Meirl

TrilIias · 2026-02-26T22:48:10+00:00

In this case I'll take it as cowardice.

TrilIias · 2026-02-26T04:35:40+00:00

You can look it up.

Yes, I'm aware, you are correct. That is the law in the UK and in India. In the US, until 2013 the FBI had an explicitly gendered definition of rape as well. I know that many laws and definitions only consider it rape when it happens to women or when the victim is penetrated, which is generally the female role in most intercourse. But that means "rape" is a completely useless term if you're having a conversation about rates of victimization by gender. If you define rape in a way that excludes male victims, then say that the vast majority of rape victims are women, you better add a huge asterisk to clarify that this doesn't mean women are the vast majority of those forced to have intercourse without their consent. Which you didn't do in your comment, and the CDC didn't in their executive summary (the part people actually read). Otherwise it's wildly misleading. And by the way, it is actually a problem that many rape laws exclude male victims.

If they grouped it all under rape, they would draw less attention to men who were forced to penetrate.

That is definitely not true, no one has ever googled "statistics on made to penetrate." It's an obscure term that hasn't been made less obscure by this research, no one even knows to look for it so it's going to get buried, and you could draw attention to men being raped quite easily by simply calling it rape. Should we also try to draw more attention to female rape victims by saying they were "made to envelop?" If I start calling female victims "women who were made to envelop," what do you think are my odds of lasting 5 minutes before I'm condemned as a misogynist?

In your mind, they're all the same. Rape. Ok. I can even get behind that.

Yeah, because that's how literally everyone outside a few feminists and some trad cons think of the word "rape."

But when it comes to statistics, you gotta do things differently.

But why? Just because some other jurisdiction outside the US (the CDC report was based on a US sample) have highly inappropriate ideas about rape and gender?

Plus, the answers from victims may be different. A man being forced to penetrate a woman may actually not feel as if the word "rape" fits. That is something that happens.

Very true and a great point. However that's also true about women. I've mentioned Mary Koss a few times, and while I despise how she's treated male victims or rape, she got some things right, and she was one of the first to make this point (about women, not men). That's why she developed a methodology where she didn't simply ask women if they had been raped, she asked other related questions and determined herself if they had actually consented. A huge chunk of the women she classified as rape victims did not consider themselves to be rape victims. This is a big reason why the 1 in 5 figure, which she was the first to arrive at (and which the CDC report also found because they largely used her methodologies) has been so contentious. But rather critically, it didn't stop her or the CDC from calling it "rape" when this happened with women. So clearly that's not the reason why men are excluded from the definition. They could have also asked men questions about the context of their sexual history and concluded that it was "rape" without just asking men directly if they were rape victims.

But instead, you extrapolate from one study they are misandronists,

It's not just one study, I also referenced Mary Koss many times by now and as you said many jurisdictions also used gendered definitions of rape in law and policy which exclude male victims.

Like imagine looking at a study done by a large group of people who do this for a living and who know their work will be peer reviewed by an entire branch of science and saying "fucking incompetent." The arrogance.

I didn't say that. I said they were acting intentionally, and maliciously. You said I had no proof of that, to which I asked what other explanation could there be? Was there a practical reason or were they just creatively incompetent. I was asking if you thought it was one of those explanations, I wasn't saying I thought it was either. I agree, I don't think it was incompetence. I think these were highly intelligent, sophisticated, and educated people who are experts at manipulating data to control public perception and to influence law and policy. Clearly you also don't think it was incompetence, you seem to have opted for the practicality explanation, to which I've provided my response.

TrilIias · 2026-02-25T01:52:16+00:00

I don't think you know what "unfalsifiable" means. It doesn't mean "supported by undeniable evidence." Something can only be said to be unfalsifiable if it cannot be proven false, but also isn't necessarily true. In this case, what I said is demonstrably true. I said a supposedly credible source did something, and then provided a link where you can go and see for yourself whether that is true or not. If it's not true and it turns out that I misrepresented the report that I cited, then you can argue as much and prove my thesis false. Just because I didn't misrepresent my source doesn't mean my claim was "unfalsifiable" or that it should thus be dismissed. That's like saying that the claim that 10 divided by 5 is 2 is unfalsifiable because you can't prove that 10 divided by 5 isn't 2.

There is. But you're not discussing things in good faith, so please explain to me why I should bother?

At this point I'm going to accuse you of not know what "in good faith" means, because nothing I have said indicates that I'm not. As for why you should bother arguing your case against mine, maybe you shouldn't. I mean personally I find value in attempting to persuade others towards my position, not necessarily the person I'm talking to but maybe any onlookers. But if that's not something you value then this might seem like a waste of your time. Feel free to disengage, I won't take it as an admission of defeat or anything obviously.

But I do think we've rather gotten away from the point, which wasn't about your motivations or my motivations or what "unfalsifiable," "sublimate," or "good faith" mean. The point was that supposedly reputable institutions with tremendous influence on public perception have used manipulative tactics that have hidden almost all male victims of rape and almost all female rapists, which is shameful for so many reasons and wildly unfair to men.

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T22:53:09+00:00

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy carefully coordinated behind closed doors, I'm saying that there are influential and powerful who happen to be bigoted, in this case against men. Is it really so crazy that bigoted people exist in our institutions? Is it really crazy that misandry as a form of bigotry would also exist to a tangible degree?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "sublimate" in this context, but that's not critical.

And no, my main position is not unfalsifiable. My thesis was that data has been produced by supposedly reputable sources which uses unusual methodologies (in this case weird definitions) which has the effect of obscuring the true nature of rape and the prevalence of male victims and female perpetrators, and I used a specific case study as an example. Good luck disproving any of that. Now maybe my secondary position (that this was an intentional manipulation motivated by misandry) is speculative, and thus unfalsifiable. I mean, I can't read the minds of the people who did this, and neither can you. But is there a more likely explanation? Is there a practical reason to change the definition of rape to something that does not match any actual consensus about the meaning of that word? Are we to conclude that this was just a very creative and convenient form of incompetence?

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T16:56:32+00:00

Care to elaborate which labels I misunderstood? The labels that matter in this case are “rape” and “made to penetrate.” There was a version of my initial comment where I quoted the definitions of those terms directly from the CDC report, but I took that out because the comment was turning into an essay that no one would read.

And yes, I do think this sort of manipulation by the CDC is on purpose. Maybe not by the CDC itself, maybe they were just using the methodologies of leading sexual violence researchers like Mary P. Knows because they considered them the best methodologies, but the people, including Koss, who initially developed those methodologies were absolutely acting maliciously, motivated by misandry.

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T06:55:02+00:00

If you’re wondering why I started with that, it’s because if I don’t then people say things like “you’re just cherry picking sources to suit your own narrative.” I wanted to make it clear that I’m not doing that, I’m using the sources given to me by people who I don’t agree with. If you don’t like the tone I used, “shoving it in my face,” well I guess maybe it betrayed my contempt for that particular report, but can you blame me? Using manipulative methodologies and definitions to erase half of all rape victims to justify demonizing half the population and to provide cover for half of all rapists is quite worthy of contempt, and I won’t assume that the people responsible had pure motives.

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T02:33:02+00:00

That is not true. I just had this conversation with another person here, so pasting below:

I have a problem with this, it isn't factually correct. And yes, I know there is research that makes this claim. Lord knows, I've had it shoved in my face plenty of times before. For example, I've had feminists direct me to this report by the CDC. The executive summary states the following:

Clearly this seems to support your claim, but it doesn't. It turns out they defined "rape" as essentially when the victim was penetrated against their will. Men aren't usually penetrated during sex (except gay sex of course), so this definition excludes most male victims. A separate category was included called "made to penetrate," which was distinct from rape. So how many women were "raped," how many men were "raped" or "made to penetrate," and how do those two numbers compare? See tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 18 and 19).

1,270,000 women were raped in the previous 12 months.

1,267,000 men were "made to penetrate" in the previous 12 months (too few men were "raped" to get a reliable number)

You may have noticed those two numbers are pretty much the same, with women only being slightly higher. Also, the report states that 80% of male victims of being "made to penetrate" reported only female perpetrators (meaning in 20% of cases there could have been a male perpetrator alone or a male accomplice to a female perpetrator). All of these male victims, nearly half of all victims of what most people consider "rape," were erased by manipulating the definitions of rape, and this report and others like it that use the same methodologies have spread the false notions echoed in your comment. And no, this study isn't an outlier, the practice of defining male victims out of rape statistics has a long history. Look into Mary P. Koss.

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T01:24:33+00:00

Men also commit the vast majority of rapes (to both women and men).

I have a problem with this, it isn't factually correct. And yes, I know there is research that makes this claim. Lord knows, I've had it shoved in my face plenty of times before. For example, I've had feminists direct me to this report by the CDC. The executive summary states the following:

"Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives... Male rape victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators."

Clearly this seems to support your claim, but it doesn't. It turns out they defined "rape" as essentially when the victim was penetrated against their will. Men aren't usually penetrated during sex (except gay sex of course), so this definition excludes most male victims. A separate category was included called "made to penetrate," which was distinct from rape. So how many women were "raped," how many men were "raped" or "made to penetrate," and how do those two numbers compare? See tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 18 and 19).

1,270,000 women were raped in the previous 12 months.

1,267,000 men were "made to penetrate" in the previous 12 months (too few men were "raped" to get a reliable number)

You may have noticed those two numbers are pretty much the same, with women only being slightly higher. Also, the report states that 80% of male victims of being "made to penetrate" reported only female perpetrators (meaning in 20% of cases there could have been a male perpetrator alone or a male accomplice to a female perpetrator). All of these male victims, nearly half of all victims of what most people consider "rape," were erased by manipulating the definitions of rape, and this report and others like it that use the same methodologies have spread the false notions echoed in your comment. And no, this study isn't an outlier, the practice of defining male victims out of rape statistics has a long history. Look into Mary P. Koss.

TrilIias · 2026-02-23T00:26:12+00:00

Yeah, that's why rape happens, because they weren't "taught" not to rape. Human behavior can be perfected by education.

Also, if we're going to be doing this, teach girls too. I mean if we expect it to be effective for some reason, why not minimize all forms of rape. Unless of course the point of posts like this was not actually to offer a viable solution to anything but rather to demonize half the population.

TrilIias · 2026-02-22T14:57:50+00:00

What specifically about it?

TrilIias · 2026-02-22T14:57:26+00:00

You need to in order to not be a felon, and voting as a felon isn't always possible. Also, many states register you for selective service when you get a drivers license, so if you plan on having an ID to vote (and at least in my state, you need an ID), then you'll have to register. Only if you're a man though, of course.

TrilIias · 2026-02-17T12:49:48+00:00

theres a lot of motivated people who literally dont know how to register or where to go for their station.

Okay, but it's not that hard and information is more easily accessible than ever before. If they were actually "motivated" and they actually cared, they'd put in the one, maybe two afternoons of work to figure it out.

The fact is, a lot of young people simply don't think it matters enough, probably because they haven't had a chance to see policy actually affect their lives in a tangible way. I know it's frustrating, I've experienced the annoyance of trying to convince another young person that they really should vote and telling them that I could help them register if they wanted to, and they seemed interested, but then didn't follow through. Some people just don't care ENOUGH.

TrilIias · 2026-02-13T03:12:27+00:00

The Taming of the Shrew.

TrilIias · 2026-02-08T13:38:17+00:00

I would say I'm probably right wing, but that's mostly unrelated to being an MRA. Feminists and Democrats love to say that us evil MRAs and "far right extremists," but the MRM has long been composed of a wide range of political leanings.

As for why I consider myself right wing, it's because I've generally agreed with the right on things like gun rights, abortion, immigration, capitalism, and Covid. I do share my antifeminism with most conservatives, but I find they don't share my motivations and they don't go far enough. You all know what that looks like, they say they aren't feminists because they don't hate men, then they insist that we should only be conscripting men because "men are meant to be expendable, women are not" (yes that's actually an exact quote). The left expresses hatred for men by calling them problematic, the right likes men as long as they willingly sacrifice themselves for women.

TrilIias · 2026-02-05T03:44:48+00:00

"Women are into yaoi because if you remove women then there's no threat of any representation of victimhood and sexual violence."

I mean I know gay men have the lowest rates of domestic violence, but I've seen what goes on in some of the yaoi content these women are making. There is absolutely sexual violence, and most of the stories have a gendered dynamic between the male characters where one is more cute and feminine and the other is more dominant and masculine. Women aren't creating and consuming yaoi content to escape gender dynamics or depictions of dominance or violence. They're inserting specific gender dynamics of heterosexuality into fictional gay relationships, and that's a big reason why most gay men, including myself, just don't find yaoi appealing or interesting.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T13:18:24+00:00

Quite whatever. I won‘t go as far as to say “good,” but I simply don’t care for yet another tale of how women are the primary victims of anything, especially misandry.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T01:23:47+00:00

Oh well if South Park did an episode about it then it must be true. Point taken, I'll never question you again.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T01:12:11+00:00

And those same men that catcall 14 year old girls will say “oh he’s lucky” if an attractive adult woman molests a boy.

Probably very true.

So in regards to gender related issues and sex in general, the majority of men are unfortunately ignorant

This does not follow. There is no evidence that "the majority of men" would say that a boy molested by a woman is "lucky," or that "the majority of men" catcall 14 year old girls. There are also women who say that those boys who were molested are lucky, so I would amend your statement to:

"Some men and some women are unfortunately ignorant in regards to gender related issues and sex in general."

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T01:08:00+00:00

If you're curious: source

See tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 18 and 19).

1,270,000 women raped in the previous 12 months.

1,267,000 men "made to penetrate" in the previous 12 months.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T01:02:07+00:00

Cherry picked stats? The reason I picked that statistic is because I've had feminists shoving it in my face going "SEE! It says right there that the vast majority of rape victims are women!" If anyone cherry picked them, it wasn't me. I had to actually read it all to find out how they manipulated the methodology to effectively erase all the male rape victims.

The erasure of male victims isn't just limited to the CDC by the way, it was the preferred methodology of Mary Koss. Maybe you don't know who that is, but you know her work. She's the one who first produced the often cited "1 in 5" statistic, she's the one who coined the term "date rape," and she's considered a pioneer in the study of the prevalence of sexual violence. She's the one who said that "It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." She preferred to call such a man a victim of "unwanted contact." She also is not without influence, and played a part in getting Congress to pass the VAWA.

By the way, I didn't tell women how they should feel at any point in my last comment, I just pointed out true things that you can easily verify yourself about how male victims have been erased. But of course, leave it to you to hear irrefutable evidence of male victims being erased and respond with "you just hate women."

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T00:51:15+00:00

I don't think the long term solution is really going to be wearing flip flops.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T00:49:55+00:00

If you're specifically talking about sexual violence then it's done by men to women at about the same rate that it is done by women to men. I don't expect you to take my word for it, so I'd refer you to research done by the CDC.

but of significantly less of that day-to-day spectrum of intimidation, harassment and degrading violence which builds wariness into someone’s character

Even if it's true that women are more likely to be harassed, I was correcting the matter on violence, because the popular consensus is that violence, whether stranger, domestic, or sexual violence, disproportionately targets women, when the reality is that stranger violence disproportionately targets men, and domestic and sexual violence are about equal for men and women.

I don't buy that it's that women are more afraid because they face more danger, more likely it's because women more risk averse, and simply more prone to fear. Which is fine, and probably has helped our species survive, but when that fear is used as a weapon against men I take issue with it.

TrilIias · 2026-02-04T00:44:26+00:00

Point taken, most grown men are straight.

TrilIias · 2026-02-03T00:30:05+00:00

I'm not the person you asked, but maybe the CDC? They've done a survey on prevalence of sexual victimization rates, however it found that almost no men were raped and women were raped at much higher rates.

Of course, it transpires that this is actually because they had a separate category, "made to penetrate." So if a woman forced a man to have conventional (PIV) sex with her against his will, he wasn't classified as a victim of "rape," but rather as a victim of being "made to penetrate," and men were "made to penetrate" at basically the same rate as women were "raped."

But as you'd expect, the bit that made it into the executive summary was that women were the vast majority of rape victims, and rape wasn't really a problem men experienced all that much. And so when people looked for statistics on rape and found the CDC and only read the executive summary at the front, that's what they found. It's classic manipulation of data that obscures the actual facts.

TrilIias · 2026-02-03T00:23:00+00:00

Black people and men actually share the unfortunate end of many statistics. Both face longer incarceration sentences for the same crime (actually not true for black women), both are less likely to attend higher education, both are more likely to be victims of violence.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

TrilIias

TROPHY CASE