Why do you suggest that only men are abused?
Am I really spelling this out for a bot?
Nearly 100 percent of sexual assault perpetrators are male, against both male and female victims.
Nearly 100 percent of sexual assault victims are female.
By what definition are you using the word ‘pervert’? Some people think gays are perverts. By your ‘logic’ close to 100 percent of ‘perverts’ should be women.
I am afraid you live in a very distorted world if you think “nearly 100% of sexual assault victims are women,” or that “nearly 100% of all sexual criminals are men,” for that matter.
1 Like
The majority of sexual assault victims are children. Predators aren’t picky about sex, what they require is weakness.
I said ‘female’. You need to work on your reading skills, bot. Go away. You are just annoying.
You are also incorrect in your use of the word female.
You can perhaps use word instead, then.
Why are you under the impression that only women are assaulted, and only men assault?
Another moron to put on ignore.
1 Like
Perhaps it is best that you do.
1 Like
Mccheese overstated significantly. But then you overstated wildly. Men represent a majority of sexual abusers. Girls and women represent a majority of the sexually abused. That’s very conservative, but true. Right there your hypothesis has a problem. See if you can find it.
Further, your statement is just simply false in that 100%. There are many factors and causes of atypical sex, and researchers moved away from thinking like yours a long time ago.
1 Like
‘‘Nearly 99% of sexual assault perpetrators are male, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. While most victims are female, men are the vast majority of perpetrators.’’
Where did I ‘overstate’? I could only have ‘overstated’ if I had said 100%, which I did not.
Ah, well, if the department of justice says it.
Recently there was a case where a woman chess player had been raped by a reputed coach. She never said anything, until she read that somebody else had also been. Then she said something.
Her reasons for not having said anything before, according to her, were that she just wanted to “move on.” When she spoke, according to her, was because she learned it had happened to someone else, so to stop him.
This was an adult woman with a strange man, with the absolute ideal circumstances for reporting.
Now imagine a child, at the hands of a family member. Perhaps a female one. Perhaps allowed by the silence or cooperation of a female one.
Now imagine saying something as a man.
This is all before considering that sexual abuse, specially of a child, but in all cases, leads to a feeling of worthlesness. Like the chess player, only other victims were worth standing up for.
And then the fact that childhood trauma of any sort, being beyond a child’s capacity to do anything about or grasp, rarely enters egoic consciousness.
I am sure everybody here has at least one acquaintance who have told them they were raped. I am as sure that this acquaintance never reported it.
Many times, unreasonable outrage at the very suggestion indicates that it exists in the past, or present, of the outraged person.
Nobody gets an instinct as powerful as sexuality perverted without sexual assault. It is an instinct almost as strong as hunger.
Hidden reply So fuck off.
Well, the reply wasn’t towards you. But I understand how you feel. I recommend to continue ignoring.
A person, say, like mccheese. Boiling rage in every message, but in every subject. There dossn’t seem to be an actual object of the anger, it is anger looking for an object.
If something happened so terrible that it was disjointed from the ego and relegated to the id, the emotions from it would still exist. But the narrative, the coherence of the ego having been broken, the anger now exists without conscious context. It seeks context to which to attatch.
The subconscious is real, exists, and determines actions. A healthy person would get no arousal from assaulting sexually. Only a subconscious transformed by rape could be twisted thus.
People sense this, and this is why there is a natural distrust for perverted sexuality.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what he means.
1 Like
You could make your points better if you criticized them thoroughly before writing them down. Your stance that 100% of cases is something… is impossible to test. Plus, ascertaining stuff about things that the very same person cannot be aware, mostly, makes it harder to prove too.
It’s true that measurements about abuse do not reflect entirely what real abuse there is (overreporting ones, underreporting others), but it’s the same in every case. If you are going to write about something that cannot be backed up by measurements, you have to present, at least, some kind of strong convincing argument, and you didn’t.
Having said that, I know of at least one famous gay guy that says the same as you do.
There may be other causes of a disgust that makes some kind of sense (for example, quite like in Narcissus case, you can get aroused by yourself, maybe)
The usual statistics of abuse are to be taken with a grain of salt, BUT the same is to be done to everything else.
Give me the link. I searched DOJ and didn’t find the right data.
Here’s why it’s overstated. The data on convictions that I see is in the 93 to 95 range. But there is a lot of evidence that sexual abuse by women is under reported.
Background: Survivors’ surveys on the frequency of sexual offenses committed by women indicated a prevalence rate of 9.9 % to 11.6 %.
So, when we leave the courts, but anonymously ask people, we find more women as perps.
But it’s more than that.
Boys and men are vastly less likely to frame childhood abuse with adults as abuse. It is often framed positively or neutrally or will not place themselves in a victim role around sex, even to themselves. A very, very large percentage of sexual abuse acts on boys are not reported. We can find out about some in victim surveys, but this leaves out those males who do not even think of it as abuse. Women are represented in the abuse of boys much more than was earlier thought, so they are ending up underrepresented significantly in convictions.
1 Like
That’s because the claim is just entirely made up. Some people like to make up “facts” and claim they’re true, with no better justification than “I just feel like it’s true”.
He will never produce a reliable scientific source to back up his claim. It’s more likely that he’ll reply with some kind of denigration about wanting scientific sources at all. Like it’s moronic to want a peer reviewed study before we accept a claim like that.
1 Like