Editorial note: among the thousands of articles published over the years of AVfM’s existence, a tiny handful are cited over and over again by dishonest critics of the Men’s Human Rights Movement as ‘typical” content for this publication. With about a thousand articles a year published on this site, it should be telling that only a small handful are cited over and over again as if they are typical, rather than unusual. This is one of those few articles.
This particular article, penned in mid-2011, was written to illustrate the still-common phenomena among gender ideologue “researchers” of incompetently or intentionally misusing scientific evidence: twisting statistics in an invalid manner, or worse, simply repeating statistics that have been disproven or were entirely fabricated, known as the woozle effect. The entire below article is nothing but an illustrative example of what Murray Straus identified as “Evidence by Citation” and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by pseudoscientific ideologues with PhDs, and it quite clearly says so if you just read it to the end: this entire article is a bunch of fraudulent lies, meant to teach a lesson about just how gullible people can be and how easily they will accept horrible lies about male sexuality but get angry about lies regarding female sexuality.
What should also be instantly noticeable to you is that the odds are good if you found this link recently from a site that angrily linked it as “typical” of AVfM content, it is actually quite old; if it were “typical,” why this same old article over and over and over again? And, right at the bottom, it has always stated quite clearly that the whole article is a satirical lie–and still, on a regular basis, people angrily refer to it as if it’s a serious article that reflects our everyday views. What this says about our attitudes about male vs. female sexuality, and just how gullible people can be when presented with information that looks scientific, and just how shallow and/or dishonest our critics seem to be, should give thoughtful readers pause.
The original article–which again, is nothing but a pack of lies, and which the very last paragraph explains to be nothing but lies–appears unaltered below this point. –Eds.
A university study, Romeo, Felicia F. “Acquaintance Rape on College and University Campuses,” AAETS. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.” The study of female rape victims concluded that the majority – 57% – of women who were raped on college campuses, reported feelings that were described as “positive” and “satisfied,” about the experience.
The study reflected survey results of 1,700 victims of rape that was perpetrated by a male acquaintance in a social environment, also known as “date” rape.
A meta analytic review of related studies pointed to the validity of the Romeo study. Hoskins and Fisk, 2010.
Perhaps surprising in the survey results was the fact that nearly 38% of the respondents reported a desire to repeat the experience, some obsessively so.
This would also be quite consistent with findings outlined in an article from Psychology Today, regarding the prevalence and incidence of rape fantasies in women, much of which are quite extreme and violent.
From the article:
From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women’s rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.
For the latest report (Bivona, J. and J. Critelli. “The Nature of Women’s Rape Fantasies: An Analysis of Prevalence, Frequency, and Contents,”Journal of Sex Research (2009) 46:33), psychologists at North Texas University asked 355 college women: How often have you fantasized being overpowered/forced/raped by a man/woman to have oral/vaginal/anal sex against your will?
Sixty-two percent said they’d had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being “overpowered by a man,” 52 percent said they’d had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women’s romance fiction. But when the term was “rape,” only 32 percent said they’d had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.
Clearly, there is much yet to be understood about women and their predilection for being physically overpowered and forced to engage in sexual activity in a violent way.
And it calls into question whether prevailing attitudes about rape may be convoluted due to a social taboo against the practice.
It may be time in modern culture where we need to start evaluating the possibility that women, through the cultural expression of patriarchy, may be unfairly restricted from articulating their desire to be raped, and as such cut off from the full actualization of their sexual freedom.
In another Psychology Today article on dealing with the sexual liberation of women, some aspects of repression were addressed.
From the article:
What caused the sexual revolution?
Many factors may have been implicated, such as improved contraception (the pill which gave women more control), but effective condoms had been widely used for a century. Marriage prospects and careers were the key. Women’s marriage prospects worsened steadily throughout the sixties and there were only 80 men of marriageable age for every 100 women (2) thanks to an echo effect of the baby boom a generation earlier. Women also postponed marriage as they developed careers.
The net result was a large and increasing population of women who were sexually active outside marriage. Facing stiffer competition for men, women upped the ante by offering increased levels of sexual intimacy outside marriage.
In addition to complying with the masculine desire for sex without strings, women today adopt a more masculine sensibility regarding issues of number of sexual partners, sexual variety, and sexual satisfaction.
And, in a related study by Kale and Weiser, 1998, it was suggested that the full actualization of that liberation would include the idea of women’s pervasive rape fantasies being fulfilled spontaneously by men in their immediate environment.
On a more subjective note, this could be an explanation for the recurrent theme in feminist literature of “rape culture.” It may well be that the outward obsession with this notion, in a culture that clearly condemns and punishes rape, may be a matter of projective denial reflecting a desire for an actual rape culture to emerge in order to fulfill women’s unfulfilled sexual desires.
It also calls into question whether the concept of “consent,” where it relates to sexual activity, is antiquated. Indeed it calls into question whether the concept of “rape,” in the literal definition, is just a cultural misconception for a male tendency to fulfill women’s desire for sexual excitement and thrills and women’s collective desire to see this accomplished.
That would at least partly explain why there is currently far reaching efforts to broaden the definition of rape, given we interpret those efforts as an attempt to fulfill as many rape fantasies as possible.
All this should be considered, however, with the caveat that the Romeo study found no results whatsoever as presented in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and the fact that the Kale & Weiser and Fisk studies are not extant.
These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as “Evidence by Citation” and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.
