That sub is fucking aggressive, they are just looking to download their problems on whatever they can attack. Some people really unhappy with their life choices.
You don't need to outrun the bear, just your friend running next to you. It's a fair point if you're talking about the rapists who leap out of the bushes at night to drag you into a dark alley. So, I guess, approximately none of them? I thought most rapists in the western world were already acquainted with their victims.
the whole "tell men not to rape" thing is hilarious to me. let's just tell everyone not to murder too, WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT BEFORE?
psychopaths exists, psychopaths are by definition rule breakers, they dont' give a flying fuck what laws or social rules society lays out, it's one of the defining factors of psychopathy. all you can do is, attempt to not put yourself in an easy position to be preyed upon.
like if i was a hot girl, i probably wouldn't go to frat parties and get blind drunk so i pass out, i would probably just avoid that whole situation. i'd probably not like, walk down streets alone at 2am. shit , i'm a man and i don't think i would get passed out at a party full of strangers, or walk down a dark street at 2am by myself ffs.
then again, you might still get raped anyway, cause shit happens, but it's probably a good idea to not just hand yourself to the rapist on a silver platter.
Or raising the overall difficulty to where a thief no longer sees stealing a bike as worth the effort. If no one locks their bikes up the thief has many options and it might inspire other thiefs to come in. If few bikes are unlocked then only dedicated thiefs can spend time stealing if every bike is securely locked the thief may have to find something else to do with their time. I doubt a potential rapist has a 100% success rate in their act every night.
Well yes. And there is nothing wrong with that either. It's just not a solution to the general problem, even though it makes you safer individually.
You have to work at these things from both ends. Take whatever steps you can to make sure you're not the easiest target around. But also try and tackle the root causes.
Also, you have straight-up tangible losses if you get stolen from. Rape is emotional trauma. I'm not saying the tangible losses are worse than trauma, trust me trauma is a fucking nightmare, but people obviously have this inherent natural right to try to let other people be the ones suffering tangible losses rather than themselves, there is no such natural right I can see in society where it's equally OK to let other people be the ones suffering emotional trauma rather than oneself.
Really not sure what you're getting at here, but nobody's natural rights are violated when you make yourself more of a threat or hassle for predators - even if the end result of that is said predators moving on to easier victims.
It's just that if you want to live in a healthy and functioning society, you don't stop there. Securing your home is great. But if alongside that you participate in a neighborhood watch program, and vote in politicians that help tackle rampant poverty, etc - you'll not only be even safer, but live in a nicer place as well.
Honestly, you're still wrong about me, but thanks for admitting I'm not an actual rapist, that's become too much to ask from most of the losers circlejerking about me on here.
Also ftr, 2 isn't usually referred to as "multiple" and "had" isn't usually referred to as "have" but I get that you guys kinda lose a lot of the fun in your circlejerk if you can't pretend not to know what words mean, so I'll forgive it in this case so that you can continue just pretending not to know what words mean and have that be fun enough for you instead of having to pretend I'm a rapist to get your fix.
but nobody's natural rights are violated when you make yourself more of a threat or hassle for predators
Then I guess you really are "not sure what" I was getting at and should really improve your reading comprehension, since I just plain used English.
For people with a moral compass, hurting strangers isn't automatically OK. Bad is actually bad and good is actually good, because these people actually give a fuck, instead of living so apathetically that instead of good and bad, you just have whatever and it's whatever.
What I see in the linked thread being made fun of is just people who don't see a reason why shifting rape away from oneself should be a valid reason to get others hurt.
So I point out the false equivalence of the home security analogy, because the same people looking at the home security thing would probably think preventing tangible loss is a valid reason to get others hurt, because it's an unavoidable part of both human nature and the nature of life on Earth that individual beings must fight to survive and thrive and cannot have (like, literally as a result of natural selection just can't even regularly be born with) the capacity to be selfless about everything.
I'd say we as a species have the emotional capacity to selflessly share emotional burdens without a very tight limit, yet a very limited emotional capacity to share tangible losses. This means we logically have to have the natural right to be selfish about tangible losses by trying to make sure it's not us getting robbed even if someone else is. There is no equivalent reason why it must be OK to let someone else be the one to take emotional trauma.
For a girl with a moral compass deciding whether to dress differently or avoid an area or something to prevent herself being raped, if she realizes it's just shifting the rape to someone else, then she might decide she's not OK with doing that and she would rather avoid doing that. If she realizes locking her door is just shifting the burglary to someone else, then there's still pretty much no chance she's going to decide she'd rather avoid doing that, and if she does, her selflessness is straight-up incredible alien levels, not an equivalent situation at all.
It's just that if you want to live in a healthy and functioning society, you don't stop there. Securing your home is great. But if alongside that you participate in a neighborhood watch program, and vote in politicians that help tackle rampant poverty, etc - you'll not only be even safer, but live in a nicer place as well.
That's essentially my point and the point I take away from the women's posts. Sorry for my editing habits, I'm guessing you missed my second paragraph that I added dumb late -
I usually leave my door unlocked so I don't have to worry about getting locked out, and I do enjoy living in a place where burglary in general is prevented rather than just shifted to the least secure homes, giving me the freedom to leave my door unlocked, just like these women making these posts appreciate the idea of opposing rape in general rather than shifting it to the least "safe" individuals so that they can have the freedom to dress how they want.
In the other paragraph, the one you did see and respond to, I'm just pointing out that the moral argument they're making would never humanly translate to home security and is dumb to compare that way. Both arguments actually have a point from a perspective of convenience, but the argument the women are making also has a moral component that's being ridiculed pretty stupidly by comparing it to such an insubstantial equivalence.
I'd say we as a species have the emotional capacity to selflessly share emotional burdens without a very tight limit, yet a very limited emotional capacity to share tangible losses. This means we logically have to have the natural right to be selfish about tangible losses by trying to make sure it's not us getting robbed even if someone else is. There is no equivalent reason why it must be OK to let someone else be the one to take emotional trauma.
That's not what insane means. You could call these girls "crazy" for feeling that way, it fits the definition of crazy, but not "insane." Having feelings you consider alien doesn't mean someone has a poor grasp on reality.
You have to work at these things from both ends. Take whatever steps you can to make sure you're not the easiest target around, that's a great thing to do on a personal front. But also try and tackle the root causes as a society.
You can do both. If you start leaving your wallet lying around in public, this is not going to simply shift the fixed amount of theft that the universe has mandated from others to you, it's going to induce crimes of opportunity that would not have happened otherwise.
It depends - if someone was contemplating a mugging but spotted an easily swipeable wallet, they just might call off their original plan. But that's really missing the overall point here. What we're looking to get to is a society where you can leave your wallet out and reliably have nothing to worry about. And it's not some kind of a mythical utopia, places like that exist.
But you'll never get there if the focus of your approach is only on people protecting their shit better, more aggressively, and with ever escalating vigilance.
And encouraging blind naivety is the best way to achieve this? I'm skeptical.
You can acknowledge the world is shitty and act accordingly without giving up the idea that things could/should be better.
Yes, but the vast majority of rapists are still men. Men rape other men. 93% of rapists are men according to Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, & Merrick, 2011.
“We call for feminist approaches – expansively interpreted – to challenge these stereotypes, making room to consider women who are abusive, power seeking, and sexually aggressive, while taking into account the troubled background many such women possess,” the researchers concluded.
“Those victimised by women are doubly harmed when we fail to treat their abuse as worthy of concern.”
Even including "made to penetrate" (because it obviously should be included), most studies show that 95 to 98% of rapists are men. The 93% is actually perhaps the lowest number I've seen.
I've posted this elsewhere, but it constantly requires repeated posting. I am not interested in "narratives," and I believe in recognizing and acknowledging all rape victims. In order to do that effectively, we must have accurate numbers so we can properly ascertain how, where, and when rape occurs.
(This is copy-pasted, so ignore any irrelevant statements).
The article you cited relies upon a CDC study that is widely criticized and debunked. I love that male rape victims are getting the attention they deserve, but we should make sure we're responsible with numbers so that everyone can be taken seriously. We don't want to devalue rape, and therefore rape victims, by relying upon fundamentally flawed studies.
To summarize:
If you google "CDC study rape," all of the search results, not including those that link to the actual survey, are news reports disavowing the study as fundamentally flawed (Time, Washington Post, USA Today, Washington Examiner, etc., along with Reason, Politifact, and others).
The Washington Post goes so far as to say that the study should be recalled. The CDC study has grossly inflated numbers. It found that 1.3 million women were victims of rape, while 12.6 men and women were victims of sexual violence. To compare, the Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, which often attempts to take into account unreported crimes, found that ~190,000 people of both sexes were victims of sexual assault. The FBI found only ~85,000 rapes reported to law enforcement, and its definition now includes "forced to penetrate" (as it should).
If my math is correct (which it might not be), the CDC survey found 66 times as many victims of sexual assault than the NCVS (which is considered the gold standard for this kind of thing).
Additionally, the CDC determined whether or not a response qualified as rape or sexual assault, rather than the responder, which is hugely problematic. So when ~61% of women responded that they had experienced "alcohol or drug facilitated penetration," the CDC, rather than the individual woman, made the determination of whether or not to classify this as rape or sexual assault.
Also, the CDC classified affirmative answers to survey questions about being pressured into sex by lies or future promises as "sexual violence." So those who consented to sex because someone cried, asked repeatedly, or promised something nice in exchange were marked as victims of sexual violence. Which is facially absurd.
Perhaps the most damaging "finding" in the CDC study is that men reported being "made to penetrate" in the last 12 months at roughly the same rate as women reported being raped, which led many to conclude that women rape as often as men (which is where the "40% of rape is perpetrated by women" statement comes from that you have probably seen). This, also, goes against all other crime reporting statistics and studies, as essentially all of them demonstrate that women raping men constitutes only 2 to 3% of rape (even if we augment the numbers to account for any increased failure to report on the part of men).
The Time article probably sums it up best: "Should we, then, regard sexual violence as a reciprocal problem? Getting away from the simplistic and adversarial 'war against women' model is undoubtedly a positive step, as is admitting that women are human beings with the capacity for aggression and wrongdoing—including sexual assault. On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were 'made to penetrate' someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason."
The older CDC study, as I recall, had numbers in it lined up with those found by the FBI and NCVS.
most studies show that 95 to 98% of rapists are men. The 93% is actually perhaps the lowest number I've seen.
I believe in recognizing and acknowledging all rape victims. In order to do that effectively, we must have accurate numbers so we can properly ascertain how, where, and when rape occurs.
Shifting goalposts...smh. Also the CDC's latest definition of rape, IIRC, specifically excludes "made to penetrate" which excludes men as victims. Coincidentally, Mary Koss was involved with the CDC panel that redefined what constitutes rape.
What goalposts? You cited the CDC to discredit my statement, and I replied that the CDC is widely criticized and debunked as being fundamentally flawed.
> Also the CDC's latest definition of rape, IIRC, specifically excludes "made to penetrate"
The CDC study *very explicitly* includes "made to penetrate" in its definitions of rape. As do almost all such studies and the FBI crime reporting division. I mentioned this already.
I didn't cite the CDC in my initial comment you fucking mong, you cited the CDC in your reply to which I replied. The study I initially cited was done by the UCLA School of Law.
The CDC study very explicitly includes "made to penetrate" in its definitions of rape. As do almost all such studies and the FBI crime reporting division.
OK, that's fair. I haven't looked at the definitions since 2012-2013 and those definitions did not include being made to penetrate the vagina, which effectively excluded women as rapists. I'm glad to see that that's changed.
That said, you didn't address my original point, which was that there are far more female rapists than have been reported, therefore that "95-98% of rapists are male" is a bullshit number and it DESPERATELY needs to be addressed if we are to address the issue of rape and the nature of rapists.
The study I initially cited was done by the UCLA School of Law.
This study relies upon the CDC for its statements about the prevalence of made-to-penetrate rape. It is not a study on its own merit--it examines and re-frames other studies.
you didn't address my original point
I think you will see that I have. The only study that cites that more than 10% of rapists are women is the CDC study, and it is debunked and criticized for this finding, as it is fundamentally not accurate. You repeatedly bring up "made to penetrate" in connection with your claims, but you seem to misunderstand that it doesn't matter, in terms of statistics, if women make up a large percentage of made-to-penetrate perpetrators, as there is no indication that made-to-penetrate rape constitutes a large percentage of rape overall. Women can constitute upwards of 80% of made-to-rape perpetrators while still only constituting 5 to 3% of rapists in total. This would seem obvious, but apparently it is not.
On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were 'made to penetrate' someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason."
I would point out that a majority of the "sexual assaults" on college campuses do involve alcohol. 85%ish.
The fact that the CDC found unusual numbers doesn't surprise anyone who's worked in sexual violence. Female on male violence and sexual assault is criminally under-reported because it does not fit the model of what people have decided sexual assault is. As seen in the above article from the examiner. "It's not real sexual assault.". And the fact that those CDC numbers are trusted in other contexts is suspicious.
I would also point out why the FBI and other agencies seem to overlook such numbers. Because every intervening party does its best to ignore the issue.
In 2008 Douglas and Hines conducted the first-ever large-scale national survey of men who sought help for heterosexual physical intimate partner violence. (Douglas and Hines, 2011) Some 302 men were surveyed. This study found that between half and two-thirds of the men who contacted the police, a DV agency, or a DV hotline reported that these resources were “not at all helpful.” The study elaborates:
A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies. (p. 7)
Police arrested the man as often as the violent partner (33.3% vs. 26.5%) 7 . (p. 8) The partner was deemed the “primary aggressor” in 54.9% of the cases. In 41.5% of the cases where men called the police, the police asked if he wanted his partner arrested; in 21% the police refused to arrest the partner, and in 38.7% the police said there was nothing they could do and left.
I would point out that a majority of the "sexual assaults" on college campuses do involve alcohol. 85%ish.
The statement you are referencing is not mine. It is a quote from Time.
The fact that the CDC found unusual numbers doesn't surprise anyone who's worked in sexual violence.
It was a universally shocking study. If you google "CDC study rape," besides the CDC website itself, you only get news articles about how shockingly awful the study is (the Time article is the first that appears when I search). Again, it found *66 times* as many victims of sexual assault than other studies that are regularly regarded as the gold standard. These are studies that do their best to factor in non-reporting. I researched the study quite a bit when it first came out because it shocked me, and I have studied such data in an academic setting.
I would also point out why the FBI and other agencies seem to overlook such numbers.
What numbers? The CDC study is widely (if not universally) debunked as a sham.
I don't know why you are citing to domestic violence studies. It is a travesty that men are not taken seriously when they report domestic violence, and I hope that that changes. I have not said otherwise.
I have also written about the study in an academic setting in working in higher education. The CDC study report was used to support the "Dear Colleague" letter which has spent the last 7 years making a massive impact on Universities (for good or ill). It's not universally dismissed. If anything, it had the legal backing of at least the DoE up until the current administration and still gets yearly updates and reanalysis. It's a report of something other than legally reported sexual assault. Not all of which rises to the level of rape. Hence why FBI and BJS statistics don't line up. They're not measuring the same things.
I'm sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not referring to the CDC study that formed the basis of the "Dear Colleague" letter. Older CDC studies, prior to one referenced, are generally regarded positively and have numbers that line up with those in other reputable studies. The CDC changed its methodology for the 2014 study (possibly for the 2013 study--I don't recall) so that it made the mistakes referenced in so many news articles.
Also, while the CDC's methodology changed in regards to certain types of sexual assault (namely, what it identified as "sexual violence," as mentioned earlier), it did not change with regard to other types of assault. This accounts for the fact that some news stories still accept its numbers on a limited basis. For example, while the CDC substituted its own judgment for whether or not someone was a victim of certain types of sexual assault, it properly respected the opinions of those surveyed with regard to others.
It is pretty evident, despite cherry picking numbers, that the 2010 CDC report differs very significantly from the 2014 one. I'm all for a serious discussion, but if it evolves into being disingenuous, then I'm not interested. The CDC report has always been known for inflated numbers, but there is universal agreement that the 2014 study is egregious.
I literally pointed you at one of the main summary tables showing that 12 month rates for male and female sexual assault victims are within a percentage point, and if you look further on page 24.
For three of the other
forms of sexual violence, a majority
of male victims reported only
female perpetrators: being made to
penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion
(83.6%), and unwanted sexual
contact (53.1%).
That's not cherry picking, that's literally a summary of the report.
Older CDC studies, prior to one referenced, are generally regarded positively and have numbers that line up with those in other reputable studies.
I showed you an older study like you wanted, one that the US government took very seriously, and now you are backing up. It's okay to admit that you're very wrong.
Yes, I am wrong. I was mistaken in believing that the CDC's numbers regarding sexual violence (again, I am noting the "sexual violence" category and no other because I don't have adequate knowledge about all categories) were ever valid. I have never properly examined the sexual violence numbers in earlier CDC reports (my concentration mirrors that in the thread, which is rape), so I incorrectly believed them to be more accurate than those in the 2014 report.
A search regarding the validity of earlier numbers reveals that the CDC has always been rebuked for inaccurate numbers about the category it calls "sexual violence" (which includes non-violent coercion and emotional manipulation to a sexual end). It has consistently found "sexual violence" numbers in the US to be on par with war-torn, third-world nations (!), and its criteria for identifying victims of sexual violence has always been contrary to all other studies examining such issues (!).
So, I guess the CDC has always sucked and been widely discredited? I don't know what you expect to gain by that fact. You have not provided any evidence to suggest that women make up more than ~5% of rape perpetrators (which is the actual discussion--not which CDC report is "better"). So...?
"Please provide a source that says that women sexually assault men"
Here is a source.
"No, that's from a bad CDC year, the earlier ones are better"
Here is an earlier one.
"No the CDC is always bad and is always been made fun of. I will not accept any source that does not agree with my point of view that I already believe is true."
If you have another study that actually addresses rape (not the CDC's widely criticized "sexual violence" category that you conflate with "assault"), then I'd be happy to entertain it. This topic is widely studied, and there's a reason the CDC study is the only one with the numbers it has. You have offered no "proof" beyond deflection, which explains why I am dismissive of your assertions.
The reason why it's under sexual violence is because in the CDC's report, rape is insertion only. If you looked at the table I referenced, the types of assault are listed.
I offered proof. And you said "Nuh-uh, not good enough." If a massive government agency isn't good enough, nothing I present will be.
You offered no proof to support the assertion that women make up more than 5 to 3% of rapists. That, in case you didn't notice, is what is at issue. I don't know why you are resorting to such embarrassing ad hominems.
Because you're using a tremendously dishonest version of the word rapist.
It might as well be by definition males only, since in order to be a female rapist you have to have a strap-on or some other object.
I once asked a contract lawyer for advice on how to negotiate contracts and agreements. They told me "They can write anything they want, so long as you get to define the words."
So stop being a cheeky little bugger and look at the table.
As I have extensively outlined, the CDC is not a reliable source for made-to-penetrate data. I have repeatedly acknowledged that it is real and valid rape. However, because the CDC chose to include it under "sexual violence," which includes sexual scenarios in which men voluntarily consented to sex because their partner cried, teased them, or was otherwise emotionally manipulative, it cannot properly be conflated with "rape." This is because such scenarios very clearly involve consent. I'm sure the reddit community in general would scream and throw a fit if this was deemed "rape" when it comes to female victims, but apparently it's acceptable to count it as rape if it involves evil, evil women doing the "raping."
This is a problem unique to the CDC and not to made-to-penetrate rape in general.
If the CDC had instead asked men if they had ever been forced to penetrate a woman against their will and without their consent, that would be a different story. But it didn't.
Note that the sexual coercion is a DIFFERENT FUCKING CATEGORY.
Note the VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to,
or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s
consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by
the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high,
drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.
- Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another
female’s vagina or anus.
- Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways:
being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a
female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral
sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male
victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.
If it's difficult to understand, perhaps it's because YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF READING.
As I have mentioned ad nausem, and as you have helpfully illustrated (so I'm unsure why you are still having a problem comprehending...), "made to penetrate" is listed under "Other Sexual Violence."
I am aware that the numbers are similar, and I am aware that the CDC includes made to penetrate in its rape definition. That is all fine and good. It is also irrelevant to your "point," as the questions asked to elicit responses to questions about "other sexual violence" did not require that said violence contain a "no consent" element. This is why it is not included, in the table, under "rape."
Again, for the people in the back: responses to questions about sexual violence did not necessitate a finding of "no consent." Questions under the "rape" heading did. "Made to penetrate" is explicitly (as you have pointed out) under the "sexual violence" heading.
Again, you seem to be ignoring the very obvious fact that men who noted that they were pressured into sex through crying, emotional appeals, begging, etc. were, whether they knew it or not, categorized as victims under the "sexual violence" heading for "made to penetrate." That's all. It's very simple.
So, while you are attempting to (laughably) claim that men are raped at the same rate as women, what you are actually comparing is instances of non-consensual rape with instances in which a guy consented to sex because their partner begged or cried. That is what you are pointing out, while I am pointing out that those things are, obviously, not the same thing. As one includes a necessary finding of no consent while the other does not. This is not difficult to understand.
Please ask yourself, if the numbers are the same, why the CDC very patently and explicitly found that 1 in 5 women are victims of rape in their lifetime, while 1 in 71 men are. You can also check out the various news articles I have mentioned. They all explain this very clearly.
• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. - Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus. - Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.
is unclear to you? What part about it does not match your requirement of
If the CDC had instead asked men if they had ever been forced to penetrate a woman against their will and without their consent, that would be a different story. But it didn't.
Are you being purposefully thick?
What you're describing is sexual coercion, which is another category under the larger heading of sexual violence. I also did not include the entirety of the sexual violence category, as that would have been misleading.
What you're describing as being mentally persuaded through crying, emotional appeals is sexual coercion, which is another category under the larger heading of sexual violence. I also did not include the entirety of the sexual violence category, as that would have been misleading.
What you cited falls inside the category of "sexual violence." That is how tables and formatting work. The definition is irrelevant. I have already explained how the survey questions operated. Screaming will not change facts.
BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF RAPE SPECIFICALLY TARGETS MALE PERPETRATORS.
Yes. That is one of the problems with the CDC study. One of many. I have discussed this. The other problem, as I have mentioned, is that they did not ask men about nonconsensual instances in which they were made to penetrate another individual. Instead, they conflated consensual made-to-penetrate with nonconsensual. Which is why the numbers you cite are irrelevant.
Again. The numbers you so helpfully circled are irrelevant because they combine consensual and nonconsensual instances in which a man was made to penetrate another individual. As I've explained, this is simple to understand.
Literally the only way a man can be raped by a woman under the definitions described as 1 in 71 is if the woman sticks something in the man's ass.
Yes. Not my problem. This is a problem with the study. I wish the study was valid. It would be great to have accurate numbers on made-to-penetrate rape. But we don't.
THE STANDARDS OF RAPE FOR WOMEN ARE THE SAME AS MADE TO PENETRATE FOR MEN
Prove it. I have numerous articles that back up my claims, but you have said nothing thus far despite your embarrassing proclivity for bold and uppercase words.
Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced
penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.
Five Types
Five Types including rape
So I guess rape is not sexual violence?
Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to,
or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s
consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by
the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high,
drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.
How are you this dense. It's literally defined in the report.
Made to Penetrate is a category that is literally defined as non-consensual. It is a form of sexual violence. So is rape.
Again, irrelevant. What people take issue with in the report is how questions were asked. While there are definitions present, the reporters did not adhere to them. That is the problem.
Made to Penetrate is a category that is literally defined as non-consensual.
The questions asked about "made to penetrate" did not specify that the act be nonconsensual. That is the very essence of my complaint. And the complaint of journalists at Time, WaPo, NYT, etc... guess who's the odd man out? Yes, you. I'm gonna guess that all of these esteemed reporters can, in fact, read. So the problem is? Yes, you, again.
You are relying on journalists interpreting the report instead of the literal source document itself.
Everything in that table is sexual violence. Rape is in the same category as "Made to penetrate". Everything in that table is non-consensual at different levels of non consent and severity. The reason why they are separate because they reveal different patterns of perpetrators.
When a man sexually assaulted another man consensually, it is orally or anally. That's rape as defined by the CDC. It is very difficult for a woman to orally or anally violate a man due to the fact that they don't have a penis to stick anywhere.
When a woman violates a man, it's through the nonconsensual use of his genitals or "Made to penetrate". Because that involves a different set of mechanisms, it has a different name. This is primarily women. 85% of that 1.1% had women make them penetrate.
Men rape men. Women make men penetrate them. The distinction allows for differentiation between patterns of perpetrators.I
I don't care what some tit from the times says. I care what the actual facts says. And they say you're wrong and you don't want to admit women can sexually assault at levels of severity and at similar frequency as men.
I'm done here. It's clear you're either a moron or deliberately obtuse.
You are relying on journalists interpreting the report instead of the literal source document itself.
Yes. That is how interpretation works. You rely on numerous sources instead of a single one to get a more comprehensive understanding. I would have thought there was near-universal agreement on this, but people never cease to amaze.
Everything in that table is sexual violence.
Yes. But there's obviously a reason why "sexual violence" is separated from rape. Wonder why that is?
Blah blah blah this is how rape works.
I know. I have never said otherwise.
And they say you're wrong and you don't want to admit women can sexually assault at levels of severity and at similar frequency as men.
Thus far there is no evidence that this is the case. If there was, I would entertain it. Until then, I'll stick with science and you can stick with delusional misogyny.
Yes. That is how interpretation works. You rely on numerous sources instead of a single one to get a more comprehensive understanding. I would have thought there was near-universal agreement on this, but people never cease to amaze.
Considering I've been in science for 10 years now and watched journalists from even major newspapers butcher even simple studies, I take the source document more than I take a bunch of unqualified journalists.
delusional misogyny.
Yeah, that's what I thought it was. Women can do no wrong, even when the numbers clearly say they are asshole criminals at rates far exceeding what you say.
But there's obviously a reason why "sexual violence" is separated from rape
It says Rape, and then says "Other sexual violence." Meaning that rape is under the umbrella of "Sexual violence". Rape has its own section because there are subsections of rape, meaning that it has smaller categories. That's how tables work.
There is evidence, and the only reason you don't want to accept it is because you're entrenched in this position so hard that to shift would mean losing your entire paradigm.
This study relies upon the CDC for its statements about the prevalence of made-to-penetrate rape. It is not a study on its own merit--it examines and re-frames other studies.
Citation needed because the CDC isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
you didn't address my original point
I think you will see that I have.
No, you haven't. For the record, my original point was that sexual violence that men experience is understudied and under-reported. I'm sorry if that point was lost on you, but that's what it was.
The only study that cites that more than 10% of rapists are women is the CDC study, and it is debunked and criticized for this finding, as it is fundamentally not accurate.
Link the study please.
You repeatedly bring up "made to penetrate" in connection with your claims, but you seem to misunderstand that it doesn't matter, in terms of statistics, if women make up a large percentage of made-to-penetrate perpetrators, as there is no indication that made-to-penetrate rape constitutes a large percentage of rape overall.
Again, because we don't care about male victims of rape as a society. Fun Fact - if you include prison inmates in to the rape statistics, more men are raped in the US than women. What's more is that 65% of those rapes are guard on inmate. On top of THAT, 90% of rapes in prison are female guard on male inmate.
Women can constitute upwards of 80% of made-to-rape perpetrators while still only constituting 5 to 3% of rapists in total. This would seem obvious, but apparently it is not.
That's an absolutely correct statement, but the fact is that more and more men and boys are reporting sexual violence at the hand of women and girls. There was a recent survey of men and boys/women and girls under the age of 23, I think, and the split was 57/43 or something like that.
Face it, people are shitty regardless of gender, and the sooner we take off our rose tinted glasses to the "fairer sex" the better off we will be.
Fun Fact - if you include prison inmates in to the rape statistics, more men are raped in the US than women... 90% of rapes in prison are female guard on male inmate.
Link? Because this is false. Both statements. Blatantly, obviously, and embarrassingly. At a cringe-worthy level.
the fact is that more and more men and boys are reporting sexual violence at the hand of women and girls.
I'm glad they are feeling more comfortable reporting. And I never said otherwise.
There was a recent survey of men and boys/women and girls under the age of 23, I think, and the split was 57/43 or something like that.
Curious that you haven't linked that one. Or any other study...
Face it, people are shitty regardless of gender, and the sooner we take off our rose tinted glasses to the "fairer sex" the better off we will be.
Those two were on the first page of results, and since I'm at work, I'm not going to invest much time in it. Finding the guard on inmates stats is much harder since those are less public. If you actually care, and I doubt you do, you can spend an hour or two digging and you'll find it.
The two articles you cited (notably and humorously, the Guardian and the Daily Mail), both link to a study that apparently no longer exists. I searched for it and found a couple other articles mentioning it, but it does not seem to exist any longer.
All articles I found link to the New York Review of Books (hardly a good source for rape statistics). The New York Review of Books article (here) mentions the same numbers and cites (1) Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 and (2) Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012. We can examine both of those because they are available on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. Let's look at them.
if you include prison inmates in to the rape statistics, more men are raped in the US than women
The first study notes ~8,700 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons. These are not broken up into male and female categories, so we don't know how many victims are men.
65% of those rapes are guard on inmate
No. Approximately 49% of substantiated allegations involved staff sexual misconduct.
90% of rapes in prison are female guard on male inmate
No. Approximately 54% of sexual misconduct and 26% of sexual harassment were committed by female staff. This is still an alarmingly high number, but we must acknowledge that almost half of prison guards are women, so it is not entirely unexpected. Also, while 84% of sexual misconduct on the part of female staff involved a victim who "appeared to be willing," only 37% of sexual misconduct on the part of male staff involved a victim who "appeared to be willing." Because of the power dynamics in a prison, it is highly inappropriate and criminal for any staff member to engage in sexual relations with an inmate. However, I imagine that you are the type of person who curses the justice system when a 20-year-old man is prosecuted for engaging in consensual sex with a 16-year-old girl, so it's worth making the distinction, if only to help you gain a more nuanced view of sexual assault.
Finding the guard on inmates stats is much harder since those are less public.
As you can see, these statistics are widely and publicly available.
The numbers in the juvenile study are slightly more egregious. This study is broken down by sex. In total, 5.4% of females and 2.2% of males reported forced sexual activity with another youth, while 8.2% of males and 2.8% of females reported sexual activity with a staff member.
Again, it is unclear where the numbers in the articles you linked come from, as no document I can find from the BJS cites that ~200,000 inmates are victims of sexual assault. I explored the possibility that they are extrapolating from the relevant percentages, which would be a reasonably fair method, but I still return less than 90,000 total victims.
Also, if one is going to extrapolate from base percentages in a survey to determine an overall victim number, it would not be accurate to compare that number to reported allegations in other crime-reporting studies (as both articles you cited do). This is a simple concept: reports should be compared to reports, while data extrapolated from percentages should be compared to data extrapolated from percentages. For example, if we rely upon the CDC study (which, as I mentioned, I don't) to extrapolate data, then we have approximately 2 million female victims of rape and 6.7 million female victims of sexual violence. This is, quite obviously, a much higher number than ~90,000.
Data is data. If you want to conclude that the CDC report is accurate, then you must also accept the numbers that are inconvenient for you. If you want to assert that ~200,000 inmates (both male and female) are victims of sex crimes and that the CDC is accurate in its data regarding made-to-penetrate rape, then you must also accept that there are 8.7 million female victims of sex crimes. If we generously assume, with no data, that ~65% of the inmate victims are male, this still means, with your provided data, that there are 67 times as many female victims as male victims in the United States.
In any case, thanks for sharing these articles. I enjoy learning more about this topic.
They really, really don't like those numbers being out there.
It's actually legally mandated that those numbers be made available to the public on the DOJ website as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (this is a very explicit mandate). You can easily see the reports from each year. The problem is that the numbers don't support any of your statements.
I did not dispute your 65% claim. While it turns out that it is wrong, it was not at issue. You were asked about your assertion that 90% of sexual assault perpetrated by prison staff is committed by female staff members.
So you don't have a source that isn't your own ass? You're no better than a conspiracy theorist when you cry "cover up" to hide the fact that there's no proof of your outrageous statement.
Your 90% stat is nowhere to be found in that article.
This article talks about guard-on-inmate rape in both male and female prisons. So it includes male guards raping female inmates, female guards raping male inmates, and every other combination.
On the other hand, most of us agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a woman who engages in a drunken sexual act she wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime.
Fuck off misogynist, that's textbook rape apology and whataboutism.
So those who consented to sex because someone cried, asked repeatedly, or promised something nice in exchange were marked as victims of sexual violence. Which is facially absurd.
I'd like for you to make this argument in twox next time negging is discussed.
On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were 'made to penetrate' someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason."
I don't think I get this, is he equating being made to penetrate with a regrettable drunken hookup?
Your numbers don't contradict their conclusion. You can't say "you're wrong about how many female rapists there are" if your evidence is "80% of the perpetrators of this one particular kind of rape are female." You also need to know the gender split of the other forms of rape and how many rapes are what kind.
Except it does. "Made to penetrate" is a fairly new inclusion to the definition of rape. What we, as a society, consider rape needs to be revisited. We've only seen men as victims of rape for the last 30 or so years and it's still a very understudied thing that happens to men.
How do you know it does? And how do you know it's accurately represented? And how do you know that men, who have never been told they can be raped actually report it?
Let's say that there are 1000 rapists. 950 are men and 50 are women. 5 of the rapes are made-to-penetrate rapes. 4 of those were done by women. (the other 46, like, forcibly ate out drunk chicks or something). That's a 95% male population of rapists, where 80% of the people who committed made-to-penetrate were female.
The statement "80% of people who forced a man to penetrate were female" does not contradict "95% of rapists are male."
Your thinking is still flawed. Why are you talking about rapists rather than victims. We don't know how many actual rapists their are running around out there, but we do know how many people have self reported having been raped. And my point is that men are beginning to report rape and sex assault at near the same rates as women, and this study is publishing findings that say that 79.2% of men identify their attacker as a woman. That flies in the face of your "rapists are men and victims are women" narrative.
So is the fact that I wouldn’t walk into a gay bar or a party full of gay men that I didn’t know and get black out drunk internalized homophobia?
inb4 rape is done by people you know
I’ve been to college parties with people who have gay friends, people who I cursory know. They’ve fucking sexually harassed me before and grabbed at me even if I told them I’m straight and don’t want any of it. I don’t get raped though and I don’t get charged with a hate crime for sending a fag to the hospital because I don’t stay in a place like that and give one of those fags an opportunity to go in dry while I sleep.
It’s not called that shit. It’s called being a realist. Same fucking reason you don’t leave your god damn car unlocked and valuables lying everywhere. Yeah people shouldn’t be morally bad but if you read a fucking book, you’d know this isn’t new behavior.
God damn I’m actually really mad. That’s the first time I think I’ve actually bothered to read that sub. And I haven’t even gotten into that “all men are scum” bullshit. Women have treated me just as bad if not worse than gay people harassing me.
You need to hang with better people, also I've been black-out drunk in many a gay bar and I ain't ever been raped....and I'm the cream of the twinky cream crop.
You also sound like a closet freak, so there is that.
Maybe spend the rest of the day thinking about men touching you...oh, you already are? Go girl.
My go-to place in town to get absolutely shitfaced used to be a gay bar. Friendliest, safest place I've ever been to, shame it closed. Stop being so terrified of gay guys mang. They mostly wanna dance to Wham! and drink fantastic cocktails just like any straight guy.
I enjoyed the bit partway down the thread where someone said "rape's not a women's problem, it's a man's problem", two people corrected them saying that was erasure of male rape victims, and then everyone else dogpiled those two saying "shut up, erasure doesn't matter here, it's about the context"
Even setting aside that the first phrase is generalized to the extent that the context of the OP doesn't matter, how much do you want to bet that if this were any other type of erasure those same posters screaming about how context matters would be the first to start nitpicking and correcting any erasure of a group that they're part of/want to protect?
Amazing how that goes, isn't it? When it's time to talk about me, I can be as dismissive of others' problems and erase their existence as I like. But when you're talking about your issues, oh hell no, you'd best not be marginalizing me! My experiences matter, even if they weren't actually being discussed at all and I just shoehorned them in!
I enjoyed the bit partway down the thread where someone said "rape's not a women's problem, it's a man's problem", two people corrected them saying that was erasure of male rape victims, and then everyone else dogpiled those two saying "shut up, erasure doesn't matter here, it's about the context"
Best part is how many of the OG TrollXers from back in the day are showing up in the dissenting column in that thread (including one of the correctors you speak of). It's wild watching the culture of that sub crack and fissure in real time.
Do they not realize that they are also implying that if they choose not to get drunk at a party to avoid being raped that they are basically just 'making sure he rapes another girl'?
Yes, they probably do. This is why they'd rather people worked to make sure that there were less/no rapists at said party to begin with. In fact, from the op...
"There will always be another girl who is less sober... I want her safe just as much"
They aren't doing any results-oriented thinking at all. They know it makes them mad when someone says "you can reduce your likelihood of getting raped" so they want to make sure people stop saying that.
The fact that they honestly believe that rape as an issue can somehow be educated out of humanity is ridiculous. It's like saying violence can be educated out. Many humans suck, should we just not protect ourselves because it's suddenly victim blaming?
Education and culture have a huge impact on violence. I don't think anyone expects it to disappear completely, but you're really off base if you think that the rates at which this stuff happens is somehow intrinsic to the human race, and unchangeably fixed.
Ok, so you do seem to think that the rate of rape and violence is somehow encoded into humans on a genetic level, and that rapists are born as "evil" "bad people". Well, all right - but I think that's a limited picture of the situation.
but it IS unchangeable to a degree. do you think psychopaths will never exist? unless we start testing for them at birth and throwing off cliffs, they will always exist.
then again, not all people who rape and kill are psychopaths anyway, so you'd need to do more than that. unless you literally monitor every person's thoughts and as soon as someone starts having fucked up fantasies, terminate them, then yeah, psychos will still exist, to some degree.
Most psychopaths lead law abiding lives - and most rapists aren't psychopaths. People with fucked up fantasies also tend to keep a lid on things just fine. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
Rape is generally a lot more banal than people like to imagine, and the perpetrators far less colorful. Think more Brock Turner and less Charles Manson.
If we end up in a society where the only people who commit rape are crazed psychopaths - that's a huge improvement already, and would represent a massive decrease in rapes. And I repeat:
I don't think anyone expects it to disappear completely
well if you have the ability to fuck a girl against her will, i'm guessing you have some kind of anti social disorder. i'm literally not even capable of doing such a thing, if i feel like a girl is uncomfortable, i feel physically turned off, like, i can't just be like "nope i'm doin this" and go against their obvious discomfort.
perhaps more rapists aren't literal psychopaths, although that is just something you made up, they very well COULD be mostly psychopaths, i'm gonna need to actually look into that, they for sure have lack of empathy and an anti social disorder.
so unless we take people with anti social disorders and lock them up, some of them are going to end up assaulting or raping people. also psychopaths are far less harmless than you think, most of them go from relationship to relationship, leaving a trail of broken psychology behind them. i'm guessing you don't know any, and certainly haven't dated any, if you throw out weird assumptions that most of them are just perfectly functioning individuals with normal lives.
they also tend to be absolutely fucking assholes everywhere they go, workplaces, friendships, everywhere. most of them aren't ted bundy, sure, duh, but most people who go on killing and raping sprees tend to be psychopaths.
also, while most people with fucked up fantasies keep a lid on it, all the ones who actually ACT on those fantasies started out by having them. literally every serial killer started out with some kind of fantasising. some will end up acting on it, some won't.
the idea of the virtuous rape fetishist reminds me of the idea of the "virtual pedophile". it's really just a complete gamble as to if and when sick fucks end up acting on their degenerate impulses, and a great deal of is likely opportunity. a guy like brock probably thought about doing shit to helpless passed out girls quite a bit, until that fateful day he found one passed out behind a dumpster and thought no one was around.
I didn't read through it, but what are they defining as "sexual violence"? I find it VERY hard to believe that only 1 in 800 women have their ass slapped by a stranger per year.
according to page 5 of the report, 1.2 people out of 1,000 in 2016 were the victims of rape or sexual assault. Their definition of sexual assault:
Sexual assaults include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving
unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender that may
involve force.
They ask 3 questions to get at that number
t. Two short-cue screening
questions are specifically designed to target sexual violence:
Other than any incidents already mentioned, has anyone
attacked or threatened you in any of these ways—
(a) with any weapon, such as a gun or knife
(b) with anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors,
or stick
(c) by something thrown, such as a rock or bottle
(d) by grabbing, punching, or choking
(e) any rape, attempted rape, or other types of
sexual attack
(f) any face-to-face threats.
OR
(g) any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all?
Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a
crime.
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are
often difficult to talk about. Other than any incidents already
mentioned, have you been forced or coerced to engage in
unwanted sexual activity by—
(a) someone you did not know
(b) a casual acquaintance
OR
(c) someone you know well?
...
Victims are asked if “the offender
hit you, knock[ed] you down, or actually attack[ed] you in
any way;” if “the offender TR[IED] to attack you;” or if “the
offender THREATEN[ED] you with harm in any way?”
The
survey participant is classified as a victim of rape or sexual
assault if he or she responds affirmatively to one of these three
questions and then responds that the completed, attempted, or
threatened attack was—
rape
attempted rape
sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape
verbal threat of rape
verbal threat of sexual assault other than rape
unwanted sexual contact with force (e.g., grabbing,
fondling)
unwanted sexual contact without force (e.g., grabbing,
fondling)
so like, maybe ass-slapping is more common than that, but ass-slapping that sticks around in your memory as an "unwanted sexual contact with force" is apparently that rare.
Well no shit college-aged women are more likely than the general population to be sexually attacked. That doesn't mean they're likely to be sexually attacked. They aren't. Sexual violence is rare.
lol.. most rapists are someone the victim already knows, the being attacked in a dark part of town thing is really rare.. well, depending on where in the world you live, but its rare in most of western society..
its always good to be careful when walking at night, but what you should really look out for is who you are letting get close to you when you are vulnerable
In this context, it really doesn't matter whether it's stranger danger or acquaintance rape. I'm not sure why you think that's such a weakness of the premise.
I kinda get where they're coming from, but what really isomerizes my carbohydrates is that they accuse the people advicing them of wanting other girls to get raped. And that's just absolutely retarded.
it's times like this that i have hope for humanity, because this is one of those posts where half of the sub is like "really, what the fuck?".
the times when the trollx posters are so retarded that they alienate their own fellow legbeards let me know there is some slim hope for humanity to come out of this hilarious GTA parody timeline.
but, as an investor in dramacoin, i hope it doesn't pull out. i hope it feels so good in there that it nuts inside, gets the ho pregnant, and this hellscape continues into the next generation.
"I once pointed this out to my mother and she just stared at me, in stunned silence for ages." Probably trying to recall how many boxes of wine she drank during the pregnancy.
protip legbeards, vocally avowing all personal responsibility for your safety is infantile, and does not help your image as people who want all the rights of adults and none of the responsibilities, ie children
this is why men don’t respect you, and why you don’t respect yourselves
I'm over this fear now, but there were years where I couldn't wear "nice" underwear. If I thought it was too cute or provocative, I was terrified that if something happened, I'd get blamed for it because "I obviously wanted it or else I wouldn't have worn panties with an animal print." It was tough. I seriously wore nothing but the cheap packs of Haynes and Fruit of the Loom for half a decade. :-\
😂 This wildebeest is trying to act like not wearing granny panties was a choice, not a necessity borne out of morbid obesity.
I think you should approach the problem from both directions. Work on stopping men from becoming rapists and show women how they can better defend themselves and reduce the chances of being in an unsafe situation.
Heavily downvoted. TwoX concede women are damsels in distress then lol.
199 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-21
Don't even try to kinkshame me. My kinks are my business.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 QueenOfTheIncels 2018-06-21
Great job, Snappy!
1 Honk4Tits 2018-06-21
Man I wish I wasn't already banned in there. I would call them retards.
1 Death_Trolley 2018-06-21
Don’t worry they’ve already declared themselves
1 Wygar 2018-06-21
That sub is fucking aggressive, they are just looking to download their problems on whatever they can attack. Some people really unhappy with their life choices.
1 QueenOfTheIncels 2018-06-21
It's called feminism, sweaty
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
srsly?
1 QueenOfTheIncels 2018-06-21
no ironically
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Still retarded.
1 QueenOfTheIncels 2018-06-21
No u
1 Nopepole 2018-06-21
I AM THE GIRLFRIEND NOW!
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-21
Um, everyone knows its sweaty, sweaty.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Damn, ya got me!
1 Zozbot 2018-06-21
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-06-21
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-06-21
zozzle
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2018-06-21
my nigga you just got ZOZed too lmao @ ur life fam
1 vir_pedohebephile 2018-06-21
You don't need to outrun the bear, just your friend running next to you. It's a fair point if you're talking about the rapists who leap out of the bushes at night to drag you into a dark alley. So, I guess, approximately none of them? I thought most rapists in the western world were already acquainted with their victims.
1 parameciidae 2018-06-21
Yeah, basically a woman can't trust any man.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-06-21
If trollx could follow a consistent narrative there would be no trollx.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Those rapists still target the most vulnerable ones, so the principle still works.
But really people are (probably intentionally) missing the point about these sorts of objections.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
the whole "tell men not to rape" thing is hilarious to me. let's just tell everyone not to murder too, WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT BEFORE?
psychopaths exists, psychopaths are by definition rule breakers, they dont' give a flying fuck what laws or social rules society lays out, it's one of the defining factors of psychopathy. all you can do is, attempt to not put yourself in an easy position to be preyed upon.
like if i was a hot girl, i probably wouldn't go to frat parties and get blind drunk so i pass out, i would probably just avoid that whole situation. i'd probably not like, walk down streets alone at 2am. shit , i'm a man and i don't think i would get passed out at a party full of strangers, or walk down a dark street at 2am by myself ffs.
then again, you might still get raped anyway, cause shit happens, but it's probably a good idea to not just hand yourself to the rapist on a silver platter.
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-06-21
Most, not all. That still happens regularly.
1 OniTan 2018-06-21
If you're making changes to prevent home invasion, you're really just saying "I hope he breaks into the other house."
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
If you make changes to prevent the enslavement of black people, you're really saying "I hope he enslaves all the white people.".
They sound like alt-righters.
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-06-21
And what’s wrong with that?
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
Being alt-right or enslaving white people?
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-06-21
The latter
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
Nothing
1 wow___justwow 2018-06-21
Now you're speakin my language
1 choikwa 2018-06-21
wow.........justwow
1 raindrenchedcat2 2018-06-21
<stunned silence for ages>
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2018-06-21
like uhm....yikes...
1 Mikeavelli 2018-06-21
You can't mayocide if all the mayos are enslaved. That would be an excessive amount of property damage.
1 Mikeavelli 2018-06-21
You can't mayocide if all the mayos are enslaved. That would be an excessive amount of property damage.
1 Fletch71011 2018-06-21
Horseshoe theory strikes again.
1 pm_me_sphynxes 2018-06-21
and here's why that's a good thing
1 MemoirsofCrime 2018-06-21
o m f g
1 table_it_bot 2018-06-21
1 MemoirsofCrime 2018-06-21
good bot, bad bot
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-21
That sounds outright sinister when you say that.
1 Mayor_of_tittycity 2018-06-21
You would know.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-21
WOW i never havd thought it like that
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-06-21
If you're getting vaccinated against measles, you're really saying "I hope that virus kills the kid next door."
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-21
I hope he does. My neighbor has a bigger tv anyway.
1 alternatetwo 2018-06-21
That's actually literally what you're doing when doing that. You're making your house look less attractive to break into.
Same with buying a better lock for your bicycle. Essentially you're responsible now for the thief stealing another bike with a shittier lock.
1 OniTan 2018-06-21
I should really give my house an obnoxious blue roof so people know never to approach it.
1 alternatetwo 2018-06-21
Or just always stay up till 5am so people can't break into it ever ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-06-21
But if "people" (wink) don't break in, how can I shoot them?
1 GaeadesicGnome 2018-06-21
https://www.cafepress.com/+,675331747?utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=pla-google&utm_campaign=640239116-d-m&utm_content=27654317530-adid-93474652570&utm_term=pla-72270757930-pid-675331747&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8eXCgsTn2wIViZ6fCh1tdADlEAQYAiABEgK90_D_BwE
1 cultish_alibi 2018-06-21
Is it possible to get cancer from a link without even clicking it?
1 aqouta 2018-06-21
Or raising the overall difficulty to where a thief no longer sees stealing a bike as worth the effort. If no one locks their bikes up the thief has many options and it might inspire other thiefs to come in. If few bikes are unlocked then only dedicated thiefs can spend time stealing if every bike is securely locked the thief may have to find something else to do with their time. I doubt a potential rapist has a 100% success rate in their act every night.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Well yes. And there is nothing wrong with that either. It's just not a solution to the general problem, even though it makes you safer individually.
You have to work at these things from both ends. Take whatever steps you can to make sure you're not the easiest target around. But also try and tackle the root causes.
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
Also, you have straight-up tangible losses if you get stolen from. Rape is emotional trauma. I'm not saying the tangible losses are worse than trauma, trust me trauma is a fucking nightmare, but people obviously have this inherent natural right to try to let other people be the ones suffering tangible losses rather than themselves, there is no such natural right I can see in society where it's equally OK to let other people be the ones suffering emotional trauma rather than oneself.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Really not sure what you're getting at here, but nobody's natural rights are violated when you make yourself more of a threat or hassle for predators - even if the end result of that is said predators moving on to easier victims.
It's just that if you want to live in a healthy and functioning society, you don't stop there. Securing your home is great. But if alongside that you participate in a neighborhood watch program, and vote in politicians that help tackle rampant poverty, etc - you'll not only be even safer, but live in a nicer place as well.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-21
Ftr, multiple women have restraining orders from /u/DarqWolff.
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
Honestly, you're still wrong about me, but thanks for admitting I'm not an actual rapist, that's become too much to ask from most of the losers circlejerking about me on here.
Also ftr, 2 isn't usually referred to as "multiple" and "had" isn't usually referred to as "have" but I get that you guys kinda lose a lot of the fun in your circlejerk if you can't pretend not to know what words mean, so I'll forgive it in this case so that you can continue just pretending not to know what words mean and have that be fun enough for you instead of having to pretend I'm a rapist to get your fix.
1 Albert_Borland 2018-06-21
2 is a multiple of both 2 and 1.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Eh, the rest of drama is just going "feminists reeeeeeeeeeeee" - not really much better.
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
Then I guess you really are "not sure what" I was getting at and should really improve your reading comprehension, since I just plain used English.
For people with a moral compass, hurting strangers isn't automatically OK. Bad is actually bad and good is actually good, because these people actually give a fuck, instead of living so apathetically that instead of good and bad, you just have whatever and it's whatever.
What I see in the linked thread being made fun of is just people who don't see a reason why shifting rape away from oneself should be a valid reason to get others hurt.
So I point out the false equivalence of the home security analogy, because the same people looking at the home security thing would probably think preventing tangible loss is a valid reason to get others hurt, because it's an unavoidable part of both human nature and the nature of life on Earth that individual beings must fight to survive and thrive and cannot have (like, literally as a result of natural selection just can't even regularly be born with) the capacity to be selfless about everything.
I'd say we as a species have the emotional capacity to selflessly share emotional burdens without a very tight limit, yet a very limited emotional capacity to share tangible losses. This means we logically have to have the natural right to be selfish about tangible losses by trying to make sure it's not us getting robbed even if someone else is. There is no equivalent reason why it must be OK to let someone else be the one to take emotional trauma.
For a girl with a moral compass deciding whether to dress differently or avoid an area or something to prevent herself being raped, if she realizes it's just shifting the rape to someone else, then she might decide she's not OK with doing that and she would rather avoid doing that. If she realizes locking her door is just shifting the burglary to someone else, then there's still pretty much no chance she's going to decide she'd rather avoid doing that, and if she does, her selflessness is straight-up incredible alien levels, not an equivalent situation at all.
That's essentially my point and the point I take away from the women's posts. Sorry for my editing habits, I'm guessing you missed my second paragraph that I added dumb late -
In the other paragraph, the one you did see and respond to, I'm just pointing out that the moral argument they're making would never humanly translate to home security and is dumb to compare that way. Both arguments actually have a point from a perspective of convenience, but the argument the women are making also has a moral component that's being ridiculed pretty stupidly by comparing it to such an insubstantial equivalence.
1 Daxx46 2018-06-21
That's a special kind of insane.
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
That's not what insane means. You could call these girls "crazy" for feeling that way, it fits the definition of crazy, but not "insane." Having feelings you consider alien doesn't mean someone has a poor grasp on reality.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-06-21
You can do both. If you start leaving your wallet lying around in public, this is not going to simply shift the fixed amount of theft that the universe has mandated from others to you, it's going to induce crimes of opportunity that would not have happened otherwise.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
It depends - if someone was contemplating a mugging but spotted an easily swipeable wallet, they just might call off their original plan. But that's really missing the overall point here. What we're looking to get to is a society where you can leave your wallet out and reliably have nothing to worry about. And it's not some kind of a mythical utopia, places like that exist.
https://i.redd.it/kdpesxf742iz.jpg
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-06-21
And encouraging blind naivety is the best way to achieve this? I'm skeptical.
You can acknowledge the world is shitty and act accordingly without giving up the idea that things could/should be better.
1 Peetrius 2018-06-21
"Wear a seat belt? Just teach the car not to collide with me. Don't victim blame me."
1 cochnbahls 2018-06-21
Thing is, whether its a lock or a vagina gaining unauthorized access, it was still probably a man doing it.
1 Ewindal 2018-06-21
If you're making changes to avoid cancer, you're really just saying "I hope someone else gets cancer."
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
/u/Joan_of_Architecture:
Probably because the idea of female-on-male rape, up until recently, hasn't been taken very seriously. Hell, it's still not as stigmatized as male-on-female rape. Nearly 80% of "made to penetrate" rapes are female-on-male.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-21
gotta love this:
tl;dr = Women who rape men are stil lthe victims.
1 CrosbyStillzandSwag 2018-06-21
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
/u/ishicourt:
79.2% of men that report being made to penetrate identify a woman as their rapist. Those numbers are obviously waaaaaaaaaaay off.
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-21
But it doesn’t fit the narrative
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Drop the /s and you're 100% correct.
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-21
I didn’t want people to think I was being serious though.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Well now I have to downvote you then. Sad.
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-21
I just didn’t want people to think I was a crazy feminist :(
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Oh, I mean /u/ishicourt's numbers are way off.
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-21
I think I’m a retard that just miscommunicated my bad
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
We're in /r/drama, we're all retarded.
Also, OVP/KCK?
1 Happypumkin 2018-06-21
We all are here
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
I've posted this elsewhere, but it constantly requires repeated posting. I am not interested in "narratives," and I believe in recognizing and acknowledging all rape victims. In order to do that effectively, we must have accurate numbers so we can properly ascertain how, where, and when rape occurs.
(This is copy-pasted, so ignore any irrelevant statements). The article you cited relies upon a CDC study that is widely criticized and debunked. I love that male rape victims are getting the attention they deserve, but we should make sure we're responsible with numbers so that everyone can be taken seriously. We don't want to devalue rape, and therefore rape victims, by relying upon fundamentally flawed studies.
To summarize:
If you google "CDC study rape," all of the search results, not including those that link to the actual survey, are news reports disavowing the study as fundamentally flawed (Time, Washington Post, USA Today, Washington Examiner, etc., along with Reason, Politifact, and others).
The Washington Post goes so far as to say that the study should be recalled. The CDC study has grossly inflated numbers. It found that 1.3 million women were victims of rape, while 12.6 men and women were victims of sexual violence. To compare, the Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, which often attempts to take into account unreported crimes, found that ~190,000 people of both sexes were victims of sexual assault. The FBI found only ~85,000 rapes reported to law enforcement, and its definition now includes "forced to penetrate" (as it should).
If my math is correct (which it might not be), the CDC survey found 66 times as many victims of sexual assault than the NCVS (which is considered the gold standard for this kind of thing).
Additionally, the CDC determined whether or not a response qualified as rape or sexual assault, rather than the responder, which is hugely problematic. So when ~61% of women responded that they had experienced "alcohol or drug facilitated penetration," the CDC, rather than the individual woman, made the determination of whether or not to classify this as rape or sexual assault.
Also, the CDC classified affirmative answers to survey questions about being pressured into sex by lies or future promises as "sexual violence." So those who consented to sex because someone cried, asked repeatedly, or promised something nice in exchange were marked as victims of sexual violence. Which is facially absurd.
Perhaps the most damaging "finding" in the CDC study is that men reported being "made to penetrate" in the last 12 months at roughly the same rate as women reported being raped, which led many to conclude that women rape as often as men (which is where the "40% of rape is perpetrated by women" statement comes from that you have probably seen). This, also, goes against all other crime reporting statistics and studies, as essentially all of them demonstrate that women raping men constitutes only 2 to 3% of rape (even if we augment the numbers to account for any increased failure to report on the part of men).
The Time article probably sums it up best: "Should we, then, regard sexual violence as a reciprocal problem? Getting away from the simplistic and adversarial 'war against women' model is undoubtedly a positive step, as is admitting that women are human beings with the capacity for aggression and wrongdoing—including sexual assault. On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were 'made to penetrate' someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason."
The older CDC study, as I recall, had numbers in it lined up with those found by the FBI and NCVS.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Shifting goalposts...smh. Also the CDC's latest definition of rape, IIRC, specifically excludes "made to penetrate" which excludes men as victims. Coincidentally, Mary Koss was involved with the CDC panel that redefined what constitutes rape.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
> Shifting goalposts
What goalposts? You cited the CDC to discredit my statement, and I replied that the CDC is widely criticized and debunked as being fundamentally flawed.
> Also the CDC's latest definition of rape, IIRC, specifically excludes "made to penetrate"
The CDC study *very explicitly* includes "made to penetrate" in its definitions of rape. As do almost all such studies and the FBI crime reporting division. I mentioned this already.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
I didn't cite the CDC in my initial comment you fucking mong, you cited the CDC in your reply to which I replied. The study I initially cited was done by the UCLA School of Law.
OK, that's fair. I haven't looked at the definitions since 2012-2013 and those definitions did not include being made to penetrate the vagina, which effectively excluded women as rapists. I'm glad to see that that's changed.
That said, you didn't address my original point, which was that there are far more female rapists than have been reported, therefore that "95-98% of rapists are male" is a bullshit number and it DESPERATELY needs to be addressed if we are to address the issue of rape and the nature of rapists.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
This study relies upon the CDC for its statements about the prevalence of made-to-penetrate rape. It is not a study on its own merit--it examines and re-frames other studies.
I think you will see that I have. The only study that cites that more than 10% of rapists are women is the CDC study, and it is debunked and criticized for this finding, as it is fundamentally not accurate. You repeatedly bring up "made to penetrate" in connection with your claims, but you seem to misunderstand that it doesn't matter, in terms of statistics, if women make up a large percentage of made-to-penetrate perpetrators, as there is no indication that made-to-penetrate rape constitutes a large percentage of rape overall. Women can constitute upwards of 80% of made-to-rape perpetrators while still only constituting 5 to 3% of rapists in total. This would seem obvious, but apparently it is not.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
I would point out that a majority of the "sexual assaults" on college campuses do involve alcohol. 85%ish.
The fact that the CDC found unusual numbers doesn't surprise anyone who's worked in sexual violence. Female on male violence and sexual assault is criminally under-reported because it does not fit the model of what people have decided sexual assault is. As seen in the above article from the examiner. "It's not real sexual assault.". And the fact that those CDC numbers are trusted in other contexts is suspicious.
I would also point out why the FBI and other agencies seem to overlook such numbers. Because every intervening party does its best to ignore the issue.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
The statement you are referencing is not mine. It is a quote from Time.
It was a universally shocking study. If you google "CDC study rape," besides the CDC website itself, you only get news articles about how shockingly awful the study is (the Time article is the first that appears when I search). Again, it found *66 times* as many victims of sexual assault than other studies that are regularly regarded as the gold standard. These are studies that do their best to factor in non-reporting. I researched the study quite a bit when it first came out because it shocked me, and I have studied such data in an academic setting.
What numbers? The CDC study is widely (if not universally) debunked as a sham.
I don't know why you are citing to domestic violence studies. It is a travesty that men are not taken seriously when they report domestic violence, and I hope that that changes. I have not said otherwise.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
Intimate partner violence and rape are generally in the same boat as far as reporting biases go. Hence why I cite it.
As for response, you cite the Post (using the words "Gold Standard" is similar in that article), not the Times. The Times seems to have little issue other than surprise
I have also written about the study in an academic setting in working in higher education. The CDC study report was used to support the "Dear Colleague" letter which has spent the last 7 years making a massive impact on Universities (for good or ill). It's not universally dismissed. If anything, it had the legal backing of at least the DoE up until the current administration and still gets yearly updates and reanalysis. It's a report of something other than legally reported sexual assault. Not all of which rises to the level of rape. Hence why FBI and BJS statistics don't line up. They're not measuring the same things.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
I'm sorry, but I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not referring to the CDC study that formed the basis of the "Dear Colleague" letter. Older CDC studies, prior to one referenced, are generally regarded positively and have numbers that line up with those in other reputable studies. The CDC changed its methodology for the 2014 study (possibly for the 2013 study--I don't recall) so that it made the mistakes referenced in so many news articles.
Also, while the CDC's methodology changed in regards to certain types of sexual assault (namely, what it identified as "sexual violence," as mentioned earlier), it did not change with regard to other types of assault. This accounts for the fact that some news stories still accept its numbers on a limited basis. For example, while the CDC substituted its own judgment for whether or not someone was a victim of certain types of sexual assault, it properly respected the opinions of those surveyed with regard to others.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
Okay,
So which CDC reports are the right ones?
Because this one, on page 18 and 19 has sexual assault at near the same levels for men and women
That would be the 2010 report. The basis of the Dear Colleague letter.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
It is pretty evident, despite cherry picking numbers, that the 2010 CDC report differs very significantly from the 2014 one. I'm all for a serious discussion, but if it evolves into being disingenuous, then I'm not interested. The CDC report has always been known for inflated numbers, but there is universal agreement that the 2014 study is egregious.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
I literally pointed you at one of the main summary tables showing that 12 month rates for male and female sexual assault victims are within a percentage point, and if you look further on page 24.
That's not cherry picking, that's literally a summary of the report.
I showed you an older study like you wanted, one that the US government took very seriously, and now you are backing up. It's okay to admit that you're very wrong.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
Yes, I am wrong. I was mistaken in believing that the CDC's numbers regarding sexual violence (again, I am noting the "sexual violence" category and no other because I don't have adequate knowledge about all categories) were ever valid. I have never properly examined the sexual violence numbers in earlier CDC reports (my concentration mirrors that in the thread, which is rape), so I incorrectly believed them to be more accurate than those in the 2014 report.
A search regarding the validity of earlier numbers reveals that the CDC has always been rebuked for inaccurate numbers about the category it calls "sexual violence" (which includes non-violent coercion and emotional manipulation to a sexual end). It has consistently found "sexual violence" numbers in the US to be on par with war-torn, third-world nations (!), and its criteria for identifying victims of sexual violence has always been contrary to all other studies examining such issues (!).
So, I guess the CDC has always sucked and been widely discredited? I don't know what you expect to gain by that fact. You have not provided any evidence to suggest that women make up more than ~5% of rape perpetrators (which is the actual discussion--not which CDC report is "better"). So...?
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
"Please provide a source that says that women sexually assault men"
Here is a source.
"No, that's from a bad CDC year, the earlier ones are better"
Here is an earlier one.
"No the CDC is always bad and is always been made fun of. I will not accept any source that does not agree with my point of view that I already believe is true."
Okay my dude.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
If you have another study that actually addresses rape (not the CDC's widely criticized "sexual violence" category that you conflate with "assault"), then I'd be happy to entertain it. This topic is widely studied, and there's a reason the CDC study is the only one with the numbers it has. You have offered no "proof" beyond deflection, which explains why I am dismissive of your assertions.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
The reason why it's under sexual violence is because in the CDC's report, rape is insertion only. If you looked at the table I referenced, the types of assault are listed.
I offered proof. And you said "Nuh-uh, not good enough." If a massive government agency isn't good enough, nothing I present will be.
So bye, goal post moving loser.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
You offered no proof to support the assertion that women make up more than 5 to 3% of rapists. That, in case you didn't notice, is what is at issue. I don't know why you are resorting to such embarrassing ad hominems.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
Because you're using a tremendously dishonest version of the word rapist.
It might as well be by definition males only, since in order to be a female rapist you have to have a strap-on or some other object.
I once asked a contract lawyer for advice on how to negotiate contracts and agreements. They told me "They can write anything they want, so long as you get to define the words."
So stop being a cheeky little bugger and look at the table.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
As I have extensively outlined, the CDC is not a reliable source for made-to-penetrate data. I have repeatedly acknowledged that it is real and valid rape. However, because the CDC chose to include it under "sexual violence," which includes sexual scenarios in which men voluntarily consented to sex because their partner cried, teased them, or was otherwise emotionally manipulative, it cannot properly be conflated with "rape." This is because such scenarios very clearly involve consent. I'm sure the reddit community in general would scream and throw a fit if this was deemed "rape" when it comes to female victims, but apparently it's acceptable to count it as rape if it involves evil, evil women doing the "raping."
This is a problem unique to the CDC and not to made-to-penetrate rape in general.
If the CDC had instead asked men if they had ever been forced to penetrate a woman against their will and without their consent, that would be a different story. But it didn't.
This is really not difficult to understand.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
I'm not sure if you're the dumbest motherfucker I've ever seen or LOOK AT THE TABLE. I HAVE INCLUDED IT IN THE LINK.
Scenarios are differentiated. I have circled in RED INK the relevant sections, and NOTE THAT THE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME.
Female Table
Male Table
Note that the sexual coercion is a DIFFERENT FUCKING CATEGORY.
Note the VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
If it's difficult to understand, perhaps it's because YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF READING.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
As I have mentioned ad nausem, and as you have helpfully illustrated (so I'm unsure why you are still having a problem comprehending...), "made to penetrate" is listed under "Other Sexual Violence."
I am aware that the numbers are similar, and I am aware that the CDC includes made to penetrate in its rape definition. That is all fine and good. It is also irrelevant to your "point," as the questions asked to elicit responses to questions about "other sexual violence" did not require that said violence contain a "no consent" element. This is why it is not included, in the table, under "rape."
Again, for the people in the back: responses to questions about sexual violence did not necessitate a finding of "no consent." Questions under the "rape" heading did. "Made to penetrate" is explicitly (as you have pointed out) under the "sexual violence" heading.
Again, you seem to be ignoring the very obvious fact that men who noted that they were pressured into sex through crying, emotional appeals, begging, etc. were, whether they knew it or not, categorized as victims under the "sexual violence" heading for "made to penetrate." That's all. It's very simple.
So, while you are attempting to (laughably) claim that men are raped at the same rate as women, what you are actually comparing is instances of non-consensual rape with instances in which a guy consented to sex because their partner begged or cried. That is what you are pointing out, while I am pointing out that those things are, obviously, not the same thing. As one includes a necessary finding of no consent while the other does not. This is not difficult to understand.
Please ask yourself, if the numbers are the same, why the CDC very patently and explicitly found that 1 in 5 women are victims of rape in their lifetime, while 1 in 71 men are. You can also check out the various news articles I have mentioned. They all explain this very clearly.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
What about:
is unclear to you? What part about it does not match your requirement of
Are you being purposefully thick?
What you're describing is sexual coercion, which is another category under the larger heading of sexual violence. I also did not include the entirety of the sexual violence category, as that would have been misleading.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
What you cited falls inside the category of "sexual violence." That is how tables and formatting work. The definition is irrelevant. I have already explained how the survey questions operated. Screaming will not change facts.
Yes. That is one of the problems with the CDC study. One of many. I have discussed this. The other problem, as I have mentioned, is that they did not ask men about nonconsensual instances in which they were made to penetrate another individual. Instead, they conflated consensual made-to-penetrate with nonconsensual. Which is why the numbers you cite are irrelevant.
Again. The numbers you so helpfully circled are irrelevant because they combine consensual and nonconsensual instances in which a man was made to penetrate another individual. As I've explained, this is simple to understand.
Yes. Not my problem. This is a problem with the study. I wish the study was valid. It would be great to have accurate numbers on made-to-penetrate rape. But we don't.
Prove it. I have numerous articles that back up my claims, but you have said nothing thus far despite your embarrassing proclivity for bold and uppercase words.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
So I guess rape is not sexual violence?
How are you this dense. It's literally defined in the report.
Made to Penetrate is a category that is literally defined as non-consensual. It is a form of sexual violence. So is rape.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
Again, irrelevant. What people take issue with in the report is how questions were asked. While there are definitions present, the reporters did not adhere to them. That is the problem.
The questions asked about "made to penetrate" did not specify that the act be nonconsensual. That is the very essence of my complaint. And the complaint of journalists at Time, WaPo, NYT, etc... guess who's the odd man out? Yes, you. I'm gonna guess that all of these esteemed reporters can, in fact, read. So the problem is? Yes, you, again.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
You are relying on journalists interpreting the report instead of the literal source document itself.
Everything in that table is sexual violence. Rape is in the same category as "Made to penetrate". Everything in that table is non-consensual at different levels of non consent and severity. The reason why they are separate because they reveal different patterns of perpetrators.
When a man sexually assaulted another man consensually, it is orally or anally. That's rape as defined by the CDC. It is very difficult for a woman to orally or anally violate a man due to the fact that they don't have a penis to stick anywhere.
When a woman violates a man, it's through the nonconsensual use of his genitals or "Made to penetrate". Because that involves a different set of mechanisms, it has a different name. This is primarily women. 85% of that 1.1% had women make them penetrate.
Men rape men. Women make men penetrate them. The distinction allows for differentiation between patterns of perpetrators.I
I don't care what some tit from the times says. I care what the actual facts says. And they say you're wrong and you don't want to admit women can sexually assault at levels of severity and at similar frequency as men.
I'm done here. It's clear you're either a moron or deliberately obtuse.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
Yes. That is how interpretation works. You rely on numerous sources instead of a single one to get a more comprehensive understanding. I would have thought there was near-universal agreement on this, but people never cease to amaze.
Yes. But there's obviously a reason why "sexual violence" is separated from rape. Wonder why that is?
I know. I have never said otherwise.
Thus far there is no evidence that this is the case. If there was, I would entertain it. Until then, I'll stick with science and you can stick with delusional misogyny.
1 Lumene 2018-06-21
Considering I've been in science for 10 years now and watched journalists from even major newspapers butcher even simple studies, I take the source document more than I take a bunch of unqualified journalists.
Yeah, that's what I thought it was. Women can do no wrong, even when the numbers clearly say they are asshole criminals at rates far exceeding what you say.
It says Rape, and then says "Other sexual violence." Meaning that rape is under the umbrella of "Sexual violence". Rape has its own section because there are subsections of rape, meaning that it has smaller categories. That's how tables work.
There is evidence, and the only reason you don't want to accept it is because you're entrenched in this position so hard that to shift would mean losing your entire paradigm.
Not scientific. Seeya later loser.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Citation needed because the CDC isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
No, you haven't. For the record, my original point was that sexual violence that men experience is understudied and under-reported. I'm sorry if that point was lost on you, but that's what it was.
Link the study please.
Again, because we don't care about male victims of rape as a society. Fun Fact - if you include prison inmates in to the rape statistics, more men are raped in the US than women. What's more is that 65% of those rapes are guard on inmate. On top of THAT, 90% of rapes in prison are female guard on male inmate.
That's an absolutely correct statement, but the fact is that more and more men and boys are reporting sexual violence at the hand of women and girls. There was a recent survey of men and boys/women and girls under the age of 23, I think, and the split was 57/43 or something like that.
Face it, people are shitty regardless of gender, and the sooner we take off our rose tinted glasses to the "fairer sex" the better off we will be.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
Here.
I have never disagreed with this assertion. *All* sexual violence is understudied and under-reported. This is a near-universal sentiment.
Here.
Link? Because this is false. Both statements. Blatantly, obviously, and embarrassingly. At a cringe-worthy level.
I'm glad they are feeling more comfortable reporting. And I never said otherwise.
Curious that you haven't linked that one. Or any other study...
Again, I never said otherwise.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
Those two were on the first page of results, and since I'm at work, I'm not going to invest much time in it. Finding the guard on inmates stats is much harder since those are less public. If you actually care, and I doubt you do, you can spend an hour or two digging and you'll find it.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
The two articles you cited (notably and humorously, the Guardian and the Daily Mail), both link to a study that apparently no longer exists. I searched for it and found a couple other articles mentioning it, but it does not seem to exist any longer.
All articles I found link to the New York Review of Books (hardly a good source for rape statistics). The New York Review of Books article (here) mentions the same numbers and cites (1) Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 and (2) Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012. We can examine both of those because they are available on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. Let's look at them.
The first study notes ~8,700 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons. These are not broken up into male and female categories, so we don't know how many victims are men.
No. Approximately 49% of substantiated allegations involved staff sexual misconduct.
No. Approximately 54% of sexual misconduct and 26% of sexual harassment were committed by female staff. This is still an alarmingly high number, but we must acknowledge that almost half of prison guards are women, so it is not entirely unexpected. Also, while 84% of sexual misconduct on the part of female staff involved a victim who "appeared to be willing," only 37% of sexual misconduct on the part of male staff involved a victim who "appeared to be willing." Because of the power dynamics in a prison, it is highly inappropriate and criminal for any staff member to engage in sexual relations with an inmate. However, I imagine that you are the type of person who curses the justice system when a 20-year-old man is prosecuted for engaging in consensual sex with a 16-year-old girl, so it's worth making the distinction, if only to help you gain a more nuanced view of sexual assault.
As you can see, these statistics are widely and publicly available.
The numbers in the juvenile study are slightly more egregious. This study is broken down by sex. In total, 5.4% of females and 2.2% of males reported forced sexual activity with another youth, while 8.2% of males and 2.8% of females reported sexual activity with a staff member.
Again, it is unclear where the numbers in the articles you linked come from, as no document I can find from the BJS cites that ~200,000 inmates are victims of sexual assault. I explored the possibility that they are extrapolating from the relevant percentages, which would be a reasonably fair method, but I still return less than 90,000 total victims.
Also, if one is going to extrapolate from base percentages in a survey to determine an overall victim number, it would not be accurate to compare that number to reported allegations in other crime-reporting studies (as both articles you cited do). This is a simple concept: reports should be compared to reports, while data extrapolated from percentages should be compared to data extrapolated from percentages. For example, if we rely upon the CDC study (which, as I mentioned, I don't) to extrapolate data, then we have approximately 2 million female victims of rape and 6.7 million female victims of sexual violence. This is, quite obviously, a much higher number than ~90,000.
Data is data. If you want to conclude that the CDC report is accurate, then you must also accept the numbers that are inconvenient for you. If you want to assert that ~200,000 inmates (both male and female) are victims of sex crimes and that the CDC is accurate in its data regarding made-to-penetrate rape, then you must also accept that there are 8.7 million female victims of sex crimes. If we generously assume, with no data, that ~65% of the inmate victims are male, this still means, with your provided data, that there are 67 times as many female victims as male victims in the United States.
In any case, thanks for sharing these articles. I enjoy learning more about this topic.
1 shallowm 2018-06-21
a
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
I found it once, years ago, but it's pretty hard to dig up. They really, really don't like those numbers being out there.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
It's actually legally mandated that those numbers be made available to the public on the DOJ website as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (this is a very explicit mandate). You can easily see the reports from each year. The problem is that the numbers don't support any of your statements.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Took me 1 minute to find this:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/staff-members-committed-half-sexual-assaults-priso/
While it's not the 65% that I've previously seen, it's still a pretty unsettlingly high percentage.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
I did not dispute your 65% claim. While it turns out that it is wrong, it was not at issue. You were asked about your assertion that 90% of sexual assault perpetrated by prison staff is committed by female staff members.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-21
So you don't have a source that isn't your own ass? You're no better than a conspiracy theorist when you cry "cover up" to hide the fact that there's no proof of your outrageous statement.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/staff-members-committed-half-sexual-assaults-priso/
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-21
Your 90% stat is nowhere to be found in that article.
This article talks about guard-on-inmate rape in both male and female prisons. So it includes male guards raping female inmates, female guards raping male inmates, and every other combination.
1 KingWayneX 2018-06-21
Youve never met a prison guard.
Keep in mind, that a prisoner cant legally consent.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-06-21
Oh no, it's retarded.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-21
Fuck off misogynist, that's textbook rape apology and whataboutism.
1 ishicourt 2018-06-21
This is not my quote. It is a quote from Time. Thus the quotation marks.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-21
It's not exactly that either, if you pay attention. But apparently the original was supposed to represent your own position best, so that's funny.
1 CisWhiteMaleREEE 2018-06-21
Were you born retarded or did you practice?
1 Robot879 2018-06-21
I'd like for you to make this argument in twox next time negging is discussed.
I don't think I get this, is he equating being made to penetrate with a regrettable drunken hookup?
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
Your numbers don't contradict their conclusion. You can't say "you're wrong about how many female rapists there are" if your evidence is "80% of the perpetrators of this one particular kind of rape are female." You also need to know the gender split of the other forms of rape and how many rapes are what kind.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Except it does. "Made to penetrate" is a fairly new inclusion to the definition of rape. What we, as a society, consider rape needs to be revisited. We've only seen men as victims of rape for the last 30 or so years and it's still a very understudied thing that happens to men.
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
The 95-98% number includes the people involved in female-on-male rape, who are smaller in number.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
How do you know it does? And how do you know it's accurately represented? And how do you know that men, who have never been told they can be raped actually report it?
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
Let's say that there are 1000 rapists. 950 are men and 50 are women. 5 of the rapes are made-to-penetrate rapes. 4 of those were done by women. (the other 46, like, forcibly ate out drunk chicks or something). That's a 95% male population of rapists, where 80% of the people who committed made-to-penetrate were female.
The statement "80% of people who forced a man to penetrate were female" does not contradict "95% of rapists are male."
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
Your thinking is still flawed. Why are you talking about rapists rather than victims. We don't know how many actual rapists their are running around out there, but we do know how many people have self reported having been raped. And my point is that men are beginning to report rape and sex assault at near the same rates as women, and this study is publishing findings that say that 79.2% of men identify their attacker as a woman. That flies in the face of your "rapists are men and victims are women" narrative.
1 Osterion 2018-06-21
What kind of idiot believes this shit honestly.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
UCLA School of Law, apparently.
1 Osterion 2018-06-21
It's obviously flawed. In the real world woman aren't going around forcing guys to fuck them. True story
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
You're not comparing the right things, at least in the way you're phrasing it here.
1 shallowm 2018-06-21
a
1 sborraminelculo 2018-06-21
Because you're not twelve?
1 shallowm 2018-06-21
[citation needed]
1 shiwanshu_ 2018-06-21
Fucking hell, when did we started taking obvious bait that too from a regular here. We are smarter than this
1 shallowm 2018-06-21
apparently not
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-21
You know, I just bought a new 5000 lumen projector and you're projecting harder than it does.
Also, your attitude is pretty fucked up. Men are not a monolith, neither are women.
1 crudehumourisdivine 2018-06-21
such a hostile reaction to a small bit of practical advice
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-21
Fuck this is frustrating.
So is the fact that I wouldn’t walk into a gay bar or a party full of gay men that I didn’t know and get black out drunk internalized homophobia?
I’ve been to college parties with people who have gay friends, people who I cursory know. They’ve fucking sexually harassed me before and grabbed at me even if I told them I’m straight and don’t want any of it. I don’t get raped though and I don’t get charged with a hate crime for sending a fag to the hospital because I don’t stay in a place like that and give one of those fags an opportunity to go in dry while I sleep.
It’s not called that shit. It’s called being a realist. Same fucking reason you don’t leave your god damn car unlocked and valuables lying everywhere. Yeah people shouldn’t be morally bad but if you read a fucking book, you’d know this isn’t new behavior.
God damn I’m actually really mad. That’s the first time I think I’ve actually bothered to read that sub. And I haven’t even gotten into that “all men are scum” bullshit. Women have treated me just as bad if not worse than gay people harassing me.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-21
You need to hang with better people, also I've been black-out drunk in many a gay bar and I ain't ever been raped....and I'm the cream of the twinky cream crop.
You also sound like a closet freak, so there is that.
Maybe spend the rest of the day thinking about men touching you...oh, you already are? Go girl.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-21
can't get raped when you're asking for it
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
It's not even internalized, you're blatantly terrified of the homos. All in all it's probably safer than getting blackout drunk in a regular bar.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
"hey guys, i'm really drunk, i'm just gonna lie down on the floor over here, don't you guys try anything now...."
1 KingWayneX 2018-06-21
If you think gay sex is disgusting, youre probably gay. Its proven science.
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-06-21
My go-to place in town to get absolutely shitfaced used to be a gay bar. Friendliest, safest place I've ever been to, shame it closed. Stop being so terrified of gay guys mang. They mostly wanna dance to Wham! and drink fantastic cocktails just like any straight guy.
1 e-guy 2018-06-21
I enjoyed the bit partway down the thread where someone said "rape's not a women's problem, it's a man's problem", two people corrected them saying that was erasure of male rape victims, and then everyone else dogpiled those two saying "shut up, erasure doesn't matter here, it's about the context"
Even setting aside that the first phrase is generalized to the extent that the context of the OP doesn't matter, how much do you want to bet that if this were any other type of erasure those same posters screaming about how context matters would be the first to start nitpicking and correcting any erasure of a group that they're part of/want to protect?
Amazing how that goes, isn't it? When it's time to talk about me, I can be as dismissive of others' problems and erase their existence as I like. But when you're talking about your issues, oh hell no, you'd best not be marginalizing me! My experiences matter, even if they weren't actually being discussed at all and I just shoehorned them in!
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-21
well then they should just stay in their own lanes and shut up about it then
1 disgruntled_chode 2018-06-21
Best part is how many of the OG TrollXers from back in the day are showing up in the dissenting column in that thread (including one of the correctors you speak of). It's wild watching the culture of that sub crack and fissure in real time.
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
Everyone knows that conservation of rape is a well under understood phenomenon in physics.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-21
If I don't speed and get pulled over, and then threaten the cop and get shit, then someone else will, smh
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Yes, they probably do. This is why they'd rather people worked to make sure that there were less/no rapists at said party to begin with. In fact, from the op...
1 JoeFalchetto 2018-06-21
Yes but, given the current status of the world, precautions should be taken.
A friend of mine went to the Quartieri Spagnoli in Naples wearing a €7,000 watch. It was stolen.
If I tell him he should have not worn a €7,000 watch in that are, am I blaming the victim?
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
people who have super expensive watches are douche bags.
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
Everyone ready the revival of the Temperance Movement? Now with a SJW twist!
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
It's kind of the other way around. "Girls should stay sober so they don't get raped" is definitely a conservative thing.
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-21
The Temperance Movement was conservative dumbass.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Where is the SJW twist?
1 COMMUNIST_WARRIOR 2018-06-21
Is the argument made by libfems seriously that rapists will not rape someone if they've been told at school that rape is wrong?
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
No.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-06-21
They aren't doing any results-oriented thinking at all. They know it makes them mad when someone says "you can reduce your likelihood of getting raped" so they want to make sure people stop saying that.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-21
The fact that they honestly believe that rape as an issue can somehow be educated out of humanity is ridiculous. It's like saying violence can be educated out. Many humans suck, should we just not protect ourselves because it's suddenly victim blaming?
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Education and culture have a huge impact on violence. I don't think anyone expects it to disappear completely, but you're really off base if you think that the rates at which this stuff happens is somehow intrinsic to the human race, and unchangeably fixed.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-21
You can educate a rapist, but it won't somehow make them less evil
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
The point of education and changing the social/cultural conditioning around the act is to make it so that less people become rapists to begin with.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-21
Until genetic modification, you can't eliminate bad people, only make for a decent society overall
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Ok, so you do seem to think that the rate of rape and violence is somehow encoded into humans on a genetic level, and that rapists are born as "evil" "bad people". Well, all right - but I think that's a limited picture of the situation.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-21
Maybe, maybe not, I will guess we will see when the entire human genome is figured out
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
but it IS unchangeable to a degree. do you think psychopaths will never exist? unless we start testing for them at birth and throwing off cliffs, they will always exist.
then again, not all people who rape and kill are psychopaths anyway, so you'd need to do more than that. unless you literally monitor every person's thoughts and as soon as someone starts having fucked up fantasies, terminate them, then yeah, psychos will still exist, to some degree.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Most psychopaths lead law abiding lives - and most rapists aren't psychopaths. People with fucked up fantasies also tend to keep a lid on things just fine. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
Rape is generally a lot more banal than people like to imagine, and the perpetrators far less colorful. Think more Brock Turner and less Charles Manson.
If we end up in a society where the only people who commit rape are crazed psychopaths - that's a huge improvement already, and would represent a massive decrease in rapes. And I repeat:
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
well if you have the ability to fuck a girl against her will, i'm guessing you have some kind of anti social disorder. i'm literally not even capable of doing such a thing, if i feel like a girl is uncomfortable, i feel physically turned off, like, i can't just be like "nope i'm doin this" and go against their obvious discomfort.
perhaps more rapists aren't literal psychopaths, although that is just something you made up, they very well COULD be mostly psychopaths, i'm gonna need to actually look into that, they for sure have lack of empathy and an anti social disorder.
so unless we take people with anti social disorders and lock them up, some of them are going to end up assaulting or raping people. also psychopaths are far less harmless than you think, most of them go from relationship to relationship, leaving a trail of broken psychology behind them. i'm guessing you don't know any, and certainly haven't dated any, if you throw out weird assumptions that most of them are just perfectly functioning individuals with normal lives.
they also tend to be absolutely fucking assholes everywhere they go, workplaces, friendships, everywhere. most of them aren't ted bundy, sure, duh, but most people who go on killing and raping sprees tend to be psychopaths.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
also, while most people with fucked up fantasies keep a lid on it, all the ones who actually ACT on those fantasies started out by having them. literally every serial killer started out with some kind of fantasising. some will end up acting on it, some won't.
the idea of the virtuous rape fetishist reminds me of the idea of the "virtual pedophile". it's really just a complete gamble as to if and when sick fucks end up acting on their degenerate impulses, and a great deal of is likely opportunity. a guy like brock probably thought about doing shit to helpless passed out girls quite a bit, until that fateful day he found one passed out behind a dumpster and thought no one was around.
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
Do these people understand how uncommon rape is? In the US, one person in 800 per year is the victim of any kind of sexual violence. It is not safer to be a woman in the US than a man, by a long shot.
1 jimmahdean 2018-06-21
I didn't read through it, but what are they defining as "sexual violence"? I find it VERY hard to believe that only 1 in 800 women have their ass slapped by a stranger per year.
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
according to page 5 of the report, 1.2 people out of 1,000 in 2016 were the victims of rape or sexual assault. Their definition of sexual assault:
They ask 3 questions to get at that number
...
so like, maybe ass-slapping is more common than that, but ass-slapping that sticks around in your memory as an "unwanted sexual contact with force" is apparently that rare.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
Adjust that for college-age women, and you're obviously going to see different numbers though. I mean, come on.
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-21
Well no shit college-aged women are more likely than the general population to be sexually attacked. That doesn't mean they're likely to be sexually attacked. They aren't. Sexual violence is rare.
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-06-21
dude I get my ass grabbed by some cougar every time I hit the dance floor
if that’s sexual violence then the term has no meaning
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-06-21
To be fair, you're not in danger of being physically overpowered by a cougar.
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-06-21
SURVIVOR
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-21
If you're using feminist math, sure.
Otherwise it's not even remotely anything close to that.
1 jimmahdean 2018-06-21
If you ignore the people who take arguments out of context and put words in other people's mouths, there's actually some decent discussion in there.
That's not something I thought I'd ever say about trollX
1 archdukef4gg0tlives 2018-06-21
i agree /u/Joan_of_Architecture women never rape ever never ever nope not gonna happen
1 Joan_of_Architecture 2018-06-21
YOU: NOT ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL MEN
1 morerokk 2018-06-21
Yes sweaty, that's exactly what he said. Good job.
Also holy shit, this is on another level of autism.
1 rhyme-ocerus 2018-06-21
Not all white women
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
People: *be unusually rational and avoid incredibly prevalent and inherently natural forms of self-favored bias*
/r/Drama: *rabble rabble*
1 morerokk 2018-06-21
Absolutely none of that applies to TrollX, especially that fucking thread.
1 DarqWolff 2018-06-21
I fucking hate TrollX, but it applies to the tiny bit I saw of that thread. Maybe I didn't see enough.
1 morbidru 2018-06-21
lol.. most rapists are someone the victim already knows, the being attacked in a dark part of town thing is really rare.. well, depending on where in the world you live, but its rare in most of western society..
its always good to be careful when walking at night, but what you should really look out for is who you are letting get close to you when you are vulnerable
1 kermit_was_right 2018-06-21
In this context, it really doesn't matter whether it's stranger danger or acquaintance rape. I'm not sure why you think that's such a weakness of the premise.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
don't be friends with male feminists, problem solved.
1 drvgyn3 2018-06-21
me unbellyfeel femspeak
1 Robot879 2018-06-21
I kinda get where they're coming from, but what really isomerizes my carbohydrates is that they accuse the people advicing them of wanting other girls to get raped. And that's just absolutely retarded.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-21
[removed]
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-21
it's times like this that i have hope for humanity, because this is one of those posts where half of the sub is like "really, what the fuck?".
the times when the trollx posters are so retarded that they alienate their own fellow legbeards let me know there is some slim hope for humanity to come out of this hilarious GTA parody timeline.
but, as an investor in dramacoin, i hope it doesn't pull out. i hope it feels so good in there that it nuts inside, gets the ho pregnant, and this hellscape continues into the next generation.
1 cthulufunk 2018-06-21
"I once pointed this out to my mother and she just stared at me, in stunned silence for ages." Probably trying to recall how many boxes of wine she drank during the pregnancy.
1 nomad1c 2018-06-21
don't teach kids to look both ways when they cross the road. teach drivers not to hit kids!
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-06-21
protip legbeards, vocally avowing all personal responsibility for your safety is infantile, and does not help your image as people who want all the rights of adults and none of the responsibilities, ie children
this is why men don’t respect you, and why you don’t respect yourselves
1 double-happiness 2018-06-21
Trollx in a nutshell.
1 I_dontevenlift 2018-06-21
My GF carries a glock 43. She a rape enabler?!
1 _Petronius 2018-06-21
I'm over this fear now, but there were years where I couldn't wear "nice" underwear. If I thought it was too cute or provocative, I was terrified that if something happened, I'd get blamed for it because "I obviously wanted it or else I wouldn't have worn panties with an animal print." It was tough. I seriously wore nothing but the cheap packs of Haynes and Fruit of the Loom for half a decade. :-\
😂 This wildebeest is trying to act like not wearing granny panties was a choice, not a necessity borne out of morbid obesity.
1 KingWayneX 2018-06-21
I think she may be referring to getting undressed down to her panties with randos, so....
1 80BAIT08 2018-06-21
Heavily downvoted. TwoX concede women are damsels in distress then lol.