27 Oct 2012, 1:13 pm
27 Oct 2012, 2:42 pm
YippySkippy wrote:
Quote:
She hasn't found a good husband yet, and probably won't.
Would you want Sarah Palin as a mother-in-law?
27 Oct 2012, 4:03 pm
27 Oct 2012, 4:08 pm
YippySkippy wrote:
Would you want Sarah Palin as a mother-in-law?
There is a site rule against putting horrifying images like that into my mind!
27 Oct 2012, 4:57 pm
27 Oct 2012, 5:40 pm
27 Oct 2012, 5:50 pm
27 Oct 2012, 5:52 pm
27 Oct 2012, 5:58 pm
27 Oct 2012, 7:49 pm
LKL wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I've heard of these contraptions. Even so, the vagina is likely to become moist, and to remain moist for some time post coitus.
Darlin,' that happens fairly often, whether there's sex or not.
Accordin' to the Republican Party Platform, that would depend on whether she was askin' for it or not.
27 Oct 2012, 10:42 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I've heard of these contraptions. Even so, the vagina is likely to become moist, and to remain moist for some time post coitus.
Darlin,' that happens fairly often, whether there's sex or not.
Accordin' to the Republican Party Platform, that would depend on whether she was askin' for it or not.
Stop drinking the Kool-aid...
27 Oct 2012, 11:08 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I've heard of these contraptions. Even so, the vagina is likely to become moist, and to remain moist for some time post coitus.
Darlin,' that happens fairly often, whether there's sex or not.
Accordin' to the Republican Party Platform, that would depend on whether she was askin' for it or not.
Sometimes it's hormonal and not related to external stimuli at all. It's also been shown that, to some extent and for some women, it's a defense mechanism to help prevent injury, as opposed to exclusively a response to arousal.
Please don't 'wink' when you're talking about rape. Your target may be the republicans, but it's still not funny.
28 Oct 2012, 1:54 am
LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I've heard of these contraptions. Even so, the vagina is likely to become moist, and to remain moist for some time post coitus.
Darlin,' that happens fairly often, whether there's sex or not.
Accordin' to the Republican Party Platform, that would depend on whether she was askin' for it or not.
Sometimes it's hormonal and not related to external stimuli at all. It's also been shown that, to some extent and for some women, it's a defense mechanism to help prevent injury, as opposed to exclusively a response to arousal.
Please don't 'wink' when you're talking about rape. Your target may be the republicans, but it's still not funny.
And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of liberals... No Republican is in favor of women being raped, I know the DNC claims otherwise, but if you look at their "beloved" Bill Clinton, seems to me we see more sexual abuse being celebrated by Democrats.
Akins said something that was very poorly worded, he isn't experienced on the national stage, and worded something poorly.
Mourdoch's statements were poorly worded, however when you stop and think about it, he never advocated women being raped. He was making the point that the child was still a child of God, like any other child; and not some spawn of satan like pro-abortion fanatics claim.
How about instead of the smear-a-thon, you actually stop and think about the fact that pro-lifers may actually have a valid argument.
28 Oct 2012, 3:55 am
AspieRogue wrote:
First of all, that study is quite dated(14 years ago).
It's results were replicated in another meta-analysis in The Scientific review of Mental Health Practice in 2005-2006.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rb ... /frame.htm
And this study *explicitly* incorporated the methodological criticism previously raised against the validity of the Rind et al. study.
Oh, and the age of a study does not in itself have an influence on its validity.
AspieRogue wrote:
Second of all, it is a STATISTICAL STUDY and you cannot prove anything with statistics!
So I guess all those people working in statistical mechanics (like Maxwell and Einstein) were just charlatans...
AspieRogue wrote:
WTF makes you think that this single study somehow represents the opinion of the modern psychological establishment?
First of all, I couldn't care less about the *opinion* of the modern psychological establishment. I care about the evidence.
Oh, and this (page 27 in the article):
Applying the above criteria produced 59 usable studies (see the Appendix) consisting of 36 published studies, 21 unpublished dissertations and 2 unpublished master's theses. These studies yielded 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates, , 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level 214 symptom level effect sizes, 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data, 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and 11 independent samples that reported data on self-reported effects. Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women). Effect size for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 samples and 12,570 women from 40 samples).
"Single study"
?And as mentioned earlier, the American Association for the Advancement of Science found no fault with the study (despite the US senate condemning it in a 100-0 vote)... I guess they didn't care about *opinions* either...
AspieRogue wrote:
A big reason I question the accuracy of this study is the text quoted below from the article(in bold). I hope you understand.
From the article:
Problems of scientific validity of the term CSA are perhaps
most apparent when contrasting cases such as the repeated rape
of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement
of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated
adult. Although the former case represents a clear violation of
the person with implications for serious harm, the latter may
represent only a violation of social norms with no implication
for personal harm (Bauserman & Rind, 1997). By combining
events likely to produce harm with those that are not into a
unitary category of CSA, valid understanding of the pathogenicity
of CSA is threatened (Okami, 1994). The tendency by researchers
to label cases such as the latter as abuse reflects the
slippage of legal and moral constructs into scientific definitions
(Okami, 1990, 1994). Basing scientific classifications of sexual
behavior on legal and moral criteria was pervasive a half century
ago (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948); more recently, this
practice has been confined to a much smaller set of sexual
behaviors, particularly those labeled CSA.
With these caveats in mind regarding the scientific shortcomings
of the term CSA, we have nevertheless retained it for use
in the current article because of its pervasive use in the scientific
literature and because many researchers as well as lay persons
view all types of sociolegally defined CSA as harmful.
From the article:
Problems of scientific validity of the term CSA are perhaps
most apparent when contrasting cases such as the repeated rape
of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement
of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated
adult. Although the former case represents a clear violation of
the person with implications for serious harm, the latter may
represent only a violation of social norms with no implication
for personal harm (Bauserman & Rind, 1997). By combining
events likely to produce harm with those that are not into a
unitary category of CSA, valid understanding of the pathogenicity
of CSA is threatened (Okami, 1994). The tendency by researchers
to label cases such as the latter as abuse reflects the
slippage of legal and moral constructs into scientific definitions
(Okami, 1990, 1994). Basing scientific classifications of sexual
behavior on legal and moral criteria was pervasive a half century
ago (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948); more recently, this
practice has been confined to a much smaller set of sexual
behaviors, particularly those labeled CSA.
With these caveats in mind regarding the scientific shortcomings
of the term CSA, we have nevertheless retained it for use
in the current article because of its pervasive use in the scientific
literature and because many researchers as well as lay persons
view all types of sociolegally defined CSA as harmful.
Actually, now you are proving *my* point. The Rind et al. study questioned the validity of the term "Child Sexual Abuse" (CSA) because the term is "Begging the Question", thus assuming that a certain activity is harmful before actually investigating whether this is true or not. In fact, on page 46, based on their review of existing studies, they reach the conclusion that CSA is not a scientifically meaningful term at all, as it encompassed psychological categories with very different characteristics.
Oh, and that particular passage is irrelevant to the statistical evidence provided, so I fail to see how it can challenge the "accuracy" of the article.
They could of course have used more scientifically neutral terms like "Adult-Child-Sex" or "Adult-Adolescent Sex" (as suggested on page 46), but then the political fallout would probably have been even worse.
mds_02 wrote:
That study is flawed. It depends on self-reported reactions to the abuse, then concludes that men don't respond as negatively as women. It does not, however, take into account the fact that men are far less likely to admit to emotional distress.
You of course have scientific evidence to back up this claim, right? And BTW, Is your claim even falsifiable?:
28 Oct 2012, 5:59 pm
28 Oct 2012, 7:04 pm
