4 ms·

>Note also that just claiming the experts who interpret the data are wrong is not making a case. The experts are making very specific claims based on biased de

>Note also that just claiming the experts who interpret the data are wrong is not making a case. The experts are making very specific claims based on biased definitions. If we were to use those biased definitions, then their claims are not wrong. The problem is their definitions, and on a deeper level, why they went with such definitions. Full report: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a... From page 20 of the pdf, 10 of the report >Questions on sexual violence were asked in relation to rape (completed forced penetration, attempted penetration, and alcohol or drugfacilitated completed penetration), being made to penetrate another person, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Notice that being made to penetrate is not listed with the group that includes rape? Page 27 (17) goes into more details and once again clearly lists that being made to penetrate doesn't count as rape. On page 28 (18) we see the number of victims for women raped within a 12 month period is 1.27 million. On page 29 (19) we see the number of victims for men made to penetrate (aka raped) within a 12 month period is 1.267 million.

wpietri 11y ago
And now we're into the "extraordinary claims" section of the discussion. Pulling out two numbers from a large report and saying, "aha, proof of the grand conspiracy" is not compelling to me. You're claiming that you personally have discovered a major revolution in understanding the nature and impact sexual violence. But the numbers are weird on their own (1-year and lifetime rates are oddly different, apparently no examination of the gender of user of force, no description of what force was used). You claim that the definitions are biased, but you don't demonstrate it. You imply that the levels of trauma are equivalent, but I don't see a reason to believe that. This doesn't seem congruent with other research. And it also doesn't match what direct knowledge I have of the topic. I know a number of women who have been raped, and it was a deeply traumatic experience for them. I've never heard of a woman similarly forcing a guy to penetrate with, say, knife in hand. I'm having trouble even imagining how such a crime would work. The reason we take rape seriously is not one number in one box somewhere in one PDF. It's the great array of studies and personal narratives demonstrating the crime and the severity of its impact on people's lives. Now it could be that you have uncovered a vast new area of crime that people were somehow unaware of. Or it could be that, as happens all the time in research, a couple of numbers came out odd because they made a mistake, or because subtle implications of study design produced unexpectedly misleading results. If it's the former, presumably we'd see other evidence besides a couple of odd numbers. After all, this report has been out for years and there's been plenty of time for followup research. Plenty of time for people to come forward with stories of how this crime ruined their lives. Are we seeing that? If not, then maybe the explanation here is not, "OMG CONSPIRASY AGAINT THE MENZ!" but "anonymous guy on the Internet does not understand a topic as well as a (mixed-gender) array of doctors who have spent years in the field".

wpietri 11y ago

And now we're into the "extraordinary claims" section of the discussion. Pulling out two numbers from a large report and saying, "aha, proof of the grand conspiracy" is not compelling to me. You're claiming that you personally have discovered a major revolution in understanding the nature and impact sexual violence. But the numbers are weird on their own (1-year and lifetime rates are oddly different, apparently no examination of the gender of user of force, no description of what force was used). You claim that the definitions are biased, but you don't demonstrate it. You imply that the levels of trauma are equivalent, but I don't see a reason to believe that. This doesn't seem congruent with other research. And it also doesn't match what direct knowledge I have of the topic. I know a number of women who have been raped, and it was a deeply traumatic experience for them. I've never heard of a woman similarly forcing a guy to penetrate with, say, knife in hand. I'm having trouble even imagining how such a crime would work. The reason we take rape seriously is not one number in one box somewhere in one PDF. It's the great array of studies and personal narratives demonstrating the crime and the severity of its impact on people's lives. Now it could be that you have uncovered a vast new area of crime that people were somehow unaware of. Or it could be that, as happens all the time in research, a couple of numbers came out odd because they made a mistake, or because subtle implications of study design produced unexpectedly misleading results. If it's the former, presumably we'd see other evidence besides a couple of odd numbers. After all, this report has been out for years and there's been plenty of time for followup research. Plenty of time for people to come forward with stories of how this crime ruined their lives. Are we seeing that? If not, then maybe the explanation here is not, "OMG CONSPIRASY AGAINT THE MENZ!" but "anonymous guy on the Internet does not understand a topic as well as a (mixed-gender) array of doctors who have spent years in the field".