>
They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place. That’s not true. But people like to say it nevertheless. That’s not something anyone would say about stupidity, ever, because stupidity strikes the same places with such monotonous regularity.
And so it is that I can report with pleasure but not much surprise that stupidity — really massive stupidity, in fact — has once again hit the discussion thread on The Spearhead which provided us with our previous incredibly stupid Quote of the Day. This time, a fellow called TFH offers his unique take on rape statistics:
“1 in 4 women on college campuses have been raped”
….and none of those women are ever higher than a 6 in looks. Most are 4s or lower.
Coincidence? I think not.
We never, ever see women who would rate a 7 or higher making a big fuss about ‘rape’, claiming that rape is rampant, etc. EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD BE THE ONES MORE AT RISK.
This fact reveals the rape industry to be a complete fabrication. A ploy to get attention.
Always ask yourself : Where are the women who are a 7+ in looks, who are sufficiently afraid of rape to bring it up as often as the uggos do?
I should note that in addition to the rest of the stupidity, he’s a little confused as to what the 1-in-4 statistic refers to. The study in question, by Mary Koss, found that 1-in-4 college-age women had been the victim of rape or attempted rape at some point in their lives. (1-in-8 had been raped.) For more on the study upon which this figure is based, take a look at this extremely useful piece on Alas, A Blog, which has a whole category on the site devoted to the study in question, and on the claims of various anti-feminists to have “rebutted” it. Daran of Feminist Critics, a regular commenter on this blog, has also written two very useful posts on the subject as well.
EDIT: Here is another excellent post from Daran taking down Heather MacDonald, one of Koss’ recent critics, as well as two comments here that shed even more light on MacDonald’s flawed arguments. Thanks, Daran!
>Coldfire – the text is right there. All you have to do is read it. You can manage that, can't you? Or do you have some MRA blogpost to "debunk" that study?
>I addressed the piece of text that was there, you moron! Because I actually read it, I could see that big chunks had been removed because it was only a preview. The pieces of text available DO NOT support the conclusion that "rape is about power and control". Why would I waste my time debunking a source that doesn't even claim to support the conclusion?
>The pieces of text available DO NOT support the conclusion that "rape is about power and control".Yes it does. Read the Hamill excerpt.
>It's amazing to me that WOMEN are defining what rape is and what drives a small portion of deranged men to rape. As if they have any idea of what a male rapist could possibly be thinking/feeling. The whole concept is ridiculous. Women can't even get their heads around the idea that most men don't want sexually "experienced" women as wives, how in the hell can they understand the deviant male's mindset on rape, which is far more complex? Random Brother
>Ok, this is a bit retarded.For all Daran's excellent postings there are a few things to consider here about college rapes.A. A considerable amount of the numbers of rapes in her study were probably of the this type:1. Girl and guy both have drunken sex. In some states a drunken woman cannot give consent to sex and being drunk yourself is no defense. In some states it is a defense.2. Girl is drunk, but not unconscious. Guy is sober. She gives him a drunken "come hither" and he goes. Once again, rape in some states, not in others.I bet alot of the campus "rape epidemic" goes away if you exclude these two categories from the term "rape". How much this affects Koss's study, I don't pretend to know, but I'm sure there is an inflation of numbers based on it. Please remember that in both these cases the woman isn't unconscious and no one has spiked her drink, so I think it's certainly possible to argue this doesn't deserve to be called rape, esp when not all states agree that it does.What I think is a reasonable assertion is this: Rapes and sexual assaults on campus tend to happen to people who repeatedly engage in drunken sex with strangers at fraternities and sororities. Some of these women (and a few men) are repeat victims yet many don't think they are victims (based on the alchohol arguments above) and this partly explains why campus police and many sexual assault hotlines on compuses around this country often sit in dusty rooms bored out of their minds.In short, the problem is oversold, and is largely confined to a subclass of women and men. As for actual sexual predators -please remember they tend to repeatedly victimize people.Clarence
>I think someone needs to explain the elements of criminal offences to "Random Brother", as I don't have the patience to right now.
>Feminists hide behind the "it's all about power" shlock because they do not want to ADMIT that rape is really about sex. And they do not want to admit this because doing so would mean to acknowledge that sex is a COMMODITY that a rapist is trying to steal.Because if they acknowledge that much then they all but admit that the REAL reason they don't want to be raped is simply because they don't want men to steal that commodity.And if this much is clear then the REAL reason for their draconian date rape laws becomes obvious. To deprive men of ANY AND ALL sexual agency. Why? So they can make men pay more for sex.If left unchecked they will eventually broaden the definition of rape in such a way as to criminalize a man for doing anything more that lying on the floor like a dead fish with a boner while the girl goes up and down on him. And EVEN THEN he'd better be REAL good to her lest she decide (even years later) that it had been rape all along.
>I don't think rape is "all about power" either, but there are some serious problems with Thornhill's analysis from a scientific viewpoint, evilwhitemaleempire. http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/07/evolutionary-psychology-and-genetics/Long story short, they looked at certain populations and found that rape was either not adaptive or actually *mal*adaptive. For some populations, they might have found an advantage for rape, but for others they didn't. It's not cut-and-dry either way.Again, this makes sense. Look at prison rape, for instance. Most of these guys were straight when they got put in, but do you really think they just turned gay when they got locked up? "Making somebody your bitch" in there, as the name implies, is an act of dominance, not just sex. I agree it's unreasonable to say that ALL rape is about power rather than sex, but it's a long stretch from there to say that ALL rape is necessarily about sex rather than power.
>MRAs hide behind the "[feminists want] to deprive men of ANY AND ALL sexual agency. Why? So they can make men pay more for sex" schlock because they do not want to ADMIT that it's MEN who want to deprive OTHER MEN (and ALL WOMEN) of any and all sexual agency because they want to ensure that it is THEIR (i.e., the men seeking to do the depriving) genes that are reproduced.It's only very recently that women have been viewed as the "actual victims" in rape situations, in the past, it was the woman's father or husband (whomever was her male "owner") who was considered as the "actual victim" and to whom recompense was owed. The woman's personal experience of the rape meant nothing, as sometimes the recompense owed to the father, if she was unmarried, was for the rapist to marry her. I'll bet THAT was a real treat for her!!Feminists are against the commodification of women and against the denial of women's agency in her own right as a human being in everything. Their "draconian date rape laws" aren't so that they can make men pay more for sex, as that would be reinforcing the commodification of women.
>If rape was as common as what lying feminists claim it to be, abortion would be happening one hell of a lot more than it does. Just like how feminists lie through their teeth about the 1 in 4 theory. That would mean that nearly 1 in 4 women are having abortions. ROFLHere are abortion stats to think abouthttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#UC
>Uh, Nick, you do realize that women don't get pregnant each and every time they have unprotected sex, right?
>Uh Gavid, you do realise that most times a man's sperm is in a woman, it's highly likely to result into pregnancy.Then after that, a man has no say. A woman has every say in the world
>"Their "draconian date rape laws" aren't so that they can make men pay more for sex, as that would be reinforcing the commodification of women."Let me get this straight. -Commodification of sex is something that the patriarchy does. (check)-Feminists are against the patriarchy. (check)conclusion:-Feminists are against the commodification of sex.Well how about this one?-Selling pizza is something the patriarchy does. (check)-Feminists are against the patriarchy. (check)conclusion:-Feminists are against the selling of pizza.Oh man! Now I REALLY have a reason to hate them."I don't think rape is "all about power" either, but there are some serious problems with Thornhill's analysis from a scientific viewpoint, evilwhitemaleempire"But you do at least agree that bank robbers are not merely over enthusiastic gun owners right?
>most times a man's sperm is in a woman, it's highly likely to result into pregnancy.Not necessarily. Many women these days are on the pill, for instance, and if they get raped when on it they obviously won't get pregnant. There are more reasons besides that why getting pregnant isn't as easy as you say, but that's just one off the top of my head. But you do at least agree that bank robbers are not merely over enthusiastic gun owners right?Yeah, we're in agreement 'bout that. Problem is, I don't really think it's an accurate analogy between that and rape. I can't think of one bank robbery that had much to do with guns, but the whole thing with straight guys raping other guys in prison (and that's just one example) makes me think power has at least a little to do with rape, at least in some cases.
>"Feminists are against the commodification of women."But women commodify THEMSELVES all the time.And, inconveniently enough, a lot of feminists are also women. So the question for mangina's to ask themselves is "Am I motivated by pussy or wishful thinking?"
>Agreed, there ARE women who commodify themselves all the time. And, inconveniently enough, a lot of women are also NOT feminists.So then, the commodification of sex is no different than selling pizza.Sex is a commodityPizza is a commodityAs inflation rises, so does the monetary cost of commoditiesConclusion: As the monetary cost of pizza rises, so, too, does the monetary cost of sex.That brings your "draconian date rape law as reason for rising sex costs" hypothesis under question.
>"Conclusion: As the monetary cost of pizza rises, so, too, does the monetary cost of sex.That brings your "draconian date rape law as reason for rising sex costs" hypothesis under question."Inflation is not the only thing that raises costs. Monopolies and trade unions can also do this.Imagine, for example, what would happen to the cost of pizza if only Pizza Hut could legally sell it?
>Dude, if the "cost" of sex is too high for you, you could always fuck pizzas.
>"Inflation is not the only thing that raises costs. Monopolies and trade unions can also do this."Was just keeping it simple while toying with your syllogism (or should I say, "sillygism")"Imagine, for example, what would happen to the cost of pizza if only Pizza Hut could legally sell it?"Think I'd be more perturbed with being stuck with sucky pizza."Dude, if the "cost" of sex is too high for you, you could always fuck pizzas."Hey, now THERE'S an option you could look into! You should thank David for suggesting it!
>""-current thinking about what causes rape is so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist." "The definition of rape specifies forced penetration. It does not specify an object. The victims of the recent Bronx gang rape were raped with toilet plungers and baseball bats.
>"Dude, if the "cost" of sex is too high for you, you could always fuck pizzas."Not a bad idea. Western pizzas are a hell of a lot better than western women."Was just keeping it simple while toying with your syllogism"Well I'm afraid your keeping it too simple. And indeed it was a sillygism. Intended to make another point silly. "The definition of rape specifies forced penetration."Rape is SEX theft. (Power is an ancillary factor.) You feminists do not want to admit this. Because if true what does it make you?