Why so much hatred for feminism?

Are you or are you not saying I should infer something about social equality based on the make up of premiers?

Should I or should I not infer something different when that make-up is different?

Everything you have said so far has said to me "yes," so don't get upset when I have the audacity to do so and make your insistence of this measure look stupid in the process.

Logic 101, just because data allows you to draw one conclusion does not mean the same data allows you to draw another conclusion.

Debate tactics 101, changing a person's argument then addressing the changed argument is called a straw man.



So the current Prime Minister being a white male is an indication that the reflected society of Britain today is the same as it was 100 years ago - when the Prime Minister of that time also lacked melanin and ovaries?
Example of a straw man argument.
 
Much of this has already been covered by others but I have many reasons I have a neagative view on feminism despite agreeing with the broad based generic equal reconginition under the law and called myself a feminist 10 years ago.

I can't stand the lying for jesus. Its the rare stat from feminist groups that hold up to scrutiny. They still use the gross wage gap when if there is a wage gap it is much much smaller then that. The stats on rape are beyond a joke. Rape is awful no question there but you can't actually design effective policy without good data. Domestic violence numbers. Sex slavery numbers. The second shift myth that actual time surveys disagree with. Stats that have to do with education. To name just a few.


The lie they care about all issues of gender. Its fine that feminist groups want to look out for women or look out for women first. Just don't claim you are looking out for everyone than at the same time not just ignore but pretend men don't face problems and work against men. The boy crisis is huge here with the AAUW being a counter productive force going on 30 years here. First they pretended that being punished meant boys where favored in the classroom. Now boys are doing just fine as long as you pick just asian and middle and upper class white males no need at all to worry about poor whites and black and hispainic males they don't count they are not real people or something. Not giving a care about family court.

Patriarchy and post moderism. The continued framing of issue though these lenses. Ignoring that women in court have always held more power then the man working in the field. I know this has been discussed for pages here but men as a class do not care for men as a class they care about what is best for those closest to them. And the pure disdain in many corners of professional feminism of the scienfitic method and logic.

Not calling out the extremist. Its not just they don't call them out they still celebrate them and use their books as text in women studies departments. They still get hired by reputrable orginizions without being called on it. And this is not Dwokins or some relic from the past either. Amanda Marcotte has a job with slate for example. The one womens study professor from Dartmouth? that tried to sue her student for disagreeing with her got a job at Northwestern and later at a UC school.

Pretending female advantages are disadvantages or ignoring them. Some one earlier brought up a paper abortion. I understand the issue is very difficult for many reasons but just bringing it up will get you digitially lynched.
The sex slavery and the rape numbers in the US come from the State Department and/or the UCR. In both cases, the nature of crime makes it more, not less likely that they are under-reported.

Would you please post your sources for those numbers so that we can all see the difference?
 
The sex slavery and the rape numbers in the US come from the State Department and/or the UCR. In both cases, the nature of crime makes it more, not less likely that they are under-reported.

Would you please post your sources for those numbers so that we can all see the difference?

What numbers would you like?

The rape numbers thrown around by groups like RAINN and women studies programs do not come from the UCR. The 1 in (under ten) women raped during (lifetime/college years/freshman year) come from nowhere but are used all the time. Until recently at best these numbers came from the Ms magazine survey by Mary P. Koss where answer affirmative to having sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol was counted as being raped. There was a recent CDC survey that came up with similar numbers and nearly 60 percent of the "rapes" came from that question. These survays do not use any legal defination of rape but instead what the researcher wants to call rape.

UCR numbers for rape come nowhere close to the number claimed it has been under 100k a year now for about decade. UCR numbers and FBI estimates also put a lie to the 2 percent false rape report claim also.

I am not going to disagree that these crimes are underreported but the underreporting needed to get to the claimed numbers is 800 to 1 in the general population and yet no rape group claims that number the highest number I have seen from them is 20 to 1.

As for the Sex Trafficing numbers they are just stright up bogus and yet still have gone down dramatically every year. The reason I call them stright up bogus they don't give their methodology. Every year the number has been going down or has been revised down. The 2000 UN number went from 4 to 1 million for example. Then you have the issue no one can actually find them. The US and England have spent billions on the issue over the last decade and I believe in England the number found is still in the single digits and in the US it is under 1500. This is a decade of work to get these numbers. Its a horriable horriable crime no question there but its not a wide spread problem.

This reminds me every time their is a Superbowl, World Cup or Olympics there will the story on how 40,000 sex workers show up for the event. The dallas superbowl the number was over 100k of which 40k underage. And yet event after event the police and boarder control just can't find them.
 
Logic 101, just because data allows you to draw one conclusion does not mean the same data allows you to draw another conclusion.

Debate tactics 101, changing a person's argument then addressing the changed argument is called a straw man.

Math 101. 0 < 1.

But you do feel free to present your argument at any point and then maybe it would be possible to change it.

Example of a straw man argument.

You do feel free at any point to develop your ideas to such an extent that a statement such as "it's reflective of society" is anything more than empty rhetoric and I'll start caring.
 
I wish I hadn't titled the thread as I did. It encourages people, rightly or wrongly, to go off on rants. I won't contradict TheJim's personal perceptions of feminism since they are the result of his personal experiences. If he wants to discuss data, he is free to let me know.

TheJim said:

The rape numbers thrown around by groups like RAINN and women studies programs do not come from the UCR. The 1 in (under ten) women raped during (lifetime/college years/freshman year) come from nowhere but are used all the time.

The "rape numbers" don't "come from nowhere". RAINN's website references this NCJRS study. It took me about 2 minutes to find these links which suggests TheJim never bothered to look for them in the first place. Furthermore, the data says that 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape in their lifetimes. TheJim failed to mention "attempted" even though it is clearly labeled on RAINN's page.

The study methodology seems reasonable and the sample size seems fairly large. I'm just a laymen though. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
What numbers would you like?

The rape numbers thrown around by groups like RAINN and women studies programs do not come from the UCR. The 1 in (under ten) women raped during (lifetime/college years/freshman year) come from nowhere but are used all the time. Until recently at best these numbers came from the Ms magazine survey by Mary P. Koss where answer affirmative to having sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol was counted as being raped. There was a recent CDC survey that came up with similar numbers and nearly 60 percent of the "rapes" came from that question. These survays do not use any legal defination of rape but instead what the researcher wants to call rape.

UCR numbers for rape come nowhere close to the number claimed it has been under 100k a year now for about decade. UCR numbers and FBI estimates also put a lie to the 2 percent false rape report claim also.

I am not going to disagree that these crimes are underreported but the underreporting needed to get to the claimed numbers is 800 to 1 in the general population and yet no rape group claims that number the highest number I have seen from them is 20 to 1.

As for the Sex Trafficing numbers they are just stright up bogus and yet still have gone down dramatically every year. The reason I call them stright up bogus they don't give their methodology. Every year the number has been going down or has been revised down. The 2000 UN number went from 4 to 1 million for example. Then you have the issue no one can actually find them. The US and England have spent billions on the issue over the last decade and I believe in England the number found is still in the single digits and in the US it is under 1500. This is a decade of work to get these numbers. Its a horriable horriable crime no question there but its not a wide spread problem.

This reminds me every time their is a Superbowl, World Cup or Olympics there will the story on how 40,000 sex workers show up for the event. The dallas superbowl the number was over 100k of which 40k underage. And yet event after event the police and boarder control just can't find them.
If people are using sensationalized numbers, as people are prone to do, the best remedy is to rebut them with available reliable data.

Feminism needs a better label, since that one term is used for everything from propaganda for various agendas, to media hype, to serious and valuable research in a variety of areas.
 
I wish I hadn't titled the thread as I did. It encourages people, rightly or wrongly, to go off on rants. I won't contradict TheJim's personal perceptions of feminism since they are the result of his personal experiences. If he wants to discuss data, he is free to let me know.

TheJim said:


.


Maybe you should start a new thread. I have a suggestion for the title.


"Why I think feminism is great and let's not talk about anything that I don't understand!"
 
I wish I hadn't titled the thread as I did. It encourages people, rightly or wrongly, to go off on rants. I won't contradict TheJim's personal perceptions of feminism since they are the result of his personal experiences. If he wants to discuss data, he is free to let me know.

TheJim said:



The "rape numbers" don't "come from nowhere". RAINN's website references this NCJRS study. It took me about 2 minutes to find these links which suggests TheJim never bothered to look for them in the first place. Furthermore, the data says that 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape in their lifetimes. TheJim failed to mention "attempted" even though it is clearly labeled on RAINN's page.

The study methodology seems reasonable and the sample size seems fairly large. I'm just a laymen though. Maybe I'm missing something.
This is what the UCR says about rape, not the broader topic of violence against women.

An average of 95 thousand a year over 20 years of dropping crime rates in general.
And the UCR is the standard source for crime data.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Also, leaving out attempts at rape doesn't support what you seem to think.
 
This is what the UCR says about rape, not the broader topic of violence against women.

An average of 95 thousand a year over 20 years of dropping crime rates in general.
And the UCR is the standard source for crime data.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

What are you proposing exactly? I will admit they don't seem to agree at least at first glance but I'm not familiar with the UCR methodology or accuracy. If they conflict, why do you suppose that is?

Also, leaving out attempts at rape doesn't support what you seem to think.

If you leave out attempted rape it makes the 1 in 6 number seem less credible.
 
What are you proposing exactly? I will admit they don't seem to agree at least at first glance but I'm not familiar with the UCR methodology or accuracy. If they conflict, why do you suppose that is?



If you leave out attempted rape it makes the 1 in 6 number seem less credible.
No crime statistics are anywhere near accurate. They are a loose measure that a *reported* rate may have changed over time.
That's where the expression, 'the dark figure of crime' comes from, there is neither laboratory nor clear observation from which to generate illuminating statistics.

The UCR is supposed to be anything that comes across every police blotter in the country. One big flaw is political pressure from mayors, university presidents, etc. to under-report so their domain will look 'safer'. A positive feature is that it is relatively standardized in definitions.

The NCVS gives a larger picture, because many crimes never get reported to the police.

Attempted rape is unclear, while rape has a fairly standard definition, an incident like grabbing a blouse could be assault, maybe DV, but not attempted rape in the UCR.

In the NCVS the same incident could be counted as an attempt at rape based on victim perception.

ETA: That makes '1 in 6 women have been the victims of violence', or '1 in 6 women have been the victims of unwanted sexual contact' more academic, but the media and those who want to get maximum effect can and sometimes will say '1 in 6 women have been raped', setting the stage for counter claims.

So interpeting information about crime is somewhere in between voodoo and beating the house at blackjack... ;-}
 
Last edited:
If people are using sensationalized numbers, as people are prone to do, the best remedy is to rebut them with available reliable data.

Feminism needs a better label, since that one term is used for everything from propaganda for various agendas, to media hype, to serious and valuable research in a variety of areas.

I agree with you. Its also another problem I have with feminist. They have a habit of using big tent feminism when it makes them look good while also using little tent defination when they need to to protect the brand so to speak. I mean really at this point its an extreme fringe belief that women should not be treated the same under the law and that more or less you should treat the sexes with respect.
 
I wish I hadn't titled the thread as I did. It encourages people, rightly or wrongly, to go off on rants. I won't contradict TheJim's personal perceptions of feminism since they are the result of his personal experiences. If he wants to discuss data, he is free to let me know.

Sorry I took your OP first few responses and topic title at face value. If I knew instead you wanted a lets discuss how great feminism is and how evil men are I could have gone along with that.

The "rape numbers" don't "come from nowhere". RAINN's website references this NCJRS study. It took me about 2 minutes to find these links which suggests TheJim never bothered to look for them in the first place. Furthermore, the data says that 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape in their lifetimes. TheJim failed to mention "attempted" even though it is clearly labeled on RAINN's page.

I think you misunderstood my sentence. RAINN does in fact say 14.8 percent of women have been raped with an additional 2.8 attempted rape. But, the point of the sentence was the in general number thrown out there by rape groups and women studies departments where its not exactly rare to hear 1 in 4 freshman are raped before thanksgiving break. To survey that RAINN got there numbers I can not comment because I can not find the questionnaire they used this years CDC report* had this as a question


When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever…
-had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?
• {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus?
• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
• made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?
• made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina} or anus?

61.5 percent of the rapes this study found come from this answer. The problem of course is sex while drunk or high is not a crime anywhere in America. The wording of the question makes it invalid.

Another question asked

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…
• doing 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?
• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

If you answered yes to these questions you where marked down as being raped despite the fact that nothing here is a crime. Its rakeish behavior but not a crime.

The numbers from the current CDC survey match up very well with the one linked to by RAINN and match up well with the MS survey which also counted drunk sex as rape so I am going on the assumption that the RAINN link asked a similar ambiguous question.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey** on the other hand shows 188k rapes a year.



**http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf
 
I can't stand the lying for jesus.

etc. [snipped for brevity]

The social cost is not just the hatred they are preaching while accusing others of hate, as this thread proves -

Authors like Dr. George Simon talk about how pervasive the problem of character disorders are today. He considers it the most important social issue of our time. Children learn by watching people like these that it is just fine to lie in order to get what you want - to use logical fallacies, to manipulate...

Children are not stupid - it isn't that they don't understand the tactics - as a matter of fact it is the opposite: these are things that children do and have to be taught not to do. People with character disorders are like children who never grew up emotionally. We are taught that these are people who cannot be reasoned with. They know exactly what they are doing, and about all you can do is avoid them.

They are teaching antisocial skills by practicing them. They are hardly the only ones though. Politicians are the most visible and worst offenders.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, it seems to me like you'll get to decide on a medical intervention, not to mention one which seems to have a pretty devastating psychological impact AND in some parts of the world carries a LOT of stigma AND has a risk of complications ranging from short term infections to life-long complications (e.g., there seems to be even a small risk to be left infertile for life), when it's your body.

Sources for complications, for example:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795001-clinical
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html

When even the pro-choice sites list a 0.5% chance of serious complications, and a 1 in 160,000 cases resulting in death, I can't imagine any possible rationalization for giving you any vote in forcing someone to do that. We don't give other people the choice to decide whether or not you should just get a tooth pulled out instead of making them pay more (via insurance) for longer term care for that tooth, nor to make you have your stomach stapled if you're overweight and avoid paying more (again, via insurance) for your heart medication later. And, hey, those didn't even get an orgasm out of it.



So far the problem is getting even those who want to serve, allowed to do so. Even in first world countries, there are whole branches of the armed forces that don't allow women in at all. E.g., write to the Navy under a woman name and say you want to enlist. See how far that gets you. We'll worry about draft after we get at least those who actively want to fight allowed to enlist.

Besides, I can't believe I'm hearing a version of the same "but they don't go to war" canard, as if that made up for all other injustices. To see why that's silly consider just this: well, the slaves in ancient Rome or the serfs in medieval times also weren't supposed to go to war, and in fact were often prevented from taking up arms even in self-defense. Having or using any weapon was cause for crucifixion in ancient Rome slaves, and medieval peasants were often even prevented from forming ad hoc militias to fight Viking raiders and such. That didn't make them equal to the knights.



By that line of thinking, we should dump the most money into veterinary research, because cats and dogs live an order of magnitude shorter :p

Seriously, unless you have some data that suggests that there actually are medical conditions that threaten men more and that medicine could actually do more about, that seems to me silly. You can't expect medicine to treat something that isn't there. We're not talking magic there.


First of all, I never said that abortion shouldn't be the woman's choice. I also never said that a man should have a choice in regards to the abortion. I asked whether or not it is fair for one person to choose whether or not another person owes them money for 18 years. Lets' say my friend is looking to buy a new house. I go with him to look at one of the houses he is considering. Then 9 months later, my friend comes to me and says, "You remember that house we looked at? Well I decided to buy that." I say, "Wow, that's great man!" And he says, "Oh by the way I put you down as a co-signer on the house even though you weren't there and had no desire to get a new house. So now you are legally obligated to help me pay for the mortgage for the next 18 years." And then I say, "Uh..."

My problem here is not with abortion. My problem here is with a woman being able to CHOOSE that a man has to pay her money for 18 years.


I don't particularly want women to go to war. I don't think that should be forced into the draft or into front-line combat situations. What I am saying is that if feminism is about equality then why aren't feminists demanding that they be treated in the exact same manner that men are in regards to both voluntary and compulsory service?


And lastly, the amount of research funding for the study of breast cancer is more than double that of the research for prostate cancer.
 
Except that I did just that in the OP. It happened right in front of your eyes and you ignored it. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but it was definitely confirmation bias.

I would be deeply grateful if someone could send me a link to any video or feminist blog where a woman decries the injustice of an unmarried man having to pay child support to a women for 18 years when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal and the fact that the man quite literally has NO legal grounds to contest an abortion...

I'm certain you will find no support for the idea from feminists for the reasons cited by others. It is an unfortunate fact of reality that women carry the entire physical cost of pregnancy and of abortion. Men's legal authority over the zygote/fetus end at sexual consent because that is the final time his physical autonomy is directly affected. If fertilization occurred externally, the situation would be different.



Forced child support is the unfortunate result of protecting the constitutional right to physical autonomy. Being stuck in a "man trap" sucks...a lot...but a man's fundamental rights are unaffected during pregnancy. I'm pro-CHOICE. That means I also the right to NOT have an abortion.

As a legal side note, neither parent has control over child support. Say we have a middle-class working couple and they both agree that the mother is a terrible parent and shouldn't be involved in the child's life. The father agrees to accept full custody of the child and promises not to seek child support from the mother. That contract is void becaue the state presumes financial support from both parents is in the best interest of the child.



I don't suppose it would help if I told you that I feel that way? Probably not.

In any event, the National Organisation of Women has supported that exact notion for over 30 years:

BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.

The question is, now that you've seen feminists can and do support draft equality, will you stop using it as an example?



If I'm not mistaken, men die younger on average because they are more likely to be overweight and thus suffer its side effects. Ironically, I suspect this is because the stigma against male obesity not as severe as it is against women. I'm not sure how calling for medical research would help in this regard.

If feminists called for research that increased heart attack survivability for example, at best it would raise life expectancy for everyone and the gender gap would remain.

You are right King Merv...it wasn't intentional and did show bias on my part.

I would also like to say thank you for your reply and yes, after seeing that, I now consider the draft to be a non-issue.

Thank you for a constructive response. :)
 
I agree with you. Its also another problem I have with feminist. They have a habit of using big tent feminism when it makes them look good while also using little tent defination when they need to to protect the brand so to speak. I mean really at this point its an extreme fringe belief that women should not be treated the same under the law and that more or less you should treat the sexes with respect.

In how many states are men being forced by law to undergo (and pay for) invasive and unnecessary medical treatment before obtaining legal medical care? In how many states are men forced by law into a waiting period for no medical reason before obtaining legal medical treatment?

Women and men are not being treated the same under law and that divide is getting worse.
 
Claiming feminists "denigrated motherhood, home education, and home production" is crap. That was the reaction to feminists, not the feminists themselves. If I say I like other things than traditional female things, that doesn't mean I'm denigrating women who do enjoy traditionally female things. It gets tiring hearing this lie.
Exactly--the problem isn't that we let women out of the kitchen, it's that now there's nobody in there at all. Instead of letting boys take home ec, as far as I know it's mostly just been done away with. Again, patriarchy--not just boxing women into certain roles, but also forcing men to stay in ours even after the women have won some measure of freedom. Look at how we treat those My Little Pony fans--even I think they're a little ridiculous, and I actually think the show is pretty good. It may look like a separate issue from the way women are treated, but they're both expressions of the same problematic social structure.
 
Sorry I took your OP first few responses and topic title at face value.

Read my sentence again. I wasn't trying to sound annoyed but I probably did. The thread topic sorta evolved since the OP and we've mostly been discussing other things since then. No way you could have known without reading the whole thread, of course.

If I knew instead you wanted a lets discuss how great feminism is and how evil men are I could have gone along with that.

People love to remind me of a feeling I've never had.

Look, you perceive feminism in a bad light and you've explained why. But if you want to have a back and forth, try to avoid using insults. If you want to criticize me, critize ME. Use MY statements. I'll try my best to do the same.

Admittedly my post regarding RAINN was a bit snarky. Sorry about that.

I think you misunderstood my sentence. RAINN does in fact say 14.8 percent of women have been raped with an additional 2.8 attempted rape. But, the point of the sentence was the in general number thrown out there by rape groups and women studies departments where its not exactly rare to hear 1 in 4 freshman are raped before thanksgiving break.

Fair enough, but do you have a problem with the NCJRS survey I just posted?

To survey that RAINN got there numbers I can not comment because I can not find the questionnaire they used this years CDC report* had this as a question

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you made some typeos.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever…
-had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?
• {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus?
• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
• made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?
• made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina} or anus?

61.5 percent of the rapes this study found come from this answer. The problem of course is sex while drunk or high is not a crime anywhere in America.

True. On the other hand, I'm sure you'd agree that if you are drunk enough, drugged, or unconscious, you are unable to consent to anything let alone sex.

The wording of the question makes it invalid.

I agree the wording is pretty bad. It seems like they wanted to ask if people have ever been taken advantage of while drunk but mangled it terribly. It also asks people to count how many people raped them while unconscious. If you are unconscious, how would you know?

Another question asked

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…
• doing 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?
• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

If you answered yes to these questions you where marked down as being raped despite the fact that nothing here is a crime. Its rakeish behavior but not a crime.

I agree. That's a pretty awful set of questions if you want rape statistics.

Out of morbid curiousity, do you have a a link to that survey and the one you quoted above?

The numbers from the current CDC survey match up very well with the one linked to by RAINN and match up well with the MS survey which also counted drunk sex as rape so I am going on the assumption that the RAINN link asked a similar ambiguous question.

No need to assume anything. The questions are right there in the RAINN link. They are A LOT better than the questions you describe:

The following questions were used to screen respondents for rape victimization:

1. [Female respondents only] Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female, penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth.

3. Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your anus.

4. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will or by using force or threats?

5. 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?

Do you have any objections?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey** on the other hand shows 188k rapes a year.

**http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

Those numbers are based on reported cases of rape only. It says:

...the estimates of rape/sexual assault are based on a small number of cases reported to the survey.

"Small number" is unhelpfully vague but it does mean they understand the limitation of their numbers. The RAINN link I gave you includes ALL rape. I imagine a big portion of the gap may be caused by childhood parental abuse since kids are far less likely to go to the police than adults.

 
Last edited:
The social cost is not just the hatred they are preaching while accusing others of hate, as this thread proves -

Authors like Dr. George Simon talk about how pervasive the problem of character disorders are today. He considers it the most important social issue of our time. Children learn by watching people like these that it is just fine to lie in order to get what you want - to use logical fallacies, to manipulate...

Children are not stupid - it isn't that they don't understand the tactics - as a matter of fact it is the opposite: these are things that children do and have to be taught not to do. People with character disorders are like children who never grew up emotionally. We are taught that these are people who cannot be reasoned with. They know exactly what they are doing, and about all you can do is avoid them.

They are teaching antisocial skills by practicing them. They are hardly the only ones though. Politicians are the most visible and worst offenders.

"Like these?" Are you referring to me? If you are please point out my fallacies and lies.
 

Back
Top Bottom