Getting lonely James;-)

Hi James.

Koss study: Questions were based on Ohio law, including the question about whether or not respondents considered that they had been definitely raped (as State law defined it).

Can you state (without looking it up) what the legal definition in your state is of rape or sexual assault ? If someone penetrated your anus with a finger even though you didn't want them to, would that be rape or sexual assault, another or a non-chargeable offence ? If that had happened 30 and 40 years ago in, say, Queensland - would that have been considered rape or sexual assault ? If they used an object instead - would that be or have been considered rape or sexual assault?

Of those respondents who were unsure of whether what happened to them by legal definition - (sorry you'll have to check the figures) but something like 70 % of them struggled against the offender; something like a third suffered adverse emotional effects long after the event and some considered or attempted suicide. Also, the study was done in the 80s and many more people believed rape myths (eg: the woman just wants rough sex; so "No" isn't to be taken seriously) than do today.

Btw: Christina Hoff Summers obtains her income from working for very conservative, mostly private organizations, including some sort of conservative think tank. Her highest qualification is in philosophy (and maybe ethics); not sociology, psychology or social research. Koss is well respected in her field by people who are qualified to assess and critique the quality of her research. If you get a chance, look up her personal definition of rape of sexual assault (not based on any law) because that's the definition by which she judged Koss' study. Similarly Katie Roiphe is a thinking sort of person; but is a journalist by 'trade' - her major study is in literature. Both write for popularity and some pieces, kind of like pop psychology, appeal to some sectors of the non-academic public. They are opinion pieces only; unsupported by any sort of evidence.

James: <"Women have the right to say NO. No problem.">

How very generous of you.

How about, "Women have the right to say YES, just as any man does, and until someone hears "Yes", the answer is NO."

James: <"Mummh, that sounds more like a psychopath. Even worked with a few who wear Prada.">

That's right; not all women are nice people. That still doesn't give other people automatic access to their bodies.

Houellebecq: <"I'd say it really has more to do with boosting rape figures by including every women who is pinched on the bum.">

Oh? - and why should people put up with being groped ? Why do you attribute more 'rights' to the groper than the gropee ?

Why am I supposed to have less authority over my own body than someone who wants to cop a feel, or than you do over yours ?

Btw: Can you show any cases of prosecution for rape where the offence was "a pinch on the bum.

Hey pynchme, do you even listen to yourself...

'Oh? - and why should people put up with being groped ?'
They shouldn't. I never said that. Why did you assume that's what I think?

'Why do you attribute more 'rights' to the groper than the gropee ?'
See above

'Why am I supposed to have less authority over my own body than someone who wants to cop a feel, or than you do over yours ?'

Again. See above.

You've got the most massive chip on your shoulder dear. I've been pinched on the bum by strangers quite a few times. What I know is that it would pale into insignificance in comparrison with rape. But if you want more impressive 'rape' figures, just include pinching on the bum, redefine to 'sexual assault', use the two terms interchangabely, and whalla, it looks like every women has been raped at some stage in their lives.

'Can you show any cases of prosecution'
That's irrelevant to my point. I'm talking about the widespread use of sensationalist sound bites to 'raise awareness'. Most don't use prosecution statistics.

Pynchme, in regards to research, are you suggesting that the only people qualified to critic research are people of similar qualifications?

So a critic of sociological research, has to be another sociologist.

The much respected journal the Lancet, published a study of its published research articles in the journal. Mind you these articles are suppose to be rigourously peer reviewed.

The Lancet found that (if I recall correctly) up to 40% of published research papers contained errors, there was a smaller percentage where the errors were significant errors. (you will have to do your own search on this). It was about 1998 that it was published.

See Manufacturing Research and Perceptions are not facts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

There is a very significant piece of research that demonstrates that the respondents answers are not a reliable indication of the truth.

Researchers were stumped for a very long time as to why men claimed that they had a higher number of sex partners than what women claimed. Many hypothesises were made to explain the difference, how the truth was unmasked when the respondents were linked to what they were led to beleive was a lie detector.

http://www.angryharry.com/reWomenFakeSexNumbers.htm

Funnell feigning indignation, says to Antiseptic: “...I cannot tell you how deeply insulting it is to hear you asset that I am a liar. However, I would suggest that you do your research ...”

I’ve done a little research. Excerpted from Honi Soit:
“... Nina was dragged from a main road into a park, a blade held to her throat. She was pummelled, strangled and told point blank that she would be raped and murdered. “Not if I f#cking kill you first” she said, and fought back with the rage of a woman who knew what cowardice motivates rape. He fled. She survived. He hid.” http://www.src.usyd.edu.au/honisoit/pdfs/820.pdf

Funnell’s assailant had the strength to drag her from the road into a park, get her onto the ground and get on top of her. I have an image of her attacker sitting astride her, retracting the blade of his “box cutter” and putting it in the back pocket of his tracky dackies and proceeding to strangle her with one hand and pummelling her in the face with the other. Yet Funnell rises like a phoenix or like something far more ugly (http://www.alvarezwax.com/Latex%20Gallery/linda%20blair%20mask.htm ), spraying “Not if I f # c k i n g kill you first”. He fled like a villan in the keystone cops. She survived not having lost any teeth, no broken bones or nose, no need for stitches. He hid (but didn’t he flee?). But where are the forensic photos of her injuries? Must of healed before she reported the matter to the police.

Funnell defends her story by saying “But it is not possible to fabricate male DNA and blood.” No men at the “birthday celebrations” Funnell had left, pukeing “male DNA” or being just a little bit familiar? Just use one of those diabetes test kits on one of your male friends.