fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3393 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3393 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #485.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Totally fair.

Here's the original post:

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Here's a post for the 40% statistic (tumblr, so I understand if you don't trust it).

http://richywilson.tumblr.com/post/101164815705/40-of-rapists-are-women-49-of-rape-victims-are

Here's a post against it:

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Like I said, there are definitely arguments over how they collated the data, I agree; but the fact is, even if the CDC collated the data in a way that is wrong, it's still from the CDC, not "almost certainly bullshit fabricated by the manosphere/alt-right cuckspiracy theorists" as dethtoll put it.

AYRT

Hmm. Being from a usually respectable source doesn't mean all data is respectable. The time article does raise a good point: I would answer 'yes' to that 'drunk or otherwise impaired' question, but the other person was also drunk, it was in a relationship where it wasn't unexpected, it wasn't non-consensual sex even if consent wasn't explicitly given beforehand, and it was most certainly not rape. My partner would have answered yes to that since they were drunk too at the same time. Seeing how even we would have added two imaginary rapists to the rapist count, I don't know how much I can trust the answers to that question and pull the 40% / 60% from it.

I don't think it's 'conspiracy theory numbers' levels of incorrect but I do find the methods questionable and the numbers probably significantly inaccurate.

No, but it doesn't mean dethtoll is right either (honestly, I was just stopped short by his claim that he thinks only 10% of rapists are women. It feels actually pretty sexist? Like he's trying to be feminist by putting women as a group on a pedestal, instead of acknowledging that women are people, and can be shitty people.)

That being said, what I found interesting is that, by that same metric, you can't really call their number of women-being-raped as correct either, and it's highly possible, if not probably, that their numbers are way too high.

Yeah, I was thinking that number was significantly inaccurate also. The vague-enough drunk question especially sounds like it would pad the numbers to a large degree - even people like my partner and I would have added to those numbers by accident.

I think the real numbers are somewhere in between, but I don't know what they are.

This is my major beef with the survey: drunk sex does not automatically equal rape. It's entirely possible to be drunk but still sober enough to give informed consent for a sexual encounter because there's a huge spectrum of drunkenness between "tipsy" and "blackout drunk/so out of it you don't know what's going on." And then there are also situations like the one you mentioned, where it's between two people in a relationship and even though explicit consent wasn't given, it was neither unexpected nor unwanted. It's not a black and white matter.

Like he's trying to be feminist by putting women as a group on a pedestal

I'm doing nothing of the sort, thank you very much.

That's kind of what it comes across as, even if that's now how you meant it. When I see you read "40% of rapist are women" and your response is "lol no that's impossible, only 10% are, if that" it comes across a lot like you don't think it's possible for women to rape, like women are "better then that".

Again, even if that's now how it was meant, it comes across that way.

Awesome job reducing what I said to "lol" and automatically assuming I'm "putting women on a pedestal" instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt as to how I came to the conclusion I did. Gold star! And then you give me this "that's what you come across as" line which honestly is a bit of a cop-out because it takes some real leaps of logic to read what I said the way you did.

Like, I'm not even angry, but I do expect not to have my intelligence and integrity insulted.

Wow, it's almost like tone is hard to tell over the internet. Also, when your first response to someone making a claim about women rapists is that it must be a troll, yeah, I'm going to side-eye you a little bit.

Sure, maybe 40% is high, but there are ways to discuss it without dismissing it as trolling.

Sure, let's all just ignore the fact that MRAs have been banging on the "omg women rapists are everywhere" drum (among other bugaboos such as "false rape accusations") for ages at this point. Yeah, 40% seems genuinely high to me because it's the kind of statistic a redpill goon would come up with.

Side-eye yourself.

DA
Look, I get it, you hate MRAs. But just because a group you don't like argues a point it doesn't automatically make it untrue, especially not when other more objective groups agree.
Your reactionary "waaah stupid evil MRAs said this as well so I'll dismiss the entire point because it must mean it's a lie" is pretty damn stupid. And pretending that you're on some kind of moral high ground because of it makes you seem like a pretentious, pompous ass and not even the slightest bit better than any idiot MRA who decides "nuuuh, a feminist said this, it must be a lie by those evil womyns".

lol

How smart you are.

I'm sorry, were you looking for me to give a shit about your condescension? Because I wanted the weather to not suck. I guess we're both disappointed today.

The fuck. The only one being consistently condescending here is you.

I feel you, but nah.

But just because a group you don't like argues a point it doesn't automatically make it untrue, especially not when other more objective groups agree.

Why are you wasting your breath? Dethtoll is incapable of debating without invalidating others' arguments on the basis of their assumed affiliations.

I believe you feel that way.

We are better than that. This has been borne out by the entire history of the world.

For the record (not that you need to hear it, but) I'm female, a feminist, and have never gotten this impression from you in the least. I really enjoy your gender-related comments, and usually think they're pretty spot on.

When it comes to feminism and gender issues, it's all too easy to end up being either alarmist and dogmatic, or dismissive and willfully ignorant, but I think you manage to strike a really good balance with your feminism. In my memory, your comments have never come across as any of those things.

Appreciated.

[ SECRET POST #3393 ]

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape