Sexism and Men's Issues

Perhaps, but those victims will still have more common risk factors with each other than with the rapist.

Few rapists trade off between forced penetration and forced envelopment from victim to victim, for reasons that should be fairly evident.

edited 20th Sep '14 12:19:19 PM by TobiasDrake

Some people apparently still believes that the ( http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/ ) National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey which is done by the ( http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/index.html ) CDC Injury Prevention & Control: Division of Violence Prevention. Their mission is to _prevent injuries and deaths caused by violence_. Their mission does not include tracking transmission of ST Ds.

CDC has another separate division called the ( http://www.cdc.gov/std/dstdp/default.htm ) Division of STD Prevention. This division is not involved in the NISVS. Mainly because the Division of STD Prevention are using much better instruments when measing ST Ds - for instance the ( http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats12/adol.htm ) 2012 STD Surveillance Adolescents and Young Adults.

So this argument that the CDC categorized different types of sexual violence the way they did due to them wanting to track STD transmissions is barking up the wrong tree. There are no data in the NISVS reports on STD transmission broken down by each type of sexual violence. Well, that's not completely true. NISVS reports on how many female victims of rape by an intimate partner contracted an STD as can be seen in the legend on figure 2 in the ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf">NISVS 2011 ) where CDC state that they only asked this question of women who reported rape by an intimate partner. Male victims of rape, female victims of rape by any other than their intimate partner, male victims of being made to penetrate and both female and male victims of being coerced into sex were not asked whether they contracted a STD while being victimized!

The reason NISVS asked this question at all isn't to track STD transmission, but to measure impact of sexual violence and intimate partner violence. Which they did poorly by not asking all who were at risk for contracting an STD from the sexual violence they were a victim of.

edited 20th Sep '14 2:37:50 PM by Tamen

Isn't contracting an STD from rape a form of injury?

Yes it is. Isn't contracting an STD from any other form of sexual violence an injury?

edited 20th Sep '14 2:59:58 PM by Tamen

To just strait up ask as a simple question. Why doesn't it make more sense for forced envelopment to be a sub-category of rape rather than a separate category?

So nobody got an answer?

Anyway, to move on. This[1] just came across my news feed on Facebook, Emma Watson has called on men to join the fight for gender equality, highlighting some of the issues men face. To quote,

For the record, because no one answers doesn't mean no one has an answer.

Also, reading the comments section is not surprising to me in the least. Disheartening and anger-inducing, yes, but not surprising.

Why would you even read them? The internet is full of cunts.

Because I want to know what people are saying on all sides of an issue. And I specifically want to know what the jackasses are saying so that I'll be able to argue, refute, or ignore them in the future.

We Hunted the Mammoth is adequate for that.

Not really, it isn't. People will claim that those types of examples are "cherry-picked" or "don't represent a trend".

@Silsaw: It's great that Emma Watson has essentially said "dudes, you have problems too and we should all be working together to stop all sexism". I think that's a big (or at least noticeable) part of this latest feminist wave (4th? 5th?)- men have very real issues that aren't trivial and need to be fixed. Let's hope her influence gets more people into the fight to end sexism.

Also, to answer your last question: it doesn't make sense for forced envelopment to be separate from rape. It is rape, pure and simple. Don't know why groups, studies, etc would treat it as some separate, uncommon thing.

It only makes sense to treat it seperately for issues of disease transmition since the risks are different. It shouldn't be treated differently or seperately for purposes of law enforcement.

Then they shouldn't use the terms used by law enforcements incorrectly to separate their issues.

It is very common from medical terminology to vary from law enforcement terminology. This is not the only place where they diverge. The two both have specialised word use that is different than common English, but unfortunately, words in English have multiple meanings in multiple context

For example, a theory in common English is a guess.

A theory in law enforcement English is a model of the crime based on evidence.

A theory in medical English is an unprovable bit of the universe that aligns with all data we've managed to glean from science.

They're not.

Raping someone by sodomizing them with a sex toy is just as much raping someone by forcing them to preform oral sex, however, there are different diseases or injuries that can result from both of these actions. It's respectful to the victim to tally each case with the specific manner of rape because these stats are then used to help design programs of care and prevention.

To pull an example out of nowhere, let's just say the CDC records that there are a growing number of herpes contagion. They look it up and see most of these transmissions during rape occurred in cases of oral rape. Oral rape is either the forced giving or the forced receiving of oral sex. So regardless of what end you're on, it's rape. Okay, they can say "Hey look at these numbers! We need a program that specifically says forcing oral sex is rape. People aren't getting this message. We also need to have more outreach for herpes screenings!"

And then the Department of Justice, The Department of Health, and all the actual proactive entities can act on this information.

Also, the CDC can only act on reported information. They're not like the FBI. They're not allowed to open the study to "estimated cases" or to even guess on what isn't being reported. Because of the nature of their work they can only act on verified reports obtained through medical practitioners. So that victim who never got a rape kit, or never went to the doctor cannot be counted because they have no medical information on them.

Therefore, the CDC will probably always be working with numbers that aren't inclusive enough but they can't make up data. They can't estimate medical problems on victims that have never come forward. And while they can recommend all day that we need more programs geared to helping people come forward, they cannot act on this. They aren't allowed. Again, that is what the multitude of other federal bodies are for.

The reason the CDC is set up like that is to try and give the most accurate and non-bias information possible. They're supposed to just be scientists. That way the data is unbiased and unhampered enough that accurate and efficient programs can be designed around it.

"There's a lower risk for disease transmission, so therefore it's not rape" is what you're saying?

"Rape" is a somewhat more loaded word than "theory".

I...I don't think anyone is remotely saying that.

CDC placed "Made to Penetrate" under the heading "Other Sexual Violence", which is explicitly different from the heading, "Rape". That's all the argument is about.

If a justification is made that says that since "Made to Penetrate" has a lower risk if disease transmission, it should be under a different heading, that is saying "Made to Penetrate" is not "Rape" by whatever definition they're using.

If it's rape, it goes under that heading, as a separate category of rape like all other types of rape. It does not go under a heading explicitly distinct from rape.

edited 22nd Sep '14 8:13:20 AM by AnotherDuck

Another strait man assaulted for standing up against homosexual slurs.

Kudos to both of these gentlemen.

However these men were jumped by other men. Hopefully the masculine community can continue to make improvements in accepting and expanding their demographic by embracing the various expressions of masculinity, including homosexuality and transgenderism as valid expressions. However I feel that men will have to help each other feel secure and open in this. I'm glad men are standing up for other men. I hope further that the need for this sort of protection isn't needed sooner instead of later.

Building on what I posted above,

Best friend honors request of solider to wear a florescent dress at his funeral if he is killed in action.

This is brotherly love. I'm very proud of both of these men and all my love to them and their families.

Final wish respected.

That will make me cry man...

Part of me thinks he should have gone for a boa, too: if only to leave it with the floral arrangements. But, I'm a nit-picking perfectionist when it comes to these things.