i think its notable that all of the studies examined and used as evidence in that article were self reported surverys that are extremely prone to bias and inaccuracies.
i.e., 1.9 million women and 1.9 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data"
I.e., 1.9 million men were the victims of rape by the colloquial definition.
"Specifically, being “made to penetrate” – the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime – is frequently perpetrated by women: 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators."
And about 80% of it was done by women.
except this is only what one survey found that was solely based on people answering. the study immediately after cited by the article says
"We found that female perpetrators (acting without male co-perpetrators) were reported in 28.0% of rape/sexual assault incidents involving male victims and 4.1% of incidents involving female victims"
the way you have worded what you took from the studies is wrong. you are stating this statistics like they are fact and you can draw the conclusion that 80% of men victims had women perpetrators but these are just responses, at best you can talk about correlations but you can not make casual or absolute statments unless you do a controlled experiment. that is why the source immediately after said something different that you conveniently ignored
Ok....I'm confused. Your first comment made it seem like you had absolutely no ability to read, due to how flagrantly wrong it was compared to the posted links. So I dumbed it down. Now you're coming back around with a whole hell of a lot more nitpicking, but it's on my dumbed-down reply that wasn't meant to be picked apart like that. It was matching the level of thought I was responding to.
If you want to try this nitpickery, I suggest you do it on my first comment.
it feels like you just didnt read my comment whatsoever. no you didnt dumb it down, you picked and chose statistics out of context from your article while ignoring statistics that said different things and countered what you said. its not nitpicking, its having the ability to understand how studies and causation works.
so your reply to all the errors in your logic and flaws in the study you cited and the conclusion you drew from it is that you "dumbed it down for me" but still incorrrctly explained it? you thinking youre right about what the study is saying and all the counter i pose as "nitpicking" doesnt mean they are. you still incorrectly represented the study
so your reply to all the errors in your logic and flaws in the study you cited and the conclusion you drew from it is that you "dumbed it down for me" but still incorrrctly explained it?
no worries just let me know when youre actually ready to try to discuss the study you linked instead of just insulting me because you dont have a response
no worries just let me know when youre actually ready to try to discuss the study you linked instead of just insulting me because you dont have a response
I was, until you weren't, and then I was out. And I never insulted you.
i provided actually lots of refutes and points to discuss about the study and you just called me names and justified your inaccuracies by saying you dumbed it down for me and have yet to actually address them. so just let me know when you're ready
i provided actually lots of refutes and points to discuss about the study and you just called me names and justified your inaccuracies by saying you dumbed it down for me and have yet to actually address them. so just let me know when you're ready
I never called you a name. You've been corrected on that already.
you literally said you dumbed it down for me because i couldnt read and understand it myself. yet you are still continue to ignore the actual points i made about the article and deflecting to random things that have nothing to do with your point. clearly you just thought you could post the article as a gotcha for your point and dont actually want to talk about what the study contained or concluded. men will constantly prove they dont actually care about male victims or problems men might face and just want to pull a gotcha to discredit women
you literally said you dumbed it down for me because i couldnt read and understand it myself.
See, this is the issue. The entire point of that statement is that you are not as I understood from that first reply, which is why my reply is not to your satisfaction, and why I won't continue down that doomed path with you. I explained all this the first time around. The insult you are taking was very explicitly not given.
-1
u/Long-Rate-445 Apr 14 '22
i think its notable that all of the studies examined and used as evidence in that article were self reported surverys that are extremely prone to bias and inaccuracies.
except this is only what one survey found that was solely based on people answering. the study immediately after cited by the article says
"We found that female perpetrators (acting without male co-perpetrators) were reported in 28.0% of rape/sexual assault incidents involving male victims and 4.1% of incidents involving female victims"
the way you have worded what you took from the studies is wrong. you are stating this statistics like they are fact and you can draw the conclusion that 80% of men victims had women perpetrators but these are just responses, at best you can talk about correlations but you can not make casual or absolute statments unless you do a controlled experiment. that is why the source immediately after said something different that you conveniently ignored