tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2509917172803561453.post8718266001850439559..comments2023-09-17T08:05:50.948-07:00Comments on venture philosophy .: Loyal to a fault: the crisis of male identity and rapeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2509917172803561453.post-70881063799980198572013-06-06T21:36:13.856-07:002013-06-06T21:36:13.856-07:00Interesting post, and I see that you don't hav...Interesting post, and I see that you don't have any comments for this one, so I'll post the first one. Something I'd like you to address: You state that 98% of rapists are men. It could be because 98% of rapists are actually men, or it could be because rape is defined in such a way that 98% of rapists turn out to be men. Going to the FBI link from that statistic, rape is defined by the old definition of "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will", meaning that only women can be victims, and since most people are heterosexual, most women are going to be raped by men by this definition. Even with the definition expanded recently to include all penetration without consent (you freely admit that the definition of rape is penetration-centric: "Rape happens when one person thinks they have the right to penetrate another person without their consent"), the nature of the definition still entails that most people who rape are going to be men, since men are typically the ones who penetrate during sexual intercourse, forced or not. While you may have a post elsewhere concerning this matter, you have no link to it here, so I have to ask: How do you account for the inherently biased definition of rape presented by the FBI? For example, by the new definition, a woman forcing a man into her for sex against his will would not count as rape, since the man is not technically being penetrated. This sort of finding would even out the percentage of rapes being committed by men and women a bit more than 98% men. Thanks for your time.jpm286https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555217935118504503noreply@blogger.com