Periodic Table of Swearing

[ERV]

The US government finally locked the XMRV=CFS propents in a lab and said "Prove it. While we are watching." (think psychics with Randis million dollar challenge)

Surprise surprise, no connection between CFS and XMRV.

Homer Simpson voice: "Wheres my parade? *shakes fist* Wheres my parade?"

[AndrewV69]

Either way, to say that normal sex has been criminalized in Sweden is simply ridiculous.

Then it is quite clear that we disagree on what constitutes "normal sex". Seeing as I view sleep-sex to be normative, and if I understand the arguments correctly, under Swedish law it is liable to prosecution, with guilt or innocence based on a subjective determination on who has the most credibility.

What if sleep-sex doesn't bother you? Like, I'd be completely fine if my partner did it to me. We're too tired for that kind of thing these days being parents but I've had previous partners do it to me. It's never struck me as a big deal. We're in a relationship/FWB arrangement; why would I mind it?

But then, most A+ chicks would freak at how my current partner got me into the sack the first time.

Ohhhhhh! A juicy tale? Do tell!

I imagine most people would be fine with it though. My objection is a general one to laws on the books that can be enforced at whim. I am sure you can think of laws that are violated every day by everyone (like speeding) that are selectively enforced. But the kind of laws related to family life? Bad enough that the cop has discretion with speeding tickets, but that can work in your favour. Worse when the Judge/Prosecution rules based on who the fuck knows what? You do not want to get involved in the justice system if you are a man. MRAs are convinced of that.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... the-bench/

[AndrewV69]

The US government finally locked the XMRV=CFS propents in a lab and said "Prove it. While we are watching." (think psychics with Randis million dollar challenge)

Surprise surprise, no connection between CFS and XMRV.

Homer Simpson voice: "Wheres my parade? *shakes fist* Wheres my parade?"

:happy-bouncygreen: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleaderkid: :happy-bouncygreen: :happy-jumpeveryone: :happy-jumpgreen: :happy-cheerleaderkid: :happy-bouncyyellow:

[Steersman]

I do reserve to right to hunt down someone who I think is a genuine threat.

This is in fact not a right.

I have a clean criminal record and can make it look like I was defending myself. I have told my girls this. If you are really frightened of someone let me know... and I will meticulously and thoroughly plot their destruction.

Hope to fuck they never become property-owners then.
I'd be really distressed if they decided my invoice wasn't a particular priority (happens, now and again, the bastards) and figured out their everlovin' papa could save them a bit of cash, if they made out the nasty ole carpenter tried to rob/stalk/rape them.
I mean how good is your research, chum?

Mind you, I'll be out of the game soon anyhow, so no worries. :whistle:

I said I would protect them from a genuine threat dick head! (not a legal contract etc.) I am talking about a genuine threat to their safety... didn't you gather that from my description? Shit. And you know I used the word "right" in a general way... not a legal way. Sorry you are checking out soon... this will make one less person for me to bitch at.

Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning there, John D.? Seems to me that Dustbubble was only suggesting that he would no longer be financially or emotionally responsible for his daughters’ behaviours or experiences. Not that he was actually “checking out”.

And further suggesting that it might not be particularly wise to be taking the law into one’s own hands. Which makes quite a bit of sense given that even the legal system frequently gets things badly wrong ....

I'm with John D.
He trusts that his children will never cry wolf, because he raised them.
If I am convinced that someone (or somedog) I love will get hurt, the legal system is not reliable enough for me.

You don’t think that maybe his statement – “If you are really frightened of someone let me know... and I will meticulously and thoroughly plot their destruction.” – is a little over the top? Particularly in the absence of any smoking gun; a dead body; one which has obviously and unambiguously been raped; that, as many MRAs tend to argue, some women are guilty of false-rape charges; that those who are lied to – including parents – are the last to know that that is what is happening?

[Steersman]

The US government finally locked the XMRV=CFS propents in a lab and said "Prove it. While we are watching." (think psychics with Randis million dollar challenge)

Surprise surprise, no connection between CFS and XMRV.

Homer Simpson voice: "Wheres my parade? *shakes fist* Wheres my parade?"

:happy-bouncygreen: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleadersmileyguy: :happy-cheerleaderkid: :happy-bouncygreen: :happy-jumpeveryone: :happy-jumpgreen: :happy-cheerleaderkid: :happy-bouncyyellow:

The crowd goes wild! :-)

[disumbrationist]

The US government finally locked the XMRV=CFS propents in a lab and said "Prove it. While we are watching."

Say, they do some pretty thorough work while locked up. Maybe we should keep 'em that way.

[JackRayner]

I watched the Justicar video on the issue that WBB discusses in some detail plus some of the links that Justicar provided and which Hj Hornbeck refers to as well.

And did you watch his follow up video? He does something interesting with that big number of yours:

bCum4wIGLn8

 
Justicar very frequently makes a credible argument, but here methinks he has his thumb on the scales – or he hasn’t looked into the issue (for the actual evidence) to the extent necessary: what he does to that "big number" of mine really doesn’t look like cricket. For instance, he states that there is something like 246,000 rapes & sexual assaults of women in the US every year [@ 02:25] and uses a population of some 300 million to get his incidence of rape of 0.082% [((.246 million)/(300 million))*100]. However, for starters, only half of the population – 150 million, more or less – are actually women. In addition, the Wikipedia article further points out that most of those raped are in fact of the female persuasion:

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics state that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.

Which, by that argument and using his numbers, means that something like 0.164% [0.246*100/150] of the population of women in the US are raped or sexually assaulted every year.

His original argument is about the range of people which rape actually affects, in response to the claim that if you're not a victim, your experience is not representative. (Meaning that victimization is the norm.) I'll grant you the subtraction of all males from the equation, even though there are big problems with male rape statistics, the main one being the way that many different jurisdictions definite it, or exclude it completely. (For example, even though the FBI updated their definition for rape to include males, their definition still excludes the possibility of rape by "envelopment". Meaning, being forced or coerced to penetrate someone else, whether vaginal, anal, or oral. Also excludes being forced or coerced to perform vaginal/anal oral sex.)

In addition, while none of the statistics that I’ve seen clearly state this, I would think it quite likely that most of the rapes are of women within a fairly narrow age group – possibly between, say, 15 and 35. And the demographics for that group indicates a population of some 40 million women aged 15 to 35. In which case the likelihood of getting raped or sexually assaulted in any given year for women in that age group is now 0.246/40 or 0.0062, i.e., about 0.62% can “expect” to get raped in any given year. And finally, since women in that group stay in that group for 20 years that means that about 20*0.62% or 12.4 % of women entering that group at the age of 15 can “expect” – something to look forward to, I guess, but looks more like a gauntlet to be run – to get raped within that period of time.

This is where your argument starts being stretched, in my opinion. You're [arbitrarily? Or do you have some source you're not naming?] modifying who is affected by sexual assaults/rape to make it seem as if your selected group is even more affected. No game. A friend of mine was sexually molested by her mother when she was just six, for example...

Now while Justicar’s comments about the difference between rape and sexual assault at least suggests some problems, I would say that the statistics certainly don’t seem to strongly support his argument. For one thing, I would think that the awareness of the difficulties involved in getting convictions are going to preclude most women reporting relatively minor cases of groping and fondling. In addition, sexual assault covers quite a range of behaviours, many of which fall very little short of actual rape – and most of which are apparently disproportionally experienced by women.

And, again, I think you're pushing it a bit by claiming this, essentially without any justification but your own imagination. That the litany of acts that fall below "sexual assault" are either disproportionately done to women, or disproportionately reported by women...I don't see how that changes the facts in favor of any argument trying to paint the occurrence of rape as more statistically significant than what it actually is. Might actually work against it. I'm not even going to go into this "unreported" number that is somehow still magically reported.

I'm willing to accept 0.164%. You've got some work to do before you can justify this 12.4% "gauntlet to run", however.

[JackRayner]

:happy-cheerleaderkid:

That thing is making my eyes bug-out, maaaaaan!

[disumbrationist]

And finally, since women in that group stay in that group for 20 years that means that about 20*0.62% or 12.4 % of women entering that group at the age of 15 can “expect” – something to look forward to, I guess, but looks more like a gauntlet to be run – to get raped within that period of time.

That's not how the probability is calculated.
Say the per annum rape rate is R, a number between 0 and 1. The probability of not being raped in a year is 1-R. The probability of not being raped over a span of 20 years is (1-R)^20 . The probability of being raped during that same time is 1- (1-R)^20. In the case R=0.62% or 0.00062, the number is closer to 0.01232 or 1.23%. However, as you indicated, the exact numbers are not well known and can make a huge difference in the final number we get from this very crude calculation.

[disumbrationist]

In the case R=0.62% or 0.00062, the number is closer to 0.01232 or 1.23%.

Sorry, typo. It's 0.0062. The calculation is correct.

[sacha]

You don’t think that maybe his statement – “If you are really frightened of someone let me know... and I will meticulously and thoroughly plot their destruction.” – is a little over the top? Particularly in the absence of any smoking gun; a dead body; one which has obviously and unambiguously been raped; that, as many MRAs tend to argue, some women are guilty of false-rape charges; that those who are lied to – including parents – are the last to know that that is what is happening?

I'm one of those MRAs that know many women are guilty of false rape charges.

That is why I said "He trusts that his children will never cry wolf, because he raised them."
If I did not know John, I wouldn't trust that his daughters would only accuse someone if they were guilty.

As everyone knows, I don't trust women, unless they have proven that they are the exception, rather than the rule.

I may not know a lot of things about John, but I do know how he feels about women making false accusations against men, I also know how his wife has reacted to accusations of misogyny being thrown around by the baboons... I'm quite sure his daughters are very clear on their parents position on false accusations, and that they feel the same way.

I also know that he would need evidence before taking action.

I've known John a long time...

[disumbrationist]

In the case R=0.62% or 0.00062, the number is closer to 0.01232 or 1.23%.

Sorry, typo. It's 0.0062. The calculation is correct.

No, it's NOT correct, shit. It is actually closer to 12%, as steersman said. (11.7%) Final Answer.
Adding graph to show my contrition. x = rape rate. If this isn't right then fuck it.

[Michael K Gray]

The Nobel Prize winning Sir Peter Medawar wrote (in a scathing review of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin's book "The Phenomenon of Man")

Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.

Jean Kazez should take note, as should many others of whom I can think.

[sacha]

I watched the Justicar video on the issue that WBB discusses in some detail plus some of the links that Justicar provided and which Hj Hornbeck refers to as well.

And did you watch his follow up video? He does something interesting with that big number of yours:

bCum4wIGLn8

 
Justicar very frequently makes a credible argument, but here methinks he has his thumb on the scales – or he hasn’t looked into the issue (for the actual evidence) to the extent necessary: what he does to that "big number" of mine really doesn’t look like cricket. For instance, he states that there is something like 246,000 rapes & sexual assaults of women in the US every year [@ 02:25] and uses a population of some 300 million to get his incidence of rape of 0.082% [((.246 million)/(300 million))*100]. However, for starters, only half of the population – 150 million, more or less – are actually women. In addition, the Wikipedia article further points out that most of those raped are in fact of the female persuasion:

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics state that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.

Which, by that argument and using his numbers, means that something like 0.164% [0.246*100/150] of the population of women in the US are raped or sexually assaulted every year.

His original argument is about the range of people which rape actually affects, in response to the claim that if you're not a victim, your experience is not representative. (Meaning that victimization is the norm.) I'll grant you the subtraction of all males from the equation, even though there are big problems with male rape statistics, the main one being the way that many different jurisdictions definite it, or exclude it completely. (For example, even though the FBI updated their definition for rape to include males, their definition still excludes the possibility of rape by "envelopment". Meaning, being forced or coerced to penetrate someone else, whether vaginal, anal, or oral. Also excludes being forced or coerced to perform vaginal/anal oral sex.)

In addition, while none of the statistics that I’ve seen clearly state this, I would think it quite likely that most of the rapes are of women within a fairly narrow age group – possibly between, say, 15 and 35. And the demographics for that group indicates a population of some 40 million women aged 15 to 35. In which case the likelihood of getting raped or sexually assaulted in any given year for women in that age group is now 0.246/40 or 0.0062, i.e., about 0.62% can “expect” to get raped in any given year. And finally, since women in that group stay in that group for 20 years that means that about 20*0.62% or 12.4 % of women entering that group at the age of 15 can “expect” – something to look forward to, I guess, but looks more like a gauntlet to be run – to get raped within that period of time.

This is where your argument starts being stretched, in my opinion. You're [arbitrarily? Or do you have some source you're not naming?] modifying who is affected by sexual assaults/rape to make it seem as if your selected group is even more affected. No game. A friend of mine was sexually molested by her mother when she was just six, for example...

Now while Justicar’s comments about the difference between rape and sexual assault at least suggests some problems, I would say that the statistics certainly don’t seem to strongly support his argument. For one thing, I would think that the awareness of the difficulties involved in getting convictions are going to preclude most women reporting relatively minor cases of groping and fondling. In addition, sexual assault covers quite a range of behaviours, many of which fall very little short of actual rape – and most of which are apparently disproportionally experienced by women.

And, again, I think you're pushing it a bit by claiming this, essentially without any justification but your own imagination. That the litany of acts that fall below "sexual assault" are either disproportionately done to women, or disproportionately reported by women...I don't see how that changes the facts in favor of any argument trying to paint the occurrence of rape as more statistically significant than what it actually is. Might actually work against it. I'm not even going to go into this "unreported" number that is somehow still magically reported.

I'm willing to accept 0.164%. You've got some work to do before you can justify this 12.4% "gauntlet to run", however.

The statistics cannot be trusted. Not only do numerous women report rape and sexual assault that never happened, but how many men do you think feel comfortable reporting they were a victim of sexual assault and rape?

Most men who have been sexually assaulted by a woman, do not even admit they were a victim to themselves.

Women are every bit as likely to sexually abuse, and assault men as the other way around. In fact, it would not surprise me if they were far more likely. The women know they will get away with it.

If you believe that men are the majority of aggressors, step inside a strip club where men take their clothes off for women, and compare that to a strip club where women take their clothes off for men.

I do not believe the statistics are anywhere near a depiction of reality.

[Michael K Gray]

Extracts from:
The A+Theism Dictionary®©™¹.
Published by the Rev. PZ Webster.

Creep n.
1. A bloke who a female does not find attractive.
2. A bloke who earns less than $100,000 per anum, and who is ugly.

Cool-guy n.
1. A bloke who a female does not find attractive.
2. A bloke who earns more than $100,000 per anum, and who is ugly.

_______________________________
¹ A+Scrub does not have permission to breach clear copyright of the definitions. The arrogant cunts

[Michael K Gray]

I do not believe the statistics are anywhere near a depiction of reality.

Of course these "stats" are complete fictional bullshit.
Fill in here what I am going to say about the outrageously criminal 100% statistical ignoring of male prison rapes & male military rapes.
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________!!

[rayshul]

I thought that 250,000 per year number was what came from the UN stats, which coves 65 countries.

[Steersman]

....
Which, by that argument and using his numbers, means that something like 0.164% [0.246*100/150] of the population of women in the US are raped or sexually assaulted every year.

His original argument is about the range of people which rape actually affects, in response to the claim that if you're not a victim, your experience is not representative. (Meaning that victimization is the norm.)

Didn’t really see how that followed from the prestidigitation that he was doing with the numbers: the victimization rate is something quite a bit different from the numbers of people who have actually been victimized; raping one woman every year out of a population of 10 women means that in 10 years every woman has been victimized.

But that “victimization is the norm” sort of hangs on the definition of “norm”; if it means “average”, as seems typical, then the numbers don’t support that contention. But the actual numbers from the National Center for Victims of Crime [“a non-profit organization”] still doesn’t paint a particularly rosy picture:

Rates of victimization by sexual violence vary among ethnic groups. Approximately 1 in 5 Black women (22 percent) and White (18.8 percent) non-Hispanic women, and 1 in 7 Hispanic women (14.6 percent) in the United States have experienced rape at some point in their lives.

In which case one might argue that on average something like 15% of American women have been raped.

... there are big problems with male rape statistics, the main one being the way that many different jurisdictions definite it, or exclude it completely.

Yes, I’ll agree that there are problems with the statistics on rape, both male and female, part of the problem being, I think, is that there are all sorts of estimates and extrapolations being made – and on very questionable assumptions. But one thing that seems fairly solid is the actual number of reported rapes (accusations made), presumably most of which are of women, that qualify as “police-recorded offences”. And in the US that seems to be fairly steady at about 90,000 per year – quite consistent with the 246,000 Justicar was using; you might also note that:

This list indicates the number of, and per capita cases of recorded rape. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported, or which are not recorded. Nor does it specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. Nor does it take the different definition of rape around the world into account.

And that the same article further points out that “research suggest(s) that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police." Whatever the numbers are for the rapes of men, the data strongly suggest that they are far outweighed by those for women.

In addition, while none of the statistics that I’ve seen clearly state this, I would think it quite likely that most of the rapes are of women within a fairly narrow age group – possibly between, say, 15 and 35. ....

This is where your argument starts being stretched, in my opinion. You're [arbitrarily? Or do you have some source you're not naming?] modifying who is affected by sexual assaults ...

It was a bit of a horse-back guess to more accurately, I thought, take into account the behaviour of the different demographics. But the following from the same source [NCVC] more or less confirms it:

Most female victims of completed rape (79.6%) experienced their first rape before the age of 25, and 42.2% before the age of 18.

In which case, my demographic of 40 million women in the 15-35 age group might be further reduced, although the previously quoted rate of 15% [above] suggests my analysis is at least in the right ball-park.

I'm willing to accept 0.164%. You've got some work to do before you can justify this 12.4% "gauntlet to run", however.

Again, the above quotes strongly suggest that the figure of 15% of all American women who have been victimized by rape – and not just by sexual assault – is not off by a great amount. Something that disumbrationist’s graph and post seems to confirm – although further clarification and labelling is, I think, required ... :-)

[Steersman]

The Nobel Prize winning Sir Peter Medawar wrote (in a scathing review of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin's book "The Phenomenon of Man")

Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.

Jean Kazez should take note, as should many others of whom I can think.

Great essayist, Medawar. Greatly enjoyed his The Art of the Soluble in which that review of de Chardin’s The Phenomenon of Man is to be found. But while I think some of de Chardin’s perspectives or conjectures are plausible and of some utility, I also think Medawar makes some important and valuable criticisms of it, notably and most damningly this:

Yet the greater part of it, I shall show, is nonsense, tricked out with a variety of tedious metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself. [The Phenomenon of Man; pg 71]

[TedDahlberg]

I do not speak, read, or write Swedish so my understanding is informed by people who can and are also willing to write about it in English. One of the issues also is finding a credible sounding author with no apparent agenda on the subject,

That's certainly a problem. I suspect most people who write about Swedish laws in English on any particular topic (and not just for the purposes of education) do so because they have some sort of agenda. That doesn't mean you can't get useful information of course.

but here is one who might:

http://erlinghellenas.wordpress.com/201 ... -rape-law/

Examples

An example of a less aggravated crime is that the mans genitals touches the womans when she is asleep.

An example of a normally aggravated crime is that the mans sex penetrates a womans vagina when she is asleep.

An example of a less aggravated crime is that the mans genitals touches the womans when he is holding her in some way. She doesn’t have to resist.

An example of a normally aggravated crime is that the mans sex penetrates a womans vagina when he is holding her in some way. She doesn’t have to resist.

The crucial thing in your source, which really should have been mentioned in relation to those examples and not just in the introduction, for clarity's sake, is the concept of the woman being in a "hjälplöst tillstånd," a helpless state. In the case he links to for example (RH 2010:6), the girl was drunk and sleeping, and considered by the court to be in a helpless state. There were also witnesses which were considered to be reliable. Now for sure "helpless state" might be a vague concept, but that's what case law is for.

The thing about it being illegal to hold someone down… the thing he links to in support of that is a proposed law (I don't know if it passed), and it doesn't criminalise just holding someone down. It criminalises using force to immobilise someone for the purpose of rape or abuse. Writing "she doesn’t have to resist" is at the very least disingenuous. What that means is that it's still rape even if she doesn't keep struggling to get away and just gives up. Presumably this counters the defence of "but she was just lying there, how should I know she didn't want it".

Sentences

Touching the genitals of a woman that you are holding steady or who is asleep with your genitals can give up to four years in prison.

Having sex with a woman that you are holding steady or who is asleep when you start can give two to six years in prison.

Summary

As we can see the line between normal sex and rape is subtle or non-existent, the sentences are long, the compensations high and there doesn’t have to be any crime, it’s enough that the court believes the woman when she says there was one.

I couldn't speak to the sentences, I'm no lawyer. But notice the "up to". The first one would hardly give four years, by itself. The second one is your classic rape case reformulated to sound more ambiguous than the law actually is. Saying "there doesn’t have to be any crime, it’s enough that the court believes the woman when she says there was one" is, frankly, flabbergasting. I'm not sure what that guy has been smoking, but I'm sure there are lots of people who would like some. That's every court case ever. If the court finds the accuser more credible than the defendant, and there is supporting evidence, the defendant gets convicted. It's really no different here than anywhere else. For perspective, according from the previously linked BBC article, in 2010 there were 3.7 convictions per 100,000 population. According to Wikipedia (that bastion of accuracy) there were 63.5 reported rapes per 100,000 population in 2010.

Sorry to get ranty on this, and I really don't mean to attack you Andrew. Just trying to clear up what I see as misconceptions.

[Spence]

In the case R=0.62% or 0.00062, the number is closer to 0.01232 or 1.23%.

Sorry, typo. It's 0.0062. The calculation is correct.

No, it's NOT correct, shit. It is actually closer to 12%, as steersman said. (11.7%) Final Answer.
Adding graph to show my contrition. x = rape rate. If this isn't right then fuck it.

While you are shuffling your decimal places there :whistle: the other problem with this calculation is that it assumes independence.

Stranger rape is random almost by definition, but this ignores the fact that the vast majority of rape is committed by friends or family members; but this in turn means that rape is a consequence of circumstance, and someone who has been raped once is more likely to be raped again. (Observing this is *not* blaming the victim but noting common cause). This has been observed and measured statistically by some studies. It also has a very big impact in the numbers above.

Plus, as many have already noted, the surveys are often poorly worded and include things like consensual sex that was later regretted as rape.

[Steersman]

...
I'm willing to accept 0.164%. You've got some work to do before you can justify this 12.4% "gauntlet to run", however.

The statistics cannot be trusted. Not only do numerous women report rape and sexual assault that never happened, but how many men do you think feel comfortable reporting they were a victim of sexual assault and rape?

Certainly they all need to be taken with very large doses of salt. However, a link on A Voice for Men suggests, I think as I’m going by recollection, that the number of false-rape reports might be in the 5% to 10% range. However, the other side of the coin is the suggestion that less than 10% of all rapes are actually reported. Still suggests to me that there are far more rapes of women by men than of men by women or of men by men [the population inside the prison being substantially smaller than outside it – although one wonders]. Something that speaks to both the false-reporting and under-reporting is this:

A 2006 review of studies of false reporting in the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom concluded:

"Two conclusions can be drawn from this review of literature on the prevalence of false rape allegations. First, many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies and, so we cannot discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations. A key component in judging the reliability of research in this area relates to the criteria used to judge an allegation to be false. Some studies use entirely unreliable criteria, while others provide only limited information on how rates are measured. The second conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that the police continue to misapply the no- crime or unfounding criteria and in so doing it would appear that some officers have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimisation. The qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as ‘‘proof’’ of a false allegation. Such findings suggest that there are inadequacies in police awareness of the dynamics and impact of sexual victimisation and this further reinforces the importance of training and education. However, the exact extent to which police officers incorrectly label allegations as false is difficult to discern."

[Michael K Gray]

...the fact that the vast majority of rape is committed by friends or family members

That, in turn, ignores that fact that globally most rapes are committed by institutional inmates.
Such as:
Church run Seminaries & Priories, the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church & their 'schools', Mormon churches, Islamic villages, the military, & the Prisons, especially the Youth camps.
And I shan't shut up about this statistic-blindness on your behalf until you stop it.

[Michael K Gray]

O'feel'ya does it again!
Original:

Feminism as a spiritual cause - ugh. Ugh ugh ugh.
If it's a spiritual cause there's no need or place for it to begin with. Nobody minds if women are "spiritual" all over the place, as long as they don't go demanding unspiritual things like serious work and freedom to wander and equal rights.

Replace "spiritual" with "atheist"

Feminism as an atheist cause - ugh. Ugh ugh ugh.
If it's a atheist cause there's no need or place for it to begin with. Nobody minds if women are "Atheist" all over the place, as long as they don't go demanding unatheist things like serious work and freedom to wander and equal rights.

This comedy gold just writes it's-self.

[TedDahlberg]

Either way, to say that normal sex has been criminalized in Sweden is simply ridiculous.

Then it is quite clear that we disagree on what constitutes "normal sex". Seeing as I view sleep-sex to be normative, and if I understand the arguments correctly, under Swedish law it is liable to prosecution, with guilt or innocence based on a subjective determination on who has the most credibility.

In your case, where you had a history of sleep-sex, but in one instance your partner suddenly decided that it was rape and reported it… The court would have to take into consideration that history, and most likely would find you innocent because of it. Of course your partner could lie and say there was no such history, or that it had all been rape, but that's hardly a problem with the law itself. The problem there is lies, and your partner could just as easily accuse you of raping her while awake and you would be in the exact same position.

I think you're confusing the accusation of crimes with convictions of crime. There is no way you can stop someone from maliciously accusing you of a crime. But the accusation doesn't mean an automatic conviction. And no, the courts here are nowhere near as arbitrary as you seem to have been led to believe.

[Steersman]

I do not believe the statistics are anywhere near a depiction of reality.

Of course these "stats" are complete fictional bullshit. ....

And I suppose this table from the UN – by country, year and per capita frequency – of actual reports or accusations to police authorities of rape does not qualify as factual evidence? One can quibble until the cows – or sheep – come home about the reliability of the numbers in each of the countries and whether they are under-reported or false-reported, but it seems to me that they have to be considered as a fairly solid starting point. Unless you maybe have some others to cite that are more credible?

Fill in here what I am going to say about the outrageously criminal 100% statistical ignoring of male prison rapes & male military rapes. ...

Regardless of how deplorable that situation is or how high are the numbers of rapes involved, I fail to see how that changes in the slightest the actual numbers of rapes reported in other – and larger – segments of society.

[Steersman]

No, it's NOT correct, shit. It is actually closer to 12%, as steersman said. (11.7%) Final Answer....

While you are shuffling your decimal places there :whistle: the other problem with this calculation is that it assumes independence. ....

Plus, as many have already noted, the surveys are often poorly worded and include things like consensual sex that was later regretted as rape.

Anyone know of an iPhone App that might be used to securely record contractual agreements for sex prior to the opening of hostilities – so to speak? Maybe additional modules to record The Main Event – blow by blow – should subsequent recollections be somewhat spotty? ....

[disumbrationist]

While you are shuffling your decimal places there :whistle: the other problem with this calculation is that it assumes independence.

Yes, it assumes independence; this is as much as can be done without additional data - more of a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I wouldn't actually expect the proportion of victims to go to 1 in real life, due to a certain population of women being raped more than once while others not being at all do to individual differences in behavior, location, social group, etc.
Of course, there is a rather sinister side to the probability of rape not being independent: if one is raped, it means that one is more likely than average to be raped again. Thus the victim not only knows what the crime can do to him/her, but also that a someone who hasn't been raped doesn't know exactly what it's like and (perhaps) doesn't share the same risk - which must be rather alienating.

I must thank Steersman for (unintentionally?) showing me something I hadn't realized before:
that the function 1-(1-x)^n can be approximated by n*x if x is near zero and n << 1/x . I was wondering how he managed to get essentially the right answer using the 'wrong' math...

[Michael K Gray]

...the function 1-(1-x)^n can be approximated by n*x if x is near zero and n << 1/x...

Eh???
I'd put good money on that what you say is not true.

[Steersman]

...
I must thank Steersman for (unintentionally?) showing me something I hadn't realized before:
that the function 1-(1-x)^n can be approximated by n*x if x is near zero and n << 1/x . I was wondering how he managed to get essentially the right answer using the 'wrong' math...

As mentioned, a bit of a horse-back guess and a bit of luck ... :-) But basically, I think, sampling without replacement: population 100, first year 0.62% get raped [0.62 persons]; second year 0.62% of [100-0.62] get raped [0.616 persons]; etc., etc. Twenty years, approximately 12.4 persons raped – your 11.7 probably being the exact number – my probability and stats being a little rough around the edges.

But a real-world addition might be that some unraped women move into the demographic at the 15 year-old end while some raped/unraped women move out at the 35 year-old end. And, as you suggest, still some possibility of multiple rapes. Interesting problem of formulation even apart from the nitty-gritty social issues that motivate it ....

But time to call it a day; night all ...

[JackRayner]

....
Which, by that argument and using his numbers, means that something like 0.164% [0.246*100/150] of the population of women in the US are raped or sexually assaulted every year.

His original argument is about the range of people which rape actually affects, in response to the claim that if you're not a victim, your experience is not representative. (Meaning that victimization is the norm.)

Didn’t really see how that followed from the prestidigitation that he was doing with the numbers: the victimization rate is something quite a bit different from the numbers of people who have actually been victimized; raping one woman every year out of a population of 10 women means that in 10 years every woman has been victimized.

But that “victimization is the norm” sort of hangs on the definition of “norm”; if it means “average”, as seems typical, then the numbers don’t support that contention. But the actual numbers from the National Center for Victims of Crime [“a non-profit organization”] still doesn’t paint a particularly rosy picture:

Rates of victimization by sexual violence vary among ethnic groups. Approximately 1 in 5 Black women (22 percent) and White (18.8 percent) non-Hispanic women, and 1 in 7 Hispanic women (14.6 percent) in the United States have experienced rape at some point in their lives.

In which case one might argue that on average something like 15% of American women have been raped.

I've got several issues with your current source, and it has to do with 1] The ambiguity they display on that little stats page, and 2] Their sources...

On ambiguity: They begin by talking about sexual assault, say "Other studies on sexual assault have found:", and then call all of it rape. Every. Bullet point. Says. Rape. Where is this sexual assault they were just mentioning? Did they choose to ignore it because it's not edgy enough? Or was it all just lumped in and labeled rape for effect? They don't say. :think:

On sources: The CDC's [one of your source's main cited sources] definition of "rape" includes *attempts* at forced penetration. Ever had anyone attempt to force intercourse on you? RAPE!!1 Not "attempted rape". *Rape*!

Also, the CDC's definition for rape, which feminist organizations are pushing for the FBI to adopt, (No way, imagine that!) includes a bit on drugs. Essentially, that sex while under the influence removes a woman's ability to consent, TO INCLUDE CONSUMING THESE BY CHOICE. You could have both had as much to drink/smoke/whatever, and she could even be the one jumping on top of you!... Yet, penetrating her while she's under the influence = RAPE. I'm a goddamn rapist, but that definition. Pretty fucking sweet, huh? :clap:

*sigh*...

Listen; I know rape happens. And rape is bad. [And drugging others to have your way with them? Pretty despicable.] I'm just not going to sit here and have panic mongering ideologues with an agenda [not necessarily you, definitely your sources] blow smoke up my ass about its actual rate of occurrence... :snooty:

[Tsheo]

But then, most A+ chicks would freak at how my current partner got me into the sack the first time.

oh do tell.

He got me outrageously drunk by buying me doubles (I didn't realise they were doubles)
He drove me to his house after the bouncer said I was too drunk to remain at the pub we were at - at that point I didn't even know the name of the suburb he lived in, I'd met him at work a few weeks earlier and hadn't really needed to exchange addresses! - and I spent most of the drive passed out
He put me in his bed, I said something about not sleeping together that night (but really, I was very much DTF, I just didn't want to be seen as easy :lol: )
Five minutes later...

:lol: Sounds all very dreadfully juvenile, when I put it like that, which it was I guess. We were 24 (me) and 23 (him) at the time. Eight years and two kids later, still together and happy, and a long long way from those days...

***************************
As for rape stats, they've always seemed a vast overestimation to me. I know lots of young and not-so-young women, being female myself and having had lots of female friends and acquaintances over the years, lots of very close friendships... I know one woman who was raped (by a stalkerish ex who also tried to kill her, he is now in jail) and I also know one woman who spun a whole lot of bullshit about being gang-raped and in the end it turned out to be a big fat lie she was using to keep her white-knight boyfriend loyal and by her side.

I think rape is a despicable thing, I just think a lot of victim feminists use far too loose a definition of rape, and I think social scientists misuse statistics and come up with wildly inappropriate stats. I don't think it helps the cause of women who really have been raped AT ALL. I realise I don't know every single woman out there but I've known a lot of them, known a lot of them very closely and shared a lot of confidences, and the stats just don't seem to weigh up. Far far more of my friends and relatives should be rape victims, according to the stats. Do I just associate with extremely lucky women?? I know a couple extra who got indecently assaulted as children by uncles (separate incidents) but they weren't raped and I hardly think that's a feminist issue, given the amount of kiddy fiddling of boy victims.

[TedDahlberg]

Kind of interesting post by Ben Radford: Bearing the Burden: On Being Chosen to Suffer

[cunt]

I'm not sure why the exact statistics matter. It doesn't alter the end goal one bit, that goal is always going to be lowering the rate at which people get raped. The goal is 0%, nobody ever gets fucking raped, ever.

I've yet to see a suggestion from the ftb board that might actually reduce the rate at all. They only seem to suggest bullshit like schroedingers rapist, forgetting that actual rapists really don't care how threatened they are going to make you feel (hint: they plan on raping you). They suggest crap like crossing the street if you see a woman walking the opposite direction, forgetting that rapists wouldn't bother with this or if they did, would cross back over the street when they are closer and the woman feels safer. Again, rapists are planning on raping people.

There was a recent anti-rape poster campaign put out by a police force over here. The message was essentially, "remember to drink responsibly and don't walk home alone". The reaction from supposedly anti-rape feminists was that the police were "blaming the victim", and ludicrously enough they forced the police to issue a clarification/apology. I can't wait for their own campaign "Hey rapist! Did you know that rape is illegal? Even drunk girls".

They seem to have forgotten that their feelings on any given subject, their level of comfort in a given situation, are not actually equally as important as stopping rape. So they only suggest things that will make them feel safer, not actually be safer.

[AndrewV69]

I think you're confusing the accusation of crimes with convictions of crime. There is no way you can stop someone from maliciously accusing you of a crime. But the accusation doesn't mean an automatic conviction. And no, the courts here are nowhere near as arbitrary as you seem to have been led to believe.

At this point I find your arguments compelling enough to drop my previous conclusions. I would like to thank you and acathode for your responses.

They were very much appreciated.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm not sure why the exact statistics matter. It doesn't alter the end goal one bit, that goal is always going to be lowering the rate at which people get raped. The goal is 0%, nobody ever gets fucking raped, ever.

I've yet to see a suggestion from the ftb board that might actually reduce the rate at all. They only seem to suggest bullshit like schroedingers rapist, forgetting that actual rapists really don't care how threatened they are going to make you feel (hint: they plan on raping you). They suggest crap like crossing the street if you see a woman walking the opposite direction, forgetting that rapists wouldn't bother with this or if they did, would cross back over the street when they are closer and the woman feels safer. Again, rapists are planning on raping people.

There was a recent anti-rape poster campaign put out by a police force over here. The message was essentially, "remember to drink responsibly and don't walk home alone". The reaction from supposedly anti-rape feminists was that the police were "blaming the victim", and ludicrously enough they forced the police to issue a clarification/apology. I can't wait for their own campaign "Hey rapist! Did you know that rape is illegal? Even drunk girls".

They seem to have forgotten that their feelings on any given subject, their level of comfort in a given situation, are not actually equally as important as stopping rape. So they only suggest things that will make them feel safer, not actually be safer.

Well, there's fuck all anyone can do about someone's rape impulses/premeditation if said someone is determined to act. They've tried here for years, with psychiatric followings of convicted rapists and such, but the degree of recidive after jail/psy-ward time is still pretty conscequent. Educating potential victims about how to behave in dangerous situations is not the perfect solution, but at least it's a start. Short of chemical castration for the perpetrator, and even this sometimes fails, as rape is not solely sexual in nature, but often a matter of power over the other.

But this is NOT "blaming the victim". It's giving potential victims the tools to avoid becoming an actual victim. Which the FTB A+ bunch should be all for.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Article in French, sorry:

http://www.publications-justice.fr/accu ... e-sexuelle

[Spence]

...the function 1-(1-x)^n can be approximated by n*x if x is near zero and n << 1/x...

Eh???
I'd put good money on that what you say is not true.

I see no point in the shortcut since with computers the full calculation is easy enough to do. This is probability so 0<x<1 and n is an integer, the term (1-x)^n expands
(1-x)^2 = 1 -2x +x^2
(1-x)^3 = 1 -3x +3x^2 - x^3
etc. etc.

If x is "near zero" (remember it is bound between 0 and 1, so near zero means a small fraction) then the higher order polynomial terms become insignificant. If x=0.1, the x^2 term drops down to 0.01 so (1-2x+x^2) to one significant figure can be approximated by (1-2x). Then 1-(1-2x) is approximately equal to 2x.

The problem I find is that most people do not find stats intuitive so taking shortcuts like this abstracts from what is actually being done and generally more mistakes get made (in my experience).

[TedDahlberg]

I think you're confusing the accusation of crimes with convictions of crime. There is no way you can stop someone from maliciously accusing you of a crime. But the accusation doesn't mean an automatic conviction. And no, the courts here are nowhere near as arbitrary as you seem to have been led to believe.

At this point I find your arguments compelling enough to drop my previous conclusions. I would like to thank you and acathode for your responses.

They were very much appreciated.

Always happy to help clarify something. And just to be clear, Sweden's no utopia where every law is perfect and every court ruling correct. But I'd say it's pretty comparable to any other Western country, allowing for local variations and quirks of course. And while feminism may seem pervasive here, as with FTB it's mostly talk and little action. As the man wrote, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

[Tsheo]

I'm not sure why the exact statistics matter. It doesn't alter the end goal one bit, that goal is always going to be lowering the rate at which people get raped. The goal is 0%, nobody ever gets fucking raped, ever.

I've yet to see a suggestion from the ftb board that might actually reduce the rate at all. They only seem to suggest bullshit like schroedingers rapist, forgetting that actual rapists really don't care how threatened they are going to make you feel (hint: they plan on raping you). They suggest crap like crossing the street if you see a woman walking the opposite direction, forgetting that rapists wouldn't bother with this or if they did, would cross back over the street when they are closer and the woman feels safer. Again, rapists are planning on raping people.

There was a recent anti-rape poster campaign put out by a police force over here. The message was essentially, "remember to drink responsibly and don't walk home alone". The reaction from supposedly anti-rape feminists was that the police were "blaming the victim", and ludicrously enough they forced the police to issue a clarification/apology. I can't wait for their own campaign "Hey rapist! Did you know that rape is illegal? Even drunk girls".

They seem to have forgotten that their feelings on any given subject, their level of comfort in a given situation, are not actually equally as important as stopping rape. So they only suggest things that will make them feel safer, not actually be safer.

Well, there's fuck all anyone can do about someone's rape impulses/premeditation if said someone is determined to act. They've tried here for years, with psychiatric followings of convicted rapists and such, but the degree of recidive after jail/psy-ward time is still pretty conscequent. Educating potential victims about how to behave in dangerous situations is not the perfect solution, but at least it's a start. Short of chemical castration for the perpetrator, and even this sometimes fails, as rape is not solely sexual in nature, but often a matter of power over the other.

But this is NOT "blaming the victim". It's giving potential victims the tools to avoid becoming an actual victim. Which the FTB A+ bunch should be all for.

I don't think any crime rate will ever be reduced to 0%. Which is why I agree that learning strategies for how you can lower the chance of becoming a victim of [insert crime here] is a good thing. Why should rape be different? Why the feminist moral panic when someone suggests ways you could lower your chance of becoming a victim of rape? Do people get so upset about victim blaming when police offer suggestions for home security, or when IT experts tell us how to keep our PCs secure or avoid scams? Or more comparable, when you learn ways to avoid muggings or random physical assaults? Of course ALL crime is the fault of the criminal; doesn't mean there aren't ways to reduce your risk of coming across said criminal.

It's a lot easier to moderate your own behaviour, than it is humanity at large. I can control my own behaviour; I can't control others. I'm quite happy to take some responsibility for what happens to me. That doesn't take away from the wrong done by anyone who commits a crime against me; it doesn't mean my own actions didn't come into it at all though.

[windy]

I've yet to see a suggestion from the ftb board that might actually reduce the rate at all. They only seem to suggest bullshit like schroedingers rapist, forgetting that actual rapists really don't care how threatened they are going to make you feel (hint: they plan on raping you). They suggest crap like crossing the street if you see a woman walking the opposite direction, forgetting that rapists wouldn't bother with this or if they did, would cross back over the street when they are closer and the woman feels safer. Again, rapists are planning on raping people.

There was a recent anti-rape poster campaign put out by a police force over here. The message was essentially, "remember to drink responsibly and don't walk home alone". The reaction from supposedly anti-rape feminists was that the police were "blaming the victim", and ludicrously enough they forced the police to issue a clarification/apology. I can't wait for their own campaign "Hey rapist! Did you know that rape is illegal? Even drunk girls".

Well, the "don't rape" message could be useful in the grey areas where there was no planned rape but a miscommunication about consent. But if someone suggests that women could benefit from being a bit more proactive in such situations themselves, there is often a bait and switch back to violent coercive rape: "what, you are blaming the victim because she didn't fight back??"

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Want to reduce risks of car accidents? Don't drive drunk.
Want to reduce being ran over by a car? Look both ways before crossing.
Want to reduce dying on top of the Everest? Don't climb the Everest.

Want to reduce risks of rape? Don...VICTIM BLAMER!!!

Sums it up, I think...

Windy,

Well, the "don't rape" message could be useful in the grey areas where there was no planned rape but a miscommunication about consent. But if someone suggests that women could benefit from being a bit more proactive in such situations themselves, there is often a bait and switch back to violent coercive rape: "what, you are blaming the victim because she didn't fight back??"

talking just for myself I never make physical contact with a person (male or female) unless I read their body language as inviting. Open arms for a hug is a good hint. Flirtalicious looks and smiles are another. And if my reading was wrong and the person recoils, then that's it, sorry to have misread you, would you like me to leave now?

[BarnOwl]

The US government finally locked the XMRV=CFS propents in a lab and said "Prove it. While we are watching." (think psychics with Randis million dollar challenge)

Surprise surprise, no connection between CFS and XMRV.

Homer Simpson voice: "Wheres my parade? *shakes fist* Wheres my parade?"

Fantastic, Abbie! I think a lot of physicians have always classified CFS as a somatoform disorder - that's not to say that it's malingering, or that the symptoms aren't "real" to the patient, but rather that it's psychogenic. Of course there's a pretty significant stigma associated with psychogenic disorders in the US (and elsewhere), which explains in large part the desperation to find an organic causative agent for CFS.

Interesting thing I learned from a neurologist, about gait/balance/movement symptoms that are psychogenic rather than physical in origin: the patient may wobble and sway, but will not actually fall down. A patient with an organic lesion in basal nuclei, cerebellum, peripheral nerves, muscles etc. will, of course, fall down repeatedly ... often the reason that he or she seeks treatment.

On a related note, I think there's a certain amount of Münchausen by proxy associated with that persistent "special needs child as a gift from God" schtick, in some cases.

[cunt]

Just to clarify. I'm using the term goal in the sense of a desired outcome not as an a necessarily achievable outcome. Of course it will probably never be 0%, but that is always the goal.

Want to reduce risks of car accidents? Don't drive drunk.
Want to reduce being ran over by a car? Look both ways before crossing.
Want to reduce dying on top of the Everest? Don't climb the Everest.

Want to reduce risks of rape? Don...VICTIM BLAMER!!!

Sums it up, I think...

Sums it up well. Instead of actually making headway into reducing the rate of rape, they actually attempt to obstruct it and offer no realistic or useful alternatives.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

On a related note, I think there's a certain amount of Münchausen by proxy associated with that persistent "special needs child as a gift from God" schtick, in some cases.

Sorry to post so much, I'm in a short "normal" stage in a shitty health day.

I agree totally with that assertion. There seems to be a "want attention" quality to these people. And, in a nice loop, it seems to be the same for FTB A+.

ps: eh! My first sentence sounds just like what I'm condemning. But in my case, it's true! really true!!! (well, so true in fact that it's the second consecutive day I had to cancel and audition with a great singer for a side project. Back to vomiting now...)

[cunt]

[youtube]IcF4ZAsT2Do[/youtube]

[TedDahlberg]

I don't think any crime rate will ever be reduced to 0%. Which is why I agree that learning strategies for how you can lower the chance of becoming a victim of [insert crime here] is a good thing. Why should rape be different? Why the feminist moral panic when someone suggests ways you could lower your chance of becoming a victim of rape? Do people get so upset about victim blaming when police offer suggestions for home security, or when IT experts tell us how to keep our PCs secure or avoid scams? Or more comparable, when you learn ways to avoid muggings or random physical assaults? Of course ALL crime is the fault of the criminal; doesn't mean there aren't ways to reduce your risk of coming across said criminal.

It's a lot easier to moderate your own behaviour, than it is humanity at large. I can control my own behaviour; I can't control others. I'm quite happy to take some responsibility for what happens to me. That doesn't take away from the wrong done by anyone who commits a crime against me; it doesn't mean my own actions didn't come into it at all though.

Yesterday my boss suggested I might be interested in a course in how to deal with difficult, upset or unstable people and how to defuse threatening situations. Of course I slapped her across the face and told her just how outraged I was that she was blaming me for being accosted by unstable clients. Or possibly I had the sane response of saying that that sounded like a great idea.

Personally I try to keep to keep to Stoicism, or my own interpretation thereof. Basically it boils down to accepting that one cannot control anything in the world but one's own reactions, and so the way to avoid unhappiness is to control your own reactions to the world. To quote Wikipedia:

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature."[6] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy,"[7] and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all men alike are products of nature."[8]

I'd say this applies equally well to actions as well as emotions. Most things in the world are beyond my control. But I can modify my own actions to avoid or minimise at least some unpleasantness. Can't say I see the point of refusing to do so just because the world ought to be a nicer place. Yes, it really ought to, but it isn't.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

[youtube]IcF4ZAsT2Do[/youtube]

Fuck you! New keyboard and screen ordered!

[BarnOwl]

Sorry you're not feeling well today, Phil. Migraine again?

I'm fortunate to get only visual migraines (scintillating scotomas) - not at all painful, just mildly annoying.

IANAP, but my opinion is that FftB A+theism often resembles a factitious disorder - case in point being the "transient prosopagnosia" fabrication.

[James Onen]

windy, are you this windy? If so, kudos :D .

[cunt]

I've yet to see a suggestion from the ftb board that might actually reduce the rate at all. They only seem to suggest bullshit like schroedingers rapist, forgetting that actual rapists really don't care how threatened they are going to make you feel (hint: they plan on raping you). They suggest crap like crossing the street if you see a woman walking the opposite direction, forgetting that rapists wouldn't bother with this or if they did, would cross back over the street when they are closer and the woman feels safer. Again, rapists are planning on raping people.

There was a recent anti-rape poster campaign put out by a police force over here. The message was essentially, "remember to drink responsibly and don't walk home alone". The reaction from supposedly anti-rape feminists was that the police were "blaming the victim", and ludicrously enough they forced the police to issue a clarification/apology. I can't wait for their own campaign "Hey rapist! Did you know that rape is illegal? Even drunk girls".

Well, the "don't rape" message could be useful in the grey areas where there was no planned rape but a miscommunication about consent.

Another poster in the same campaign was directed at men who drink too much and force sex on women. With the message being that they will be arrested and convicted for doing so.

[dinnerbubble]

You don't need to take me so literally. Most of the time I'm just fucking about. I know perfectly well what a joiner is.

The opposite of a "splitter"?

No that's a "lumper".
And I'm actually a Jiner, it's just that I realised the Septics would probably assume that I was merely very gregarious, and get confused and angry.
So I used their word for what I do, although I've had a spell as a bench-hand too. Simples! We don't have carpenters per se in Scozzia. Not enough timber, historically, it all arrived ready sawn and sized from the Baltics and Canadia. Only place you'd get them was on big estates with their own woods. As my old journeyman used to spit in disgust, "Jiner ba christ! Ye couldny jine haun's!"

You don't need to take me so literally. Most of the time I'm just fucking about.

This^^. ^^THIS!!1!+263205.8^^, as you cool people have it ...

And wasn't that Jesus character actually the son of a mistranslation?
Like some sort of cleric-type job.
If he was a woodbutcher, well, talk about hoist by your own petard.

[TedDahlberg]

I'm fortunate to get only visual migraines (scintillating scotomas) - not at all painful, just mildly annoying.

I get those too. The first couple of times it happened and I had no idea what was going on it was really disturbing. Only found out that it was migraine related a few years back, thanks to some off hand comment about it on some podcast and me going "wait… that sounds awfully familiar". I count myself extremely lucky since so far it only seems to happen once very other year or so. Especially since my brother gets proper, lie-in-the-dark-for-a-day-and-hope-to-die migraines. My mother gets a little of both, so I guess we know who to blame.

[deadbubble]

And further suggesting that it might not be particularly wise to be taking the law into one’s own hands. Which makes quite a bit of sense given that even the legal system frequently gets things badly wrong ....

Where the fuck is that bitch Justicar when you need him, hey?

No, John, it's quite difficult to divine from your cock-waggling exposition that you are Always Right and Always get the Right Guy.
To me you sound like a bit of an Unstable Mabel, with an ingrained fear of the world and his uncle.
Judge Jury and Executioner? Cool. Like Breivik.

And by out of the game, I meant more or less no longer On The Game, in that (if They stop shifting the fucking goalposts,Tantalus-stylee) I can stop prostituting my decrepit carcass to Capital for a bit before I cark it. Although .. old scotch workman, from the Glasgow area, who likes a drink and a smoke?? Not lookin good, statistically :D. Better double up on the deep-fried Mars Bars and make a job of it.

[Spence]

Just to clarify. I'm using the term goal in the sense of a desired outcome not as an a necessarily achievable outcome. Of course it will probably never be 0%, but that is always the goal.

Well, we had this discussion about rape stats etc. on the threads at ERV and I said something similar (that the goal should be no rape) and a whole bunch of people got whiny about me stating the obvious. (Sadly it is necessary to state the obvious in these cases due to a high likelihood of quote-mining by any critics).

As for statistics, a good statistical model by someone competent can offer insight into likely cause and effects, as well as consequences of trying to change certain behaviours. That said, the "likelihood of a woman being raped during her life" as a statistic really offers no insight beyond trying to grab the headline. Perhaps it might count as an "awareness raiser" (as Dawkins might put it) but if you use dubious stats then it just causes more problems than it solves.

To me, a more useful and informative statistic is the probability of being raped by a stranger vs. being raped by someone known to the victim (friends, or family). The latter is far more likely than the former. If you want to do something to bring the rape stats down, you focus on the bulk of the cases.

It reminds me of a thread on pharyngula where one of the more extreme fems was complaining about the US rape culture, explaining that because of this culture if she did not want to be raped, she could not go out without a chaperone, and had to be back at home by 6pm. Not realising that most rapes are committed by someone you know (the chaperone is more likely to rape you than a stranger) and at home, in your own bed, at night - exactly where the misguided person thought she would be safest.

The other interesting point I made is that if you want to lean heavily on rape statistics, Rebecca Watson probably had more to fear from PZ than she did from Elevator Guy that night. Because elevator guy was a stranger. (In practice, she had little to fear from either of them, but a naive assessment of probabilities would put someone RW knows more in the frame than someone she didn't)

Oh yeah, and Chris Morris rocks. I'm sure the baboons would be outraged by jokes about rape. Although that stuff is mild compared to his blue jam series.

[franc]

http://www.atheismplus.net/

[John D]

And further suggesting that it might not be particularly wise to be taking the law into one’s own hands. Which makes quite a bit of sense given that even the legal system frequently gets things badly wrong ....

Where the fuck is that bitch Justicar when you need him, hey?

No, John, it's quite difficult to divine from your cock-waggling exposition that you are Always Right and Always get the Right Guy.
To me you sound like a bit of an Unstable Mabel, with an ingrained fear of the world and his uncle.
Judge Jury and Executioner? Cool. Like Breivik.

And by out of the game, I meant more or less no longer On The Game, in that (if They stop shifting the fucking goalposts,Tantalus-stylee) I can stop prostituting my decrepit carcass to Capital for a bit before I cark it. Although .. old scotch workman, from the Glasgow area, who likes a drink and a smoke?? Not lookin good, statistically :D. Better double up on the deep-fried Mars Bars and make a job of it.

Ok. So I will clarify and I will be crystal clear.

1) I will not punch someone for cursing at my daughters. They are generally well equipped in the cursing arena and they have never needed my help with this(other than my ready supply of examples of language they can use). I will never hit someone in public... I am far to calculating for this. I seldom do something so foolish.

2) I am happy to holler at anyone who I think deserves a dose of reality and I don't put up with too much crap in the way of unacceptable behavior. I can do this without cursing (and this is a very useful skill when it come to getting teenaged boys to behave and stop trashing the school etc.). If I witnessed someone trash talking my kid I would let them have it... and they would be scared when I was done (although I would not threaten them).

3) I will not let me girls be excessively bullied or psychically threatened in a real way. Most people can tell the difference. If a man were to get pissed at them and curse at them I would probably not need to intervene. But... if I was convinced a person was a real threat I would carefully, meticulously, and deliberately plan a response. This could involve the police, but perhaps not. It would depend on the circumstances. I am a practical person and I realize the police have limits on how well they can protect me and mine. These limits would be part of my plan. It might be entirely possible to scare the psycho away and I could live with that. But... I would not necessarily count on simple scare tactics.

Is this clear enough> sheeeesh!

[Philip of Tealand]

And further suggesting that it might not be particularly wise to be taking the law into one’s own hands. Which makes quite a bit of sense given that even the legal system frequently gets things badly wrong ....

Where the fuck is that bitch Justicar when you need him, hey?

No, John, it's quite difficult to divine from your cock-waggling exposition that you are Always Right and Always get the Right Guy.
To me you sound like a bit of an Unstable Mabel, with an ingrained fear of the world and his uncle.
Judge Jury and Executioner? Cool. Like Breivik.

And by out of the game, I meant more or less no longer On The Game, in that (if They stop shifting the fucking goalposts,Tantalus-stylee) I can stop prostituting my decrepit carcass to Capital for a bit before I cark it. Although .. old scotch workman, from the Glasgow area, who likes a drink and a smoke?? Not lookin good, statistically :D. Better double up on the deep-fried Mars Bars and make a job of it.

Ok. So I will clarify and I will be crystal clear.

1) I will not punch someone for cursing at my daughters. They are generally well equipped in the cursing arena and they have never needed my help with this(other than my ready supply of examples of language they can use). I will never hit someone in public... I am far to calculating for this. I seldom do something so foolish.

2) I am happy to holler at anyone who I think deserves a dose of reality and I don't put up with too much crap in the way of unacceptable behavior. I can do this without cursing (and this is a very useful skill when it come to getting teenaged boys to behave and stop trashing the school etc.). If I witnessed someone trash talking my kid I would let them have it... and they would be scared when I was done (although I would not threaten them).

3) I will not let me girls be excessively bullied or psychically threatened in a real way. Most people can tell the difference. If a man were to get pissed at them and curse at them I would probably not need to intervene. But... if I was convinced a person was a real threat I would carefully, meticulously, and deliberately plan a response. This could involve the police, but perhaps not. It would depend on the circumstances. I am a practical person and I realize the police have limits on how well they can protect me and mine. These limits would be part of my plan. It might be entirely possible to scare the psycho away and I could live with that. But... I would not necessarily count on simple scare tactics.

Is this clear enough> sheeeesh!

John, you are obviously a good parent and a caring MISOGYNIST....dammit, I mean, father! :D

[Dick Strawkins]

I guess we know who to blame.

I blame the patriarchy!

[franc]

Is this someone here? Most of the graphics are from here. Which is great - I at least encourage the theft.

[youtube]BXaaM9a4Iqk[/youtube]