Normally BadX subs link to a highly uprooted post then give a detailed well sourced explanation about why they're wrong

"I don't think it's 3 separate statistics either, but that's how you're presenting the data and I'm pointing out the problem with your approach. If you want to exclude attempted rape (for some inexplicable reason), the figure would be 12.9%."

I'm pretty sure you're misreading the data. I think your problem is that you think "forced penetration" and "being made to penetrate" are the same thing. They aren't. Forced penetration is like a guy forces his member into a woman's vagina or a man's ass. "Being made to penetrate" is like a woman forcing a guy to put his dick inside her. They're two separate categories in the study. "Forced penetration" is counted as rape where as "being made to penetrate" is not.

Go to TABLE 1

You can see, there where 19.5% of women that where raped.

This number includes attempted rape, completed rape, and alcohol induced completed and attempted sex.

completed rape includes alcohol induced completed sex+any other completed action that's considered rape.

Being "mate to penetrate" for males is not considered rape (for some reason, even though most people would consider that rape.)

6.7% of men experienced being "made to penetrate." 82.6% of the perpetrators in this case or women.

This means if we consider being made to penetrate rape, then according to the study 5.5% of men have been raped by women compared to 11.5% of women being raped.

""Fortunately you haven't presented any evidence of any misrepresentations of data."

Yes, I have. If only 3.6% out of 22% of the wage gap can be chalked up to employer discrimination, then the wage gap is mostly not due to employer discrimination, meaning if you push policies based on the idea that it is, then you're basing those proposals on skewed data.

/r/BadSocialScience Thread Parent