Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
So if anyone actually wants to debate Tamen about Koss’ research, here are the last three comments from T on the subject, cut and pasted from the Warren Farrell thread, oldest to newest, and then deleted from there.
Oh, and the quote about consent that Tanen is talking about in the first comment was in fact from Derick, not Tanen.
—
This comment (reply to Pecunium who addressed me directly) is split into several.
Part 1:
Pecunium:
First thing first:
I haven’t written that drivel and I find it absolutely galling and dishonest that you attempt to pass it off as a quote by me,
—
On to your questions/challenges.
The Koss paper which is behind a paywall is the 1982 where they looked at rape prevalency among college women. I have made no claim one way or the other about the content of that paper (I reported that Ampersand wrote that it included men in the sample after Aaliyah wrote that she thought it didn’t). The operation definition I quoted is not from that paper.
If you are talking about the “Detecting the Scope of Rape – a review of prevalence research methods” paper by Mary P Koss where the (inappropriate to call a man rape victim…) quote came from I can assure you that I’ve read it. You can click on the link above and read it as well.
—
You know, I really do wish I could bring up some studies which doesn’t use something to that effect as a working definition of rape. Do you know of any?
CDC apparently found it inappropriate to call it rape – or rather they think it’s an unique male victimization that is separate from rape. The Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) does not even bother to include it in the survey even if it under Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 Section 4 is punishable with a sentence up to life (SOA 2003 doesn’t call it rape either). The latest CSEW did a split-sample experiment to test a new set of questions. The new questions had an option that male victims who had been made to penetrate could answer yes. The analysts classified those who answered yes to that question as NON-VICTIMS.
There is no One True Feminist Idea of anything. But Mary P Koss’ having an operational definition and arguing for it academically in peer reviewed journals and very possibly on advisory boards for federal agencies who does conduct national surveys on sexual victimization and publishes reports on the results are a tad bit more influental than Jane/Joe/non-binary feminist blogger/blog commenter who thinks it’s should be classified as rape.
As for Koss changing her mind since 1993, here is a quote from her paper co-written with Lehrer and Lehrer on sexual victimization of men in college in Chile published in 2010:
In that paper an affirmative response to:
Someone forced me to have sex using physical force.
was coded as physically-forced sex.
Lehrer, Lehrer, Lehere and Oyarzún have, using the same 2005 dataset, written a paper called : Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization in College Women in Chile. In that paper an affirmative response (from female respondents) to:
Someone forced me to have sex using physical force.
was coded as rape.
But let’s take a look at the revised SES Koss et al would like to use instead on the Chilean dataset:
Here is a quote from the 2007 paper by Koss et al: Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Improve Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimization
No, apparently still inappropriate.
Both the SES-LSV (questions included in linked article above) and SES-LVF (link (questions are in a Word document linked on the linked page) does not ask any questions about men being made to penetrate women without the man’s consent. They do ask men whether they have been anally penetrated without consent.
15 pages into the first link and I have one comment…so the fuck what? So far this is a surprisingly well rounded explanation of research issues in studying rape prevalence. Yeah, I bit of the legalese parts are just plain wrong, but I’ve just spent 15 pages reading about question order and the importance of comparable definitions when doing meta-analysis.
Lovely? The only part that remotely relates to Tamen’s apparent point is that Koss wants to put forced to penetrate as a different category than rape. But she’s got issues just using “sexual assault” because that’s something something not really the same as rape and legally it is the same and but that’ll include cld sexual abuse!
So yeah, she needs to sort her damned definitions, but I’m not getting to the part where this matters as more than an exercise is why she’s right to say that precise definitions are needed for different studies to be comparable.
Also, the iPad keyboard is tiny when using it in portrait mode.
Done! First off, her main thing, like, 20+ pages of this, is an amazingly detailed review of the research issues involved in studying rape (eg issues surrounding the sensitive nature of the questions; the issue of questions, plural, or one gateway question; etc)
To Tamen’s thing about the definitions…
She’s using rape instead of sexual assault because of the seriousness of the offense. Ok, fine, as long as your definitions are consistant use whichever. And the meaning of rape, in this concept is “sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body, but emission of semen is not required.” Per the citation, that’s the Michigan legal defition when this was written, and she specifically says it is a gender neutral definition.
…and then goes on to exclude men being made to pentrate, children, and, in the very last bits, where she states how this research should be done, anything without force. So yeah, when she makes her recommendations for future study, she requests that rape mean cases with force, nonconsent, penetration, and statutory age.
As for that last quote in Tamen’s comments, this one —
Yeah that thing in parathesises? It’s called a citation. That load of bull is from Struckman-Johnson (and Struckman-Johnson…at a guess, the 1994 study was done by a married couple, that’s how the XYZ & XYZ citations usually go). So yeah, she agrees or she’d not be citing it in the context it’s in, but her very next sentence says that attempted rapes should be a separate category for clarity.
And Tamen is straight up lying about the CDC’s “made to penetrate” being a category unique to men, give me 2 min to pull that up, I should have that data on the mac.
(Autocorrect that’s mac as in macintosh, not Mac as in Rogan’s husband…we only capitalize people! [Hi Rogan and Mac et al!])
I don’t still have it! While I’m downloading that, yet again, may I say that any definition that sticks to the legal definition(s) will inherently require penetration of the body of the victim? This is an issue with the legal definition, not the definitions researchers use (and certainly isn’t somehow Koss’s fault that legal defitions still suck)
Is the fine gentleman in that image wearing drawers at all?
Warning, incoming wall o’ text definitions from the CDC data
Tamen — “CDC apparently found it inappropriate to call it rape – or rather they think it’s an unique male victimization that is separate from rape.”
See 2, the italic part for that claim. As for why it isn’t all lumped under rape, see above about the legal definitions. (Which do suck)
How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence
Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.
1) Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.
— Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
— Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
2) Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.
— Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus.
— Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.
3) Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way. In NISVS, sexual coercion refers to unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal sex after being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority.
4) Unwanted sexual contact is defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed.
5) Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences are those unwanted experiences that do not involve any touching or penetration, including someone exposing their sexual body parts, flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show his or her body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or someone harassing the victim in a public place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe.
This brilliant. Let’s see if they can do it. I think derailing is half the fun for them.
LOL
I read you articles on Warren Farrel, and just about everything else. Fella, you have certainly stuck an IV for the Kool Aid since drinking it is obviously no longer enough for you.
Warren Farrel still must smile knowing that your refusal to answer anything substantial he has said or written, and still two decades later take his words out of context is a tacit admission that you have nothing to really say that refutes his arguments. Essentially, like everything else you have against the MRM, its “icky” because you don’t like what it says about your sacred calf feminism, so say something messed up, make a highly feminist false accusation (you know you won’t pay for it right?), and then go play with your cats. I really enjoy how you call men like Vladek Filler “alleged” even though he has been exonerated beyond all doubt. If I were you, for feminism’s sake, I would have denounced Mary Kellet for what she is. We both know you can’t.
Face it, women trap men all the time. She can threaten legal action against him, accuse him of rape, get pregnant after having had sex with him while he was drunk. So if he says he does not want to have sex with her and leaves, she calls the cops, and as we all know he at least gets arrested and a rape accusation on his record. Don’t tell me it does not happen, it happened to me on two occasions. I walked out, and they both threatened me with that hellish nightmare. Personally, I can think of better ways of handling rejection.
The reverse, well, a woman can have an abortion (funny how “it” is an “it” when she terminates the pregnancy, but a child when a man does not want to pay support to you little monsters). She can give “it” away for adoption and never pay support when the couple asks for TANF benefits, and get child support, government funded education, health care, and cash payments all for dumping her soon to be ex when she does keep “it.” Talk about incentive to have kids and divorce after one designer baby or two huh?
Convenient you only claim it is rape when a woman does not want it, what about the man the morning after? That’s right, he wanted to have sex with her anyways right? Men are dogs. When a man is drunk, and a woman has sex with him he deserves whatever consequences come his way (unwanted pregnancy, waking up to a “cat-lover the morning after in shear disgust); but when a woman was drunk and changes her mind, she has a whole myriad of consequences she can lob at him, up to and including prison.
How is it not rape when a man “regrets” the decision after he “wakes up” the morning after? How is it that only men are held to personal responsibility for their own drunken agency, but women get a pass?
I am sure all of you will not answer this. Have fun deleting this chump bucket. We all know this won’t be on here for long.
So when men say “Parity is good” it’s like jumping up and down on a table. When women say “parity is good” it’s all social justice and rainbows. I call bull shit. Wanting parity in education, criminal sentencing, suicide rates, child custody, child support, workplace deaths and many other issues is no more like throwing a tantrum than wanting parity in pay or the few aspects of education men are still dominant in.
Chili study on men — “Our survey items did not differentiate between instances of victimization where men were penetrated vs. where they performed a penetrative act themselves that they perceived as victimization; these latter instances, while potentially distressing and harmful, do not meet the Chilean legal definition of rape.”
And thus they called it forced sex.
So yeah, after 50 pages of Tamen’s little rant, it all boils down to legal definitions.
Okay…. ^ you’ve officially lost me.
Also, parity in education: Are you talking about the fact that often times women do more school than men? Because if you are, WOMEN DO MORE SCHOOL TO GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT THAT MEN WITH LESS SCHOOL DO!!?!?!?
So if you get parity in pay, you’ll get parity in education.
Re: suicide rates. I’m not sure, did someone link to a study earlier that showed women and men attempted suicide at the same rate, but men succeeded more often?
Child support: Is determined based on pay, so equal pay will help that, too.
Workplace deaths: stop keeping women out of dangerous work.
Criminal sentencing: Ugh, is this appropriated MoC’s higher incarcement rate again?
Child custody: So help get rid of the assumption that women are natural caretakers. Also, when men ASK FOR custody, they get it 50 percent of the time
OMG ITS LIKE ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR KIDS TO ASK!!!
*sigh* genderneutrallanguage, can you hold your horses a minute? I’m still working on Tamen’s claims!
Yours are shorter though, so here ya go —
Jumping up and down demanding gender parity =/= addressing the causes of lack of parity
That is, sperm jacking makes you look ridiculous when the rest of us are already talking about reproductive coercion and sexual assault via coercion. Child custody and support? First, I’ve yet to see MRM data that was actual data and not cherry picking (and oh boy do I like frisking cherry picked data, don’t do it). Second, a good part of the problem (besides a very basic one that I *gasp* will get you data for in just a second) is that women are still expected to be the primary caregiver. Want to guess how feminists feel about that?
Shit, I said sexual assault, not rape! Tamen come yell at me quick, so I can cite you CT statues that have no crime of rape per se but rather degrees of sexual assault. Definitions, they matter.
Tamen: I haven’t written that drivel and I find it absolutely galling and dishonest that you attempt to pass it off as a quote by me,
You’re right, I mistook you for Derick. Mistakes happen. It’s sort of amusing (to me at least) that you are in such a dudgeon because of that. The assumption of ill-intent is funny too.
You know, I really do wish I could bring up some studies which doesn’t use something to that effect as a working definition of rape. Do you know of any?
What?
I asked you a question, about your thesis (that Koss makes the CDC data aggregation illegitimate) and you expect me to what… cull every paper in the world to disprove you?
Defend your argument or concede.
CDC apparently found it inappropriate to call it rape – or rather they think it’s an unique male victimization that is separate from rape.
Where? What is the, “official CDC Definition of Rape” (and where it is it mandated that all studies use it).
The Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) does not even bother to include it in the survey …
And this is Mary Koss fault because?
There is no One True Feminist Idea of anything. But Mary P Koss’ having an operational definition and arguing for it academically in peer reviewed journals and very possibly on advisory boards for federal agencies who does conduct national surveys on sexual victimization and publishes reports on the results are a tad bit more influental
Again you have proposed a thesis. Prove it. This, “Mary Koss is EVIL!!!! becauase I think she might be doing bad things, because in a paper she wrote a long time ago she used a shitty operational definition (to which I’m not linking; so no chance to look at the context for you) pile of shit is… a pile of shit.
If you think it’s going to persuade anyone you need more than handwavium to support it.
Given the way you misread the explation of the working defintion (eliding the these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim.), and impute motive (that Koss thinks men being raped isn’t a big deal, or something), and ignore the working terms in the Chile paper.
*note this is a survey of men. It didn’t make any distintion that these types of coercion were invalid if a woman was the perpetrator.
In fact the study very clearly says that women were perpetrators.
It also addressed the issue of men, who had been previously victimised being likely to be assaulted again later:
Research on violence-related sequelae of CSA in boys has largely focused on associations with subsequent perpetration of violence against women (Loh & Gidycz, 2006), but recent studies have begun to examine links with revictimization.†
The multinational study of SV in university students cited above found that men with a history of CSA had elevated adjusted odds of both physically- and verbally-coerced SV over the past year; for each additional type of CSA experienced (in an eight-item scale), the odds of these forms of SV were 1.48 and 1.28 times greater, respectively (Hines, 2007).
A Canadian national study of adults, currently or previously in marital or cohabiting unions, found a positive association of CSA in boys with subsequent p hysical (AOR=1.88) and psychological (AOR=3.01) intimate partner victimization (Daigneault et al., 2009).
† note the use of the word, “revictimisation” and the context, “Adults in currently in marital or cohabiting unions”. That’s open, and not limited to male/male pairings. It says the men in such unions are being victimised.
So no, I don’t think this study “proves” what you say it does. I am now trying to decide if you don’t understand it, or are being intentionally less than forthright.
@Fade
Here’s one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.1998.tb00622.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Women have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempted suicide, but tend to use firearms less.
So if genderneautrallanguage wants to support some gun control policies so fewer men own firearms, then maybe ze has a leg to stand on here.
So. Many. Things!! Ok…
“Re: suicide rates. I’m not sure, did someone link to a study earlier that showed women and men attempted suicide at the same rate, but men succeeded more often?”
*adds it to zie list* off the top of my head, women attempt suicide at four times the rate men do, but pick methods such as poisoning that don’t have the legality of the methods men use (hanging, guns, etc)
“Criminal sentencing: Ugh, is this appropriated MoC’s higher incarcement rate again?”
Yes, and if I can find it again WoC are incarcerated at higher rates too. Ignoring the influence of race here is, well, appropriative and fucking racist (saying that all women get lighter sentencing when WoC do not is Not. Cool.)
Can you tell that I have nothing better to do currently? 🙂
Argenti Aertheri:
That is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I wrote that CDC thinks it’s an uniqe male victimization that is separate from rape. I don’t think it is.
Oh, look, you got it right in this quote:
I would agree that by the definition given on page 17 it’s not unique for male victims. I didn’t pull the above sentence from my ass, it’s nearly a direct quote from page 84 of the NISVS 2010 Report:
Last year I wrote a mail to CDC and asked them if future NISVS surveys would categorize “being made to penetrate” as rape in accordance to the new UCR definition of rape from FBI.
Here’s what they answered:
On the Koss (1993) paper I’ll just say that it’s sort of difficult to pin down whether you don’t think it’s a problem that she argues that “it’s inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sex with a woman” :
or if you do:
tamen: And Argenti is more patient with you than I, showing your claim of CDC being “controlled” by the Operational Definition (btw, do you understand what an OD is?) is bullshit.
GNL: So when men say “Parity is good” it’s like jumping up and down on a table. When women say “parity is good” it’s all social justice and rainbows. I spew bull shit. (FTFY).
Unless you can show this to be a true statement (with comparative citations).
Tamen certainly isn’t calling for “parity”. He’s alleging conspiracy against parity (a subtle, but important difference). He’s also lying.
You are either denser than neutronium, or lying as well. Since the very person tamen is citing, and the quotation he is using, says the operational defitition presented is crappy, and ought to be made more gender neutral.
So your argument fails, on it’s face.
Here’s all the math, with citations, on how 0.165% of all men (period, married or not, divorced or not, your general odds of this is male) end up getting sole custody in a divorce — http://manboobz.com/2013/02/09/ineedmasculismbecause-nothing-is-funnier-than-mras-sincerely-trying-to-explain-their-dumb-beliefs-to-the-world/comment-page-4/#comment-263319
Hints — 25% of men end up divorcing with kids involved, of those divorces, ninety-fucking-five percent settle out of court, of the remaining 5% only a third of men ask for sole custody. So yeah guys, try asking?
This may be an odd question, but are the type of suicide attempts affected by social norms? Cause it seems as though men are the ones who stereotypically use a gun or jump, and women are the ones who stereotypically use drug overdoses…
Hey, I have nothing better to do, too!
/Except it’s easter sunday over here, but last night I was barfing and I don’t know if there’s any point in celebrating easter if you can’t eat chocolate rabbits.
@kibrywarp
I’d definitely think so…
kirbywarp — I’ve seen plenty of guesses, but I don’t recall seeing actual data on the matter. Personally, I like EA’s guess in AfWVG — women realize it’s likely to be another women with the mop and bucket.
Re: sentencing disparity — http://manboobz.com/2013/04/08/an-unsolicited-update-from-paul-elams-pnis/comment-page-9/#comment-284645
Quoting myself here:
“In short, black and Hispanic women are sentenced less harshly than black or Hispanic men, but there’s no statistical difference between white women and white men. Which is, um, interesting. Really weirdly, white women go to prison more than black of Hispanic women, it’s a weird race/gender interaction and worth a read if registering for JSTOR doesn’t bother you. And it’s not that mathy so I’m not going to frisk it.”
Correction — I said women at pt four times more than men, it’s three times. Digging up real stats now (I’ll get back to Tamen, I’m sick of reading 20 pages to get to one sentence that says they’re using a legal definition)
First up, percentages by race and gender, completed suicides — http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates02.html
Native American rates top white rates despite the extreme difference in representation in the general population.
Next up will be comparing that to racial variance in the general population, but the iPad will eat that.