Posted on 06/20/2019 10:03:45 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
“My boyfriend can’t get over how many people I’ve slept with. I shouldn’t have told him, but he pressed me for the info. He was 'nerdy’ for most of high school and college, and just started coming into his own in his mid to late 20s. I have been dating consistently for years, and have had my fair share of hookups and relationships. And while I don’t think my number is crazy at all, he can’t deal with the discrepancy. We’ve been dating for two years and we’re serious. I don’t want to break up. How can I handle this?”
I agree that you probably shouldn’t have told him, but lots of people fall into the trap of discussing their sexual history with their current partner, and I get it. If you trust someone, it’s natural to want to talk about what you’ve learned from past relationships and sexual experiences. That said, numbers really aren’t necessary, and rarely do anything aside from making one person feel bad.
But you can’t go back, and his reaction may have provoked an important conversation. After all (and as you well know), this isn’t an issue of who has slept with more people. It’s about his comfort with his past, and it’s about both of you establishing that your needs are being met by this relationship.
First, you have to figure out the problem you’re tackling, because it will change the course of action.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Yes. The study was saying that they surveyed women on 2 campuses, and 28% of the women said that at some point in their lives, mostly before college, they had been assaulted or someone had attempted to assault them. The politicians (not all Dems, Rubio was mentioned, but all the named ones were male) changed it from "28% on campus have been assaulted" to "28% have been assaulted on campus." But if you look at the actual study, which is linked, you can see that only 5% of them specifically said they were raped at college.
Then FR's own Einstein took the male politicians' lies as proof that the female academics' study was deceptive. And would rather DIE than admit now that he didn't even read it. He doesn't have the attention span to read my summary, so I am not surprised, but I'm getting a fair amount of entertainment value out of this.
Of course, the article linked also tries to throw a little shade on the study by comparing it to the Bureau of Justice Statistics data, where it says 2012 the rate of rapes and sexual assaults was 1.3 per 1,000 Americans ages 12 and up. But of course, they are counting men as well, and people of all ages (above 12) so not surprisingly, their percentage of sexual assault is much lower than just "girls in college." But it's terribly sloppy and deceptive. I was actually dismayed because this is OUR side, and I think we should not pull the same sorts of tricks that liberals do.
No dear, I have already learned that you don't really read much.
Yeah, definitely worthy of a divorce. Weirdest one I had was a buddy of mine had his wife of 6 months(!) run off with a guy she met in the game World of Warcraft in her “guild.”
I just don’t bother reading someone who does nothing but straw-man arguments and other logical fallacies.
Point to the logical fallacy, please.
5% from self-selected survey results from 2 colleges for total rape and 25% total sexual assault is not .13% for total population (or even double that if you assume 100% female victims). Even if the 5% was used or the 25%, both #s are bogus and the study was done to beat men over the head and to use Title IX to remove men’s rights on campus - and it wasn’t just male politicians that used it. The entire point of these things is to beat men into submission, create fear among women voters to vote Democrat and create the soy-boy pansy. If you haven’t figure that out you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve pointed out your straw-man arguments logical fallacies over and over. Feel free to re-read. And again, have a great day.
Are you sure? Let's break this down. You have 1000 people aged 12 and up. This data is from 2010, when 36% of the population was between 18-44. So statistically, 360 of them will be 18-44.
Let's try to guesstimate how many people will be in the age group that was surveyed, then. If we break that group into subgroups of 18-20, 20-22, 22-24 etc, we get 13 groups. 13 into 360 is about 28 per group.
So probably, 14 of those people are female.
To summarize, if you take a random sampling of 1000 Americans, about 14 will be females aged 18-20. If 28% of those women say they were assaulted sometime in their lives, that's 4 women at most.
So lets put this information next to the BJS data, which suggests that out of 1000 Americans, male and female, 130 were assaulted just in one year, 2012.
Out of the 130 who were assaulted, is it so difficult to imagine that 4 of them were college girls?
Sigh - 0.13% is 1.3 women per 1000, not 130. 130 would be 13%.
Adjust this for the correct % (0.13%, not 13%), and that would be 0.25% of college women that had been sexually assaulted in their life, not 25% as reported by this "study". I'd believe 0.25% for sexual assault (meaning far less for rape) for college gals.
But let's pretend to believe! and I'll recalculate.
Okay, so let's take these 1000 and say, okay, 1.3 each year. Let's follow them over 10 years. Ah, now we're back to 130. Now, let's go back to the CSA study. The women were asked if they'd been assaulted... ever. Not that year. Ever. In their past. It is still the case that out of those 1000 people, over 10 years, you'll have 130 assaults. About 14 of those 1000 interviewed at the end of 10 years will be females aged 18-20. If 28% say they were assaulted in the past, that's 4 of them. Yeah, it still holds.
You are still really bad at math. That’s not what the study showed. The “study” showed 25% of women in college had been sexually assaulted in their life. That means for every 1,000 women in college, 250 had been sexually assaulted. At 0.13% rate annually, it would take nearly 200 years (200 * .13% is 260 per 1000) to reach 25% even if it was a different woman every year (unlikely) that made up the 0.13%, meaning unless the average age of a college gal is close to 220, the study is bogus. 10 years is not 130. 10 years is 13 (0.13% per 1000 is 1.3 women per year or 13 women per 10 years)
Wait, wait... 10 years is only 13. LOL... God I hate math. Yeah you know what? There is no way that Bureau of Justice Stat is accurate. Just no way. Look at kids 12-18 being molested. Think of the percentage of gay men who admit they were molested as kids. I give up trying to reconcile anything with that stat because first of all, I suck at math, but secondly... given what we know about child molesting, how epidemic it is... there is just no way we are only getting 1.3% sex crimes in this country. Not if they are including kids 12-18.
You can choose not to believe the official stats. I don’t either - the other way - as many of those are still false reports just like that study that was posted on here yesterday showed.
I do #s for a living - and I’m very, very good at what I do - which is one reason why I don’t believe most studies. It is incredibly easy to show whatever you want when you control the #s, even if you are being honest. Want to show employee theft is a problem? Show the rates for your 2 worst stores out of your 5,000. Want to show employee theft ISN’T a problem? Show your 2 best stores out of 5,000. Want to test a new program? Put your best (or worst) department or store managers in the country in charge of the “test” stores and wallah. Even if you take the straight and narrow average of your 5,000 stores and show the average of your employees, if you don’t compare it to the industry, you’ll never really know if you are doing well or not. You give me any large data set and I can show you what you want to see.
Let me ask you something: if a survey of men only showed that a much higher percentage of them admitted to being molested by men when they were young than the BJS reported, would you believe them, or would you assume it was just a right-wing study trying to demonize gays?
Let me ask you something: if a survey of men only showed that a much higher percentage of them admitted to being molested by men when they were young than the BJS reported, would you believe them, or would you assume it was just a right-wing study trying to demonize gays?
Depends on what you mean by molested. If a 16 year old boy consents sex with a 21 year old, is that molestation? Not in my opinion, no. If you mean a 30+ year old fondled an 8 year old's genitalia, I'd say that is a very, very low percentage of the population, and I'd be skeptical of ANY #s I saw for that (that being said, many many studies have shown gay males are more likely to commit sexual assault than anyone else).
That study openly stated that it was a survey of two universities and those were the self-reported numbers. They didn't survey 10 universities and take the best two (or the worst two) they just surveyed 2. And every weakness was admitted in the publication.
It is still the case that the politicians changed what the survey said. They changed it. They took "28% of women on campus have been assaulted" and turned it, essentially, to "28% of women have been assaulted on campus." It still shows that feminist publications aren't the ones lying. It's politicians using the results (erroneously) who are lying.
1) Have you ever been raped?
2) Have you ever been sexually assaulted?
3) Have you ever been touched inappropriately?
4) Have you ever had a male put you in an ackward sexual situation?
If your goal is to show a very low #, you'll ask #1. If your goal is to show a very high #, you'll ask #4. You can further skew those #s by narrowing it down to areas you believe are likely to give the type of response you want.
Actually, yes, that would constitute sexual assault, but I know that men usually don't see it that way if it happens to them. I mean, if a man did it to you, you might see it differently. Most women would see that as assault if someone did it to us, because men are bigger and stronger than we are, and at some level, most of us have a constant, low-grade fear of men born of the knowledge that if they want to do something to us, they are physically capable of it and we couldn't stop them. The only things stopping them are their conscience and/or fear of the law.
So if you look at that study, they did include things like being fondled while drunk, etc... you really need to look at the actual study. It wasn't even intended to show campuses are dangerous or men are evil. They said, The primary implications of the CSA Study are the relative rarity of cases of DFSA and the need to incorporate alcohol and drug messages into sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programming. They weren't trying to demonize men, they were trying to teach girls not to get drunk and pass out at frat parties.
If we use your definition of sexual assault, then tens of millions of women would be in jail now as would men. Making a pass at someone in context is not sexual assault IMO - that's a very large part of what makes up dating. Forcing a woman to let you fondle her after she has said no would be sexual assault. I'd argue that is an extremely small #, as the official #s suggest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.