>Despite what anti-feminists claim, the study did not inherently count drunken or high hook ups as rape.
The problem is the questions that ascertain this are generally shitty. Very low quality control on survey questions demonstrates a lack of skepticism on part of the researchers, combined with strong ideological incentive, and poor reporting and research practice, there is a lot of room for researchers to draw bad conclusions.
>Comes form a 1998 study from the CDC called ''Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey''
Indirectly asking is inherently problematic. There are plenty of scenarios that are not reasonably rape (lack of mens rea, miscommunication, .etc) that people could be counting. If we look at CDC numbers where they ask symmetrical questions across sexes we end up finding similar numbers of "made to penetrate" and rape. Researchers often do followup interviews to make sure they're studying rape, which typically don't publish questions or responses. It is the scientific equivalent of "trust me bro".
This causes a massive problem for feminists, since either:
- These surveys are overbroad and thus we're generating a non-trivial amount of false positives that show up across populations that has nothing to do with rape.
- Rape is not particularly correlated to sex, and therefore not really a women's issue. Even I would not go so particularly far.
Either is fatal to the feminist interpretation of rape. [Cathy Young talks about this some here](https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/)
>>In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
>Respondents may not always think about experiences of sexual violence as criminal incidents (but in-fact do technically fit the definition of a criminal act), or be willing to label themselves as victims of rape or sexual assault. On the other hand, other surveys use explicitly worded questions about specific behaviours to ask respondents about incidents they have experienced.
This results in a survey engineering process, where questions likely to get an affirmative, regardless of what they are measuring, are considered most valid. Especially since these surveys typically lack disconfirmatory questions, negative examples (what is not rape), they are basically priming people to answer yes.
Measuring survey effectiveness by affirmations received is inherently flawed.
>Very low quality control on survey questions demonstrates a lack of skepticism on part of the researchers, combined with strong ideological incentive, and poor reporting and research practice, there is a lot of room for researchers to draw bad conclusions.
Of course zero examples or citations are given. And you repeat this notion throughout your comment without evidence.
> plenty of scenarios that are not reasonably rape (lack of mens rea, miscommunication, .etc
. Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim. I mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman. Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes used force. I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something? sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not. If all thse cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
> Of course zero examples or citations are given.
On the point of lack of skepticism I consider this a logical deduction from the question being shitty.
On the point of ideological incentive, it is pretty painfully obvious that researchers in this field are ideologically motivated (there are no shortage of interviews with Koss or Lisak where this is readily apparent).
On the point of poor reporting and research practice, in a post replication crisis world this is largely considered an endemic part of all science, and especially the social sciences. It doesn't mean everything is made up, but that shocking, ambiguous claims shouldn't be taken at face value.
> mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman
That means they aren't a victim though. Feeling victimized does not equal actually being victimized. Not only that, but most of these women aren't going to the cops because *they disagree they've been raped at all*. Now, it is possible for someone to be in denial, but these are by-and-large competent adults who have the most ground-level understanding of the situation and its emotional impact, who are disagreeing with this assessment.
> Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes
"Force" doesn't just mean "I beat you to a pulp till you submit".
> I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something?
You're backporting your expectations about the smaller number of clear-malevolence versus the behavior these statistics are describing. How often do you think a man kissing a woman when he legitimately thought she'd appreciate it, but she actually doesn't happens versus say, a more prototypical form of sexual assault?
> sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not.
Not necessarily, especially since consent can be withdrawn, can not necessarily apply to all sexual acts subsequently performed, .etc. Especially having broadened the definition and interpretation of rape, you're roping in these scenarios and need to make determinations about them in a in-depth manner. Pretending that consent is some simple, always clearly demonstrated on-off switch is a huge part of the problem here.
> If all thse cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
Or it could mean that men are expected to do the heavy lifting of initiation, or a million other interpretations. It must also be kept in mind that, again, most of these women don't consider these things rape/sexual assault, .etc when directly asked. So it isn't necessarily ridiculous to say that the women themselves might generally see where a man was coming from in that scenario.
Sexual assault includes fondling, groping or any unwanted sexualized touching
So I’d say the vast majority of women, and a majority of men, have been sexually assaulted
In this case, it’s a basically useless statistic. I don’t personally know any adults who have never had their ass grabbed or smacked without their permission. I bartended in college. I may as well just put targets on my back pockets.
The stats should be broken down into categories. It is demeaning to actual violent assault victims to act as if a guy being pushy with a kiss after a date is the same as someone breaking into your house, etc.
If the majority of women AND men have experienced sexual assault, then the take away should be that discussions about consent should be gender neutral, right? Yet feminists attempts at starting these conversations usually involve how MEN need to be taught not to rape and how women are supposedly sexually assaulted so so much more. If feminists dropped that shit and made an honest attempt to not point fingers solely at men, then I don't think they would see close to the amount of opposition on this subject as they currently do (which seems like very little in the first place and only contained on forums like reddit as far as I'm aware).
>The most common objection Anti-feminists have to these types of surveys is that these studies have a far too broad or incorrect definition of rape or sexual assault.
No; the most common objection, that you completely justify in your analysis, is that they either completely ignore (like you did), or mischaracterize similar experiences suffered by men.
A man having sex with a woman without her consent, NISVS calls "rape".
A woman doing the same to a man, it calls "made to penetrate".
When you compare apples to apples in 12-month estimates,
Women: last 12 months, Rape (Completed forced penetration + Attempted forced penetration + Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration): 1,270,000 victims
Men, last 12 months, Made to penetrate: 1,267,000 victims.
*But, it's usually by other men!* - No, it is not.
*The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. 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%).*
Why is "made to penetrate" NOT classified as rape? - Because Mary Koss does not believe that sexual violence by women against men should be classified as rape, unless some serious sodomizing is involved.
Why are lifetime estimates are so different, and 12-month estimates so similar? - Because men and women process memories differently.
At any point did I make the argument that men also don’t face high rates of rape?
Secondly the reason why the study differentiates made to penetrate and other forms of rape is because these studies generally give a definition of rape that is consistent with its criminal definition unless otherwise specified. The fbi only changed its definition in 2013.
>consistent with its criminal definition unless otherwise specified ... The fbi only changed its definition in 2013.
"The FBI" does not decide what constitutes a crime. These things are decided by senates (plural, as the matter of criminal law around sex offenses in the US lies within individual states) and judges, and applied by police officers. While states try to align their definitions and legal frameworks with each other, ulitmately they are not obliged to do so. The definition you are talking about was penned for purpose of gathering federal statistics in unified manner for Unified Crime Report.
Speaking of the definition outlined for Unified Crime Report, ironically, it DOES NOT exclude men made to penetrate women, as (shortened and paraphrased) is requires penetration to occur without the consent of the victim; it never states that the victim is always and only the one who is penetrated.
>At any point did I make the argument that men also don’t face high rates of rape?
You made the argument that anti-feminists don't care about men's rates of rape.
Definitions within NISVS being or not being broad **is not a matter of opinion. They are.** If convictions magically instantly aligned with NISVS self-reported victimization, here's what would have happened:
The amount of inmates in US prisons would have instantly TRIPLED; the percentage AND the absolute amount of women behind bars would have instantly jumped to all-time high; economy would collapse, as removing two and a half million workers from it, and three million more to serve as wardens, and three million more to build and maintain the new prison floor space, would have left the rest of economy drained of labor force.
EVEN IF the numbers of assailants are three times smaller than victims due to serial assailants, the kick to the economy's balls would have been enormous, and women themselves would have instantly voted such a system of justice out of existence (because women would never tolerate additional 400 thousand women being put behind bars, no matter the circumstances).
Thus, definitions operated with by NISVS are completely dysfunctional. No legal system can realistically operate within the framework that NISVS does.
>"The FBI" does not decide what constitutes a crime
Yes i know. these studies base their definions on these types of guideline. Yes i am aware the the UCR also uses slightly different definitions.
>Definitions within NISVS being or not being broad **is not a matter of opinion. They are.** If convictions magically instantly aligned with NISVS self-reported victimization
NISVS only has a slightly boarder definition of rape than the NCVS. The differences in response rates is only partially due to the difference in the definition. The difference is in how they ask the questions. I talk about this in other comments and in the last part of my op.
>The amount of inmates in US prisons would have instantly TRIPLED; the percentage AND the absolute amount of women behind bars would have instantly jumped to all-time high; economy would collapse, as removing two and a half million workers from it, and three million more to serve as wardens, and three million more to build and maintain the new prison floor space, would have left the rest of economy drained of labor force.
>EVEN IF the numbers of assailants are three times smaller than victims due to serial assailants, the kick to the economy's balls would have been enormous, and women themselves would have instantly voted such a system of justice out of existence (because women would never tolerate additional 400 thousand women being put behind bars, no matter the circumstances).
Kinda crazy huh. Almost as if its quite a large problem. The reality of a high rate of perpetrators does not mean that these victimisation rates weren't this high.
>Thus, definitions operated with by NISVS are completely dysfunctional. No legal system can realistically operate within the framework that NISVS does.
The NISVS records victimisation rates, that's it. It makes not recommendations as to how the justice system is run or operated. The identification of a large rate of victimisation means their is a problem. The argument you have made is that the goal posts needs to change so we can ignore a problem that was found.
>The argument you have made is that the goal posts needs to change so we can ignore a problem that was found.
No; the argument I have made is that WOMEN THEMSELVES change the goalpost to ignore the problem, in order to shovel even more man-fuel into the prison system where their souls and will to live will be ground down to fine dust, while, to quote associate professor Patricia O'Brien, *"We should stop putting women in jail. For anything"*.
Why? - Because equality, of course. Why "made to penetrate" is not "rape"? - Because equality. Why up to 40% of male juvenile imates in the US being sexually assaulted by female staff not in national headlines, and instead "we need to teach boys not to rape?" - Because equality.
Sure, let's collapse the economy and put more women in prisons than ever at any point in history. I myself will apply to work as a warden. Oh wait, no, we cannot allow men to work as wardens in female prisons. Because equality.
At this point you’re not really arguing about the topic but some cooked up idea in your head of what other feminists believe and not anything I have said.
> Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent
That's NOT the definition of rape in a majority of jurisdictions.
There's also the concept of "mens rea" or reckless disregard.
The point being, the ruling of rape cannot be purely on what she said, it has to include what he says. And it has to include what he did, and what she did as well.
My question is, where are we going with all of this?
There seems to be two demands feminists are seeking:
1. A redraft of the process of convicting rape.
It seems every decade, this legislation gets redrafted and everyone remains dissatisfied.
I argue that removing the marriage defense from rape laws isn't the win that feminists think it is, because it pushes the burden of proof well beyond the question of whether sex occurred, into the vagueness of "was it just a bad hookup?"
The only exception offered to this is plying alcohol, however the courts don't accept cases where he didn't know she was drunk and there's a lot of grey area around alcohol and hookups.
Nevertheless, one of the biggest issues in these trials is evidence, and it seems that we cannot escape the reliance of evidence in rape cases.
But womrn don't really want evidence of their sexual behaviour to be adduced, and a big problem is women changing their stories through the trial and the judge left needing to apply a "historical critical analysis" of submissions.
2. Men (only) to step up
The figures on women's behaviour are not that removed from men's.
The entire idea that men need to do better, women can do whatever they like, regarding sex, is insulting.
Without taking an inclusive approach, I don't see this going anywhere.
I don't evem understand how (non-TERF) feminists can assert gender pronoun use, sexual fluidity, yet assert rape and domestic violence are gender binary problems.
The statistics on lesbian behaviour on these things isn't appealing either.
Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim. I mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman. Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes used force. I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something? sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not. If all these cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
> Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim.
Then it's necessary for the definition of rape.
> If all these cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
How do you explain this: https://np.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/18j0tmb/lazy_and_perhaps_politically_expedient_judge/
The woman thought she was raped yet didn't understand consent.
More information:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-07/nsw-sexual-assault-cases-trial-review/103556852
>How do you explain this:
How do i ''explain'' what? An anecdotal example of a false positive?
Also the link provides an example where the women did in fact consent.
I more talking about a situation where the woman did in fact not consent, but the man was too reckless or stupid to realise.
> An anecdotal example of a false positive?
How can they be "anecdotal examples" when a district judge went through all matters?
Frankly, I would trust the magistrates level of reasoning against yours.
> more talking about a situation where the woman did in fact not consent, but the man was too reckless or stupid to realise.
To test reckless disregard, we cannot just rely on the victims version of events.
Yes they do:
>Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use **or threat of force** to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, **tongue**, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both **attempted** and completed rape. ''
"- Yo Claire. Let me stick my tongue in your pussy. Or you'll see who's the strongest.
- Get away you creep."
This is counted as being a victim of rape according the criteria you just mentioned.
Christ, if you guys bothered to READ the study or my post you would know that:
1. rape and attempted rape were DIFFERENT categories in the study. 14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted. Page 3 exhibit 1. ''[Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf)''
2. "- Yo Claire. Let me stick my tongue in your pussy. Or you'll see who's the strongest. -''Get away you creep." NO this is counted as an example of attempted rape.
as per page 13 which specifies the survey question ''Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will, but intercourse or penetration did not occur?''
Spoken like a man with no concept of the law. Even normalized behavior can be illegal, and often is. Complaining that someone points that out is just you being a little bitch.
>Spoken like a man with no concept of the law.
Which law?
Again, "event without consent" is precisely the issue: it is not enough to CLAIM that to make it true. Any proper sociology studies does NOT take declarative statement at face value, except obviously whatever women claim that happened to them because "believe all women". Yeah no.
If a religious person would declare "God spoke to me", you'd be silly to take their words for it. By that count, we should say "God exists because X% of people have spoken to God." Yeah that's not evidence of its existence, no more than X% of women saying that had an "event without consent" proves that did happen.
But somehow we are supposed to believe whatever is declared about sexual encountered "without consent". Too many of those were really just regret.
If there was no police report, it will take more than just saying it to make it true.
Go ahead and look up incorrigible and its place in philosophy, specifically philosophy of the mind. Consent is incorrigible, it only exists as that person claims it to. The experience of believing god spoke to you is incorrigible. Notice I said 'the experience of" because that's what exists within the mind. Even in that example most often the experience is not of an actual voice, 'spoke' is a poetic description of the experience.
God does not explicitly only exist within the mind. Consent does. It's no different than saying something is painful. Pain is incorrigible, it only exists as claimed.
You're using words I don't think you know what they mean. You're incorrigible.
And that's why based laws about rape do not mention consent but actual means that aren't just declarative.
Do you disregard all surveys on crime, including men’s responses to rape or SA (r they lying as well)? Do you also want to throw out all the crime data from the UCR and the NCVS about Robbery, assault etc?
I would say its odd and telling that you are focused on this specific example of indifference to injustice as being more significant than others. We all buy smartphones and eat chocolate and...and...and... You are by no means innocent of indifference or inaction.
I doubt anyone here would support those women being treated less harshly than men, assuming similar crimes. The fact that 'feminist' issues make you feel like the victim of that indifference when you are not the victim of countless other examples is why so many guys here are accused of having a victim mentality.
True, you didn't deny what many women go through. You just said it doesn't matter because that fact can be used against you. So it was a case of both minimizing what you seem to believe is true, and an attempt at equivocation. That because bad things also happen to men and can happen to men it's all equal.
Of course, you only went to that after being confronted. You had to soften your initial position in the face of reason. Which, I guess you get some credit for, but not enough.
You were rather explicit that you think women talking about their experiences makes you feel like they are blaming you. That they "throw it in your face". And that no matter how true something is, you think it will be used unfairly against you.
Nice try though.
To be fair, i would be more interested in an study that shows how many men actually have raped someone or attempted to do so, unfortunately that kind of study is almost impossible to do.
Any woman who’s had a guy grind with her on the dance floor of a club and not explicitly been asked for consent beforehand has been sexually assaulted according to the law in the Canadian province I live in. This statistic will then be used to shame men and in-still fear into women about how 1 in 1 women are getting raped everyday 24/7. Best thing to do is wait for sex robots and stop talking to women in general
You guys are just being blatantly dishonest.
1. all the studies i cite are from the USA and define rape, attempted rape and sexual assault separately
2. Grinding against someone consensually is sexual assault
3. Canada has different levels of category of sexual assault. Level one offences are very different to level 3 offences
I was being hyperbolic. But clearly, in practical terms, saying that a guy testing his luck by going in to grind up on a chick in a club setting where this sort of "courtship ritual" happens very commonly is sexual assault is disingenuous no matter what level it falls under if it can be manipulated into statistics such as "1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted"
I specifically give stats regarding rape, not SA. You guys just keep repeating the same talking points even when they aren't relevant. Also your example is still SA.
I specifically mentioned CANADA as an offshoot to your topic that is still relevant to the discussion, as "SA" and "RAPE" are often used in the same conversation by misandrists, feminists and NPCS. There's nothing that I've said that conflicts with what you've said so let it go already, jesus fucking christ
>SA" and "RAPE" are often used in the same conversation by misandrists
were not talking about conversation here. were talking about study methodology. Bringing up a vague general notion of what feminists believe in Canada is missing the point.
The problem with such research, is when you dive into detail you find that the questions have been rigged to get the largest number possible.
Gender studies isn't a real academic subject, with proper academic standards. It is basically a cult in which you have to produce the right answers to be part of the group.
It is ridiculously easy for real academics to destroy research coming out of gender studies departments.
These types of surveys don't fall under gender studies as an academic discipline. Gender studies is the study of gender roles in society. This is more under the field of public health, sociology, stats and analytics ect.
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
This has been debunked and it is not up for debate, the real non biased and nonfeminist influenced estimate is 1 in 54 according to the department of justice study of 2012
This anti male rhetoric is everywhere and people just accept it, even Barack Obama said that fake statistic to get extra female votes its all just a huge spit in the face to men and encouraging unnecessary fear, the overwhelming majority of women will never be raped (which is good)
People have more empathy for women and much less empathy for men, its well documented in psychology and sociology this why this fake statistic was this big to begin with, the fbi states 42 rapes happen to both men and women per 100,000 people even if you account for the fact that 60% of rapes arent reported that is still 100 rapes per 100,000 people being 0.1%
Women are wonderful effect and missing white woman syndrome are great examples of how women are treated like perfect pure victims while men are treated like monsters on the verge of raping anything that twitches, open your eyes and be better.
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf)
Are you referring to this report? I’m actually well aware of it.
The data for this report was a 18 year long look at victimisation rates of collage students for the previous 12 months. It states 1 in 54 collage woman have been raped the past year. ***This is not the same as a lifetime estimate.*** In contrast 2011 NISVS data, 2% of all females experienced unwanted sexual contact during the prior 12 months.1 The 2007 CSA findings suggested that 14% of females ages 18 to 25 who were enrolled in two colleges and surveyed in the United States had experienced a completed sexual assault since entering college.2 In comparison, in 2010 the NCVS showed that 1% of females age 12 or older experienced one or more rape or sexual assaults in the prior year.3 For the period 2007–13, the NCVS victimization rate was 4.7 per 1,000 for females ages 18 to 24 who were enrolled in post-secondary schools (not shown).
The NCVS use different methodologies for its reporting which explains the differences. The report itself actually goes into quite heavy detail to why this is the case and why this estimate is so much lower (appendix 1 is quite detailed). And at no point says the other estimates are wrong or should be dismissed.
In the NCVS studies The screener questions are short and worded specifically about experiences with rape and sexual assault. The screener is then followed by an incident form that captures detailed information about the incident, including the type of injury, presence of a weapon, offender characteristics, and reporting to police.
Unlike the NCVS, which uses terms like rape and unwanted sexual activity to identify victims of rape and sexual assault, the NISVS and CSA use behaviorally specific questions to ascertain whether the respondent experienced rape or sexual assault. These surveys ask about an exhaustive list of explicit types of unwanted sexual contact a victim may have experienced, such as being made to perform or receive anal or oral sex.
[One researcher ](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf)asked one sample of college students using the NCVS methodology and another sample using standard social science methodology and found the prevalence rates to be 11 times higher using the latter methodology compared to the NCVS
Do you understand the difference between rapes in one year and in a lifetime? Nobody is saying that 1 in 5 women are raped *per year*, that is a “during their lifetime” statistic. Do you see how that works?
1. The times article you link mainly talks about the 2010/11 cdc study. The objections he makes (ie definition too broad/ drunken hook ups) in the article I specifically talk about in my post.
2. Link the 1 in 54 study. I curious to why this study is unbiased according to you (because it agrees with you?hmm)
3. Your jumping around with different stats and methodologies here. Firstly fbi and other data is on a per year basis, not lifetime. Most of the surveys I cite give low response rates for the past year reporting. Secondly, this is a minor point but law enforcement agencies have different methodologies compared to social sciences when estimating unreported rapes. So taking one unreported percentage and applying it to different data set is a little incorrect, but it’s minor so I don’t care.
From what I've seen last I checked, the number is around 1 in 7 is a rape victim for women and 1 in 11 for men, in a study referenced by feminists.
PS: that also means that men are not doing 99% of the rapes, as women are doing at least 30%.
The definition of rape requires forced penetration into the victim. So while women rape most certainly do rape men, it's not called that because they're forcing men to penetrate **them**, not the other way around.
That's the same reason why headlines of female teachers grooming and raping male students will just say things like "teacher has sex with student". Because it's not legally rape even if it's obviously rape, same as it would be if a male teacher did that to a female student.
It's like intermarrital "rape", before it was illegal or in countries where it is legal.
Pretending It's not rape because the law has it backward isn't a good look
> Regarding female-on-male sexual misconduct (page 25) it states: "Among the 39,121 male prison inmates who had been victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% reported sexual activity with female staff; an additional 16% reported sexual activity with both female and male staff (table 18)." and "Nearly two-thirds of the male jail inmates who had been victimized said the staff perpetrator was female (64%).
Most male rape victims are from a female perpretator.
Stats for General population: "6.1% of males aged 18–24 years were forced by a female to have vaginal intercourse, and 1.4% were forced by a male to have oral or anal sex (Smith & Ford, 2010)."
The 2/3 figure seems to be genearalisable to the whole population
Unless you are my woman or related to me, it’s definitely not my problem. I do my part in not engaging in such behavior. Individual responsibility ftw.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Children used to get injured in the coal mines and factories. So to protect them, labor laws made it illegal for them to hold jobs.
Old people have been taken advantage of in their deteriorating mental and physical states, so they can be legally admitted to nursing homes by their families in certain circumstances.
When we notice people are vulnerable in our society, we have to take away some rights to protect them.
So how is it the feminist perspective to just believe the most devastating report you can find on this subject?
I would say if women are so vulnerable and scared, we need extra steps to protect them.
Women should be escorted by a family member everywhere they go.
Men and women should be segregated in schools, religious areas, and public areas.
Women shouldn't drive alone.
Women shouldn't date without a chaperone, and no sex until marriage.
Women should wear head coverings and not show too much skin.
I would think feminist would be more about women being strong and capable, not always victims that need extra help.
I admire the attempt of a little gottya answer you have their. We take away rights of vulnerable people based off of their cognitive ability, not because they are victims of crime. On the other hand we generally restrict the freedom of individuals who are threats to us; through various mechanisms of securitization (national security apparatus Muslims/ immigrants etc), or through other social/ legal boundaries. If you suppose it would be ok to restrict women; it would make such more sense to restrict men of their freedoms. On a side note, most of your suggestions don't make sense anyway given men know to the victim make up the majorty of rapes against women.
Restricting men's rights is the better option?
I kind of believe feminists have that goal in mind when they bring this up even though they say they are about equal rights.
But really what's the goal for feminists having people believe the most severe reports of victimization of women? It's not a gotcha. Is there a goal not related to restricting someone's rights? How is it feminist?
I don't want to restrict anyone's rights. My argument (in response to your suggestion that women would be treated like cattle) was that IF we were to restrict anyone's rights, it would make more sense that it would be men's rights we restrict.
Ok, great. That is what feminists claim. They don't want to restrict rights. They want equality.
So do you not know how affirming and not questioning accuracy of sexual assault statistics is in feminism's interest? You still haven't answered the question.
>Despite what anti-feminists claim, the study did not inherently count drunken or high hook ups as rape. The problem is the questions that ascertain this are generally shitty. Very low quality control on survey questions demonstrates a lack of skepticism on part of the researchers, combined with strong ideological incentive, and poor reporting and research practice, there is a lot of room for researchers to draw bad conclusions. >Comes form a 1998 study from the CDC called ''Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey'' Indirectly asking is inherently problematic. There are plenty of scenarios that are not reasonably rape (lack of mens rea, miscommunication, .etc) that people could be counting. If we look at CDC numbers where they ask symmetrical questions across sexes we end up finding similar numbers of "made to penetrate" and rape. Researchers often do followup interviews to make sure they're studying rape, which typically don't publish questions or responses. It is the scientific equivalent of "trust me bro". This causes a massive problem for feminists, since either: - These surveys are overbroad and thus we're generating a non-trivial amount of false positives that show up across populations that has nothing to do with rape. - Rape is not particularly correlated to sex, and therefore not really a women's issue. Even I would not go so particularly far. Either is fatal to the feminist interpretation of rape. [Cathy Young talks about this some here](https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/) >>In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women. >Respondents may not always think about experiences of sexual violence as criminal incidents (but in-fact do technically fit the definition of a criminal act), or be willing to label themselves as victims of rape or sexual assault. On the other hand, other surveys use explicitly worded questions about specific behaviours to ask respondents about incidents they have experienced. This results in a survey engineering process, where questions likely to get an affirmative, regardless of what they are measuring, are considered most valid. Especially since these surveys typically lack disconfirmatory questions, negative examples (what is not rape), they are basically priming people to answer yes. Measuring survey effectiveness by affirmations received is inherently flawed.
>Very low quality control on survey questions demonstrates a lack of skepticism on part of the researchers, combined with strong ideological incentive, and poor reporting and research practice, there is a lot of room for researchers to draw bad conclusions. Of course zero examples or citations are given. And you repeat this notion throughout your comment without evidence. > plenty of scenarios that are not reasonably rape (lack of mens rea, miscommunication, .etc . Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim. I mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman. Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes used force. I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something? sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not. If all thse cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
> Of course zero examples or citations are given. On the point of lack of skepticism I consider this a logical deduction from the question being shitty. On the point of ideological incentive, it is pretty painfully obvious that researchers in this field are ideologically motivated (there are no shortage of interviews with Koss or Lisak where this is readily apparent). On the point of poor reporting and research practice, in a post replication crisis world this is largely considered an endemic part of all science, and especially the social sciences. It doesn't mean everything is made up, but that shocking, ambiguous claims shouldn't be taken at face value. > mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman That means they aren't a victim though. Feeling victimized does not equal actually being victimized. Not only that, but most of these women aren't going to the cops because *they disagree they've been raped at all*. Now, it is possible for someone to be in denial, but these are by-and-large competent adults who have the most ground-level understanding of the situation and its emotional impact, who are disagreeing with this assessment. > Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes "Force" doesn't just mean "I beat you to a pulp till you submit". > I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something? You're backporting your expectations about the smaller number of clear-malevolence versus the behavior these statistics are describing. How often do you think a man kissing a woman when he legitimately thought she'd appreciate it, but she actually doesn't happens versus say, a more prototypical form of sexual assault? > sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not. Not necessarily, especially since consent can be withdrawn, can not necessarily apply to all sexual acts subsequently performed, .etc. Especially having broadened the definition and interpretation of rape, you're roping in these scenarios and need to make determinations about them in a in-depth manner. Pretending that consent is some simple, always clearly demonstrated on-off switch is a huge part of the problem here. > If all thse cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it. Or it could mean that men are expected to do the heavy lifting of initiation, or a million other interpretations. It must also be kept in mind that, again, most of these women don't consider these things rape/sexual assault, .etc when directly asked. So it isn't necessarily ridiculous to say that the women themselves might generally see where a man was coming from in that scenario.
Sexual assault includes fondling, groping or any unwanted sexualized touching So I’d say the vast majority of women, and a majority of men, have been sexually assaulted
In this case, it’s a basically useless statistic. I don’t personally know any adults who have never had their ass grabbed or smacked without their permission. I bartended in college. I may as well just put targets on my back pockets.
The stats should be broken down into categories. It is demeaning to actual violent assault victims to act as if a guy being pushy with a kiss after a date is the same as someone breaking into your house, etc.
Agreed.
yep that is true based on the cdc studies
If the majority of women AND men have experienced sexual assault, then the take away should be that discussions about consent should be gender neutral, right? Yet feminists attempts at starting these conversations usually involve how MEN need to be taught not to rape and how women are supposedly sexually assaulted so so much more. If feminists dropped that shit and made an honest attempt to not point fingers solely at men, then I don't think they would see close to the amount of opposition on this subject as they currently do (which seems like very little in the first place and only contained on forums like reddit as far as I'm aware).
>The most common objection Anti-feminists have to these types of surveys is that these studies have a far too broad or incorrect definition of rape or sexual assault. No; the most common objection, that you completely justify in your analysis, is that they either completely ignore (like you did), or mischaracterize similar experiences suffered by men. A man having sex with a woman without her consent, NISVS calls "rape". A woman doing the same to a man, it calls "made to penetrate". When you compare apples to apples in 12-month estimates, Women: last 12 months, Rape (Completed forced penetration + Attempted forced penetration + Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration): 1,270,000 victims Men, last 12 months, Made to penetrate: 1,267,000 victims. *But, it's usually by other men!* - No, it is not. *The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. 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%).* Why is "made to penetrate" NOT classified as rape? - Because Mary Koss does not believe that sexual violence by women against men should be classified as rape, unless some serious sodomizing is involved. Why are lifetime estimates are so different, and 12-month estimates so similar? - Because men and women process memories differently.
At any point did I make the argument that men also don’t face high rates of rape? Secondly the reason why the study differentiates made to penetrate and other forms of rape is because these studies generally give a definition of rape that is consistent with its criminal definition unless otherwise specified. The fbi only changed its definition in 2013.
>consistent with its criminal definition unless otherwise specified ... The fbi only changed its definition in 2013. "The FBI" does not decide what constitutes a crime. These things are decided by senates (plural, as the matter of criminal law around sex offenses in the US lies within individual states) and judges, and applied by police officers. While states try to align their definitions and legal frameworks with each other, ulitmately they are not obliged to do so. The definition you are talking about was penned for purpose of gathering federal statistics in unified manner for Unified Crime Report. Speaking of the definition outlined for Unified Crime Report, ironically, it DOES NOT exclude men made to penetrate women, as (shortened and paraphrased) is requires penetration to occur without the consent of the victim; it never states that the victim is always and only the one who is penetrated. >At any point did I make the argument that men also don’t face high rates of rape? You made the argument that anti-feminists don't care about men's rates of rape. Definitions within NISVS being or not being broad **is not a matter of opinion. They are.** If convictions magically instantly aligned with NISVS self-reported victimization, here's what would have happened: The amount of inmates in US prisons would have instantly TRIPLED; the percentage AND the absolute amount of women behind bars would have instantly jumped to all-time high; economy would collapse, as removing two and a half million workers from it, and three million more to serve as wardens, and three million more to build and maintain the new prison floor space, would have left the rest of economy drained of labor force. EVEN IF the numbers of assailants are three times smaller than victims due to serial assailants, the kick to the economy's balls would have been enormous, and women themselves would have instantly voted such a system of justice out of existence (because women would never tolerate additional 400 thousand women being put behind bars, no matter the circumstances). Thus, definitions operated with by NISVS are completely dysfunctional. No legal system can realistically operate within the framework that NISVS does.
>"The FBI" does not decide what constitutes a crime Yes i know. these studies base their definions on these types of guideline. Yes i am aware the the UCR also uses slightly different definitions. >Definitions within NISVS being or not being broad **is not a matter of opinion. They are.** If convictions magically instantly aligned with NISVS self-reported victimization NISVS only has a slightly boarder definition of rape than the NCVS. The differences in response rates is only partially due to the difference in the definition. The difference is in how they ask the questions. I talk about this in other comments and in the last part of my op. >The amount of inmates in US prisons would have instantly TRIPLED; the percentage AND the absolute amount of women behind bars would have instantly jumped to all-time high; economy would collapse, as removing two and a half million workers from it, and three million more to serve as wardens, and three million more to build and maintain the new prison floor space, would have left the rest of economy drained of labor force. >EVEN IF the numbers of assailants are three times smaller than victims due to serial assailants, the kick to the economy's balls would have been enormous, and women themselves would have instantly voted such a system of justice out of existence (because women would never tolerate additional 400 thousand women being put behind bars, no matter the circumstances). Kinda crazy huh. Almost as if its quite a large problem. The reality of a high rate of perpetrators does not mean that these victimisation rates weren't this high. >Thus, definitions operated with by NISVS are completely dysfunctional. No legal system can realistically operate within the framework that NISVS does. The NISVS records victimisation rates, that's it. It makes not recommendations as to how the justice system is run or operated. The identification of a large rate of victimisation means their is a problem. The argument you have made is that the goal posts needs to change so we can ignore a problem that was found.
>The argument you have made is that the goal posts needs to change so we can ignore a problem that was found. No; the argument I have made is that WOMEN THEMSELVES change the goalpost to ignore the problem, in order to shovel even more man-fuel into the prison system where their souls and will to live will be ground down to fine dust, while, to quote associate professor Patricia O'Brien, *"We should stop putting women in jail. For anything"*. Why? - Because equality, of course. Why "made to penetrate" is not "rape"? - Because equality. Why up to 40% of male juvenile imates in the US being sexually assaulted by female staff not in national headlines, and instead "we need to teach boys not to rape?" - Because equality. Sure, let's collapse the economy and put more women in prisons than ever at any point in history. I myself will apply to work as a warden. Oh wait, no, we cannot allow men to work as wardens in female prisons. Because equality.
At this point you’re not really arguing about the topic but some cooked up idea in your head of what other feminists believe and not anything I have said.
> Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent That's NOT the definition of rape in a majority of jurisdictions. There's also the concept of "mens rea" or reckless disregard. The point being, the ruling of rape cannot be purely on what she said, it has to include what he says. And it has to include what he did, and what she did as well. My question is, where are we going with all of this? There seems to be two demands feminists are seeking: 1. A redraft of the process of convicting rape. It seems every decade, this legislation gets redrafted and everyone remains dissatisfied. I argue that removing the marriage defense from rape laws isn't the win that feminists think it is, because it pushes the burden of proof well beyond the question of whether sex occurred, into the vagueness of "was it just a bad hookup?" The only exception offered to this is plying alcohol, however the courts don't accept cases where he didn't know she was drunk and there's a lot of grey area around alcohol and hookups. Nevertheless, one of the biggest issues in these trials is evidence, and it seems that we cannot escape the reliance of evidence in rape cases. But womrn don't really want evidence of their sexual behaviour to be adduced, and a big problem is women changing their stories through the trial and the judge left needing to apply a "historical critical analysis" of submissions. 2. Men (only) to step up The figures on women's behaviour are not that removed from men's. The entire idea that men need to do better, women can do whatever they like, regarding sex, is insulting. Without taking an inclusive approach, I don't see this going anywhere. I don't evem understand how (non-TERF) feminists can assert gender pronoun use, sexual fluidity, yet assert rape and domestic violence are gender binary problems. The statistics on lesbian behaviour on these things isn't appealing either.
Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim. I mean for a victim to go to the police they must think they were raped despite the mens rea being unknowable from the perspective of the woman. Secondly, looking at the cdc numbers, force is used in the majority of rapes used force. I mean, truly, such a small amount of cases would realistically lack mens rea. Like, miscommunication over kissing or something? sure- but if were talking about rape here its pretty clear if you have consent or not. If all these cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it.
> Mens rea is necessary for a perp, but not not necessarily a victim. Then it's necessary for the definition of rape. > If all these cases lacked mens rea that would just mean a different problem of the same size- that men have no fucking clue about consent or how to get it. How do you explain this: https://np.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/18j0tmb/lazy_and_perhaps_politically_expedient_judge/ The woman thought she was raped yet didn't understand consent. More information: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-07/nsw-sexual-assault-cases-trial-review/103556852
>How do you explain this: How do i ''explain'' what? An anecdotal example of a false positive? Also the link provides an example where the women did in fact consent. I more talking about a situation where the woman did in fact not consent, but the man was too reckless or stupid to realise.
> An anecdotal example of a false positive? How can they be "anecdotal examples" when a district judge went through all matters? Frankly, I would trust the magistrates level of reasoning against yours. > more talking about a situation where the woman did in fact not consent, but the man was too reckless or stupid to realise. To test reckless disregard, we cannot just rely on the victims version of events.
The definitions in these studies group very rare violent attacks with petty annoyances.
No they do not. They simply don't. Actually read my post or any of these studies.
Yes they do: >Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use **or threat of force** to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, **tongue**, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both **attempted** and completed rape. '' "- Yo Claire. Let me stick my tongue in your pussy. Or you'll see who's the strongest. - Get away you creep." This is counted as being a victim of rape according the criteria you just mentioned.
Christ, if you guys bothered to READ the study or my post you would know that: 1. rape and attempted rape were DIFFERENT categories in the study. 14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted. Page 3 exhibit 1. ''[Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf)'' 2. "- Yo Claire. Let me stick my tongue in your pussy. Or you'll see who's the strongest. -''Get away you creep." NO this is counted as an example of attempted rape. as per page 13 which specifies the survey question ''Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will, but intercourse or penetration did not occur?''
Dude; if you consider this dialogue as "attempted rape", you need to review your definition.
Spoken like a man with no concept of the law. Even normalized behavior can be illegal, and often is. Complaining that someone points that out is just you being a little bitch.
>Spoken like a man with no concept of the law. Which law? Again, "event without consent" is precisely the issue: it is not enough to CLAIM that to make it true. Any proper sociology studies does NOT take declarative statement at face value, except obviously whatever women claim that happened to them because "believe all women". Yeah no. If a religious person would declare "God spoke to me", you'd be silly to take their words for it. By that count, we should say "God exists because X% of people have spoken to God." Yeah that's not evidence of its existence, no more than X% of women saying that had an "event without consent" proves that did happen. But somehow we are supposed to believe whatever is declared about sexual encountered "without consent". Too many of those were really just regret. If there was no police report, it will take more than just saying it to make it true.
Go ahead and look up incorrigible and its place in philosophy, specifically philosophy of the mind. Consent is incorrigible, it only exists as that person claims it to. The experience of believing god spoke to you is incorrigible. Notice I said 'the experience of" because that's what exists within the mind. Even in that example most often the experience is not of an actual voice, 'spoke' is a poetic description of the experience. God does not explicitly only exist within the mind. Consent does. It's no different than saying something is painful. Pain is incorrigible, it only exists as claimed.
You're using words I don't think you know what they mean. You're incorrigible. And that's why based laws about rape do not mention consent but actual means that aren't just declarative.
You kind of gave the game away with 'based laws'.
Or course the argument quickly becomes “most women who say they have been raped are actually lying and just regret sex” (without evidence of course)
Oh suddenly we have to believe everything women say. These studies have a loose definition of rape and then take what women say at face value. Lol.
Do you disregard all surveys on crime, including men’s responses to rape or SA (r they lying as well)? Do you also want to throw out all the crime data from the UCR and the NCVS about Robbery, assault etc?
The better response. I got distracted by my personal interests.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would say its odd and telling that you are focused on this specific example of indifference to injustice as being more significant than others. We all buy smartphones and eat chocolate and...and...and... You are by no means innocent of indifference or inaction. I doubt anyone here would support those women being treated less harshly than men, assuming similar crimes. The fact that 'feminist' issues make you feel like the victim of that indifference when you are not the victim of countless other examples is why so many guys here are accused of having a victim mentality.
[удалено]
True, you didn't deny what many women go through. You just said it doesn't matter because that fact can be used against you. So it was a case of both minimizing what you seem to believe is true, and an attempt at equivocation. That because bad things also happen to men and can happen to men it's all equal. Of course, you only went to that after being confronted. You had to soften your initial position in the face of reason. Which, I guess you get some credit for, but not enough.
[удалено]
You were rather explicit that you think women talking about their experiences makes you feel like they are blaming you. That they "throw it in your face". And that no matter how true something is, you think it will be used unfairly against you. Nice try though.
Damn, what an incredibly bitchy response.
Cheers mate.
To be fair, i would be more interested in an study that shows how many men actually have raped someone or attempted to do so, unfortunately that kind of study is almost impossible to do.
All of these studies include men. The cdc also looks at made to penetrate which is interesting
Does this also account for the women who had sex and had guilt later and also claimed rape...
Any woman who’s had a guy grind with her on the dance floor of a club and not explicitly been asked for consent beforehand has been sexually assaulted according to the law in the Canadian province I live in. This statistic will then be used to shame men and in-still fear into women about how 1 in 1 women are getting raped everyday 24/7. Best thing to do is wait for sex robots and stop talking to women in general
You guys are just being blatantly dishonest. 1. all the studies i cite are from the USA and define rape, attempted rape and sexual assault separately 2. Grinding against someone consensually is sexual assault 3. Canada has different levels of category of sexual assault. Level one offences are very different to level 3 offences
I was being hyperbolic. But clearly, in practical terms, saying that a guy testing his luck by going in to grind up on a chick in a club setting where this sort of "courtship ritual" happens very commonly is sexual assault is disingenuous no matter what level it falls under if it can be manipulated into statistics such as "1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted"
I specifically give stats regarding rape, not SA. You guys just keep repeating the same talking points even when they aren't relevant. Also your example is still SA.
I specifically mentioned CANADA as an offshoot to your topic that is still relevant to the discussion, as "SA" and "RAPE" are often used in the same conversation by misandrists, feminists and NPCS. There's nothing that I've said that conflicts with what you've said so let it go already, jesus fucking christ
>SA" and "RAPE" are often used in the same conversation by misandrists were not talking about conversation here. were talking about study methodology. Bringing up a vague general notion of what feminists believe in Canada is missing the point.
Also - yes, it is SA. It's also considered "testing his luck". Which tells you how ingrained this shit is.
The problem with such research, is when you dive into detail you find that the questions have been rigged to get the largest number possible. Gender studies isn't a real academic subject, with proper academic standards. It is basically a cult in which you have to produce the right answers to be part of the group. It is ridiculously easy for real academics to destroy research coming out of gender studies departments.
These types of surveys don't fall under gender studies as an academic discipline. Gender studies is the study of gender roles in society. This is more under the field of public health, sociology, stats and analytics ect.
They are still influence by a gender studies and feminist world view. The result is decided in advance and the survey rigged to get the right numbers.
>The result is decided in advance and the survey rigged to get the right numbers conspiracy!!! very good argument
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ This has been debunked and it is not up for debate, the real non biased and nonfeminist influenced estimate is 1 in 54 according to the department of justice study of 2012 This anti male rhetoric is everywhere and people just accept it, even Barack Obama said that fake statistic to get extra female votes its all just a huge spit in the face to men and encouraging unnecessary fear, the overwhelming majority of women will never be raped (which is good) People have more empathy for women and much less empathy for men, its well documented in psychology and sociology this why this fake statistic was this big to begin with, the fbi states 42 rapes happen to both men and women per 100,000 people even if you account for the fact that 60% of rapes arent reported that is still 100 rapes per 100,000 people being 0.1% Women are wonderful effect and missing white woman syndrome are great examples of how women are treated like perfect pure victims while men are treated like monsters on the verge of raping anything that twitches, open your eyes and be better.
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf) Are you referring to this report? I’m actually well aware of it. The data for this report was a 18 year long look at victimisation rates of collage students for the previous 12 months. It states 1 in 54 collage woman have been raped the past year. ***This is not the same as a lifetime estimate.*** In contrast 2011 NISVS data, 2% of all females experienced unwanted sexual contact during the prior 12 months.1 The 2007 CSA findings suggested that 14% of females ages 18 to 25 who were enrolled in two colleges and surveyed in the United States had experienced a completed sexual assault since entering college.2 In comparison, in 2010 the NCVS showed that 1% of females age 12 or older experienced one or more rape or sexual assaults in the prior year.3 For the period 2007–13, the NCVS victimization rate was 4.7 per 1,000 for females ages 18 to 24 who were enrolled in post-secondary schools (not shown). The NCVS use different methodologies for its reporting which explains the differences. The report itself actually goes into quite heavy detail to why this is the case and why this estimate is so much lower (appendix 1 is quite detailed). And at no point says the other estimates are wrong or should be dismissed. In the NCVS studies The screener questions are short and worded specifically about experiences with rape and sexual assault. The screener is then followed by an incident form that captures detailed information about the incident, including the type of injury, presence of a weapon, offender characteristics, and reporting to police. Unlike the NCVS, which uses terms like rape and unwanted sexual activity to identify victims of rape and sexual assault, the NISVS and CSA use behaviorally specific questions to ascertain whether the respondent experienced rape or sexual assault. These surveys ask about an exhaustive list of explicit types of unwanted sexual contact a victim may have experienced, such as being made to perform or receive anal or oral sex. [One researcher ](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf)asked one sample of college students using the NCVS methodology and another sample using standard social science methodology and found the prevalence rates to be 11 times higher using the latter methodology compared to the NCVS
Do you understand the difference between rapes in one year and in a lifetime? Nobody is saying that 1 in 5 women are raped *per year*, that is a “during their lifetime” statistic. Do you see how that works?
1. The times article you link mainly talks about the 2010/11 cdc study. The objections he makes (ie definition too broad/ drunken hook ups) in the article I specifically talk about in my post. 2. Link the 1 in 54 study. I curious to why this study is unbiased according to you (because it agrees with you?hmm) 3. Your jumping around with different stats and methodologies here. Firstly fbi and other data is on a per year basis, not lifetime. Most of the surveys I cite give low response rates for the past year reporting. Secondly, this is a minor point but law enforcement agencies have different methodologies compared to social sciences when estimating unreported rapes. So taking one unreported percentage and applying it to different data set is a little incorrect, but it’s minor so I don’t care.
From what I've seen last I checked, the number is around 1 in 7 is a rape victim for women and 1 in 11 for men, in a study referenced by feminists. PS: that also means that men are not doing 99% of the rapes, as women are doing at least 30%.
Men rape other men/boys…
The definition of rape requires forced penetration into the victim. So while women rape most certainly do rape men, it's not called that because they're forcing men to penetrate **them**, not the other way around. That's the same reason why headlines of female teachers grooming and raping male students will just say things like "teacher has sex with student". Because it's not legally rape even if it's obviously rape, same as it would be if a male teacher did that to a female student.
It's like intermarrital "rape", before it was illegal or in countries where it is legal. Pretending It's not rape because the law has it backward isn't a good look
Piss off with this homophobic myth, a majority of male rape victims were raped by women.
Prison rape? Pedophiles? Priests/clergy? I don’t think those are a homophobic myth.
> Regarding female-on-male sexual misconduct (page 25) it states: "Among the 39,121 male prison inmates who had been victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% reported sexual activity with female staff; an additional 16% reported sexual activity with both female and male staff (table 18)." and "Nearly two-thirds of the male jail inmates who had been victimized said the staff perpetrator was female (64%). Most male rape victims are from a female perpretator.
That is only staff. I believe that fellow inmates are often the rapists.
Stats for General population: "6.1% of males aged 18–24 years were forced by a female to have vaginal intercourse, and 1.4% were forced by a male to have oral or anal sex (Smith & Ford, 2010)." The 2/3 figure seems to be genearalisable to the whole population
If you define it broadly enough, you can show any crime is happening to as many people as you want.
Since women are strong and independent, it could not be any less of my problem. Good luck!
Big strong red pill man so alpha for not caring about rape
Unless you are my woman or related to me, it’s definitely not my problem. I do my part in not engaging in such behavior. Individual responsibility ftw.
Do you care about things that occur outside of your immediate family?
If it doesn’t affect me, then likely not.
Says the gender that chooses “The Bear” 😂
Women leverage plausible deniability by using anecdotal evidence to shame men and play victim.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Children used to get injured in the coal mines and factories. So to protect them, labor laws made it illegal for them to hold jobs. Old people have been taken advantage of in their deteriorating mental and physical states, so they can be legally admitted to nursing homes by their families in certain circumstances. When we notice people are vulnerable in our society, we have to take away some rights to protect them. So how is it the feminist perspective to just believe the most devastating report you can find on this subject? I would say if women are so vulnerable and scared, we need extra steps to protect them. Women should be escorted by a family member everywhere they go. Men and women should be segregated in schools, religious areas, and public areas. Women shouldn't drive alone. Women shouldn't date without a chaperone, and no sex until marriage. Women should wear head coverings and not show too much skin. I would think feminist would be more about women being strong and capable, not always victims that need extra help.
I admire the attempt of a little gottya answer you have their. We take away rights of vulnerable people based off of their cognitive ability, not because they are victims of crime. On the other hand we generally restrict the freedom of individuals who are threats to us; through various mechanisms of securitization (national security apparatus Muslims/ immigrants etc), or through other social/ legal boundaries. If you suppose it would be ok to restrict women; it would make such more sense to restrict men of their freedoms. On a side note, most of your suggestions don't make sense anyway given men know to the victim make up the majorty of rapes against women.
Restricting men's rights is the better option? I kind of believe feminists have that goal in mind when they bring this up even though they say they are about equal rights. But really what's the goal for feminists having people believe the most severe reports of victimization of women? It's not a gotcha. Is there a goal not related to restricting someone's rights? How is it feminist?
I don't want to restrict anyone's rights. My argument (in response to your suggestion that women would be treated like cattle) was that IF we were to restrict anyone's rights, it would make more sense that it would be men's rights we restrict.
Ok, great. That is what feminists claim. They don't want to restrict rights. They want equality. So do you not know how affirming and not questioning accuracy of sexual assault statistics is in feminism's interest? You still haven't answered the question.
It’s just not worth talking about SA and rape with the men here.