Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:

Welcome to dakka, mattyrm!

To be fair, this has been one of the best threads I've participated in for ages. When you get back from the pub after last orders and you see that a perfect stranger has just threatened to rape you at knife point, it is belly laughingly funny.

Oh,I agree.

This has been a hoot.

mattyrm wrote:You must know exactly where I stand by now surely

I do know where you stand, I don't know how many more ways I can say "I disagree" without repeating myself though.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:You must know exactly where I stand by now surely

I do know where you stand, I don't know how many more ways I can say "I disagree" without repeating myself though.

Hey that's alright, I disagree with people all the time, we can still be pals!

Yeah, I don't hate you for it, just saying I think you're wrong.

If I honestly disliked you I'd add you to my ignore list or something.

mattyrm wrote: Very few straight men would classify not really wanting to have sex with a woman but being verbally harangued for ten minutes and then changing your mind and sleeping with her as "Oh my god, I have just been the victim of a terrible and traumatic rape"

I have no desire to try and change your mind, I'm just happy to know that the vast majority of straight men see things my way.

Do they really?

If someone who a person didn't want to have sex with harassed and harangued them for so long that they eventually did just to make them leave them alone, then I would say they were quite right to say they had been raped. If your boss or someone with a hold over you forced you to have sex with them or they'd fire you or whatever then again that is rape.

You seem unable to differentiate the difference between these situations and telling your girlfriend that your not in the mood, byt then changing your mind after she spends a few moments changing your mood. In the former, you don't want to the whole time, but have to, in the latter you don't want to, but then change your mind.

mattyrm wrote:, this chat has gotten out of hand because Tritium is really pushing the boundaries of what is likely into increasingly fanciful and unlikely scenarios in order to make his point.

I'm suggesting that men can be coerced into sex in the EXACT SAME MANNER in which women are most commonly coerced into sex and that they are both rape and that's "pushing the boundaries?"

Sigh..

Yes, because men aren't women.

Men aren't as susceptible to verbal pressure because men are almost always physically able to overpower a woman and leave the room at any time of their choosing, thus blunting any perceived threat from their words.

You do understand my point by now right? Im not even saying it cant happen, Im merely saying that the vast majority of men would do what I do, and if a woman said "feth me now or your not leaving" would go "See ya!" and stomp off home regardless.

Can we just forget about it and agree to disagree? This stopped being amusing at about 1600 this afternoon.

mattyrm wrote:Yes, because men aren't women.

But not as different as you think.

mattyrm wrote:Men aren't as susceptible to verbal pressure because men are almost always physically able to overpower a woman and leave the room at any time of their choosing, thus blunting any perceived threat from their words.

"If you don't do me, I will say you raped me"

I'd like you see you "overpower" that one

Your problem is that you think it always comes down to physical force. You think that even COERCION must come back to a threat of physical force. That's simply not true.

Let's just remind ourselves that the original finding was that 20% of women have been raped. The number of men raped by any standard is far lower.

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's just remind ourselves that the original finding was that 20% of women have been raped. The number of men raped by any standard is far lower.

Next you'll go in to a religion in schools debate to remind us that David Barton is writing revisionist history

But yeah... all the talk on "---- on male rape" is distracting some people I think...

I really enjoyed reading this thread about a very difficult topic. Seems to me we need more words than just "rape" since there are many forms of sexual assault, and it does get very confusing and would seem to muddle the statistics.

I am totally against non-consensual sexual intercourse, but I have to agree with mattyrm that women and men are very different. From my physiology courses we learn about 20-30 changes that occur in sexual maturation due to the differences between estrogen and testosterone, one of them being that the musculature of the pectoral girdle (ie. shoulders and arms) tends to be about 45% greater in males than females.

This difference in anatomy alone supports mattyrm's argument, and that is without going into the psychological differences that occur in the brain's synapses due to estrogen vs. testosterone. Different worlds entirely

Rented Tritium wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Men aren't as susceptible to verbal pressure because men are almost always physically able to overpower a woman and leave the room at any time of their choosing, thus blunting any perceived threat from their words.

"If you don't do me, I will say you raped me"

Again, I would laugh in her face and go home, and I'm sure most men would do the same. Would you REALLY be stupid enough to shag a bird who said that to you?! Thats the biggest reason NOT to do it ive ever heard!

As I said, lets agree to disagree. You can shag the bunny boiler in this situation, I disagree and I think most men would.

Whatever floats your boat.

I definitely can say, without reservation, that I would leave the situation presented by RT and never be around that woman again.

Problem solved.

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's just remind ourselves that the original finding was that 20% of women have been raped. The number of men raped by any standard is far lower.

So?

He's saying that men who are raped by women are pussies. I'm pretty sure arguing against that position does not in any way detract from the horrors of rapes on women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I really enjoyed reading this thread about a very difficult topic. Seems to me we need more words than just "rape" since there are many forms of sexual assault, and it does get very confusing and would seem to muddle the statistics.

Yeah, with only one word for it, it's more difficult to pretend that some of them are less of a big deal.

It's bad enough that people can say that something isn't real rape, now you want to have an entirely different word?

No. Rape is rape.

I like to think that people on this site are pretty smart, so let's do the maths.

America = pop.250 million (roughly)

The survey is estimating that 20% have been raped,abused,attacked etc by a partner = 50 million.

Let's assume for arguments sake that every victim was attacked by a different individual = 50 million

In other words, 100 million people, almost half the pop. have been raped,attacked or carried out these crimes!

Given that 30,000?? are killed by guns every year, another 20,000? are killed by cars, and some other survey on this site a few weeks ago was saying that 1 in 5 are on anti - depression medicine... I mean sweet jesus!! I refuse to believe that the nation that gave the world, Bill Hicks, Larry Hagman, Joe Frazier, John Adams, FDR, James Stewart, Martin Luther King, George Kennedy, Thomas Paine (I know he was born in the UK) etc etc has really went downhill so badly.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: really went downhill so badly.

Right, because these things are totally new and weren't a part of human society since the beginning of time or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I definitely can say, without reservation, that I would leave the situation presented by RT and never be around that woman again.

Problem solved.

Well you can armchair rape victim all you want. People get stuck on the bad side of that all the time.

@Rented Tritium. Sadly, these things aren't new, but even Genghis Khan's stag party weekend never got through 50 million people!
Always question the motivations of the people who do these surveys. Not that I'm saying they don't mean well, but crisis always gets more money than peace and quiet.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Rented Tritium. Sadly, these things aren't new, but even Genghis Khan's stag party weekend never got through 50 million people!
Always question the motivations of the people who do these surveys. Not that I'm saying they don't mean well, but crisis always gets more money than peace and quiet.

Without a control survey from X years ago, there's no way to know what's uphill or downhill. Reporting rates fluctuate so greatly as well that you really can't say if there are more or less rapes than there were in the past.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Well you can armchair rape victim all you want. People get stuck on the bad side of that all the time.

Often times getting stuck on the bad side is caused by an overly judicious definition of what constitutes rape.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Well you can armchair rape victim all you want. People get stuck on the bad side of that all the time.

Often times getting stuck on the bad side is caused by an overly judicious definition of what constitutes rape.

Right, yes. My stupid little "sex without consent" is just so simple that it couldn't POSSIBLY be the right way to define rape. We have to require penetration and physical force etc etc etc.

I mean, how else would we properly shame the victims of the fake rapes if we don't define them properly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, for the record. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT RELUCTANCE.

Someone being coerced in to sex is rape,

that someone pays attention to the fact tgat coercion doesn't have to be physical violence isn't the same as being "overly judicious"...

Rented Tritium wrote:Well you can armchair rape victim all you want.

I think I was doing more of an "armchair rape avoider." If you're using your own delusional definition of rape, that is.

Rented Tritium wrote:People get stuck on the bad side of that all the time.

You're basing this statement off of what, exactly?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like to think that people on this site are pretty smart, so let's do the maths.

America = pop.250 million (roughly).

Seeing how we did a head count last year and at that time there were 308,745,538 people in America, with your margin of error being 58,745,548 I'm disinclined to view your analysis with real interest. But I hope by highlighting those inaccuracies that you will take another look.

The same year as the census 80,031 forcible rapes were reported, discarding the roughly 8% of rapes that are acknowledge as a consistent trend by the FBI as they may already be accounted for (double checked they are) and applying the statistic that forcible rape accounts for 93% of all rapes and allowing for the worst possible case that 95% of all rapes are not reported. A figure of 1 million would not be out of reach. I however doubt that a survey by the CDC tha returned a result that nearly 1 million women reported being raped in the one year prior to being surveyed is correct. As the CDC would have had to reach EVERY one of those women, the chances of that happening seem astronomical. I also doubt there are 61 million rape victims in the US. I DON'T doubt that rape is under reported and that it happens more than I probably think it does. I'm willing on the out side to say it's under reported by one half, double the known incidences to about 200,000 a year and call that a believable number.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Rented Tritium. Sadly, these things aren't new, but even Genghis Khan's stag party weekend never got through 50 million people!

Actually, considering they technically brought the Plague to Europe by mistake...

I sense that a certain poster may descend into madness and give us something familiar yet new...

blame armchair rape the victim...

AustonT wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like to think that people on this site are pretty smart, so let's do the maths.

America = pop.250 million (roughly).

Seeing how we did a head count last year and at that time there were 308,745,538 people in America, with your margin of error being 58,745,548 I'm disinclined to view your analysis with real interest. But I hope by highlighting those inaccuracies that you will take another look.

The same year as the census 80,031 forcible rapes were reported, discarding the roughly 8% of rapes that are acknowledge as a consistent trend by the FBI as they may already be accounted for (double checked they are) and applying the statistic that forcible rape accounts for 93% of all rapes and allowing for the worst possible case that 95% of all rapes are not reported. A figure of 1 million would not be out of reach. I however doubt that a survey by the CDC tha returned a result that nearly 1 million women reported being raped in the one year prior to being surveyed is correct. As the CDC would have had to reach EVERY one of those women, the chances of that happening seem astronomical. I also doubt there are 61 million rape victims in the US. I DON'T doubt that rape is under reported and that it happens more than I probably think it does. I'm willing on the out side to say it's under reported by one half, double the known incidences to about 200,000 a year and call that a believable number.

Unfortunately, even that data isn't really believable either, since the FBI was using an antiquated rape definition until just this year. The FBI was only EVER counting forcible rapes, so the number of non-forcible rapes isn't actually known for a good amount of time.

With all the agendas involved, we've really never gotten reliable numbers on this, so comparing over time is extremely difficult.

Ok, so I was out by 50 million, but the idea that almost 40% of the pop. has either been raped or carried out a rape...well, if people believe that then there's a bridge I've got for sale.

If somebody had said that there are more guns than people in USA...I could believe that. America might be the land of Bob Dole, and Sarah Palin, but I've travelled America and there was nothing to suggest that it was any better or worse than other countries. It's a great country. Heck, I seem to be more pro-american than some americans on this site, and I haven't even started drinking yet!!

Rented Tritium wrote:
Right, yes. My stupid little "sex without consent" is just so simple that it couldn't POSSIBLY be the right way to define rape. We have to require penetration and physical force etc etc etc.

I mean, how else would we properly shame the victims of the fake rapes if we don't define them properly?

If you really can't see the problems inherent in your definition of "sex without consent", then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Put simply, "sex" is not a term with a clearly defined meaning (Does it only include penetration? Does penetration "count" if it involves something other than a phallus?), and what constitutes consent, especially given the circumstances under which consent is or is not given (What constitutes a reasonable assessment of offered consent for a married couple is distinct from the same thing for two random people coming home from a bar.).