Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing at all. It was a direct response to a post that was already off topic.What does this have to do with the OP?
What is the source for these statistics? I do not believe them at all.
In other words, you don't have a source. (Unbiased, please. No anti-porn or religious sites.)Believe what you want to believe.
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.htmlIn other words, you don't have a source. (Unbiased, please. No anti-porn or religious sites.)
This is someone's private page at a university, not an official university page.
From this site: "According to the 1998 National Violence Against Women Survey the lifetime prevalence of rape among women is 17.6% and among men is 3.0% (using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse.)".this one is just rape:
http://www.azrapeprevention.org/stats/index.htm
No, that would be a bias in my direction.How many sources do you need to convince you? What would be unbiased-only those yo agree with?
These last two are more what I would consider unbiased.Here's another on rape only: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/vic...ml?PHPSESSID=3df43b58dbd07f97d1de0dc8d5b23d32
This one is worse:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
Note that unlike the crusader site, a source is provided.rainn link said:One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). This is according to the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey (PDF, 305KB), National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.
I wasn't asking for "pro-porn". That's a bias too. I was asking for unbiased. Anything coming from a anti-anything or pro-anything site is inherently biased.Is there such a thing as a "pro-porn" site?
Those are rape statistics, not sexual assault. My uninformed guess would be there a lot more sexual assaults than rapes... seeing that rape is a subset of sexual assault and not vice versa.This is someone's private page at a university, not an official university page.
It doesn't say where the stats came from.
From this site: "According to the 1998 National Violence Against Women Survey the lifetime prevalence of rape among women is 17.6% and among men is 3.0% (using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse.)".
This is not 1 in 3, which would be 33.33 percent.
No, that would be a bias in my direction.
These last two are more what I would consider unbiased.
Note that the rainn site, like all except the first hysteria link, directly contradicts your "1 in 3" claim. It is 1 in 6, half what you state.
Note that unlike the crusader site, a source is provided.
It was the 1 in 3 number that we were balking at, not that there are a lot of rapes.
I wasn't asking for "pro-porn". That's a bias too. I was asking for unbiased. Anything coming from a anti-anything or pro-anything site is inherently biased.
Okay. What is the unbiased source for the 1 in 3 number then?Those are rape statistics, not sexual assault. My uninformed guess would be there a lot more sexual assaults than rapes... seeing that rape is a subset of sexual assault and not vice versa.
Apparently there is no unbiased source to please you. Just for the sake of argument let's say it's one out of six. Does that make you feel better? Does that make you want to go out and praise the virtues of sexual exploitation because 5 out 6 women aren't affected by it?Okay. What is the unbiased source for the 1 in 3 number then?
So where did the number come from? Do you admit that the person who put up that web site just made it up?Apparently there is no unbiased source to please you.
What gave you that impression? My complaint was about exaggeration, not that the problem didn't exist.Just for the sake of argument let's say it's one out of six. Does that make you feel better? Does that make you want to go out and praise the virtues of sexual exploitation because 5 out 6 women aren't affected by it?
Why would my opinion where that site got its statistics be relevant? I have seen that statistic more than once from other sources. Why quibble over numbers? Does it really matter whether it's 1 in 3 that are raped, or 1-3 that are sexually assaulted? Either way 1 in 3 women in this country are sexually exploited in a physical manner, dehumanized, abused, reduced to objects... however you feel comfortable characterizing it... at least half of which are raped (meaning penetrated) and the rest are just as traumatized. How many others are not physically assaulted but suffer this objectification in other ways?So where did the number come from? Do you admit that the person who put up that web site just made it up?
The other number had unbiased sources.
What gave you that impression? My complaint was about exaggeration, not that the problem didn't exist.
Besides, this started out as a tirade against the adult industry. What percentage of these cases are directly attributable to the adult industry, as opposed to the entertainment industry or the advertising industry? Or society itself?
If people crusade against the adult industry and try to eliminate it, they should also be trying to eliminate advertising, movies, music videos, and television as well.
Talking about missing the point, you ignored the last part of my post. Here it is again:Why would my opinion where that site got its statistics be relevant? I have seen that statistic more than once from other sources. Why quibble over numbers? Does it really matter whether it's 1 in 3 that are raped, or 1-3 that are sexually assaulted? Either way 1 in 3 women in this country are sexually exploited in a physical manner, dehumanized, abused, reduced to objects... however you feel comfortable characterizing it... at least half of which are raped (meaning penetrated) and the rest are just as traumatized. How many others are not physically assaulted but suffer this objectification in other ways?
How fascinating that you would argue the details and miss the meaning.
Did you see the cover of Paxton Quigley's book, Armed and Dangerous?Talking about missing the point, you ignored the last part of my post. Here it is again:
Besides, this started out as a tirade against the adult industry. What percentage of these cases are directly attributable to the adult industry, as opposed to the entertainment industry or the advertising industry? Or society itself?
If people crusade against the adult industry and try to eliminate it, they should also be trying to eliminate advertising, movies, music videos, and television as well.
I don't think it is different. I think it is a business like they are. I think it should be treated the same way they are. I think that if one is blamed for the ills of society and attacked as a target for elimination, they all should be blamed and attacked and eliminated. If the adult industry should be scrapped, so should the advertising industry and entertainment industry. Or they should all be left alone on an equal basis.And you think the "adult entertainment" industry is somehow different than advertising and media in general?
I am for that. advertising and the media are not regulated and get away with all sorts of lies and deceptions...I don't think it is different. I think it is a business like they are. I think it should be treated the same way they are. I think that if one is blamed for the ills of society and attacked as a target for elimination, they all should be blamed and attacked and eliminated. If the adult industry should be scrapped, so should the advertising industry and entertainment industry. Or they should all be left alone on an equal basis.