\ Fight the misandry - /g/pasta 2.4
From Sinc, 5 Years ago, written in Plain Text.
  1. This post concerns the claim that "nearly 1 in 5" women and "1 in 71" men have been raped. That claim is a lie and I will show why here (tl;dr please read the brief "Conclusion" section at the bottom).
  3. BACKGROUND: This claim comes from the 2010 CDC report on the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). The NISVS was a nation-wide telephone survey (201,881 telephone numbers were sampled; 16,507 phone interviews were completed).
  5. Here are three methodological problems I found in the survey/report:
  9. The first problem concerns what happens when a man who is taking the survey actually states, explicitly, that a woman physically forced him to have sex. When a man did report, explicitly, that a woman physically made him have sex with her, it STILL was not labeled as rape! On page 22, Table 2.5, we see that, when a woman physically forces a man to have sex with her, it is categorized, not under the category of "Rape", but under the category of "Other Sexual Violence", subcategory "Made to Penetrate". To make things extra, special clear, on page 84 it states, "Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males." Huh? Why? Why exclude males being forced to have sex by females, while including females forced to have sex by males?
  11. Is it possible that something untoward is going on? Is it possible that feminists simply didn´t want to acknowledge male rape victims? Is it possible that feminists, gasp, would actually put their political and ideological agendas ahead of honest research? Surely not, right?
  15. The second problem concerned a question/instruction combination related to the use of alcohol or drugs prior to engaging in sexual activity. In Appendix C, on page 106, it says:
  17.     "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}
  19. Both the question and the instruction following it are highly problematic. I´ll discuss the question first. Notice the deliberate vague wording (only made worse by telephone)...."When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent...". Notice how they put the word "or" at the end of a series, then put the word "and" just after. That wasn´t by accident. By this sly use of conjunctions, the feminists found a way to bypass the spirit of what the survey respondents were trying to say, while still leaving themselves a sliver of deniability about what they (the feminists) were doing, in terms of interpretation.
  21. They wanted as many survey takers as possible to interpret "drunk, high, drugged" as distinct, separated by "or", from "passed out and unable to consent". In this way, as many women as possible would respond affirmatively. Meanwhile, in their interpretation of answers, the feminist researchers treated the question as one big category, treating all affirmative responses as rapes.
  23. In other words, because the ambiguous way the feminists worded the question, many people surveyed would interpret the question like this:
  25.     When you were [drunk], [high], [drugged], or [passed out and unable to consent]...
  27. But, the feminist researchers, for the purpose of maximizing the number of rapes they can report, chose to interpret the question like this:
  29.     When you were [drunk and unable to consent], [high and unable to consent], [drugged and unable to consent], or [passed out and unable to consent]....
  31. Not convinced? Let me use a more everyday, mundane question. Imagine a survey that asks people the following:
  33.     How many shirts do you have that are white, green, purple or blue and yellow?
  35. It´s obvious that most people would interpret the question like this:
  37.     How many shirts do you have that are [white], [green], [purple], or [blue and yellow]?
  39. But, technically, through their sly use of conjunctions, the people giving the survey can say what the question really meant was this:
  41.     How many shirts do you have that are [white and yellow], [green and yellow], [purple and yellow], or [blue and yellow]?
  43. The technicality is the point. In the case of the NISVS, it enabled the feminist researchers to attach the condition "unable to consent" to the words "drunk" and "high", even though many people taking the survey would not, themselves, interpret the question to mean that .
  45. So, a woman taking the survey reads the question and thinks to herself, "Well, I´ve had sex when I was "drunk" or "high" before, so I´ll mark this question with an affirmative response (In this instance, an affirmative response is represented by a number..."1", "2", etc.., a negative response would be a "0".) At that point, it´s over. The feminist researchers got what they were looking for, the affirmative response. If she answered "1" the response is counted as one rape, a "2" is counted as two rapes, etc...
  47. So, even though she, herself, the woman taking the survey, never meant to say she was raped, the feminist researchers decide for her and label her as a rape victim. The feminist researchers, by deliberately confusing her with semantic malfeasance, got the affirmative reply they wanted. But, there is one final catch the feminists faced, which brings us to discussion of the instruction that follows the question.
  49. Although the vague question gave the feminist researchers the grossly inflated number of affirmative answers from females that they wanted, what to do about males? Since both females and males were taking the survey, large number of males would also, all things being equal, answer affirmatively. That would put them in the category of "rape victims". The feminists couldn´t tolerate large droves of males showing up as rape victims so they "fixed" that. How did they fix that? Well, not delicately. They simply introduced a blatant double standard by adding a gender-based instruction after the question.
  51. The brief instruction given after the question says, "By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}". Notice the two words I bolded, "made you", they give the agenda away. In order to keep the men, and only the men, from answering affirmatively, they, by use of the instruction, effectively turned one question into two different questions--one for men and one for women. The question for men was designed to elicit as few affirmative answers as possible; the question for women was designed to elicit as many affirmative answers as possible.
  53. To reiterate, the feminist researchers, very underhandedly, added the words "made you" for the males, but not the females. So, for the females, they could answer affirmatively simply if any normal sex occurred at all ("a man or boy put his penis in your vagina"). For males, the feminist researchers specifically clarified that no affirmative response was to be given unless the sex was forced ("a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina"). Get it? To summarize, one final time, what I am saying about this question and the attached instruction:
  55.     They wanted people that have ever had voluntary sex while drunk or high to think they should answer the question affirmatively. Then, to stop the men from actually answering affirmatively, they attached an instruction to the question which, effectively, made it two different questions--one for males and one for females. Per the instruction, for males, the only way they could answer affirmatively is if they believed they had been victims of involuntary, forced sex. But, for females, they could answer affirmatively for EITHER voluntary sex or involuntary, forced sex. The feminist researchers deliberately fabricated female rape victims by use of a vague, ambiguous question, followed by an instruction that sets a double standard.
  59. The final problem I noticed is the manner in which rape and digital (finger) insertion and object insertion are discussed. On page 17, it states that:
  61.     Rape of a woman includes, "completed or attempted unwanted ...vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object."
  63.     Rape of a man includes, "completed or attempted unwanted...anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
  65. These definitions are very skewed and, as with the rest of the report, make for maximization of the appearance of female victimhood and minimization of the appearance of male victimhood. Let me describe how.
  67. Warning!! Graphic speech ahead (Sorry, but have to be specific to make my points).
  69. First, let´s make clear what these definitions are discussing. They are discussing aspects of heavy petting like "fingering", whether it leads to sex or not (oral sex is discussed elsewhere in the report). How can they possibly choose to include the male-to-female (among heterosexuals, anyway) fingering in a rape discussion and exclude the female-to-male counterpart to fingering--fondling of the penis. The feminist researchers did, at least, use a gender-neutral approach to "anal penetration". But, let´s face it, anal penetration in a heavy petting situation is far more rare than fondling of the genitals, of which both fingering and fondling of the penis are included. For example (again sorry for the graphic nature), when a heterosexual teenage girl wants to reciprocate being "fingered", she usually doesn´t stick her finger in her partner´s anus. Instead, she usually reaches down the front of his pants and fondles his penis. These are normal, common behaviors among both teens and adults. They are part of sexual exploration and mutual pleasuring. So, given that this is a fairly typical heavy-petting scenario, why didn´t the feminist researchers include both behaviors in this category? They didn´t include both behaviors because they didn´t want male rape victims.
  71. Note: For anyone objecting on the grounds that stroking the external female genitalia is actually the real counterpart of stroking the penis, I say you´re being silly. First of all, the penis and vagina are the specific body parts actually involved in the basic heterosexual sex act. Second, digital touching of all the genital parts--penis, scrotum, vagina, external female genitalia--are all normal heavy petting techniques.
  73. The next thing wrong with these definitions is labeling as rape ANY unwanted fingering. Fingering is very commonly something explored (awkwardly) in the early stages of a partnership, especially among teens. They are learning each other´s bodies and each other´s boundaries. By technical definition, any time one young lover is using a finger, in an effort to please the other, and is told, "Stop.", something unwanted has occurred, even if for a very brief moment (otherwise the receiver wouldn´t have had to say "Stop"). According to this feminist report, any and all instances of that unwanted fingering, no matter how brief or minor, are rapes. That is madness! Normal, reasonable people don´t think like that. Normal women and men, instead, are able to use their brains and make distinctions. For example, upon reflection, I can say that, in my life, I´ve received unwanted genital contact by hand in several instances.
  75. I can recall that, over the years, at least four people have fondled my penis when it was unwanted. One person I was not in a relationship with, and three people I was in a relationship with. In the case of the three people I was in a relationship with, it happened more than once with each person. Was I raped each time? Of course not!
  77. In all instances, I said, "Stop." Most of the time it stopped almost immediately. In some instances, I had to repeat myself and even pull my body away. In yet other instances, I changed my mind and decided I actually did want the attention after all. The important point, though, is that in no instances did a rape occur, nor even an assault. In fact, none of the instances were that big a deal at all. Uncomfortable? Yes. Unwanted? Yes. But, that´s it. It´s called life and, sometimes, life is awkward!
  79. I can imagine someone saying at this point, "But, that´s just what happened to you, what about...". Of course there´s always "what abouts". That´s where reasonable people make distinctions.
  81. Could some type of sexual assault occurred if these situations had gone differently? Certainly. If any of these people had physically pinned me or simply would not relent after I said "Stop" and pulled away, then, at that point, use of words like assault would be appropriate. But, they didn´t, and to suggest that any of these good people are sexual predators or rapists would be both inaccurate and despicable, as well as slander of the highest order.
  85. So, to summarize what we´ve found is that, according to the the 2010 CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):
  87.     A man, physically forced by a woman to have sex, has not been raped (it is categorized under other sexual violence).
  88.     A woman who, while drunk or high, chose to have voluntary sex, has been raped.
  89.     A man who, while drunk or high, chose to have voluntary sex, has not been raped.
  90.     When a man and woman, both either drunk or high, chose to have voluntary sex, only the woman has been raped.
  91.     A woman who has ever received any, completed or attempted, unwanted fingering, for any length of time, has been raped.
  92.     A man who has received unwanted stroking of his penis, no matter for how long or even if he was pinned down while it happened, has not been raped.
  94. P.S. Due to space constraints, I didn´t even cover other major problems with the NISVS survey/report. For instance, a HUGE issue is that the report counted "attempts to finger" and "attempts to have sex" as rape (not attempted rape). Compounding that, the way they defined "attempts" is problematic in itself (and, as expected, designed to inflate the number of female victims and hide male victims).