I’m going to make this VERY simple for the rape apologist dudes over at AVFM that are claiming the 1 in 5 stat of female rape victims on college campuses is wrong.
something is amiss
Something’s amiss alright. It’s the brain cells in MRA’s that are amiss.
Here’s the 2007 report on campus sexual assaults with a focus on DFSA (Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault).
Simplified for dudebros who can’t read a paper:
Completed and non completed campus sexual assault=
N=1,073 ♀ 19%
rounded to 20% because 19.347 % is hard to remember
Let’s have a little joke on MRA’s who are so uneducated that they don’t understand how psychological studies take place. When you’re getting your degree in Psych (like I did) you are usually expected to be a subject in a study. Many times you will get a stipend or $10 bucks or something for your time. MRA’s, who obviously have never been in an experimental environment, thought that these scientists were ‘bribing participants.’ I needed a good lol. Here’s another paranoid dude whose never been in an experimental environment:
The fact is that when you ask people if they want to take a survey of this sort, the ones who do are overwhelmingly those with an ax to grind.
I guess the men involved in the study were just so angry they signed up for the study! There is an understanding of self selection bias in ALL studies however when you look at the method of this study you can see the effect is probably small. I will say there is an over arching problem with psychological studies taking place on campus where the sample is usually white, mid to upper class 20 year olds who are in a University setting yet this study focused on the campus environment and sampled a large number of people. The methodology of this study is very good.
We are all used to AVFM and their rape apologia. Here’s some brand spanking new rape apologia:
I would speculate that women who regularly practice intoxicated sex might actually be enjoying it, and that efforts by feminists to criminalize their preferred sexual habits and partners will not be well-received.
Of course, feminists are just ruining it for rapists. Sorry dudebro but you can’t make that inference.
the ‘1 in 5’ included such dastardliness as ‘pestering someone for a kiss (no physical contact)’
Dudebros: that’s attempted sexual assault. Trying to coerce others into a sexual encounter is wrong dudes and you answered your silly question about what attempted sexual assault is.
Karen Stringbeanhead’s ideas about rape are included too.
As Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) has noted, rape is a unique crime in that it can often occur only in the mind of the alleged victim. Between adults, the same sexual acts can also be characterized as consensual sex to outside observers (or participants) if they have no understanding of the alleged victim’s actual internal mental state, or lack thereof.
Rape occurs in reality. The difference between sex and rape is CONSENT. Outside observers have nothing to do with it. If you’re participating you need to have consent. You can’t claim ‘I didn’t know I was raping’ just because in your mind you didn’t think you were and have law enforcement say ‘well, he said he didn’t know he was a rapist so he’s not.’
The intent to do harm can not be ascertained where the perpetrator is unaware that harm is being done.
So if a dude is drunk and doesn’t know he’s raping a woman means he didn’t rape? This is classic MRA rape apologia. ‘Well I didn’t know I was raping her so I didn’t rape her!’ This sounds like pedophiles saying ‘I was only teaching that 5 year old girl what sex is therefore I’m not guilty of molesting her!’ You MRA’s are a bunch of dumbasses.
Instead of concerning ourselves with the accused’s state of mind and presumed innocence, feminists demand we concern ourselves only with the feelings and thoughts of the accuser.
This is the ‘get out of rape’ clause that MRA’s in all their rapey minds would love to adopt. All people are presumed innocent until found guilty. If ONE person didn’t give CONSENT it doesn’t matter what the perp was thinking.
The contents of a victim’s mind are, admittedly, important. Even a depraved perpetrator who WANTS to rape will fail if his or her desired victim is mentally willing.
OMG. I just don’t. I don’t want to imagine how this is meaningful in any way except by a rapey mind. This is where Lovenskolds says feminists have degraded the meaning of rape and gets all disturbed that drinking women aren’t available for him to coerce anymore because feminism.
He calls women children because he thinks that women drinking and not just giving out sex makes men grumpy. I noticed that he never extends this to men who drink. It’s the same old assumption that men are always thinking about sex and are prowling for women who are drinking. Yes, men DO that. Men who are not psychopaths will give women drinks to disinhibit us and rape us but many men, MRA’s specifically, don’t consider that rape. Instead they focus on the woman who was drinking and blame her for drinking and calling her a child for doing so. Drinking doesn’t make you a child. It DOES however have the potential to affect your ability to give consent. Deal with it dudes.
This reminds me of the Youtube atheist women who came forward about a man who would continually get drinks for women at cons, filling their glasses as soon as they were empty, in order to sexually assault them when they were visibly impaired.
I think what MRA’s are so upset about is the fact that coercion is being put in the spotlight. Many men use alcohol coercion to get what they think is sex. As soon as you shine a light on the fact that alcohol can be used as a tool for men to rape women, especially in college, the male supremacists get frustrated. They want to have alcohol available to them as a tool to rape and coerce. They can’t make the excuse any more that a woman was drinking and therefore was consenting. The blurred line is getting clearer and that makes them angry.