(G) Somewhere, Jsc just got a boner (G)

[Derron]

What about rape when all 6 parties are consenting adults 18 or over and one just happens to be a teacher

She is not charged with rape you cocksucking fuckhole.

Midget boy is on a fucking roll this morning..

[Van]

Why on earth could C+ Hottie Sooner Chick possibly be made to serve jail time merely for having consensual sex with adults?

GODDAMMIT! WHAT IN THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?! WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO LEARN TO JUST MIND OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS WHERE A WOMAN AND THE CHOICES SHE MAKES REGARDING HER OWN BODY ARE CONCERNED?! GAH!!

God, I'm really starting to hate our society, and stupid people everywhere. We truly deserve to have a giant ass comet come and obliterate us.

[Moving Sale]

STFU you stupid hillbilly. Everybody on this board knows my name and could find my contact info in 3 seconds.

[Moving Sale]

Why on earth could C+ Hottie Sooner Chick possibly be made to serve jail time merely for having consensual sex with adults?

Just in case you are not trolling...
She's more than a C+, she was their teacher and she is looking at prison time.

[Van]

After watching the video, nope, she's not even a C+ hottie. She's not a hottie at all, at least not facially anyway. Hopefully she's a Butterface.

And there is no reason whatseover that she ought to be facing any criminal charges. What a stupid fucking new law they just came up with: "improper relations with a student."

Redneck lawmakers suck.

[Moving Sale]

After watching the video, nope, she's not even a C+ hottie. She's not a hottie at all, at least not facially anyway. Hopefully she's a Butterface.

I beg to differ and I have fucked a lot more C+ hotties than you have.

And there is no reason whatseover that she ought to be facing any criminal charges. What a stupid fucking new law they just came up with: "improper relations with a student."

Redneck lawmakers suck.

She should lose her job and be looking at minor jail time because she was in a position of trust, but you are right that 20 years is way too long to even be looking at.

[Goober McTuber]

After watching the video, nope, she's not even a C+ hottie. She's not a hottie at all, at least not facially anyway. Hopefully she's a Butterface.

I beg to differ and I have fucked a lot more C+ hotties than you have.

Sure you have, stubby. The only hotties of any grade level you have bedded would be a handful of twisted bitches that had “fuck a midget” on their bucket list.

[Derron]

I beg to differ and I have fucked a lot more C+ hotties than you have.

Midget Sale's C + hottie ?

[M2]

I beg to differ and I have fucked a lot more C+ hotties than you have.

Midget Sale's C + hottie ?

I'd hit it.


You haven't experienced life until you've spun one of those like a top ...while laying on you back and enjoying a bottle of tequila.

[poptart]

Can we get a [g][/g] up in this bitch? Poptard you are a real asshole.

Sorry, Mikey.

I should have just linked that pic instead of posting it.

The survey that Van posted does not make sense.

I mean, were all of the 4008 women they surveyed already rape victims?

It doesn't read that way, but it's the only way the numbers they have there make any sense.

That's right, and it does read that way if you read the study's objective carefully. It has to be that way to compute the rate the study seeks to determine.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

To determine a rape-related pregnancy rate, the sample of the population being studied must meet the criteria of the study. In this case, all subjects would've had to have been raped.

When you read the STUDY DESIGN it says that a sample of American women was taken - and to be clear, if they are talking about people who have already been victimized, it might have said it was a survey of rape victims.

It also says it was a survey to assess the prevalence of rape.

If you are taking 4008 people who have already been raped, you aren't really assessing rape prevalence, are you?

To find rape prevalence, wouldn't you take a group of random people - and then over the course of 3 years, watch and see how many are raped?

And if you are starting the study with people who have already been raped, what by what basis do you then claim that you've found that such and such number of people end up being raped?


But anyway, the finding in the survey that 32,000 women each year become pregnant from rape does not come close to matching up with the national rape rate.

According to Wikipedia, 27 people out of 100,000 were raped in 2010.
Apply that rate to our 315,000,000 people and you get around 85,000 rapes occurring in 2010.

Apply the 5% rape pregnancy rate that the OJoOG claims occurs in rapes to 85,000, and you get just 4,200 pregnancies occurring from rape in 2010.

4,200 is a very far cry from the 32,000 they claim in the survey.

It's not even close.

[wizzardrose]

Hey while we are are on the subject of rape here ole Huckleberry here says it says it so bad as women make it out to be.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 6008.story


I am not sure if he is a major prick or just a moron.

[poptart]

ole Huckleberry here says it says it so bad as women make it out to be.

No, that's what you are saying Huck said.

What Huck really said is that rape is a horrible horrible tragedy which is inexcusable and indefensible.

What he also said after that is fact.
That fact is, quality people can and have been the product of a rape.

Huckabee is a respecter of life, and a fetus which is the product of a rape is the same as a fetus which came about through normal sex.
It's a living being regardless of the manner in which it came into existence.

[Diego in Seattle]

Huckabee is a respecter of life

We call bullshit!

Sincerely,

[Smackie Chan]

When you read the STUDY DESIGN it says that a sample of American women was taken - and to be clear, if they are talking about people who have already been victimized, it might have said it was a survey of rape victims.

Agree

It also says it was a survey to assess the prevalence of rape.

Which does tend to muddy the water relative to the stated objective of the study. Could be that part of the study was to identify "prevalence of rape" among victims who've been raped at least, but possibly more than, once. Even the objective doesn't make clear exactly what rate is trying to be determined. One possibility is the obvious - of the 4008 women in the study, how many got pregnant as a result of rape? That would be easy to determine - (# of pregnancies resulting from rape/4008) x 100 would yield a percentage of victims who became pregnant as a result of being raped. Another possibility is that the study attempted to determine a pregnancy rate based on the number of rape incidents rather than the number of rape victims.

To find rape prevalence, wouldn't you take a group of random people - and then over the course of 3 years, watch and see how many are raped?

That would produce a prevalence rate, but perhaps not the one the researchers were seeking to determine. Another prevalence rate could be average number of times known victims were raped. Some women are raped multiple times by the same person, and some are raped multiple times by different assailants. Does gang rape count as a single incident or multiple incidents?

And if you are starting the study with people who have already been raped, what by what basis do you then claim that you've found that such and such number of people end up being raped?

That's why I don't think the study sought to answer the question, "How likely is it that a random American woman will be raped at least once?". That is a prevalence issue, but again, it's not the only one. More likely, the question the study attempted to answer was, "Among known rape victims, how many times (how prevalent) was each raped, and what percentage of rape incidents led to pregnancy?".

But anyway, the finding in the survey that 32,000 women each year become pregnant from rape does not come close to matching up with the national rape rate.

According to Wikipedia, 27 people out of 100,000 were raped in 2010.

Were each of the 27 raped only once?

Apply that rate to our 315,000,000 people and you get around 85,000 rapes occurring in 2010.

No, you get around 85K rape victims.

Apply the 5% rape pregnancy rate that the OJoOG claims occurs in rapes to 85,000, and you get just 4,200 pregnancies occurring from rape in 2010.

But you may be applying the 5% to too small of a number.

4,200 is a very far cry from the 32,000 they claim in the survey.

It's not even close.

The only way to make the numbers work is if the average number of times each of the 4008 women in the study was raped is ~7.6, and that number is applied across the total population of raped American women. Admittedly, this seems unlikely. I'd like to see more details about the objectives, the methodology, and derivation of the numbers that resulted from the study.

[Left Seater]

It is crazy to be talking about exceptions. Abortion should be readily available when a woman and her physician deem it appropriate, without any interference from the government or anyone else. It should be treated just like the medical procedure it is, nothing more and nothing less.

If that were the case I might feel differently, but there is a ton of interference from those who are pro murder. Planned Parenthood is actively counseling women on sex selective abortions and how to defraud Medicaid in the process. If you really mean what you say, you would support the removal of Planned Parenthood from the abortion process. The physicians just roll in and do multiple abortions and in many cases have no interaction with the woman.

[Goober McTuber]

Planned Parenthood is actively counseling women on sex selective abortions and how to defraud Medicaid in the process.

I did see one story on this. It happened in the intellectual stronghold we call Texas.

In all seriousness, I am opposed to sex selection abortions. But I think that’s a pretty tough one to enforce. Are you going to hold doctors responsible for determining a patient’s motivations?

[M Club]

The only way to make the numbers work is if the average number of times each of the 4008 women in the study was raped is ~7.6, and that number is applied across the total population of raped American women. Admittedly, this seems unlikely. I'd like to see more details about the objectives, the methodology, and derivation of the numbers that resulted from the study.

er, you know it says right in the abstract that 34 rape-related pregnancies accounted for 5% of the total rapage in the study.

[Left Seater]

Sounds like any number of surgeons I know, I had very little interaction with the actual person who removed my gall bladder for example. Their job is to do the procedure, nurses and staff handle bedside manner.

So now it isn't a decision between a woman and her physician like you said it should be earlier, it is now physicians, nurses, staff, etc. A long way from your earlier suggestion.



Goobs,

There are also documented cases in Hawaii and New York.

[Smackie Chan]

it says right in the abstract that 34 rape-related pregnancies accounted for 5% of the total rapage in the study.

It does? Where? I've gone over the abstract Van posted, and nowhere did I see 34 rape-related pregnancies. I tried accessing the article using the link provided, but get an "Invalid URL" message. Where are you getting the 34?

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:320-5.)

Let's assume you're right, and that 34 is the number of rape-related pregnancies reported by the 4008 women in the study. That works out to a 0.85% rate of pregnancy to victims (if, indeed, all 4008 women were rape victims). 34 is 5% of 680, so that would tell me that 680 rapes were reported by the 4008 women, and 34 of those 680 resulted in pregnancy. If the results of the study - "The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year." - are true, that means there are > 642K rapes per year among victims of reproductive age, not 85K as pops computed. And that doesn't count rapes of girls/women outside the reproductive age range. However, the FBI's stats are more in line with pops' computations - 92,455 rapes in 2006. Not sure if that is the number reported or the number estimated based on what was reported, knowing that rape is one of the most underreported crimes. So I'm not sure about the validity of the 5% rape-related pregnancy rate or the 32K pregnancies reported in the study. Fwiw, the population of women within the reproductive age range is probably ~70M. The Guttmacher Institute puts the number of women 15-44 (their reproductive age range, which differs slightly from the 12-45 in the study) at 62M.

[poptart]

Smackie, another good post.

The page is available to see if you use this link... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop- ... 18070.html

... and then scroll the story until you see a link where it says, (Indeed, a study in the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that rapes result in more than 32,000 pregnancies each year.)

Clink that link and then you can see the full abstract - which does contain the 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy note that M Club is talking about.

Appears that Van somehow left the 34 part out when he cut and pasted the piece.


So yeah, bottom line is that it appears that the 4008 women they used in the survey were not already rape victims and that the AJoOG, by virtue of the numbers they are claiming, must project forward as you say and come to a number of around 642,000 rapes occurring in the U.S. each year.

This number appears to be EXTREMELY wack - when compared to the 92,500 number we see the FBI giving.

Just not believable at all.

[Smackie Chan]

So yeah, bottom line is that it appears that the 4008 women they used in the survey were not already rape victims and that the AJoOG, by virtue of the numbers they are claiming, must project forward as you say and come to a number of around 642,000 rapes occurring in the U.S. each year.

This number appears to be EXTREMELY wack - when compared to the 92,500 number we see the FBI giving.

Just not believable at all.

Again, this points out the importance of having all the relevant info when analyzing or assessing the results. I don't think you or anyone else would argue against the assertion that rape is substantially underreported - the wiki link you provided earlier identifies it as being THE most underreported crime, and cites a 2007 report from England estimating that 75-95% of rapes go unreported. If it's assumed that the 92,455 rapes in 1996 cited by the FBI are only those that were reported, and we take the midpoint of the English range (85%) as an estimate of US rapes that go unreported, the total number of annual rapes in the US, both reported and unreported, is >616K (92,455/.15), which approximates the 642K derived from the study. To see if those figures pass scrutiny going the other direction, if we divide the 642K derived from the study by the 92,455 assumed-reported rapes in 2006, it comes out to ~7, meaning that about 1/7 of rapes are reported. Converting 1/7 to a percentage yields ~14%, which is in line with what came out of the English report. So it's possible that the numbers coming out of AJoOG study are valid. But more info is needed to make a definitive determination.

[Python]

That matches what I came up with too.

[Smackie Chan]

That matches what I came up with too.

Then that settles it. It passes peer review.

[Mikey]

Are you guys talking about legitimate rapes?

[Smackie Chan]

Are you guys talking about legitimate rapes?

No. Illegitimate bastards.

[Mikey]

Ahhh...OK poptart then. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Python]

It passes peer review.

What the heck did you just call me? Screw you.

[mvscal]

I don't think you or anyone else would argue against the assertion that rape is substantially underreported -

How would you or anyone else know with any degree of certainty? It is a basic logical fallacy.

[Left Seater]

Women and physicians will handle it just fine without you.

Thanks for making my point. As you pointed out others besides the physicians will be involved so it isn't just a medical procedure between a woman and her physician.

Hell, Cali and PP want to remove those with a medical degree from the equation altogether.

[Moving Sale]

I don't think you or anyone else would argue against the assertion that rape is substantially underreported -

Then you would be wrong.

I give you exhibit A (also known as the stupidest person west of KC):

How would you or anyone else know with any degree of certainty? It is a basic logical fallacy.

[Moving Sale]

As you pointed out others besides the physicians will be involved so it isn't just a medical procedure between a woman and her physician.

You are stupider than a warehouse of dull propellers. Do you have any idea what Patient confidentiality is and what its boundaries are?

[Left Seater]

Hey ankle biter, keep on topic here. Jsc said abortion should be a decision between two individuals, then it was expanded, then contracted again.

[Derron]

then it was expanded, then contracted again.

Just like Moving Bowels sphincter, after the plunger is removed every night.

[Van]

Lefty, it doesn't matter whether it's one physician or multiple physicians, the point is it's a decision that should be made solely by a woman and her doctor(s). It's none of our business. Why are you even bothering to pursue such a silly distinction?

[Goober McTuber]

Knee-jerk right wing autobot response. He might be channeling mvscal.

[Smackie Chan]

It passes peer review.

What the heck did you just call me? Screw you.

My bad. Thought you were among those of us who urinate.

[poptart]

identifies it as being THE most underreported crime

Of course if we want to buy into the 642,000 rapes per year the OJoOG survey concludes happen each year (instead of the 92,000 the FBI cites), we must assume that a population that is generally reluctant to report a rape somehow had no problem reporting them all to the OJoOG.

:?



If we all chip in we can pool together $30 and buy the report and learn more fabulous information.

I'll pony up 9 cents.


Who's next?

[Left Seater]

Van the reason is because Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are trying to move away from Dr involvement.

PP wants midwives to be able to preform the procedure.

Please tell me you knew that staffers at PP are not Drs nor are the vast majority even nurses. You and Jsc said this should be a decision between a woman and her Dr, but in most cases it is a decision between a woman and an uneducated staffer.

[M Club]

identifies it as being THE most underreported crime

Of course if we want to buy into the 642,000 rapes per year the OJoOG survey concludes happen each year (instead of the 92,000 the FBI cites), we must assume that a population that is generally reluctant to report a rape somehow had no problem reporting them all to the OJoOG.

:?

Completely plausible if the FBI numbers include only reported crime, victimization surveys and all that.

[poptart]

Victimization surveys?

Ahhh...
The sound of shit being pulled from deep from within the ass.



If rapes are not reported, how do you know they are occurring in huge numbers?

Kreskin?
Carnac?



Why would a population that is known (supposedly) to be not much interested in reporting rapes, somehow ALL freely open up to strangers (the OJoOG) about the rapes which are happening to them?