The underlying theme of all this, of course, is that to people like the FRC, the very <em>last</em> people one should seek to blame for rape is men who rape. They&#039;re the real victims here, don&#039;t you see?
Those numbers came from the report hyperlinked in the post (to It&#039;s on the Internet). I don&#039;t know that there is that level of breakdown. It would be interesting. I grew up near Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and the Marines there were not randomly sampled from the population for sure.
And then there&#039;s that whole thing about how when rape victims are not held up for shame and scandal anymore, they start reporting rapes more often.
But then, if the FRC had a good grasp of how statistics work, they&#039;d have thrown their support behind some guy named Barack Obama last fall.
And, as PsycWench pointed out above, the &quot;33% increase&quot; is from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2012. And as others have mentioned, it isn&#039;t unreasonable to expect some increase in reported incidents when the reporting is no longer likely to get you discharged.
If something happens once one year, and twice the next year, it&#039;s a 100% increase. I&#039;m still waiting for the report to download but I&#039;ll bet that we are talking about small absolute numbers. Edit: Ah ha! in 2010, .9% (that&#039;s Point Nine Percent) reported unwanted sexual contact and in 2012 it rose to 1.2%. During the same time, the figures for women were 4.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Obviously any unwanted sexual contact is bad, but the surge (whether in incidents or reporting) is much greater for women. But why let that get in the way of some anti-gay data mining?
The underlying theme of all this, of course, is that to people like the FRC, the very <em>last</em> people one should seek to blame for rape is men who rape. They&#039;re the real victims here, don&#039;t you see?
E.g., prison.
Moreover, a morality entirely dependent upon faith isn&#039;t worth much during a crisis of faith.
Those numbers came from the report hyperlinked in the post (to It&#039;s on the Internet). I don&#039;t know that there is that level of breakdown. It would be interesting. I grew up near Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and the Marines there were not randomly sampled from the population for sure.
Rand Paul is also his fault, too.
And then there&#039;s that whole thing about how when rape victims are not held up for shame and scandal anymore, they start reporting rapes more often.
But then, if the FRC had a good grasp of how statistics work, they&#039;d have thrown their support behind some guy named Barack Obama last fall.
Naw, she&#039;s only a lesbian if she turns a guy down.
Both of &#039;em, also too.
I do wish Arlo hadn&#039;t grown into a libertarian idiot.
Pi equals 3. That&#039;s math.
What they need is a nice, cylindrical, aluminum Bible.
But, you&#039;re taking this seriously. Who does that?
Why, yes. Yes it can.
And, as PsycWench pointed out above, the &quot;33% increase&quot; is from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2012. And as others have mentioned, it isn&#039;t unreasonable to expect some increase in reported incidents when the reporting is no longer likely to get you discharged.
Sounds like &quot;give it a shot, carefully&quot; to me.
If something happens once one year, and twice the next year, it&#039;s a 100% increase. I&#039;m still waiting for the report to download but I&#039;ll bet that we are talking about small absolute numbers. Edit: Ah ha! in 2010, .9% (that&#039;s Point Nine Percent) reported unwanted sexual contact and in 2012 it rose to 1.2%. During the same time, the figures for women were 4.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Obviously any unwanted sexual contact is bad, but the surge (whether in incidents or reporting) is much greater for women. But why let that get in the way of some anti-gay data mining?