1 in 5 women get raped?

Thats so stupid. Are you seriously claiming this the common scenario? How drunk are you right now.

Bob, many of them ARE stupid, or pretending to be stupid. Indicates a guilty conscience. Both of us know why.

http://www.alcoholpolicymd.com/alcohol_and_health/faqs.htm

If I had to pick between you and Oliver for who understands this reality the best I would not pick you.

There are fewer men who are rapists then there are women who are whores .

Is anyone interested in talking about the science behind this study (in a reasoned unbiased way)? Can I ask for critical thinking from anyone on this thread?

One problem I see right off the bat is that they don't list the dropout rate... how many of the people who started the study responded in the later study.

A large drop out rate is a serious problem that would impact the validity of the study. It leads to a selection bias (people who are reporting rape are much more to respond then people who have nothing to report) which makes the percentage reported much higher than the actual number.

I didn't see any indication they reported the dropout rate... and they don't provide raw data, only percentages (or did I miss something).

This is a poorly written paper at best (and at worst is bad science).

When a political ideology mixes with social science... it is rarely the political ideology that loses.

What study are you speaking of?

I noted in the rape thread about 4 years ago that a lot of "studies" on sexual transgression tend to be bandied about in press releases, characterized by people who are clearly pushing a political agenda, but that the actual body of information is not available. I got told by Firefly that I should just trust the authors.

Another classic tactic is the authoritative "we know blah, blah, blah" without ever saying how they know, and taking offense if they are asked. Usually years later it turns out that they made it all up. The food Nazis trying to get us to eat what they want us to eat do the same thing. Over and over and over and..

We will wise up one day.

What is the "common scenario of drunk sex", stupid?

Have you have had sex when you were drunk Olivier? I bet you have.

Of course, but Stupid Bob seems to have something more sinister in mind for "drunk sex" than my Saturday night routines.

Sorry, that question should have been addressed to bobsal...

What about it Bobsal, have you ever had sex when you were drunk?

So complicated.... Any university going back to gender segregation yet? :-)

One of the more truly offensive things posted here in a long time. Shame on you.

You have a guilty conscience. Rape is rape whether alcohol is involved or not.

Thats a stupid question. The issue here is whether rape is rape if the victim is drunk and the answer is rape is rape whether alcohol is involved or not.

The NRA Rides To The Rescue Of Men Who Beat Up Their Dates In Louisiana

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/19/3660370/nra-rides-rescue-men-beat-dates-louisiana/

If a man in New Orleans drives over to his girlfriend’s home and beats her senseless, the National Rifle Association has his back.

Under existing Louisiana law, a person convicted of using “force or violence” against another member of their “household” loses their right to possess a firearm. If someone abuses a romantic partner that they do not live with, however, they are still allowed to carry a gun.

State Rep. Helena Moreno (D) hoped to close this loophole with legislation that expanded the state’s definition of domestic abuse battery to include violence against a “household member, family member or dating partner.” Thus, a man who beats his girlfriend would not be able to remain armed simply because the two of them live apart. The bill, however, was watered down considerably — among other things, it no longer includes violence against a “dating partner” in the definition of domestic abuse battery — thanks to objections from the NRA.

The watered down bill also includes several other changes that were made after the NRA objected to the original bill. It no longer expands the state’s definition of “serious bodily injury” to include strangulation. It no longer creates a felony-level crime of stalking. And it no longer provides that a person convicted of stalking cannot possess a firearm.



The NRA blocked expanding the law to "dating partners" because, and the spokesperson really said this, "it could apply after only one date." So it's OK to beat someone on the first date? Really? That's all ya got?

The NRA also objected to categorizing strangulation as an act of violence. So go ahead, choke her into unconsciousness but don't hit her unless it's on the first date, then have at it.

Are you going to be fair and demand that all contracts consented to while under the influence are invalid and an act of crime by the male? If not why not?

The feminists have effectively outlawed male-only schools in the US.

Female-only schools remain acceptable to them however.

Of course you dont understand the point . Why would you ?

Males behave badly by bashing, bullying and bluffing . Females behave badly by lying, cheating and stealing . It is the result of being bigger or smaller . Males who are smaller can use the female behaviour and similarly bigger females can use male behaviour .

In sex, males throw around sperm and hope some of it takes . It is not their problem . Females pick the alpha male as the most cost efficient to breed with . Males taking their policy to extreme will rape . Females taking their policy to extreme will whore around .

There are more females behaving badly then males .

Another stupid question. Drugging people into submission for sex is rape regardless how you couch it.

What About the Girls? The Duggar Scandal and the Cost of Fundamentalism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/irreverin/2015/05/what-about-the-girls-the-duggar-scandal-and-the-cost-of-fundamenta
lism/
-------------
(Snip)

This is what comes of fundamentalism. And this is not about me railing against conservative brands of faith. Conservatism in belief does not always amount to abusive behavior. But when conservative beliefs (the Duggars are part of the Quiverfull movement) manifest in harmful, toxic systems that allow for–and even condone–systemic abuse, then you have fundamentalism. And it comes at a price. Most often, the price is human dignity. And most often, that price is paid by women.

Fundamentalism is how Jim Jones got a tragically large group of people to “drink the Kool-aid.” (I know that is a really derogatory thing to say now, but this is, most literally, where the saying originated). Fundamentalism is how Waco happened. Fundamentalism is how ISIS continues to grow at an alarming rate.
MORE..
-------------------------
And here is a link to an unbelievable story posted this morning by DUer spinbaby.
OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026715306

--------------------
Spinbaby's post & link. Must Read

. I've posted this tidbit before

This is a good read otherwise, but there's a part that states that the Duggar girls curl their hair because Gothard has a thing for it. Really creepy.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/08/an-open-letter-to-duggar-defenders.html