking bizzare is that you said you have no problem defining a boy as raped if he has had sex underage because the law says he cant consent, presumably then even if he was just below the age of consent and completely enjoyed himself with someone just over the age of consent! As bizzare as this contradiction is, its even more of a contradiction when you fail to recognise that none these boys you say you have no problem saying are raped (not the 5 year old, not an 8 year old, not a 15 year old) would still never be counted in any rape statistics with the definition and methodologies used to collect the data you defend. The least you could do is agree that boys who are technically victims of statutory rape (by being forced to penetrate another person) should be included in rape statistics. Why don't you do this? Because then you'd have to admit that your damn "experts" are wrong somewhere. You've ended up throttling your own position and don't even realise it. Seriously just try and get out of this one... If its rape, your experts are wrong. If its not rape, you just contradicted what you said earlier and its not rape even if its an 8 year old boy that's being sexually abused.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, there we have your ignorance again. That's neat.

... uhh. care to expand on this cryptic response?

What's ignorant? The idea that a woman could be considered raped by someone like Koss but not only not feel not raped, but legitimately feel no violation, and not feel any emotional or physical trauma?

Are you seriously going to argue that no matter what women say they feel, we are going to tell them they actually are terribly traumatised anyway no matter what? Is that actually what you are about to tell me? It can't be that because then you really have fucked your argument, to death this time. If that isnt it, do please enlighten me as to what you are saying here.

Edit: Here's the paragraph again, in case you're too lazy to scroll up. Try reading it all the way through.

"Uhhh.... and if that did not result in physical or emotional trauma, what relevance is this violation? Is it not a violation of a boy or a man to have his penis forced inside someone else? Both are violations, but you only consider one to be rape. So here's where we get on the matter of "degree" of trauma from that violation you will consider to be rape, and where every time I want you to quantify that level you reverse and go straight back to the start of your argument."

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What's ignorant? That a woman could be considered raped by someone like Koss but the person in question could not only not feel raped, but legitimately feel no violation, and not feel any emotional or physical trauma.

It's ignorant because it's pretty obvious you've never actually read any survivor accounts. Like I said before: The invasive aspect of being penetrated is one of the worst aspects - and being made to penetrate is not invasive in the same way. Nothing is inside your body.

Now, with that in mind, do you want to go back to Koss' actual questions and reconsider your assertion that rape victims can be untraumatized? What you're essentially saying is that some people don't mind being raped. Koss' definition of rape is exactly the same as yours when it comes to women.

Also neat, now I'm the one denying women agency! That's clever of you. Clever, but really stupid.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's ignorant because it's pretty obvious you've never actually read any survivor accounts

Thats funny, because by definition the only ones who will write those are the ones who feel traumatised. The ones who aren't traumatised don't give it a second thought and it would probably be news to them they are being defined as a rape victim by people like you. Why do you believe you don't have to ask the people in a study like Koss' about their level of trauma?

If you feel you don't need to ask then you really are arguing that no matter what women say they feel, we are going to tell them they actually are terribly traumatised anyway no matter what.

The invasive aspect of being penetrated is one of the worst aspects - and being made to penetrate is not invasive in the same way. Nothing is inside your body.

Is it not a violation of a boy or a man to have his penis forced inside someone else? Not even if you are a 8 year old boy being molested? That isnt a violation and traumatic? Not even if the male were to have his penis damaged in the process? Not even if he was given an incurable infection like HIV? Is this not even a violation even in theory, ever, no matter what?

Now, with that in mind, do you want to go back to Koss' actual questions and reconsider your assertion that rape victims can be untraumatized?

... So unless you just wrote that realy badly, you literally are saying that no matter what women were to say about their experience, even if they say it wasnt traumatic at all, we should consider them terribly traumatised anyway. Wow.

Also neat, now I'm the one denying women agency! That's clever of you. Clever, but really stupid.

Oh thanks! Im very glad you noticed that!! You correctly identify it as denying women agency, and then you went ahead and actually made the exact argument I wrote. Amazing!

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, I totally said that boys aren't traumatised when they are sexually assaulted. I totally did. Somewhere, I totally said that. Of course it's traumatic, you lunatic.

GGGREAAAATTT!!!! -_-

Then you can stop trying to convince me that forcible penetration is a violation and traumatic, can't you? I'm glad we finally got you to accept that a male being forced to penetrate is also a violation and can be traumatic as well. Since we all agree that both can be traumatic and both are violations, you can drop that point.

So where are we now? We're exactly where I said we'd be..

So now you're going to tell me that there is a certain degree of trauma that defines what makes something rape for women, and why a male should never, ever, even in theory, be considered raped if he was forced to penetrate someone.

Seems like we've been here before. This is the part where you can't quantify exactly what the level of trauma is that can still include alllllllll the definitions of rape you use for women, but exclude every possible scenario no matter how extreme and severe for men who are forced to penetrate someone else. Feel free to progress from this point.

But so is any level of sexual assault - that doesn't actually make all sexual assault rape.

Not all sexual assault is sexual intercourse. Previously you said that if we allowed this in the definition then we'd be forced to say that fingering someone could be rape as well. No we wouldn't, because fingering someone is not sexual intercourse. Do I need to start posting diagrams of what sexual intercourse is?

Yes, saying that rape is a traumatic experience is definitely, 100% pure misogynistic denial of women's agency.

haha! Nice caricature again!

You were the one that identified what I described your argument to be as denying womens agency. YOU said that, not me. YOU chose to go make that exact argument despite me giving you warning what my response would be if your reply sounded anything like that.

However.... you HAVE actually argued here that sexual assault is not necessarily traumatic, for men. So do tell me.... is it possible for women to be sexually assaulted, and it not be traumatic as well?

And ...again... are you or are you not saying that all women you classify as raped are necessarily horribly traumatised by it? Do you concede that there will be women that you classify as raped, women that ticked some of those boxes in Koss' study, that if asked, would genuinely tell you they don't feel any emotional trauma at all? Even if its just a small percentage. Do you concede that if you asked them you'd get a percentage of them that would say they were the same or less traumatised than what men typically say they feel when they were forced to penetrate someone? And if a certain percentage would say that, would you still choose to classify them as raped anyway, regardless? Would you choose to do that, because you say that regardless of what they say they feel, they are actually horribly traumatised anyway?

Whereas your suggestion that some women just shrug off rape as a minor inconvenience definitely needs to be taken into account in any serious debate about rape. Obviously.

Some women you classify as rape will just shrug it off, because your definition is so fucking broad. If you want to use those broad definitions then you gotta expect that less and less severe scenarios will fall into that net, which means there's less chances those who tick the boxes to those questions will feel traumatised by it and the degree of trauma that does exist will be lesser.

And yet, you believe men will usually basically just shrug off being forced to penetrate someone, so much so that we shouldn't include even the most traumatic and severe cases as rape. Funny how you can say that...

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Earlier, you said that your definition of rape was forced sex. For women, that's literally exactly what we're discussing

o_O ... You had asked me if I had a better definition. I said that's simple, one that was "forced sexual intercourse."

Not that it would matter if we were, but this is not the restriction we've been using when it comes to women, because the definition of "rape" isn't only restricted to sexual intercourse. Even Mary Koss defined sexual intercourse as penetration of the vagina with a penis. Koss also defined rape to include penetration with any object or fingers, in the anus and mouth to be rape as well. These things are not sexual intercourse, and Koss separates them.

Probably worth pointing out that by Koss' definition of sexual intercourse, a man anally penetrating another man cannot be considered rape, even if the victim is being forcibly penetrated. However she probably specified vagina because she says near the start that the FBI restricts the definition of rape to women when she is justifying only focusing her study on women. But what is odd is that she uses the old FBI definition of rape to justify why she wont even study men at all as rape victims, even ones that have been penetrated, but then decides to broaden her definition of rape outside the scope of the FBI definition! Why? Because she says state laws can include a much wider definition of rape..

So she starts off using the FBI definition to say that she will be studying only women, because thats what the FBI definition says. But then later she says that she will be using an expanded definition, because state laws are less restrictive. So she could if she wanted to actually study men too, even if that were restricted to penetration as well. If that wasn't cheeky enough, years later in 1993, Koss would write in a paper that classifying men being forced to have sex is indeed within the scope of legal statues. However she goes on to say that even though the law could define men being forced to penetrate as rape (due to some broad definitions), we must not.

It sure is interesting how she picks and chooses her definitions that suit her. She isnt going to study men, because the FBI says only women can be raped. But she is going to expand the definition of rape, because state laws are less restrictive. She says considering men that are forced to have sex is possible with state law too, but she says we must restrict it to only when they are penetrated even if legal statues make it possible to. Amazing. Koss does what she wants, what a maverick.

You're essentially saying that even by your own definition of rape, it's not necessarily a traumatic experience when women are raped

lol?

I don't even understand what you are saying here to give a response to it.

I have sources that back up my claim that 'being forced to penetrate' is more comparable to sexual assault than rape

....I love this unconscious admission that sexual assault is lesser than rape. You are aware that sexual assault can be far, far worse than any rape, right? You do realise that? Someone can have their entire cock and balls cut off, that's sexual assault, and thats a helleva lot fucking worse than just about any rape you could show me.

This is exactly why this is important. Deciding to only define rape in a way that makes it possible for women to engage in the same exact behaviour as a man but it not be considered rape, means that statistics will necessarily be hugely skewed to show a much higher ratio of female victims and much lower ratio of female perpetrators. Even if the difference really was great regardless, by the definition its not possible for it to show anything else. Its rare for men to even be asked about their experiences at all, the CDC's 2010 survey is one of a only a few anomalies. And of course the figures are buried deep away. Its much easier to ignore the results that showed within the previous year the same number of men as women were forced into sex. Much easier to ignore the results that when questioned on the gender of the perpetrator of this it was 79% female. All that gets buried, and we'll still find feminists still going on about how the rape statistics show that rape is a male behaviour and only men need to know what rape means and what consent means, when their definitions make it virtually impossible for it to show anything else. And the public see the rape statistics as worse, even if a woman committed the same behaviour against a man. All thats lost in numbers, and all we see is the poor victimised women that need protection from the bad men. It wouldn't do if we saw the ratio start to tip the other way a little bit, we can't have that. Someone might start to question the methodology of how they generated those statistics and whether they are valid.

you've essentially replied with "but you can't know that for sure*,

What I've said is that in order to reject "made to penetrate" completely you must justify it on the basis of every possible scenario no matter how severe and traumatic, no matter how bad it is for the man or boy physically or emotionally, it is still never enough to be considered rape. You've got a point here that can't possibly support your position.

I'm growing kind of tired of your constant insinuations that I don't care about male victims

Gee I wonder why anyone would think that when you keep arguing that for a man that is forced to penetrate someone its impossible for them to be as physically and emotionally traumatised as the least serious scenario you will allow to be rape for a woman, even if she didn't think she was raped and insists she isnt traumatised or affected by it.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This has quite literally been like debating evolution with a die-hard believer in creationism.

Yes, because in those debates what you find is that the Creationist is the one who has to deal with being caricatured, and entire posts handwaved because over and over again simple points are misrepresented. Yes, thats totally what happens...

Oh wait, its the other way around, isn't it? I wonder, can you show me a single time where I have ignored entire posts of yours to post a single line of bullshit as an excuse to ignore everything in that post, a single line the shows I flagrantly misinterpreted (misrepresented) your point anyway? Because you've done stuff like that several times now. One time in response to a whole post you gave me 4 words. But yea okay little buddie, stay in dream land.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just at least admit that having your cock and balls cut off is at least as bad as what you call rape for women.

Because this is obviously a position I've been arguing against this whole time. It's not like I said that your previous appeal to emotion was both terrible and traumatic.

I like it when you pretend that I'm arguing that victims are not traumatized by these horrifically violent scenarios you dream up. I've only ever argued that all else being equal, 'being made to penetrate' is a less severe form of sexual assault than being penetrated. Because, you know, I can point to studies that say this (that you ignore those studies in favour of yet another round of semantics is hardly my fault).

Obviously, to you, this means that I'm a-ok with child molestation and castration, because obviously you're definitely not adding other factors that I've never commented upon - obviously castration is incredibly traumatising. And hell, I think it's been at least a day since I said that other forms of sexual assault can be as traumatic as rape but that does not make them rape.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LieBaron0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sigh.

Its not always called sexual assault, because its considered so bad it fits into other charges that may not have that in the name. Rape isn't always called rape, in CAnada you won't be charged with rape, you'd be charged with sexual assault. Calling it rape doesn't mean it isn't a sexual assault even though rape doesn't have sexual assault in the name. You figure out where this is going yet? In the same way someone may be charged for an assault with something that doesn't use the word "assault". For cutting off someone's penis you can also be charged with aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon and yes, torture and "mayhem" (like Kieu Becker). See below for what "mayhem" means in California. Mayhem is a form of assault, it just doesnt have that in the name. So cutting someones penis off is not just mayhem, its sexual in nature. These are all different terms to refer to the same thing - assault and sexual assault. Cutting off someone's penis is a sexual assault by definition. Assault can refer to a minor incident, or it can refer to something as serious as dismembering someone. Calling it torture doesnt make it not an assault. Calling it torture and mayhem doesnt make it not a sexual assault.

In Valdez's case, her husband escaped with only minor injuries and all his body parts intact. But that hasn't prevented Valdez from facing criminal charges. She was arrested on suspicion of mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon, and spousal abuse.

Under California law, an individual can be charged with the crime of mayhem if they try to dismember, disfigure, or disable another. The law specifically also categorizes assaults where someone tries to cut off or disable a person's tongue, puts out an eye, slits the nose, ear or lip as "mayhem" as well.

///

Vietnamese immigrant Kim Tran, 35, of Anchorage, Alaska...In a fit of anger, she used the knife to sever her partner's penis, which she then flushed down the toilet... Tran has since been charged with three felony counts including, first-degree sexual assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence.

Here's some legal definitions of sexual assault that would by definition include severing a penis.

Aggravated sexual assault is a felony sexual offense governed by state laws, which vary by state. It is typically defined as a sexual assault that maims, wounds, or disfigures the victim, or involves a victim who is physically or mentally incapacitated

///

Aggravated assault, also known as felonious assault, is the unlawful intent or attempt to injure or cause serious bodily harm to another with or without the use of a weapon. Unlike battery, aggravated assault does not need to result in serious injury. However, if any forceful sexual offense was committed, then this charge becomes known as Aggravated Sexual Assault.

///

A person can still be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault of a child if the actor:)

1.causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause the death of the victim or another person in the course of the same criminal episode)

///

39-13-504. Aggravated sexual battery (a) Aggravated sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances: (1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act and the defendant is armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be a weapon; (2) The defendant causes bodily injury to the victim;

///

In Tennessee, sexual battery occurs when someone compels a victim to engage in unlawful sexual contact against the victim’s will.... The offense is considered an aggravated sexual battery if it causes bodily injury to the victim, if the defendant carried a weapon during the offense or was aided by one or more other people, or if the victim was younger than 13 years old at the time of the offense.

///

So this didn't involve a severed penis, but the motives and scenario is exactly the same as those who do cut their partners penis' off. They get charged with sexual assault. It wont become not a sexual assault if they then chopped it off, or used their mouth to bite it off (like Catherine Kieu Becker). They might be charged with something without "sexual assault" in the name if they had, but it is still a sexual assault.

CHILTON, Wis. — A Wisconsin woman who tied up a cheating lover and glued his penis to his stomach... All four women were charged with being party to the crime of felony false imprisonment. Ziemann was also charged with misdemeanor counts of battery and fourth-degree sexual assault. She reached a plea deal in which she pleaded no contest to battery and a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.

And while this article is delightfully insensitively stupid, it recognises it is in fact a sexual assault ....

Since April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, it is a perfect time to talk about one form of sexual assault that often gets ignored by hairy, bra-burning feminists: woman-on-wiener violence. It’s not the 90s anymore, but Lorena Bobbitt’s spirit lives on in the hearts of penis-cleaving gals all over the globe.

Edit: Forgot to add this one.

This is an organisation that refers to female genital mutilation as aggravated sexual assault. Legally, someone may be charged with another term that is not aggravated sexual assault for committing this act on a child, but that would not stop it from being a sexual assault.

Ban female genital mutilation. Female sexual genital torture. Aggravated sexual assault. Sexual assault with a weapon causing permanent bodily disfigurement. Life in prison.

Edit 2: The Candian Criminal Code, to add to the list of the other legal defintions:

273. (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Edit 3: As I say Canada is one of those places that does not even use the word rape. It criminalises rape under "sexual assault". But don't tell me, you're going to choose to ignore that.

[–]LieBaron1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Rape isn't always called rape, in CAnada you won't be charged with rape, you'd be charged with sexual assault. Calling it rape doesn't mean it isn't a sexual assault even though rape doesn't have sexual assault in the name. You figure out where this is going yet?

Yes! Another round on the Carousel of Semantics!

Wheeeeeeee!

First of all, sexual assault and assault are not the same thing at all. Second of all, you are now comparing "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault", two completely different things - and you will note that at least one of your definitions sees "aggravated sexual assault" as a form of "aggravated assault", not as a form of "sexual assault".

At any rate, I think we're getting far, far away from the initial subject, namely the categorisation of men as rape victims. Unless you think that male castration is going to be common enough to impact statistics, your point is kind of moot. You'll also note that in the instances you mentioned, the victims were tied up through guile, and foreplay was involved, so your cases are kind not really that clearly in your support.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes! Another round on the Carousel of Semantics!

I dont think you know what semantics is. "Semantics" isn't synonymous with "logical fallacy." That's not what the word means. Our whole conversation is about definitions and meanings of words, that is semantics. When you discuss meanings of words, you are discussing semantics. Its like you know nothing about anything.

First of all, sexual assault and assault are not the same thing at all

A sexual assault is a form of assault. If you say you were assaulted, that can mean something very minor or it can mean something incredibly serious and violent.

If you say you were sexually assaulted, that does not necessarily mean what you suffered was more serious than an "assault". It means the nature of the assault was sexual in nature. Rape is a sexual assault. Rape is also an assault. All sexual assaults are assaults, but not all assaults are sexual. All rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are rape.

Assaults:
---->sexual assault:
------------> rape.

See? Rape is a subset of sexual assault which is a subset of assault. Oh nevermind I'm sure you're only skimming this for one sentence to quotemine anyway.

Second of all, you are now comparing "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault", two completely different things

lol. First you seem to treat all laws as if they are somehow universal... and that you believe what can be classified as an aggravated sexual assault isnt sexual assault. Amazing! So if someone gets convicted of aggravated sexual assault, they werent convicted of a sexual assault, even if its in the damn name!! The lengths you will go to are impressive. Its not a sexual assault that has "aggravated" attached to it to signify the special nature of the sexual assault. Nope.

What you actually mean is that sexual assault as per certain definitions used in (for example) studies on "sexual assault" and "rape" use a specific definition which doesn't necessarily fit with any legal definition. That is true. I never questioned that. That is why Koss was able to keep contradicting herself in her own study about the justification for her methodology when it came to the definition of rape she was using. My entire point this whole time is that the definitions we find in these studies are unjustified and illogical. Your recent argument is that your definition of sexual assault was somehow universal, when it isn't. Not only is it not universal the very study we are looking primarily at here (Mary Koss) was at a time which didn't even use the definition of rape she chose to use. What she wrote in that study crossed with other things she said (such as that other more recent paper I quoted) shows she doesn't care about what the definitions are legally speaking.

Unless you think that male castration is going to be common enough to impact statistics

...I never said male castration should be considered rape, why are you so intent to misrepresent such simple arguments? I never said this would push figures up for male victims. That wasn't the point. I said that it is a sexual assault ("assault" because serious injury. "sexual" because genitals) and that having your genitals cut off is far worse than rape. When you said earlier that rape is more serious than sexual assaults, its no different to you saying that rape is more serious than an assault, its gibberish, but it does show me how you see things.

You'll also note that in the instances you mentioned, the victims were tied up through guile, and foreplay was involved, so your cases are kind not really that clearly in your support.

lol what on earth does that have to do with anything? And uh what cases are you referring to that involved foreplay?? But does that mean if a man rapes a woman but does so in in a way that was as cold and as heartless as those women that cut their partners penis' off did, it wouldnt be a sexual assault? Or are you saying that its only a sexual assault and therefore only rape if a man doesn't use foreplay first? And why does it matter if they were tied up? Is it only rape if a woman is tied up?Are you saying that there are some cases where sexual assault is worse than rape? Feminists are always saying that rape is about power, not sex, arent they? Does this mean prison rape as humiliation isnt really a sexual assault? Is a sexual assault only a sexual assault if the perpetrator gets sexual pleasure out of it, even if someone is committing the same exact act? Because if so you just skull fucked your corpse of an argument again. I predict no answers to these questions will be forthcoming, go ahead hand wave away, its what's you've been doing this whole time. Actually I think if you did deal with this one comment of yours you'd see how you have proven your own argument wrong.

This is what i mean about consistency. You cant apply your definitions equally, thats how we know they are full of shit. I realise you feel you are right, but absent your feelings you cant actually demonstrate justifiable reasons to treat these things the way you do.

I found another definition of sexual assault just now for you to ignore. So despite your hilarious claim that an aggravated sexual assault is not actually a sexual assault, we still have laws that will define it and things like it as "Sexual Assault". Note that the definition for the below "first degree sexual assault" is the same as ones you can find for "aggravated sexual assault"

http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/14-27.4a.html

First Degree Sexual Assault - a person is guilty of a sexual offense in the first degree if the person engages in a sexual act:

With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least 4 years older than the victim.
With another person by force and against the will of the other person, and: (a) employs a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article which the other person reasonably believes to be a dangerous or deadly weapon, or (b) inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another, by one or more other persons, or (c) the person commits the offense aided and abetted by one or more other persons.

And good show btw, I expected you to utterly ignore Canada which doesn't have a rape law and only calls it Sexual Assault. You didn't disappoint! You also ignore the fact that in a variety of places and indeed the old FBI definition of rape meant that regardless of penetration, only a man can/could be a rapist or only a woman can be a victim. If a man forcefully penetrated another man then it would be a classed a sexual assault and not a rape. Even Mary Koss said she would only study women because the FBI said only women can be classed as victims of rape. Does that mean that a man who had a penis forced into his ass, which would have been defined as a sexual assault and not rape, was actually a less serious offence? In a place like India its still true that only women can be victims of rape.

In Uk law a woman can be forcefully penetrated with objects but only a man can be a rapist so too bad the perpetrator won't be charged with rape, if they didn't use a penis. Not using a penis can actually result in even more damage! But by your logic this means that in the UK we are saying that forcibly penetrating a woman with something other than a penis is a lesser offence because we don't call it rape, even if she suffered life long injuries and her uterus was destroyed from an object like a broom handle. I wonder how you work that into your theory.

Tumblrinas post wildly inaccurate graph about rape statistics, gets destroyed by reality. (x-post from /r/tumblrinaction)

Comments

rekt