Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum
Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
Overall, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex and had not consented. Most of these occasions (65%) resulted in successfully forcing the woman into sex.
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
The most common strategy was telling a woman whatever she wanted to hear and this was used by the majority (78.1%) of the 2,557 men reporting any history of forced sex.
The following strategies were reported by order of frequency: asked her repeatedly to have sex (48.6%); had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want (46.6%), had a female friend make the woman feel safe and convince her (43.8%), told her you knew she wanted it (39.3%), focused on a stranger to have sex with (37.9%), had a female friend bring her to you (37.6%), and got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control (37.5%).
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
Studies like this are done by scientists who purposefully know there misleading dumb retards in order to gain attention, fame and add onto the gender war since it gets attention. This was purposefully done to make men seem more dangerous than they are by sociopathic doctors
Studies like this are done by scientists who purposefully know there misleading dumb retards in order to gain attention, fame and add onto the gender war since it gets attention. This was purposefully done to make men seem more dangerous than they are by sociopathic doctors
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
I mean all of these laws will be used against normies.
I don't give a shit about how much normies suffer.
They hate us so why we should care about them?
Let all normies suffer from dead bedrooms and marrital rape laws
Man, I don't even want to be around people. There is nothing a woman can go e me, including her box. That's how fucking done I am. Everything is rape nowadays, even a dude whose 30 dating a 23 year old is rape. It's all crazy.
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
They believe similar "studies" which ask women online with full anonymity if they were raped, Turns out that a significant amount of women are more willing to lie about rape if they are no subject to legal consequences.
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggr...
journals.sagepub.com
What exactly do they mean by forcing woman into sex?
None of these are rape (forced sex), These people are actual rat scumbag subhuman pieces of filth trying to force a false narrative through guise of scientific method, These people should NEVER be allowed to publish a single study in ANY scientific Journal EVER again.
Lucia O'Sullivan and Scott T Ronis you are both fraudulent scum.
Studies like this are done by scientists who purposefully know there misleading dumb retards in order to gain attention, fame and add onto the gender war since it gets attention. This was purposefully done to make men seem more dangerous than they are by sociopathic doctors
To be completely fair to them, they aren't the ones who created this approach. Saying things you don't mean, persistently asking for sex, and so on, have been included as types of verbal sexual coercion for decades at this point I believe.
They are dishonestly framing the issues though, but it's by focusing solely on men's behaviour, minimizing women's own perpetration of sexual coercion in every way they can including almost exclusively citing studies that don't look at female perpetration, and insufficiently communicating what their results actually mean and being misleading about what they actually talk about.
To go over these in no particular order, we all know that most people already have an exact, archetypal idea of what rape is.
This almost never happens IRL. We know that. As this study itself proved once again, physically forced rape is rather rare as far as different tactics go, and stranger rape is likewise the rarest type out of the various victim-offender relationships.
So this is something I've found a few days ago, and with this news now coming out of the UK https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjxv1j9g8o I think it's only fitting that this, which also came from the UK, get reposted along with it:feelsjuice...
incels.is
The reason they only focus on men is because, speaking as someone who has posted numerous threads here on studies which have used the same instruments to measure sexual coercion perpetration by both men and women, I'm pretty sure that any "only men bad" narrative would fall apart if they also shined a light at women's behaviour. Every single time that is done, both men and women endorse those types of behaviours at levels close enough that, even if men are a clear majority of perpetrators, the amount of female perpetration and male victimization is so large that it breaks people's worldview on this.
Tldr, every time that happens, something like this:
Title:feelsjuice:. Remember the two studies on rape tactics I've talked about a few times here, which show that the most common sexual coercion/rape tactics are seduction and emotional manipulation, and that it is those tactics that men are much more likely to use than women, while both genders...
incels.is
Is the result, which is completely unacceptable to feminists.
So, in this study, as in many others, they sidestepped this by only focusing on men, and justifying that by claiming that men are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators, while (almost) only citing studies focusing on male perpetration and female victimization. In the entire background to the study, their justifications for doing so and claims about male perpetration and female victimization rates are the only important things to look at. Everything else is irrelevant slop written already from the perspective of men being evil and focusing solely on men. Going one by one through all of the studies they pull out to justify this has been quite an experience.
Starting with the main one, Muehlenhard 2017 is an overview of female victimization in multiple studies. I'm not sure where they are pulling the figure of female victimization being five times as common as male one from. Some of the surveys and studies Muehlenhard and others looked at here did include both male and female rates of both victimization and perpetration, but as I've mentioned, the study itself is only concerned with female victimization.
Searching the word "male" in there, there is not a single instance of "male victimization" in the entire paper, though there is "male responsibility" when it comes to perpetration. That said, there is a reference to at least one paper looking at both male and female experiences with sexual victimization, but one look at it makes it pretty clear that this is not what they were referencing.
Muehlenhard cites four wide-scale surveys on sexual assault on college campus there however, and those are probably what they O'Sullivan and Ronis are referencing, with them doing the citation incorrectly and citing Muehlenhard instead of those surveys themselves, because they are incompetent.
I checked out two of those. The largest one, AAU's Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct (which had 150,072 students participating) had a female victimization rate that was about four times higher than the male one for physically forced sex and sex forced through inability to resist (because of alcohol and such). Close, but less than what O'Sullivan and Ronis claimed here, and that was despite defining the acts they were asking about in a questionably gender-neutral way that probably understated made-to-penetrate incidents with male victims and female perpetrators.
Interestingly, there were such intra-gender differences between the various types of students that male undergraduates had pretty similar rates to female professional students. Also, the gender gap in stalking here seems to be about 3:1, and the one even smaller ratio for IPV isn't much to write home about either.
(Putting in the link since this one is a bit harder to find)
Crucially, in addition to asking about them in a way skewed towards female victimization and male perpetration, this survey only included victimization rates, and not self-reported perpetration rates. We do get penetration rates in another of those surveys I've checked, specifically, the Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (23,000+ students participating). It's very much not what the study because of which I've looked at this survey in the first place is claiming.
In this one, we actually do find a five to one rape victimization ratio, though it's one covered by a three to one ratio for sexual assault in general and about a two to one IPV victimization ratio.
This could be what they were actually citing, but in that case, it's undercut by the equal self-reported perpetration, feels taken out of context due to the smaller ratio for wider sexual assault victimization, and of course, is very badly cited since I've only now found it despite starting to write this post yesterday.
Also, note that all the numbers talked about in both of these surveys are about physically forced sex and sex forced through someone being too drunk or drugged to resist. What people would call actual rape. Yet, they, if they really are what that citation is meant to reference, are being used to justify focusing solely on men in a study that looks at sexual coercion in general, including verbal one that wouldn't be compared to rape by any normal person.
Yeah.
Moving onto the other studies in that screenshot, Rotenberg 2017 is a study of police-recorded rapes, which are a drop in the bucket, heavily-biased against male victims and towards low-status perpetrators, and are widely agreed to tell us basically nothing about the actual amount of sexual assault in a society. Anderson 2019 is a male perpetration-only study, so that tells us nothing about how common male perpetrators are compared to female ones. Lund & Ross 2017 is a bullying study which doesn't use the word "rape" once, and the word "sexual" not once in a different context than when talking about sexual orientation. I have no idea why it's here.
Smeaton et al., 2018 actually made me laugh hard. You see how I linked my thread on Struckmann-Johnson's study on the "millenial shift"? I had no idea, but this sems to be an earlier version of that one, co-authored by Struckmann-Johnson. Turns out I was wrong, they very much had the guts to put in a study showing similar perpetration of sexual coercion in their study where they looked only at male behaviour because they claimed that men are most perpetrators.
Which I don't disagree with, but their attempts to prove it are rather pitiful since they only include stuff like this and other papers looking only at male perpetration in the first place.
Of the ones in that screenshot I haven't highlighted, but merit mentioning, Koss is a male perpetrator/female victim-only study, Cao is a female victim-only study, and Ybarra is basically the same as Smeaton; a both genders study finding just what you'd expect.
So much for victimization. Now, they openly state that their rationale is that men are "far" more likely to be perpetrators of sexual aggression...
Aaand, what they cite to claim that is Koss 2022, which as I've already mentioned, is a male offender/female victim-only study.
What a citation considering that they actually have a decent amount of studies comparing male and female perpetration rates. If only those showed what they wanted them to show...
It's... It's genuinely magnificent? I don't even know how to call this. They completely, completely failed to make their case that an overwhelming amount of perpetrators are men and that that's why we need to focus on them. To sum this all up, they kinda do justify their claim of female victimization being five times higher than the male one, but in a way that leaves you digging through the study they cited for that like an archeologist, searching for what exactly they meant, see other papers and surveys showing smaller differences, and the one survey you find that they probably meant shows equal self-admitted perpetration and has smaller ratios for all other types of sexual victimization as well as for the IPV one.
Nothing like that for perpetration though. They state that men are far more likely to be perpetrators, and then back it by citing a study that fails at proving it due to only looking at male perpetration. Meanwhile, both the paragraph where they make their claim about the difference in victimization and its neighbouring paragraphs have citations which include self-declared perpetration, but they aren't using those where they should, because they don't show what they want them to be showing. I don't even disagree with that (though men definitely aren't "far" more likely to be perpetrators), but their seeming inability to cite anything that proves it is hilarious.
I honestly wonder whether they just had ChatGPT generate sources for them after they wrote something, and this is what they got back. Almost every single source is either something that only looks at male perpetration and female victimization (so meaningless already) or something that looks at both male and female perpetration and victimization and finds similar, or at least comparable rates of it, which they then have to ignore. Not a single study they cite in that section to justify focusing on men, actually justifies that. And what the Lund & Ross one is doing there, I'll never understand. How do you even fuck up this bad?
Btw, the way they got the men to talk about this was that they presented it as a chance for them to freely talk about gender relations and have a chance to give their side of the story given how much we've already heard from women. Doing something like that with a study that's meant to portray men solely as rapists in accordance to the socially acknowledged male perpetrator-female victim paradigm, without even the token acknowledgment that they too may be victims and women too might be perpetrators, is just vile. Like, actually evil.
I checked out two of those. The largest one, AAU's Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct (which had 150,072 students participating) had a female victimization rate that was about four times higher than the male one for physically forced sex and sex forced through inability to resist (because of alcohol and such). Close, but less than what O'Sullivan and Ronis claimed here, and that was despite defining the acts they were asking about in a questionably gender-neutral way that probably understated made-to-penetrate incidents with male victims and female perpetrators.
Interestingly, there were such intra-gender differences between the various types of students that male undergraduates had pretty similar rates to female professional students. Also, the gender gap in stalking here seems to be about 3:1, and the one even smaller ratio for IPV isn't much to write home about either.
Also, note that, despite the survey's questions clearly being geared towards a male offender/female victim dynamic, and only asking about being raped via physical force and inebriation, which are "hard" sexual coercion tactics commonly believed to be dominated by men, over 66% of male victims still mentioned female perpetrators. With a 4:1 gender ratio for victimization, that means that there can't be more than a 7:1, and even that might be a bit too hard, ratio of women victimized by men to men victimized by women; meaning that this huge (the original was apparently the biggest such survey ever done in the US) survey of sexual assault in colleges of what is still commonly believed to be the world's strongest and wealthiest country, despite being done in a fashion that likely minimizes male victimization by women, still found male perpetrators to not account for even 90% of heterosexual sexual assaults, and likely be around 85% or so.
And surprisingly, apart from the notable amount of perpetrators of their own gender for male victims, once the different victimization rates are ignored and we look just at the percentages showing the characteristics of those assaults, they are surprisingly similar for both. Similar percentage breakdowns on number of perpetrators, types of perpetrators don't seem wildly different apart from maybe two or three categories, and so on.
To be completely fair to them, they aren't the ones who created this approach. Saying things you don't mean, persistently asking for sex, and so on, have been included as types of verbal sexual coercion for decades at this point I believe.
They are dishonestly framing the issues though, but it's by focusing solely on men's behaviour, minimizing women's own perpetration of sexual coercion in every way they can including almost exclusively citing studies that don't look at female perpetration, and insufficiently communicating what their results actually mean and being misleading about what they actually talk about.
To go over these in no particular order, we all know that most people already have an exact, archetypal idea of what rape is.
This almost never happens IRL. We know that. As this study itself proved once again, physically forced rape is rather rare as far as different tactics go, and stranger rape is likewise the rarest type out of the various victim-offender relationships.
So this is something I've found a few days ago, and with this news now coming out of the UK https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjxv1j9g8o I think it's only fitting that this, which also came from the UK, get reposted along with it:feelsjuice...
incels.is
The reason they only focus on men is because, speaking as someone who has posted numerous threads here on studies which have used the same instruments to measure sexual coercion perpetration by both men and women, I'm pretty sure that any "only men bad" narrative would fall apart if they also shined a light at women's behaviour. Every single time that is done, both men and women endorse those types of behaviours at levels close enough that, even if men are a clear majority of perpetrators, the amount of female perpetration and male victimization is so large that it breaks people's worldview on this.
Tldr, every time that happens, something like this:
Title:feelsjuice:. Remember the two studies on rape tactics I've talked about a few times here, which show that the most common sexual coercion/rape tactics are seduction and emotional manipulation, and that it is those tactics that men are much more likely to use than women, while both genders...
incels.is
Is the result, which is completely unacceptable to feminists.
So, in this study, as in many others, they sidestepped this by only focusing on men, and justifying that by claiming that men are the overwhelming majority of perpetrators, while (almost) only citing studies focusing on male perpetration and female victimization. In the entire background to the study, their justifications for doing so and claims about male perpetration and female victimization rates are the only important things to look at. Everything else is irrelevant slop written already from the perspective of men being evil and focusing solely on men. Going one by one through all of the studies they pull out to justify this has been quite an experience.
Starting with the main one, Muehlenhard 2017 is an overview of female victimization in multiple studies. I'm not sure where they are pulling the figure of female victimization being five times as common as male one from. Some of the surveys and studies Muehlenhard and others looked at here did include both male and female rates of both victimization and perpetration, but as I've mentioned, the study itself is only concerned with female victimization.
Searching the word "male" in there, there is not a single instance of "male victimization" in the entire paper, though there is "male responsibility" when it comes to perpetration. That said, there is a reference to at least one paper looking at both male and female experiences with sexual victimization, but one look at it makes it pretty clear that this is not what they were referencing.
Muehlenhard cites four wide-scale surveys on sexual assault on college campus there however, and those are probably what they O'Sullivan and Ronis are referencing, with them doing the citation incorrectly and citing Muehlenhard instead of those surveys themselves, because they are incompetent.
I checked out two of those. The largest one, AAU's Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct (which had 150,072 students participating) had a female victimization rate that was about four times higher than the male one for physically forced sex and sex forced through inability to resist (because of alcohol and such). Close, but less than what O'Sullivan and Ronis claimed here, and that was despite defining the acts they were asking about in a questionably gender-neutral way that probably understated made-to-penetrate incidents with male victims and female perpetrators.
Interestingly, there were such intra-gender differences between the various types of students that male undergraduates had pretty similar rates to female professional students. Also, the gender gap in stalking here seems to be about 3:1, and the one even smaller ratio for IPV isn't much to write home about either.
Crucially, in addition to asking about them in a way skewed towards female victimization and male perpetration, this survey only included victimization rates, and not self-reported perpetration rates. We do get penetration rates in another of those surveys I've checked, specifically, the Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (23,000+ students participating). It's very much not what the study because of which I've looked at this survey in the first place is claiming.
In this one, we actually do find a five to one rape victimization ratio, though it's one covered by a three to one ratio for sexual assault in general and about a two to one IPV victimization ratio.
This could be what they were actually citing, but in that case, it's undercut by the equal self-reported perpetration, feels taken out of context due to the smaller ratio for wider sexual assault victimization, and of course, is very badly cited since I've only now found it despite starting to write this post yesterday.
Also, note that all the numbers talked about in both of these surveys are about physically forced sex and sex forced through someone being too drunk or drugged to resist. What people would call actual rape. Yet, they, if they really are what that citation is meant to reference, are being used to justify focusing solely on men in a study that looks at sexual coercion in general, including verbal one that wouldn't be compared to rape by any normal person.
Yeah.
Moving onto the other studies in that screenshot, Rotenberg 2017 is a study of police-recorded rapes, which are a drop in the bucket, heavily-biased against male victims and towards low-status perpetrators, and are widely agreed to tell us basically nothing about the actual amount of sexual assault in a society. Anderson 2019 is a male perpetration-only study, so that tells us nothing about how common male perpetrators are compared to female ones. Lund & Ross 2017 is a bullying study which doesn't use the word "rape" once, and the word "sexual" not once in a different context than when talking about sexual orientation. I have no idea why it's here.
Smeaton et al., 2018 actually made me laugh hard. You see how I linked my thread on Struckmann-Johnson's study on the "millenial shift"? I had no idea, but this sems to be an earlier version of that one, co-authored by Struckmann-Johnson. Turns out I was wrong, they very much had the guts to put in a study showing similar perpetration of sexual coercion in their study where they looked only at male behaviour because they claimed that men are most perpetrators.
Which I don't disagree with, but their attempts to prove it are rather pitiful since they only include stuff like this and other papers looking only at male perpetration in the first place.
Of the ones in that screenshot I haven't highlighted, but merit mentioning, Koss is a male perpetrator/female victim-only study, Cao is a female victim-only study, and Ybarra is basically the same as Smeaton; a both genders study finding just what you'd expect.
What a citation considering that they actually have a decent amount of studies comparing male and female perpetration rates. If only those showed what they wanted them to show...
It's... It's genuinely magnificent? I don't even know how to call this. They completely, completely failed to make their case that an overwhelming amount of perpetrators are men and that that's why we need to focus on them. To sum this all up, they kinda do justify their claim of female victimization being five times higher than the male one, but in a way that leaves you digging through the study they cited for that like an archeologist, searching for what exactly they meant, see other papers and surveys showing smaller differences, and the one survey you find that they probably meant shows equal self-admitted perpetration and has smaller ratios for all other types of sexual victimization as well as for the IPV one.
Nothing like that for perpetration though. They state that men are far more likely to be perpetrators, and then back it by citing a study that fails at proving it due to only looking at male perpetration. Meanwhile, both the paragraph where they make their claim about the difference in victimization and its neighbouring paragraphs have citations which include self-declared perpetration, but they aren't using those where they should, because they don't show what they want them to be showing. I don't even disagree with that (though men definitely aren't "far" more likely to be perpetrators), but their seeming inability to cite anything that proves it is hilarious.
I honestly wonder whether they just had ChatGPT generate sources for them after they wrote something, and this is what they got back. Almost every single source is either something that only looks at male perpetration and female victimization (so meaningless already) or something that looks at both male and female perpetration and victimization and finds similar, or at least comparable rates of it, which they then have to ignore. Not a single study they cite in that section to justify focusing on men, actually justifies that. And what the Lund & Ross one is doing there, I'll never understand. How do you even fuck up this bad?
Btw, the way they got the men to talk about this was that they presented it as a chance for them to freely talk about gender relations and have a chance to give their side of the story given how much we've already heard from women. Doing something like that with a study that's meant to portray men solely as rapists in accordance to the socially acknowledged male perpetrator-female victim paradigm, without even the token acknowledgment that they too may be victims and women too might be perpetrators, is just vile. Like, actually evil.
Also, note that, despite the survey's questions clearly being geared towards a male offender/female victim dynamic, and only asking about being raped via physical force and inebriation, which are "hard" sexual coercion tactics commonly believed to be dominated by men, over 66% of male victims still mentioned female perpetrators. With a 4:1 gender ratio for victimization, that means that there can't be more than a 7:1, and even that might be a bit too hard, ratio of women victimized by men to men victimized by women; meaning that this huge (the original was apparently the biggest such survey ever done in the US) survey of sexual assault in colleges of what is still commonly believed to be the world's strongest and wealthiest country, despite being done in a fashion that likely minimizes male victimization by women, still found male perpetrators to not account for even 90% of heterosexual sexual assaults, and likely be around 85% or so.
And surprisingly, apart from the notable amount of perpetrators of their own gender for male victims, once the different victimization rates are ignored and we look just at the percentages showing the characteristics of those assaults, they are surprisingly similar for both. Similar percentage breakdowns on number of perpetrators, types of perpetrators don't seem wildly different apart from maybe two or three categories, and so on.
HOLY SCHMOLY
Incredible high effort dissection. Just incredible. What we are looking at here is an extreme bias seeking to justify itself by using the modern equivalent of bible thumping to support a pre-conceived conclusion. Just like with bible thumpers, you can only penetrate this insane wall of verbiage and citations by going through each reference one by one, chipping away at the foundation of this madness one study at a time. We are dealing with religious tier commitment to a hyper specific worldview. These people will never convinced by data just as a zealous Muslim will never be convinced that the Quran is not inspired by Mohamed.
Btw, the way they got the men to talk about this was that they presented it as a chance for them to freely talk about gender relations and have a chance to give their side of the story given how much we've already heard from women. Doing something like that with a study that's meant to portray men solely as rapists in accordance to the socially acknowledged male perpetrator-female victim paradigm, without even the token acknowledgment that they too may be victims and women too might be perpetrators, is just vile. Like, actually evil.
The fact alone that this vile methodological approach slid by review without these people being summarily deleted off the face of earth, says everything. Imagine they did the same to blacks. Imagine they made a survey asking blacks about crime like that, asking if they have been involved in crime or had any contact with law enforcement, just asking them to vent. And then that was used to argue blacks are inherently more criminal. I am almost 100% sure that penetrative rape basically is non-existent and if we got to see video footage of it, it would just look like regular sex and that out of the penetrative rape cases, a vanishing minority would involve additional physical trauma to the body like bruises. Most of it is probably just regular penetrative sex that was over in five minutes.
I know people would torture me to death for saying this IRL, but I actual violent rape that leaves a victim with bruises, cuts, broken bones is basically a myth. Further it can be questioned if it's even that bad, where does the trauma come from? If a girl held me down at night and sucked my dick behind a bush, I might be a bit shaken but I wouldnt be fucking traumatized for life. The whole entire perspective society has of rape already reveals an insane bias against men and in favor of female victimization. To even question whether rape has any significant impact on a victims life at all, especially long term, is seen as an expression of severe mental illness.
Btw, this would be a good research thing for you to dive into: Long term out comes for female rape victims. I believe that after much data sifting like you have done here (again, incredible high effort jesus), it would turn out that most female victims of rape suffer zero long term impairment from their rape + the group with the most long term damage should be men that were penetratingly raped. The reason is simple. The male anus is not made for penetration + male on male violence massively outstrips male on female violence in term's of aggression. So if a man gets raped, I would expect things like a torn anus, intestinal bleeding, violent punches to the head and gut etc.
Another issue is that since in most rape cases the victim suffers no long-term physical damage, like a permanently torn anus or vagina, there is virtually no way of establishing long term harm other than asking the victims themselves. Now put two and two together. If a survey asked women if they had any long term consequences from being raped, how many would report zero or little?
Societal bias alone would massively skew results in favor of "extreme impact" or something, even if these women lived completely normal lives, had kids, jobs and no overt difficulties. Women already do this with other mental disorders like autism, where they claim the lack of women diagnosed with autism and the lack of difficulty these women display in getting partners and living normally is actually because society hates autistic women so they have to hide their autism better to survive.
To that end many excuses have been made where both professional researchers and women diagnosed with autism repeat over and over that autism is different in women, that women present differently and hide it better, that the tests were based on little boys, not girls and so on. Uta Frith, one of the OG researchers in autism studies, recently came out in an interview and flat out attacked this and said, there is a massive overdiagnosis crisis for women and most of these girls are just attention seeking whores that need therapy for being whores basically.
She also said there is zero evidence that autism presents differently in girls and that girls are discriminated against when it comes to diagnosis and that everyone in research community just somehow accepted this claim without reason (pro female bias).
This naturally caused some upset in pop-autism community on tiktok and YT, which btw, consists almost exclusively of white women from upper class homes that have zero issue making a living, having families or socializing. For comparison: The majority of autists are ethnic men, chinese, black etc. Middle east and india has high autism rates.
The autism spectrum has widened to the point of collapse, affecting how teachers should support autistic pupils in the classroom, researcher Uta Frith tells Helen Amass
www.tes.com
I am drawing a line here between what you dug up on rape and autism, because we see the same biases at work here. They just twist the definition and data of autism to support the biased notion of female victimization. With rape, there is an unjustified assumption that all rape primarily affects women and that women espeically harmed by rape. People always say "omg she has to suffer her entire life from the after effects from that omg" when there is probably zero evidence for this.
Your threads are fascinating because they pull back the curtain on the machinery behind these views and clearly show a massive anti-male pro-female across the board on every level.
There is no point in arguing with these evil pieces of trash.
They are going to keep inventing justifications after justifications to first dehumanize men and then fully enslave men.
Btw, the way they got the men to talk about this was that they presented it as a chance for them to freely talk about gender relations and have a chance to give their side of the story given how much we've already heard from women. Doing something like that with a study that's meant to portray men solely as rapists in accordance to the socially acknowledged male perpetrator-female victim paradigm, without even the token acknowledgment that they too may be victims and women too might be perpetrators, is just vile. Like, actually evil.
The fact alone that this vile methodological approach slid by review without these people being summarily deleted off the face of earth, says everything. Imagine they did the same to blacks. Imagine they made a survey asking blacks about crime like that, asking if they have been involved in crime or had any contact with law enforcement, just asking them to vent. And then that was used to argue blacks are inherently more criminal.
I am almost 100% sure that penetrative rape basically is non-existent and if we got to see video footage of it, it would just look like regular sex and that out of the penetrative rape cases, a vanishing minority would involve additional physical trauma to the body like bruises. Most of it is probably just regular penetrative sex that was over in five minutes.
I know people would torture me to death for saying this IRL, but I actual violent rape that leaves a victim with bruises, cuts, broken bones is basically a myth.
Yes. There's a reason why, as others have pointed out, there's almost, if not actually no at all rape footage out on the internet, despite so much gore and death footage out there. Nothing simply fits the bill.
Btw, this would be a good research thing for you to dive into: Long term out comes for female rape victims. I believe that after much data sifting like you have done here (again, incredible high effort jesus), it would turn out that most female victims of rape suffer zero long term impairment from their rape + the group with the most long term damage should be men that were penetratingly raped.
I can imagine if there ever was something that just openly reported that, rather than hiding it and forcing you to look for it and sift through the data, it would be as controversial as Rind et al.
To that end many excuses have been made where both professional researchers and women diagnosed with autism repeat over and over that autism is different in women, that women present differently and hide it better, that the tests were based on little boys, not girls and so on. Uta Frith, one of the OG researchers in autism studies, recently came out in an interview and flat out attacked this and said, there is a massive overdiagnosis crisis for women and most of these girls are just attention seeking whores that need therapy for being whores basically.
She also said there is zero evidence that autism presents differently in girls and that girls are discriminated against when it comes to diagnosis and that everyone in research community just somehow accepted this claim without reason (pro female bias).
This naturally caused some upset in pop-autism community on tiktok and YT, which btw, consists almost exclusively of white women from upper class homes that have zero issue making a living, having families or socializing. For comparison: The majority of autists are ethnic men, chinese, black etc. Middle east and india has high autism rates.
The autism spectrum has widened to the point of collapse, affecting how teachers should support autistic pupils in the classroom, researcher Uta Frith tells Helen Amass
Also a tough pill to swallow for the "civilisational collapse" types who never looked deeper at what is actually causing the increasing autism rate (more testing and increase concentrated in cases that wouldn't even be called autism when it was first diagnosed.)
I am drawing a line here between what you dug up on rape and autism, because we see the same biases at work here. They just twist the definition and data of autism to support the biased notion of female victimization. With rape, there is an unjustified assumption that all rape primarily affects women and that women espeically harmed by rape. People always say "omg she has to suffer her entire life from the after effects from that omg" when there is probably zero evidence for this.
Exactly. And it's so funny how often it is the very feminist types who suddenly talk like their idea of medieval Church authorities, talking about how a single contact with a penis taints a woman for life, because penises are just so powerful or something. I'm pretty sure I once saw the tranny pornstar Bailey Jay, of all people, sperg out about this on Twitter, saying how stupid and infantilizing it is to claim that a single bad experience with a penis permanently destroys a woman. Dunno if xhe got pushback for that, I think that was well before TERFs managed to turn the tide and start dominating the conversation on trannies, so everyone was still putting them on a pedestal, but bruh really wasn't hiding that he's a guy behind all of those surgeries with that actual logic and awareness.
Your threads are fascinating because they pull back the curtain on the machinery behind these views and clearly show a massive anti-male pro-female across the board on every level.
Humbly, there's no need to dissect this thoroughly when the second quote by OP already implies a man "telling a woman what they want to hear" is coercive or somehow indicative of rape. Diving into this pretentious babble as if any of it matters at all. As if scientific papers and methodology (when it comes to social issues, not in the case of medicine, for example) were some kind of modern, atheistic egregore enlightening the secrets of reality. It all comes off as masturbatory, a school of thought revolving around thinly-veiled ego stroking, redundant arguing to solve problems invented on a whim and as malleable as human mood is: the brothel for slaking (pseudo-)intellectual lusts that is this face of academia
Exactly. And it's so funny how often it is the very feminist types who suddenly talk like their idea of medieval Church authorities, talking about how a single contact with a penis taints a woman for life, because penises are just so powerful or something.
Still. I have spoken to enough guys to understand that, as a guy, you often venture into a grey area (like manipulating a situation) to "pick up" a girl.
These actions weren’t remotely harmful; for example, taking note of your crush’s routine to arrange a chance encounter.
Anonymous or not, as a man, you should be able to see how information like that could so easily be twisted.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
journals.sagepub.com
. That said, there is a reference to at least one paper looking at both male and female experiences with sexual victimization, but one look at it makes it pretty clear that this is not what they were referencing.
. And what the Lund & Ross one is doing there, I'll never understand. How do you even fuck up this bad
