Feminism Thread

[Not Kuno]

Let me throw a hypothetical at you:

A couple is making out and things are getting a little heated. Girl seems to be into it, so guy escalates (slowly). External stimulation of the vagina, etc. She doesn't object, so he escalates further and begins/attempts to finger her.

For most people, this is common foreplay before actual intercourse. But imagine the girl suddenly decided against it (for whatever reason, totally her choice) after he began fingering her. The guy stops when asked. Did he rape her? She didn't explicitly give consent to the escalations, so the fingering could easily be labeled as "unwanted". The study would probably say, yes, he raped her. Common sense says otherwise. People don't sign legal fucking contracts before banging.

The other issue with the study is they flat out didn't ask the women if they were raped. They had a 35 minute phone interview and then the surveyors decided if they person was raped or not. When they did flat out ask, the numbers were way off (as you can see from the full thing I wrote before).

You also cant just change the definition of rape on a whim. What if someone does a study on if a random person at night says hi to you and they decide to say that is rape. Changing definitions of stuff when convenient is bullshit. Rape is rape and sexual assault is sexual assault.

That's fine and dandy. Whoever wants to get it done can do so when they are of age. But nobody should be forced to have it done at a young age where they don't even have a choice.

Also, you claim you get what Kuno said while you still throw in a comparison. It doesn't matter if it's more or less interfering for a guy. Forced mutilation is forced mutilation.

Yeah this is more or less my point. You might be ok with it but it's the same as if you have never eaten pizza before. You might not know how great it is and will never want it because its inaccessible to you. So you're whole life you're going around saying "Im fine without pizza, it doesn't really bother me" but you're not really in any position to make that comparison.

[Andalusian girls]

Oh man I forgot to address that fake "only 3% of rapists" go to jail statistic. I'm slacking today. That comes from this image, which comes from various bits of info from Rainn.org:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4...409xo1_500.jpg

The problem is that the “experts” writing this apparently don’t understand the difference between a “person accused of rape” and a “rapist.” Similarly, those “100 rapes” aren’t really “100 rapes,” they’re 46 alleged rapes and 54 guesses at rapes that may have happened but not been reported.

While these numbers might be considered shocking, in reality they’re entirely commensurate with other crimes. Note here that the actual conviction rate for rape is 5/9, or 56%, not 3% or anything remotely similar.

For now we can ignore the 54 alleged unreported rapes. The reality is that we have no idea, but when people are surveyed we overwhelmingly find that the reason so many “rapes” are unreported is because the “victim” didn’t consider it to be serious and didn’t feel they’d been harmed. If the victim didn’t feel they’d been substantially harmed, it’s debatable whether we can even consider a crime to have been committed, and at the very least we can’t count them. Once they’re subtracted, the number’s already taken a huge hit.

Of the 46 reported rapes, only a handful lead to an arrest. This is for a number of reasons. For some (this is actually quite rare, as most rapes are committed by someone close to the victim) the police might not have been able to locate a suspect. For others, they are removed as a result of accusation inflation. Basically, accusation inflation happens when someone reports a rape to the police, but for one reason or another (commonly jurisdiction issues) it’s dismissed and refiled elsewhere. This can result in an additional report even though there was only one crime. For still more, there are cases where a cursory examination demonstrates that the events reported don’t qualify as rape under the law, such as a case where two equally intoxicated people have sex. Additionally, there are cases where the alleged victim is believed to be fabricating their story outright. These aren’t the only factors, but even in short we can see how big an effect these could be.

Of the 12 that lead to an arrest, several will be dropped because the suspect is proven innocent (predominantly via alibi that wasn’t originally accessible), and others will be dropped because the DA feels the case was too insubstantial to prosecute. This could be a real crime with insufficient evidence, or a false allegation (or misdirected allegation) where the evidence doesn’t exist because the crime never occurred.

Of the 9 that are prosecuted, slightly less than half fail in court because while there was sufficient evidence to take the case to trial, there wasn’t enough to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, some cases end through plea bargains, often when the DA doubts that there will be a successful rape conviction. There’s a reason it specifies “felony” convictions, as many of these plea bargains result in misdemeanor convictions. This may be accidental, or this may be a purposeful attempt to mislead.

Finally, we get to the most misleading of the statistics, that a number of the convicted rapists will not “spend even a single day in prison.” This, of course, is bullshit. The reason for this is that many rape trials end in convictions for sexual assault. Sentences for sexual assault are not as long as sentences for rape, and given the normal length of a rape trial and general proceedings what’s actually happening is that many of these offenders are being sentenced to “time served”; that is, they’re already been in prison for their entire sentence before they were convicted. As mentioned, this makes the statistic intensely and likely intentionally misleading. They are not just letting convicted rapists go without jail time.

But hey, why bother with silly things like accuracy when you can get a good infographic out of it, right?

ah, jurisdictional refiling, of course.

and clearly the only logical reason someone wouldn't report a rape to the police is because they don't feel they were harmed ergo no crime was committed. nothing to do with societal stigma, the ordeal of having to provide evidence against their assailant, a society and police force that intrinsically demand to know how much she drank and what she wore and why she didn't fight back all those things she did to cause this attack, even the basic psychological defense mechanisms of denial and dissociation.

to the heart, the statistic of 46:54 reported to unreported sexual assaults comes from the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Unit (and the 1/3rd of reported rapes going to prosecution comes from the FBI'S Uniform Crime Reports), a nationally conducted self-respondent survey. id est these are not "experts" or some third party deciding what assault takes place, these are women themselves answering a survey saying they were the victim or rape or sexual assault, and their description matches the methodological guidelines of the survey , but never reported the crime to the police.

moreover that ratio may actually be high, it was taken from a 2002-2006 rolling aggregate i believe but in 2010 (the latest year i can pull numbers for) it was found a mere 35% of assaults were reported to police. and it's almost certain under-reporting among males is even more severe.

have you even read the methodology section of the report, or even seen the report itself before just dismissing the facts out of hand ? there are seven interviews, the first one is always conducted in person, over a period of three years at 6 month intervals using a self-respondent method. where on earth you are getting a single 35 minute telephone interview where the interviewer decides what crime took place is beyond me.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvs_methodology.pdf

but you are right that the eventual 3%-5% (3% is admittedly the lower end) of sexual assailants spending a day in jail is also largely due to the prosecutorial difficulties inherent to the issue, as well as a society which would state in the first place there is no crime if both parties are equally intoxicated, or that if you plead guilty you need not spend time in jail.

for the record the conviction rate is nearly identical in Great Britain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8446058.html

and here's all the wonderful national crime data you can explore at your leisure

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime

but why bother with silly things like facts when you can be snarky rite

[hey]

Let me throw a hypothetical at you:

A couple is making out and things are getting a little heated. Girl seems to be into it, so guy escalates (slowly). External stimulation of the vagina, etc. She doesn't object, so he escalates further and begins/attempts to finger her.

For most people, this is common foreplay before actual intercourse. But imagine the girl suddenly decided against it (for whatever reason, totally her choice) after he began fingering her. The guy stops when asked. Did he rape her? She didn't explicitly give consent to the escalations, so the fingering could easily be labeled as "unwanted". The study would probably say, yes, he raped her. Common sense says otherwise. People don't sign legal fucking contracts before banging.

So he stopped as soon as she withrew consent? Obviously that's not rape. I didn't say the study wasn't bullshit, just that that is a really awful argument.

You also cant just change the definition of rape on a whim. What if someone does a study on if a random person at night says hi to you and they decide to say that is rape. Changing definitions of stuff when convenient is bullshit. Rape is rape and sexual assault is sexual assault.

I hope they didn't count anal as rape then!

[Andalusian girls]

that bullshit study is the most expansive annual violent crimes index in the world

[archibaldcrane]

I always heard the stat as "1 out of 4 girls are raped or sexually assaulted" by XX age or whatever.

Counting non-consensual fingering as "rape" is incorrect, but it's definitely wrong and sexual assault.

[Andalusian girls]

Whole lot of wrong in this thread when I looked away for a second.



Super wrong statistic. Here's a wall of text about it.

Spoiler: show

Let’s examine one of the most frequently cited studies on rape—the 1985 Ms. Magazine study authored by Mary Koss, which determined, based on a random sample of three thousand, that 1 in 4 college-aged women in the US have been victims of rape or attempted rape. In a paper published three years prior to this study, she characterized rape as “an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture”. In other words, rape is not a deviate behavior of certain individuals, but in its essence, just another ‘normal’ expression of male sexuality. Like our late friend Ms. Dworkin, Ms. Koss subscribes to the belief that maleness is not only the root of all rape, but that maleness is synonymous with rape.
In the study, rape was defined as nonconsensual ‘penetration by a finger, penis or other object.’ This is an extremely broad definition of rape to begin with—penetration by a finger? Seriously? In addition, the wording of question 8 (the drug/alcohol question), which was responsible for roughly half the findings of rape, was ambiguous to the point of absurdity, something Koss later admitted when pressed by reporters.
But it gets better. Because of all the women determined to have been raped, only 27% considered themselves to be rape victims. Yes, that’s right. It was the surveyors, not the respondents, who decided who had been raped and who hadn’t.
When corrected for these discrepancies, the number of women in the study who were victims of rape or attempted rape drops to about 1 in 22. Still unacceptable—especially if you’re woman #22—but one thing that number won’t do is get you all kinds of nationwide press.
Another study done in 1992, by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick, found that 1 in 8 women in America would be the victim of forcible rape at least once in her lifetime. Which is pretty scary, especially for the hordes of women who opted not to enrol in post-secondary education, believing it would keep them safe from all those rampant campus rapists.
In order to avoid the uncomfortable conflict that arose in Koss’s study, where victims of rape were apparently in the dark as to the fact they’d been raped (how awkward!), Kilpatrick thought it prudent to omit the question altogether. Yes, you heard me. In a study of how many women have been raped, he didn’t think ‘Have you ever been a victim of rape?’ was a pertinent enough question to include in the 35 minute telephone interview. When pressed by reporters from a small, award-winning investigative newspaper, as to why he’d omitted the question in his million-dollar study, his reply was, ‘If people think that is a key question, let them get their own grant and do their own study.’
Except guess what? He’d already done that study—one where he’d explicitly asked respondents whether they had, indeed, been raped. And the number he arrived at? Coincidence of coincidences: 1 in 20. You’ll understand how that study didn’t land him a spot in Time magazine, whereas his super-scary 1992 study based on the Koss/Ms methodology made him a feminist household name.

Basically, it's completely made up. Women and men get raped at around equal numbers. Men get raped way way more than women do if you count prisons.

congratulations

you debunked a Ms. Magazine article

though at least i now see where you got your strawman methodology, conflating a 1992 study i never referenced + the RAINN graphic never references with my posts, and using it as proof to show how incompetent the Justice Department and FBI are

[archibaldcrane]

I just love that if a woman was raped, but she doesn't think it was rape (which could very easily result in not knowing what rape is - like that a husband can be a rapist, or being passed out still means you didn't give consent, etc) then for some reason we're supposed to say it wasn't rape because she didn't say it was.

This rape apology shit makes me sick, honestly.

[thetruepandagod]

The reason FGM is so horrible is that the reason they do it to women is to prevent them from feeling sexual pleasure.

Circumcision for males became popular among the non religious to curb "masturbatory insanity" wtf is your point, no one should be mutilated without consent regardless of gender or belief unless their life is dependent upon it.

[quannum]

you don't have life as bad as me, therefore im right?

[Blubbartron]

So he stopped as soon as she withrew consent? Obviously that's not rape. I didn't say the study wasn't bullshit, just that that is a really awful argument.

I hope they didn't count anal as rape then!

Technically you didn't state an opinion on the study at all. You dismissed the entire argument because of a side-comment. Purely from appearances, it's very difficult to distinguish between a person dismissing an argument because the argument is fundamentally flawed, and dismissing an argument because you disagree with it. You'll generate a lot more useful discussion if you actually say what your objections are to something instead of being dismissive.

Also, good point on the anal thing. I think men can only technically be raped in like 10 states or so. Otherwise it's a sexual assault. I suppose in that case I can't agree with Kuno's objection to specifying a definition. The difference between colloquial rape and letter-of-the-law rape is already vastly different, so the definition for a study needs specified. Granted, I would still object to the definition they gave because it's fairly vague and has some implications that I'm not sure happen a lot (or ever) in reality, such as some guy forcing a girl down and fingering her, then walking away having successfully shown his dominance (without doing anything else). There's a huge gray area when it comes to consent because it's often completely non-verbal.

[Shade]

Why is this a fucking competition? Gee, studies show most men suffer in life when they get their left arm lobbed off as opposed to girls who don't mind as much. It should happen to anyone. At all. Period. You cant justify something by saying it's WORSE for someone else when done to them. That's bullshit assbackwards logic. Nobody should have a body part permanently removed without their consent.

Because you can't lump every single "bad" act together as equal. That's why there are different penalties for different types and degrees of crimes. No one's comparing arms and arms in this situation. By using your logic, someone could also argue that parents who get their children's ears pierced while they are babies are performing an act of mutilation which is just as bad as the one done by people who hack off a little girl's clitoris with a rusty knife. Maybe they both shouldn't be done, but they're not equal.

And if you think circumcision is bad and wrong, then great, say so, and say why, but there's no reason for drawing a false equivalence with female genital mutilation to make your argument stand. You can argue that beating someone up is not worse than murdering them, without saying that beating someone up is okay.

[hey]

Counting non-consensual fingering as "rape" is incorrect

What if a dildo is used?

[Andalusian girls]

for more records this Justice Department funded study suggest only 16% of rapes are reported to police, and this English study from the Crown Prosecution Services (the principal prosecutorial body in England + Wales) states between 75-85% of all rapes are never reported to police. that 45-55 split (which the Justice Department now says is more like a 35-65% split) is generous it's very probable even less than 3-5% of rapes result in jail time.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/without...t-20061231.pdf

also in that same study finds 18% of women are raped over the course of their lifetime, i used the 1/4 figure to include sexual assault + attempted rape. but even just out and out forced + nonconsensual sexual intercourse, which seems to be the only kind that is recognized as a real crime around here, is a little less than 1/5

males make up 9% of rape victims in offenses with convictions which is almost certainly low given that i believe, and most who follow the issue believe, male rape victims are even less likely to report their victimization than female rape victims. but probably not a 41% discrepancy.

now males in prison are far more likely to be sexually assaulted, or coerced into sexual activity with the threat of violence (which, hey, is rapey rapey assault too), somewhere like 14-20%, naturally depending on the particular prison. in a maximum security male prison the rape rate was found to be 23%, and in a maximum security female prison the rape rate was found to be 27%, in other prisons the rate is in the single digits.

http://www.justdetention.org//pdf/struckman.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/200707190...sprisoners.pdf

in other words males in prison are about as likely to get raped as females are to get raped in normal society

but how the fuck anyone can say males get sexually assaulted as often as females outside of jail with a straight face is beyond god damn everything.

i've posted a ton of literature, hopefully those interested can peruse it and look at the methodology themselves and come to their own conclusion i feel progressively more brain cells committing seppuku the longer i take part in this discourse

[hey]

Also, good point on the anal thing. I think men can only technically be raped in like 10 states or so. Otherwise it's a sexual assault.

Exactly. Legally, rape is often defined as "A man putting his penis inside a woman's vagina without her consent." This means anal is not rape. This means a man cannot be raped. This means a woman cannot possibly rape anyone. It's silly, and not the definition used by anyone outside a court room.

[Not Kuno]

but even here 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime

congratulations

you debunked a Ms. Magazine article

That article was for the 1/4 stat you yourself gave out. That was the 35 minute interview thing I was talking about.

The second post was about the 3% rate you yourself brought up.

but how the fuck anyone can say males get sexually assaulted as often as females outside of jail with a straight face is beyond god damn everything.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...ps73eeda7f.jpg

That's from the CDC. RAINN puts out generally bullshit statistics so.. yeah. Here is the source:

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePreventio...port2010-a.pdf

[Not Kuno]

Exactly. Legally, rape is often defined as "A man putting his penis inside a woman's vagina without her consent." This means anal is not rape. This means a man cannot be raped. This means a woman cannot possibly rape anyone. It's silly, and not the definition used by anyone outside a court room.

Yes, this is true. Which is why "male rape" stats are usually funky looking. Look at my above post for the CDC to see actual rape numbers.

[Andalusian girls]

[Andalusian girls]

+ when you include all sexual violence rates the rate is 44.6% for women 22.2% for men

there is no equivalency

[Andalusian girls]

I'M OUT

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/...ps10fd8e41.gif

[Not Kuno]

Did you miss the part where men cant legally be raped by women? Look at that image I posted about forced envelopment, if you're too lazy to look at the stat.

Do you just see what you want see and then cover your ears and close your eyes while going lalalalala?