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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.

You gotta actually read the article, man; instead of picking out the half a sentence that sounds like what you want to hear. We call this "context".


I'll take up this concept, though. If a 12 year old girl (willingly) has sex with a 45 year old man in a state where the age of consent is 16, has a crime been committed?

 Ouze wrote:

Also, of course, there are other surveys with similar numbers, just do some googling and see. It's a big problem and it has been for a long time.

I did the googling years ago, I also did some reading and thinking. By the standards of the CDC survey, a married couple drinking a glass of wine and having sex could be considered assault. And even the CDC survey makes it pretty clear that violence and rape goes both ways.

Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.

An estimated 1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, respectively) experienced rape,physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.

Also keep in mind that a man being forced to penetrate a woman doesn't count as rape under US law.

Interestingly, the US Justice Department's numbers are about 1/10 of CDC's. It also shows that sexual assault numbers have been plummeting for many years, despite this alleged "rape epidemic" sweeping the globe. Their sample size is also more than twice as large as CDC's and the interviews are more in-depth.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

I'd honestly be more worried about the insanely disproportional number of Native American victims of violent assault. The gap there is much, much higher than between genders.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.

You gotta actually read the article, man; instead of picking out the half a sentence that sounds like what you want to hear. We call this "context".

I'll take up this concept, though. If a 12 year old girl (willingly) has sex with a 45 year old man in a state where the age of consent is 16, has a crime been committed?

Nice setup there. I either agree with you or I'm a monster and all my opinions can automatically be disregarded. Feminsts have taught you well.

A crime has been committed because a law was broken.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
[Nice setup there. I either agree with you or I'm a monster and all my opinions can automatically be disregarded. Feminsts have taught you well.

A crime has been committed because a law was broken.

Well, gee - didn't you just argue that

Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.

I mean, I'm not sure what "my feminist teachings" has to do with you making sort of a bad argument. The opinions and desires of the victim aren't always the paramount decision in deciding whether the law has been broken or not; or wlse when we tried cases, it would be (the victim) vs (the defendant), instead of The People vs (defendant).

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also keep in mind that a man being forced to penetrate a woman doesn't count as rape under US law.

Rape isn't universally defined in the US, so I'd call into question any sort of sweeping statement as such - it varies by state.

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, I'm not sure what "my feminist teachings" has to do with you making sort of a bad argument. The opinions and desires of the victim aren't always the paramount decision in deciding whether the law has been broken or not; or wlse when we tried cases, it would be (the victim) vs (the defendant), instead of The People vs (defendant).

You're trying to construct an argument from two unrelated things. Law had nothing to do with the "rapes" in that survey so there's no comparison to the 12 year old example.

Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study and this sort of manipulation is the basis of feminist "facts".

 Pendix wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".

Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?

Damn, I wrote that exact same question, and then saw your message. It got me confused too. A quick look on Wikipedia gave me that link to an article where she goes on about how it is terrible that conservative people “have effectively been marginalized, silenced, and rendered invisible on most campuses.” And do you know who her first example is? Herself. If she sees herself as a conservative, and holds opinions that I consider conservative, why on earth would I consider her progressive just because she has some paper saying she supports the democratic party?
This is very mysterious to me.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.

So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study (snip)

Yeah, I think you just made that up.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?

Ah, yes. That special form of rape that you can do without the victim noticing. Thank god we have your kind so you can tell them that they've been raped and should feel victimized. Can't have women just walkin' 'round not knowin' they been raped.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That special form of rape that you can do without the victim noticing.

Not without them noticing. Without them knowing it meets the legal definition of rape. It is quite different.

 Ouze wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Two people having consensual sex after a glass of wine isn't a crime under any law but it counts towards the sexual assault ratio in the CDC study (snip)

Yeah, I think you just made that up.

Have you read the actual questionnaire?

I think it's also telling that the JD study, which interviewed 40.000 people, got to few positive rape reports to even make a reliable statistical analysis. There should be ~5.000 victims in that sample size going by your numbers.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, if someone has suffered something that fits the legal definition of rape, but do not know or realize it is the case, this should not be counted as a case of rape? What the hell are you arguing for?

Ah, yes. That special form of rape that you can do without the victim noticing. Thank god we have your kind so you can tell them that they've been raped and should feel victimized. Can't have women just walkin' 'round not knowin' they been raped.

Again, the article you sourced (a third of a sentence of) explains the context. I'm not mentioning this to you - you're obviously being intentionally obtuse - but I mention it to anyone else reading it.

This reminds me of when I saw someone who thought learned helplessness = consent.

(Specifically, it was regarding an abusive relationship.)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Of all the men who walked on by and didn't help her, I wonder many were thinking...

" gak a drunk woman, better avoid her or I might get accused of sexual harassment! "

Is it funny if your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?

The urge to tell you people to go yourselves is strong...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Of all the men who walked on by and didn't help her, I wonder many were thinking...

" gak a drunk woman, better avoid her or I might get accused of sexual harassment! "

Is it funny if your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?

The urge to tell you people to go yourselves is strong...

Regardless of gender, helping someone on the street is risky business. They might be setting you up for a mugging, or genuinely need help but decide to sue you later as thanks.

Well as a matter of policy I tend to barrel through anyone on the street, especially ladies with baby carriages. You never know when theat baby carriage could be hiding a dwarf mugger with a gat.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Regardless of gender, helping someone on the street is risky business. They might be setting you up for a mugging, or genuinely need help but decide to sue you later as thanks.

You know, this is a good point. If you are reading this thread and live in the US it might be worth a quick new tab and google search to see if your state has a good samaritan law that applies to nonprofessionals; it's sort of a mixed patchwork.


No idea how it works overseas.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Of all the men who walked on by and didn't help her, I wonder many were thinking...

" gak a drunk woman, better avoid her or I might get accused of sexual harassment! "

Is it funny if your sister? Your mother? Your daughter?

The urge to tell you people to go yourselves is strong...

Did I say it was funny?

Oh, and right back atcha.

 Pendix wrote:

Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?

Nothing to prevent any of that. Usually, depending on your local area, when you register to vote, it asks you to check one of several blocks for your desired party "affiliation"

Most people check either Republican or Democrat, but that has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. In fact, a ton of people use the conservative and liberal labels "wrong"

Case in point, conservatives in the US like Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum hold former President Ronald Reagan as one of the shining paragons of conservative virtue, when in fact, Reagan was actually a "classical liberal", the same as Mitt Romney (which is one part of the many, many reasons he failed in the last presidential elections)


Political Science FTW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
And even the CDC survey makes it pretty clear that violence and rape goes both ways.

Does the CDC account for local laws? I have no idea if they've changed the laws yet, but growing up in Oregon, by law it was impossible for a man to be raped. He could be assaulted, or sodomized, but not raped

We are not mind readers so then we can only go by letter of the law of what is harassment to have an "official" means of dealing with it and getting others to not engage in it.
If we do not like the existing laws than pressure your government rep to have laws amended, get petitions going.

Aside from some political activism you have to deal with unwanted attention yourself and not expect others to handle it for you.

Some reference material I am digging into (lots o'links):Police-reported violence against women:
•In 2011, the five most common violent offences committed against women were common assault (49%), uttering threats (13%), serious assault (10%), sexual assault level I (7%), and criminal harassment (7%). With the exception of sexual assault and criminal harassment, these were also the most frequently occurring offences against men. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times as likely to be the victim of criminal harassment (stalking).

So some interesting facts that women have a measureable strong reason to be concerned about sexual offences and criminal harassment to them over men.
In regards to street interactions, strangers only represent 16% of violence against women AND men are responsible for 83% of police-reported violence committed against women.

 Talizvar wrote:
With the exception of sexual assault and criminal harassment, these were also the most frequently occurring offences against men. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times as likely to be the victim of criminal harassment (stalking).[/i]

So some interesting facts that women have a measureable strong reason to be concerned about sexual offences and criminal harassment to them over men.
In regards to street interactions, strangers only represent 16% of violence against women AND men are responsible for 83% of police-reported violence committed against women.

That only accounts for, obviously, the reported crimes. It's been theorized that men are just as often assaulted or harrassed as women, but because of the "macho" standards, don't report it. I think we should also take into account that, at least in the US, the vast majority of sexual assaults or rapes are between two people who are "close" (ie, they know each other fairly well, are/were friends.... In short, it's not some dude jumping out of the bushes)

Also keep in mind that men who report being victimized by a woman physically or sexually tend to be laughed out of the police station / abuse shelter / hotline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.

41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also keep in mind that men who report being victimized by a woman physically or sexually tend to be laughed out of the police station / abuse shelter / hotline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.

41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left.

That's all just a conspiracy of the Patriarchy.

...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now.

 Ouze wrote:
No idea how it works overseas.

In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social expectations at play, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No idea how it works overseas.

In Sweden it is generally pretty safe to help out people on the street. People are pretty safe in general if what I am told of the US here on Dakka is true. There's probably different social values at play here, though I do feel that it's slowly getting worse here in that regard.

Could that be in part, because Sweden ranks among the top 10 in the UNs Gender Inequality Ranking? (despite the name, being top 10 here, is actually a good thing, as being near the top means that there is more gender equality than further down the list)

Possibly. I did not notice amy major differences in Estonia, Norway or Denmark. Though it may be regional.

 Smacks wrote:


I think the real joke is men saying that women are overreacting, and going on about "crazy misandrist feminists". As much as I hate to generalize, men are much more prone to the violent type of overreaction than women are (bombs, genocide etc...), if men experienced half the gak that women put up with on a daily basis then they would be the most extreme, crazy, man-hating, bitches ever. I think I've lost count of all the times I've heard men blurt out phrases like "put them all on an island" or "bullet in the head" when discussing people they don't like. In comparison I think women take it on the chin quite well. Men really need to shut up about that.

first of all, to any woman ever, who experienced legitimate harassment, DO NOT TAKE IT ON THE CHIN... report, record, and prosecute actual instances of it.

That being said,


as we see here, women are allowed to generalize men as being more violent, despite for every alleged instance of men saying every woman should be on an island, there is a woman saying comparable things about men.

despite this claim being false, many will just accept it at face value, because we are culturally engineered to aggree that men are snakes snails and puppy dog tails, while women are sugar, spice and everything nice (even as children, the bad man good woman trope is reinforced)



In this very thread, men who brought up women who called for male genocide or castration, were laughed at and its "obviously only the outliers of women who say that" but when the opposite statement is made, its accepted as true and acceptable to the general public reading it.

The last part is especially true, "Men really need to shut up about that." men are told to shut up about everything, to suffer in silence, to man up....

got raped?
got abused by a woman domestically?
got half your lifes savings taken from you by someone who abused your trust in marriage?
SHUT UP, MAN UP, AND GET OVER IT!

unless its a teacher raping a boy, then its "awesome" or "nice"

Just look at the DV hotline statistics,

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies.

not only, are men NOT WELCOME to call in for help at all in 50-60% of the resources, 25% of those who called in to get help with domestic violence, were told to call a # that can help them stop being perpetrators of domestic violence.

so where are the feminist groups on this? why isnt there any outrage?

surely if women were told to feth off over 50% of the time they asked for help from DV hotlines, there would be a fempocalyptic outroar?
surely if women were told 25% of the time , that not only were they not eligible for help, but that they themselves are responsible for the violence directed at them, there would be an uproar?


Its at the point now, where a man cannot even state that NON harassing behavior is non harassing behavior, as perfectly natural actions like approaching women to initiate a relations ship that the man is *EXPECTED* to engage in are being toted as "harassment", even if not all woman find it harassing, even if plenty of woman enjoy it and respond positively to it.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now.

As long as people keep talking about it unironically as if it were a real conspiracy/great power hovering above us all, mocking it will never get stale.

 easysauce wrote:
unless its a teacher raping a boy, then its "awesome" or "nice"

Yes. On this there is consensus. I have no idea how many threads I was ridiculed in on these fora for pointing this out; that a child raped by a teacher isn't something to celebrate and that the sentencing disparity between male and female defendants in those cases are a travesty.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now

It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now

It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.

You know, the only one of those two things I've seen on Dakka is people mocking the idea of patriarchy in posts that contain nothing else.

Regardless, how did we go from discussing whether 1 in 5 women were sexually harrassed or not to suddenly arguing about men being abused? That's some strong whataboutism going on there.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
...Yeah, the 'patriarchy lol misogyny XD' gakposting is getting a tad stale now

It's balancing the "ERMAHGERD PATRIARCHY EVERYWHEREZ" out.

You know, the only one of those two things I've seen on Dakka is people mocking the idea of patriarchy in posts that contain nothing else.

Regardless, how did we go from discussing whether 1 in 5 women were sexually harrassed or not to suddenly arguing about men being abused? That's some strong whataboutism going on there.

Because you cannot have a discussion about equality without talking about how both (or all) sides are unequal?