Feminist Philosophy

[Vandalhart]

Again, I'm really having a hard time interpreting our posts

That being said, here's a few videos that I've seen recently that touch on the subject.

Spoiler: show

The first video below has a follow up study from the US Department of Justice Statistics that shows it to be around 1 in 56.

Spoiler: show

I realize they're all from one woman/institution, but I thought they had some good information.

Here's a couple of other ones that I found interesting. You may have already seen them if you subscribe to the American Enterprise Institute's youtube channel.

Spoiler: show

[Thunder]

>"I am logical MRA man, present to me EVIDENCE AND FACTS
>Present evidence and facts
>"LOL what's more likely, rape or bitches be STI or some bullshit"


No survey is perfect, but as the articles stated, the CDC methodology is agreed upon by PEOPLE IN THE FIELD to be the best methodology for use of this question. You know, scientists said it was more reliable than the other surveys.

But wait, just like how media has a liberal bias, I guess scientists have a feminist bias.

Well, all scientists do have a bias towards whatever they want to prove. I don't think there's one in the world who will tell you otherwise - just that it's nice to set out "wanting" nothing

It's already pretty dishonest science when you essentially "round up" all your numbers and include all possible iterations of "sexual violence" (which somehow includes lies) into the "1 in 5 women are RAPED" figure

Plus, there's the lack of consent being automatic when drunk/high. Which is half of the women reported as raped already. I think you can agree that the jury is out on a consensus about that.


The 1 in 5 figure is just egregiously high, and if you wanted "logical MRA man" to take it more seriously than Nynja or I have the study should not have tried to label everything possible as rape. Even if you were to remove the women lied to, women "raped" while intoxicated, etc the number should be 1 in 12 or something. Which is still pretty high. But I bet nynja would take that more seriously than "1 in 5 women are raped - here are our numbers, 10% of those women said they were lied to, which is rape; 50% of those women checked off boxes that said they had sex while drunk, which is rape; ...etcetc"

For the record, I think it's a great study, good articles, and really made me rethink my views. But it's written like it's meant only for feminists to circle-jerk around "OH MY GOD LOOK AT HOW RIGHT WE ARE, 20% OF WOMEN RAAPED" rather than for the men/women out there who have no opinion out there to form a good one, or the Nynjas and me's out there to reform their own.

Basically, a large amount of people are going to look at that 1 in 5 women raped headline and laugh. Which.. isn't "good" feminism

[#686578]

PEOPLE IN THE FIELD

lol ok.

But yes, the methods are seriously flawed.

[NynJa]

10% of those women said they were lied to, which is rape

I was half asleep when I originally made that reply, but holy shit if thats actually in there. If the bank promises me 15% interest every year, and then the economy tanks and I lose all my money, by that logic, did the bank just rob me and thats theft?

[Thunder]

I was half asleep when I originally made that reply, but holy shit if thats actually in there. If the bank promises me 15% interest every year, and then the economy tanks and I lose all my money, by that logic, did the bank just rob me and thats theft?

Glad you brought that up lol, it actually looks exactly like that:

Digging into the report, one also finds interesting oddities.

Under the heading of “other sexual violence” — which the study said affected an estimated 53 million women and 27 million men — the report lists something called “sexual coercion.” This stems from a question concerning people who had sex after a partner did things like “telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you.” About 15 million women and nearly 7 million men were said to suffer from this form of sexual violence, as defined in the report.

Mutual funds promise you 15% returns or whatever and then fuck you out of all of those profits

[Mazmaz]

It's already pretty dishonest science when you essentially "round up" all your numbers and include all possible iterations of "sexual violence" (which somehow includes lies) into the "1 in 5 women are RAPED" figure

First of all, the claim was 1 in 5 women are raped OR FACED ATTEMPTED RAPE. I don't know about you, but I'm much more comfortable identifying the "sexual coercion" section as an attempted rape than as nothing at all.

Plus, there's the lack of consent being automatic when drunk/high. Which is half of the women reported as raped already. I think you can agree that the jury is out on a consensus about that.

Makes me think you didn't read it either.

Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault. When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever … [series of statements describing various sex acts]

This question is interesting because the operative element is whether someone is unable to consent to sex. But given the wording, is it possible for a listener to misinterpret it as a question about whether they had sex while drunk or high?

The CDC thinks not.

“We have gone to great lengths to ensure that respondents understand these two components — the use of substances and the inability to give consent — as part of the administration of these questions,” said CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard. “A scenario of consensual sex after drinking at a party, for instance, would not meet the definition of what is included in this series of NISVS questions.”

And that's exactly how I read it. It's not saying that if you're drunk or high you're automatically unable to consent and therefore you were raped. It's asking the women "Have you ever been so drunk or high which made you unable to consent, and had sexual things done to you?" It's essentially the same as saying "Were you unable to give consent BECAUSE you were drunk/high. i.e. would you have still had consented to those things if you were sober".

The 1 in 5 figure is just egregiously high, and if you wanted "logical MRA man" to take it more seriously than Nynja or I have the study should not have tried to label everything possible as rape. Even if you were to remove the women lied to, women "raped" while intoxicated, etc the number should be 1 in 12 or something. Which is still pretty high. But I bet nynja would take that more seriously than "1 in 5 women are raped - here are our numbers, 10% of those women said they were lied to, which is rape; 50% of those women checked off boxes that said they had sex while drunk, which is rape; ...etcetc"

Did you get those numbers from your gut then? As Colbert would put it, were you thinking with your gut?

For the record, I think it's a great study, good articles, and really made me rethink my views. But it's written like it's meant only for feminists to circle-jerk around "OH MY GOD LOOK AT HOW RIGHT WE ARE, 20% OF WOMEN RAAPED" rather than for the men/women out there who have no opinion out there to form a good one, or the Nynjas and me's out there to reform their own.

The Pulitzer Prize winner of political fact-checking and neutral reporting wrote the article as a feminist propaganda piece? Ok bro.

Basically, a large amount of people are going to look at that 1 in 5 women raped headline and laugh. Which.. isn't "good" feminism

Nope, just good science.

[Teryu]

Good science like the wage gap myth?

[NynJa]

Someone posting a 0.08 is considered drunk, and at 0.08 I have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing and am not doing.

Fact remains that every other survey says this 1 in 5 is bullshit, and the only reason you're putting this one on a pedestal is because it pushes your agenda. Like fuck man, "he promised me dinner, so I fucked him, then he didnt give me dinner, I WAS RAPED" is ridiculous and you know it.

Let me drop something down on you though. Can I tell you how you're making women sound right now? Every woman who cried rape because "I was promised something and he didnt give it" is nothing more than a glorified whore according to you, because that was their expectations: they would suck some dick and open their legs in return for something tangible from the guy. So good job buddy, keep up the good work.

[Byrthnoth]

Lifetime completed forced penetration: 11% women, 2% men ( assumed male perps )
Lifetime made to penetrate: 0.6% women, 7% men ( could be either gender, but this is where female to male rape would end up)

[#686578]

The definition of good science is peer review and consensus. The CDC "study" is widely controversial and is far from being backed by the majority of the community. Hence why I said lol to your bullshit earlier.

[GoggleHead]

Someone posting a 0.08 is considered drunk, and at 0.08 I have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing and am not doing.

Fact remains that every other survey says this 1 in 5 is bullshit, and the only reason you're putting this one on a pedestal is because it pushes your agenda. Like fuck man, "he promised me dinner, so I fucked him, then he didnt give me dinner, I WAS RAPED" is ridiculous and you know it.

Let me drop something down on you though. Can I tell you how you're making women sound right now? Every woman who cried rape because "I was promised something and he didnt give it" is nothing more than a glorified whore according to you, because that was their expectations: they would suck some dick and open their legs in return for something tangible from the guy. So good job buddy, keep up the good work.

I'd wager it's probably something more along the lines of expecting a long term relationship and getting a one night stand instead.

[NynJa]

And whos fault is that if they jump on the dick after one date?

Maybe the guy just wasnt satisfied with the sex? I know, thats baffling to some people here. Maybe the girl took off her wonderbra and her C cups turned into B cups? Maybe she was all "no, missionary only"? Maybe she said "I dont suck dick thats gross"? Guys can be disappointed too you know, thats not an excuse to cry rape over it.

[Aksannyi]

If those are legit reasons for ending a relationship after one date to you then you have more problems than an inability to understand rape.

[Gokku]

If those are legit reasons for ending a relationship after one date to you then you have more problems than an inability to understand rape.

What? Sexual incompatibility is a very valid reason to end a relationship.

[NynJa]

If those are legit reasons for ending a relationship after one date to you then you have more problems than an inability to understand rape.

Im sorry, i forgot only women are allowed to be dissatisfied, as long as a guy "gets their dick wet", thats all that should matter, right?

Why is it acceptible for a girl to move on if the guys package isnt big enough, but its disgusting for a guy to move on if the girls presumed C cup is a B cup? Why is it shallow for a guy to want to not date a girl who says "sucking dick is gross"?

[Aksannyi]

I'm saying that if you're going to end a relationship for superficial reasons (this goes to men and women, btw), then you're not likely to find something more deep and lasting. Sexual compatibility is one thing, but being dissatisfied because a woman is a B-cup is superficial and a fucking bullshit reason to end a relationship, akin to dropping a woman because she wears make up because it was "false advertising" (and let's not talk about how this implies that women are products for you to purchase). And I would say the same thing about a woman who is turned off by a small package, because it's completely fucking superficial and it does not matter how big a man is if he knows what he's doing.

Maybe find out why she doesn't want to try other positions? Maybe find out why she's not interested in fellatio? Just going to give up on a woman without attempting to find out why? Maybe she's not comfortable with that level of intimacy with a guy right off the bat. (This was actually me when I was younger.) Maybe she just needs a little bit of time to become comfortable with someone before she is willing to experiment. I just think it's pretty ridiculous to drop a person after one date because one thing was lacking. Ditch a chick who's bad in bed? Maybe she's usually amazing but you caught her on an off night. And yes, those do happen. I just think that's being a bit hasty, and yes, it goes both ways.

If you promise something to a woman just to get her into bed and then renege on that promise, regardless of whether or not you call that rape, you're a shitty human being anyway. I'm not sure I call that rape, honestly, if it was consensual in most cases I would not call that rape, unless something occurred like a man said he was putting on a condom and then did not, which would expose a woman to unnecessary risk of pregnancy or STIs. If your consent was conditional based on wearing a rubber, then yes, I would argue that a man who said he was wearing one and then did not is a rapist. It may have been "consensual," but only under a certain condition. Had the woman known there was no condom she would not have consented. And yes, I do feel like that line needs to be drawn. "He said he would marry me," is different than "He said he would use protection." A lot of things can change between having sex and a potential proposition of marriage. There is not the same distinction to be made between wearing or not wearing a condom.

[Salodin]

You're strawmaning. The only thing that matters is there's a distinction between luring a woman into bed with a smooth tongue, and raping a woman. The CDC report admittedly ignores that distinction and lumps it all together as rape, causing a huge skew of data and facts.

Then you have sjw taking it and running away with it.

[NynJa]

All rapists are shitty human beings, but not all shitty human beings are rapists.

A guy or girl can end a relationship for whatever reason. If a guy wants to end it because he expected big titties, then got her top off and they werent big tittles, he can do that. Sinilarly to how a woman can end a relationship cause the guy just cant cut it in bed. If someones displeased for physical reasons, thats their perogative. I dont want to tie two threads together, but if a guy decides to end a relationship because she has a penis, is that also a superficial reason? "Shes a woman afterall".

If youre not happy in a relationship, either see if you can fix it, or get the fuck out and do both people a favor.

[Salodin]

Damn, nynja dropping some truth bombs? Oh shit, is that a pig I see flying through the air?

Here's a question for mazmaz and co., if a man convinces a woman to sleep with him because he wants to leave his wife, but then later says he only said that to get in her pants, is that rape? Imo, it's not. It's shitty behavior, but not rape.

[Aksannyi]

No, I do not think it's rape.

The only type of deceptive behavior that I think qualifies as rape is the scenario which I outlined in my post above. There may be others, but off the top of my head, that's the only one I can think of.