The Ozzman
Melted by feels
If by having sex with myself you mean making that chick cum twice, then yes.
Males and Females
- Thread starter damnromulans
- Start date
If by having sex with myself you mean making that chick cum twice, then yes.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
the "1 in 4 statistic" also includes
-every horny-as-hell teenaged female that's ever used a fake id to get laid by "older guys" where the guy gets arrested 3 days later because the girl with the fake-id that's having multiple-orgasms turns out to be "under the age of sexual consent"
-all the females that have Zero sex drive while completely sober and then get totally horny-as-hell when they get just a little intoxicated
-every chick that's ever had sex on the first date and then felt conflicted about it the next morning
-every girl that's ever ridden a guy cowgirl style and then the next day told her friends "i can't remember what happened last night"
-every horny-as-hell teenage girl that gets inturrupted by her/his parents while she's getting dick
-every girl that's ever gotten laid inside a frathouse
so, while i'm the first to say that a guy "forcing his penis inside a girl" is the most sadistic thing a man can do
i want to point out that it's really a whole hell of a lot more rare than what most females think
and at the end of the day, i really think it's so rare just simply because it's the most sadistic thing a man can do
i really trully believe that 99% of males just aren't capable of doing a "forcefull" rape, and just because you've had sex on the first date and got conflicted about it the next day doesn't mean you were raped, and just because your sister got raped, doesn't mean it will happen to you, and just because you've got multiple friends who tell you they were raped, doesn't mean all (or even any) of them were telling you the truth
the "1-in-4-statistic" is total fucking bullshit
Matt
Active Member
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Mathiäs;10516156 said:
did you actually fucking read my entire post??
or did you just see the part that i put in italics
seriously asking
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
Monoxide...just... no. The one in four stat is bs for many reasons, but in order to see the reasons you have to look at the study, the questions used to determine these things, the test group, etc. You just listed a bunch of stuff that wasn't involved in it at all. Shut up.
The actual problems with the case lies in the small couple hundred sample group, which was voluntary, the questions that would count a person as being sexual assaulted included regretting instances, phrases such as "didn't want to" instead of "forced to" etc etc. The one in the four consists of 14% cases deemed as attempted rape, and 11% deemed as rape, yet both numbers go towards the total. Only 13% of the people deemed to have been a victim of sexual assault in the case felt as though they were, yet the study chose to include them anyways. Its funny what you can achieve with select wording, inclusion and purposely ignoring statements to try and achieve a certain outcome.
The actual problems with the case lies in the small couple hundred sample group, which was voluntary, the questions that would count a person as being sexual assaulted included regretting instances, phrases such as "didn't want to" instead of "forced to" etc etc. The one in the four consists of 14% cases deemed as attempted rape, and 11% deemed as rape, yet both numbers go towards the total. Only 13% of the people deemed to have been a victim of sexual assault in the case felt as though they were, yet the study chose to include them anyways. Its funny what you can achieve with select wording, inclusion and purposely ignoring statements to try and achieve a certain outcome.
I still don't understand why you feel personally threatened about how more women than you like to imagine may have been taken advantage of sexually by men. Do you not understand the concept that not all sexual assaults are gangbangs by roving packs of hooligans, and that nice mutually consensual sex can turn rapey when someone decides they are going to ignore the other person's boundaries once they have them in a vulnerable position?
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
I do understand both of those things, and i'm not threatened, I'm showing facts
. I don't understand why the fact that less women than you like to imagine are raped threatens you. It's still a horrible crime. It's still being addressed. Why embrace falsified numbers on it?I merely just listed off things that were directly from the study that gives that statistic. Why are you so threatened by that as to ignore it and retort with accusations of being 'threatened' without wielding any evidence to validate your dismissal?
I don't know what study is in question here, but I'm not really seeing how this is a big deal. As krampus has been stressing, not all "sexual assault" is Irreversible-esque dark alley shit, but refers to a wide range of things that even the group that didn't perceive themselves to be victims fall under. I imagine some of these girls perhaps answered "no" to such a seemingly vicious term as "sexual assault" when they woke up after a night of heavy drinking and didn't entirely remember consenting to the male, but it's hard to call it anything but that.
Does anyone have any decent literature on studies focusing on the "severity" of varying "degrees" of sexual assault and the extent to which it influences the life of an average victim? I took a class my freshman year on trauma in literature and one of the main themes came from parallel studies that linked the PTSD of Vietnam veterans with that of violent rape victims in the way they both viewed the world through the framework of the traumatic event, and I'd be interested in reading about some of the finer nuances that encompass sexual assault as a whole.
Edit: I also think that there's a grossly inaccurate false dichotomy in the public's conception of sexual assault in which there is a small category of licentious rapists and a much larger category of sexually normal people. Again, not everyone that commits sexual assault is morally depraved on a Ted Bundy level, but they're still engaging in sexually dubious acts that could very likely harm the potential victim; and not enough people seem to be aware of this multi-faceted distinction.
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
"The one in the four consists of 14% cases deemed as attempted rape, and 11% deemed as rape, yet both numbers go towards the total. Only 13% of the people deemed to have been a victim of sexual assault in the case felt as though they were, yet the study chose to include them anyways. "
^This is what is wrong with the study. Assuming that there was zero cases of inebriation where the woman actually consented but was in to much of a haze to recollect later, we are still left with only 13% of the one in every four that felt they were sexually assaulted in any manner. Apparently rape includes when someone doesn't feel victimized?
I would have to do some digging, but there has been some really interesting studies on rape victims and their lives afterwards. A lot of variance based on if it was violent cases, and cases where people were manipulated into participating. Its a hard study group to accurately follow, so time will yield greater results.
There's no sense in limiting the factors strictly to inebriation; what about explicit or implicit coercive psychological manipulation that later led to the completion of the act, which the victim later came to regret? Clearly this doesn't yield the visceral, morally black-and-white connotation of a back-alley gangrape; but the result is still one in which a person felt violated by another person's actions. Forgive my ignorance of the general debate on this topic, but it seems like a lot of confusion is stemming from the conflation of terms like "sexual assault" and "rape" and attributing the same degree of violation to both.
I don't know. Given many of the people that I've been around (male and female alike; quite average, functional human beings) and the manipulative measures to which people to go in order to get laid while overlooking things like the potential effect it has on the other person, the "1 in 4" statistic hardly seems shocking if we look at "sexual assault" in a more informed, objective sense.
I don't know. Given many of the people that I've been around (male and female alike; quite average, functional human beings) and the manipulative measures to which people to go in order to get laid while overlooking things like the potential effect it has on the other person, the "1 in 4" statistic hardly seems shocking if we look at "sexual assault" in a more informed, objective sense.
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
13% out of the 25% deemed to have been sexual assault victims felt as though they were sexual assault victims. That's trimming all of the fat of every other argument that could be used to show inaccurate numbers. Thats not 13% of 100%, that is 13% of the group determined to have been victims. If you don't feel like a victim of sexual assault, it is plain silly for someone else to say you are.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
I reckon it's got something to do with it. Feeling and looking better = unexpected success with the ladiez.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
There is also a large amount of societal pressure on females to "drop it" and "let it go" and "not make a fuss," lest someone question their judgment or turn it around to make it about them, e.g. "well were you drunk?" or "why were you wearing that" or "I don't know if that's REALLY nonconsensual" blahblahblah. Add into the mix a lot of sexual misconduct occurs within relationships or marriages, but there is a large margin of people who insist a husband or boyfriend can't rape his wife or girlfriend because they are already in an established sexual relationship.
If you used a larger sample size and asked every sexually active person if he or she had ever felt deceived, coerced, or forced into doing something sexual against his/her will, I'm sure you'd find yourself denying that figure, too.
Also, 13% is still fucked up...
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
This is something that has been given increased reason not to be the case.
If the study was worded fairly and didn't ignore the sample members statements when they went to the contrary of what the person running the test wanted to portray, then no I wouldn't have any issue with it. Just because I am willing to point out actual flaws, glaring ones at that, doesn't make me some guy out there readdddddddy to get you. It just means I check my facts. Besides, when since was "being deceived into doing something sexual" considered rape? By that wording you could use any situation where a person felt the other person was planning on staying with them longer than they did, so they went ahead and slept with them in order to appease.
Yes, it is. However...again, its not 13% of the total, its 13% of the quarter. That's 3.5%. Which again, is still incredibly unfortunate however is nowhere NEAR 25%.
I'm talking about situations where someone gets someone super intoxicated/roofies/drugs them and no consent can be given because they're passed out or whatever. I'm pretty sure most people would consider that rape. Or when you start out consensual and then decide you are not going to respect their boundaries and push them into acts they did not consent to. Like if you're banging someone and they tell you "stop, it hurts" and you ignore them and keep going - you've crossed a boundary when they said "stop."
PhlegethonVeins
Autopsy Obsessed
Yes, both of those situations would be rape. However, this is why we have to be careful about our wording with such things, as 'being deceived' would include a ton of other situations where the case is not actually rape.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Similar threads
